This continues the US forensic saga and underscores why all the bitemark ID cases are junk opinions. It also contradicts and makes moot the NIST sponsored National Forensic Science Commission’s bitemark committee outcomes. I mentioned at some point in the past that this sub comm was “laying an egg”  with their multi-deliberations in 2015.

The statistician has figured things out in this quote.

“Clearly, when somebody goes to court and says the bite marks indicate this person was the murderer or whatever, there’s no good reason to say that,” Carriquiry said. “There’s no science behind that particular type of evidence.”

http://m.amestrib.com/news/isu-statistician-strives-use-more-science-behind-forensics