This exoneration litigation has a hearing today [Monday October 12, 2015] in Dallas. This makes the second bitemark dentist in two weeks to recant his own testimony. This new dentist, said in an affidavit,
“Conclusions that a particular individual is the biter and their dentition is a match when you are dealing with an open population are now understood to be scientifically unsound,” [Hales said.]
This statement rejecting a bitemark comparison in “an open population” [of suspects] is a term concocted and promulgated by his bitemark org, the AAFS/ABFO, to continue to deceive in their hope to use their “magic” in a “closed” population of suspects. Using simpler language, when the cops tell an ABFO bitemarker [BTW, not all of them “do” bitemark cases ] that the crime only has two or a “few” possible suspects, this “dentists with guns” group can still point the guilty finger at the “real biter.” Its all about ABFO voodoo and spin.
THE RUB; To further their agenda, they bypass the fact that all the limitations [ as in no empirical research to support ] and inaccuracies which exist in “open” and “closed” are exactly the same. This pl0y keeps them in the “game.” Usually its in child abuse cases, where their level of reliable accuracy, certainty and bitemark details are abysmal.
As someone smarter than me recently said [ I think it was a federal judge quoting Thoreau ], “Don’t expect agreement from someone whose job depends on disagreeing with you.”