You know the adage, “Don’t miss the forest for the trees”? Analogous to bitemark “experts” with their advanced software and photo enhancement technology claiming it’s “science”. The testimony of the seeming bitemark “expert” is their ability to put on a virtual media production, designed to sway the jury.
My friend, an honorable judge, understands instantly, the power of what he phrased, “sexy evidence” in its ability to hold sway over a jury.
I wish to remind my readership, that my opinion is in stark contrast to that of the majority of my peers in the field of Forensic Odontology. I contend that pattern injury analysis, such as it is known today in bitemark work, is highly unscientific. Juries do not give a flying leap about your confidence level in rendering your opinion.
They don’t care to what degree of “reasonable medical certainty” you ascribe to your opinion. You have invited them to play “CSI”, like on T.V., only in real life.
I believe the risk for abuse in digital imagery analysis to be high.
I believe it to be unethical practice to “identify” a suspect as the likely biter in a capital murder case. Any “Standard of Care”, testified to in bitemark comparison analysis (i.e. pattern injury analysis) will continue to consistently fail to meet the Daubert Standard.
Ask me how.