• The State Response cites legal precedence in US courts as a substitute for advances in scientific standards that post date Fortin (2004). At the time of Fortin, their assertions were merely opinion of private practicing dentists.
  • The State  Response is silent regarding any scientific support that contradicts the 2009 NAS Report and PCAST analyses of the ABFO. The relevant scientists and legal observers outside the ABFO reject the ABFO methods out-of-hand. The lack of any courts excluding bitemark matching has resulted in changes in Criminal Justices Codes in California.
  • The amount of relevant review by scientific groups outweighs the previous cases of  bitemark matching being acceptable in court.
  • In English Common Law, there once was precedence for condemning witches and soothsayers. Advances in science and social awareness overcame the pre-existing reliance on past outmoded practices by the justice system.
  • The ABFO “gold standard” of Guidelines is merely a compendium of past practices of their work. It is not based on empirical studies. The ABFO attempts at such have worked against them.
  • The ABFO ( 100 members) demands immunity from oversight by anyone.
  • The State’s response misdirects the court from the failure of the ABFO to create any science for the acts they purport to be valid and reliable.
  • The research and testing data the ABFO and the State rejects as insufficient for use by the defense is a red herring to mislead the court. The State and the ABFO offer no research to support their practices either at the time of Fortin, or in current practice.
The entire  post can be read at: