[brief] As a 2014 article surmised, “[t]he difficulty in evaluating perimortem blunt force trauma (BFT) has been already highlighted and documented by several authors. ”  Cappella A et al., The Difficult Task of Assessing Perimortem and Postmortem Fractures on the Skeleton: a Blind Text on 210 Fractures of Known Origin, 59 J. Forensic Sci. 1598, 1600 (2014) (Da 55) (citing other four studies).  “The distinction between lesions which occurred immediately prior to or around death and those after death still represents a difficult task. ”  Id. at 1598 (Da 53).  Blind tests have demonstrated “the relative unreliability of the commonly used morphological criteria in the correct diagnosis of perimortem and postmortem fractures. ”  Id. at 1601 (emphasis added) (Da 56).  While some guidelines exist to “facilitate the distinction of bone damage that occurred long after death from perimortem trauma, the differentiation of fractures inflicted shortly before death or soon after death may be difficult or even impossible. ”  Moraitis K, Spiliopoulou C, Identification and Differential Diagnosis of Perimortem Blunt Force Trauma in Tubular Long Bones, 2 Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 221, 227 (2006) (Da 70).  As recently as 2020, one study found that the “[t]iming of cranial trauma is challenging in forensic cases and literature on the subject is scarce,” and “there is not any specific perimortem reported pattern for timing these types of fractures. ”  Ribeiro P, et al., Distinction Between Perimortem and Postmortem Fractures in Human Cranial Bone, 134 Int. J. Legal Med. 1765, 1765-66 (2020) (Da 73-74).  That study concluded that “[f]urther research is required to increase confidence during cranial trauma evaluation, primarily to reconstruct the contextual information of the injury. ”  Id. at 1766.  (Da 74)  The weight of recent scientific literature therefore demonstrates that forensic bone analysis has not “passe[d] from the experimental to the demonstrable stage,” as is required to satisfy the “extraordinarily high level of proof” necessary to constitute general acceptance.  Harvey, 151 N.J. at 171.  The unreliable nature of bone analysis in determining the timing of injuries increases the risk that cognitive biases or scientifically irrelevant information may have affected [...]’s conclusions and [...]’s ensuing determination of cause of death.  See Itiel Dror et al., Cognitive Bias in Forensic Pathology Decisions, 66 J. Forensic Sci. 1751 (2021) (Da 57) (concluding, after an experimental study of 133 Board-certified Medical Examiners’ responses to prompts, that “forensic pathologists were more likely to rule ‘homicide’ rather than ‘accident’ for deaths of Black children relative to White children”).  Because the State failed to satisfy its burden of establishing the reliability of [...]’s methodology, the trial court should have excluded the evidence.  [...]’s expert testimony claiming to show that injuries were perimortem was central to the State’s case, which depended on proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the injuries caused his death and were not inflicted afterward during the destruction of his body.  The erroneous admission of [...]’s unreliable testimony deprived [...] of a fair trial and compels reversal of her murder conviction.  See Rochat, 470 N.J. Super. at 442.  POINT III