Radley Balko’s article on “bite mark evidence” points out that no proponent of “bite mark analysis” has ever established, or even described, a scientific and replicable basis for the practice.

In point of fact the only forensic discipline that has a replicable scientific basis is DNA analysis.

Even the oldest forensic discipline, fingerprinting, rests on dozens of assumptions that have never been scientifically tested.

This raises a major question: why are such “expert witnesses” about unproven “science” even allowed to testify in court?

Should courts allow witch doctors to give expert testimony about the cause of death?

Should numerologists give expert testimony about generally accepted accounting practices?