Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis
by giantg2 on Thursday October 20, 2022 @08:06PM
(#33282524)
Judges should do a lot of things. In reality, their quality and knowledge varies greatly.
Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis
by wahern on Thursday October 20, 2022 @11:54PM
(#33284332)
Any judge worth their salt would prohibit or censor witness testimony making conclusory statements, especially based on circumstantial evidence. This is Evidence 101. Everybody knows the so-called "hearsay" rule, but almost every rule in evidence revolves around one core precept--no evidence is per se conclusive, and the function of testimony of any sort isn't to submit conclusions to the question at issue.
But implying conclusions is exactly what both the defense and prosecutor are working at; they're constantly playing word games, and some judges would certainly be better than others at seeing through the B.S.
Second thing they teach in forensics is that unless I witness the actual event, it is really hard to tie it to a specific person. I can present dozens and dozens of circumstantial evidence which has sufficient weight for a reasonable person to make that inference, but I cannot attest to that.