This is what the American Academy of Forensic Sciences certifies as a valid and reliable discipline for human identification. Of course, the obstinate bitemarker group claims it’s “new improvements” sanctify their continuing to deceice the ￼￼criminal justice system.
Forensic Odontology Response to the NIST Report and CIFS Video | American Academy of Forensic Sciences
— Read on www.aafs.org/article/forensic-odontology-response-nist-report-and-cifs-video
The way I read the reply, Bitemark Analysis for anything but excluding a subject is not ready for prime time, i.e., not ready to be used as an element of proof in a trial. The problem, I think, is that there are some out there who will overhype Bitemark Analysis. It is up to the Odontology Community to police their colleagues. It’s up to the Odontology Community to conduct research that MIGHT lead to improvement in getting to Reasonable Certainty. But to be clear, based upon the Odontology Community reply, Bitemark Analysis has quite a way to go.
“Reasonable certainty” is fuzzy language, invented by lawyers, and never used in reputable discourse in the base disciplines that lawyers ask to employ the term. Reasonable [medical, scientific, physical, etc.] certainty….
I would never want a doctor to tell me I have a tumor to a ‘reasonable medical certainty’ any more than I would want my client convicted over such a slippery thing as a ‘reasonable scientific certainty.’ For an expert to use the term subjectives the certainty to an authority of one to determine what’s reasonable.