This is a 50 page UBC Law Review narrative on the inadequacies of courts to recognize junk “forensic” experts. Battling Canadian bitemarkers leave a trail of exaggerated claims and criminal case law that is blind to scientific principles.
This is a 50 page UBC Law Review narrative on the inadequacies of courts to recognize junk “forensic” experts. Battling Canadian bitemarkers leave a trail of exaggerated claims and criminal case law that is blind to scientific principles.
What is it about “the whole truth” that these quasi-forensic experts”, i.e.“forensic odontologists” have failed to understand? They damn well know the limitations of any claim they are making regarding the putative value of purported bite marks admitted into evidence . These guys have no standards. I am ashamed of colleagues who “overstate” the value of bitemark evidence. It is simply not the truth.