Forensic Pathologists trust bitemark pattern injury analysis, and want to use it at their discretion, even if its use becomes passé in identifying the perpetrator. The word is out that they think eradication of bitemarks is the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction.
I can understand this. Their thinking is if you can tell from a bitemark in skin that the person, the biter, was missing a tooth, then you have assisted the cause of criminal justice. But, it confuses me.
To date, it is not common practice to “age” a contusion in skin, in order to establish post mortem interval. It’s not common practice to measure the depth of a sharp force injury in flesh, be it a stab wound or incised wound made with a knife. I still think determining the directionality of a knife wound across the neck is not feasible scientifically, either.
However, I do think you could pay an “expert” to tell this to a jury. If it’s been posed as theoretical forensic science on fictional “CSI” type television, then it seems to be accepted as meeting the Frye Standard of evidence admissibility.
Sorry, I’m in a bad mood. If no one has the balls to challenge precedence, then all bets are off. Politics as usual.
Eye of the beholder 
Reblogged this on FORENSICS in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends and commented:
If MDs resist this science-only reform movement battling decades of a “believe system” of opinion then their own training is suspect.
LikeLike