Reading this will explain the effects of flawed forensic ‘science’ when 28 FBI examiners expound a method that had no basis of validity. This article associates bitemark examiners as also being considered faulty and specious ‘forensic’ evidence. There have been 130 bitemark experts doing the same since 1975.
The attitude of this group is that “bad” cases are from “bad” examiners. This is despite never having reviewed the 24 cases where DNA demolished their opinions of biter identification. Their endemic use of false assumptions are still being used in their current casework.
One comment wonders why the FBI “took so long” (30 years) is declassifying their internally developed methods.
Now who will answer this one?

Notice the FBI says expert “statements” were exaggerated. Not that their methods were flawed.

Washington Post article. 

BBC article.