When the bitemark was created is one prominent question. A prominent argument is their being a member of the healing arts. It is wrong to allowing a dentist to qualify for such estimations because of their references to dental school studies in histology and anatomical sciences. Up to this time they have been given much deference in establishing their qualifications and testimony has been admitted.
Courts make large assumptions in admitting evidence from people who have impressive credentials.
A judge's leap of faith does not possess the knowledge to create an informed decision. Dentists bring aging estimations into court on the coattails of the wide legal acceptance of bitemark evidence at trial. They expect that the body of court precedence extends to aging pattern injuries. This is not correct. The assumption of reliability within the area of forensic dentistry is seriously undermined when practicing dentists leverage their skills into arenas beyond their academic and forensic training.