Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis
by duskwuff on Thursday October 20, 2022 @03:59PM
(#33279914)
> That was a thing? Was/is there any actual expert involved ever in these claims?
Unfortunately, a lot of fire source experts were trained based on a mishmash of folk theories about arson, many of which have been subsequently disproven by scientific testing. There have been some improvements over the last decade or two, but the field is still heavily contaminated by junk science.
Unfortunately, a lot of fire source experts were trained based on a mishmash of folk theories about arson, many of which have been subsequently disproven by scientific testing. There have been some improvements over the last decade or two, but the field is still heavily contaminated by junk science.