ABSTRACT
According to news reports by the popular media, almost every high-profile courtroom litigation features a parade of key expert witnesses (including forensic odontologists in bitemark cases) who give diametrically opposite opinions. This would indicate that as many as 50% of all scientific opinions offered under oath during legal proceedings are just plain wrong. How is this possible? How can half of the trained and educated scientific experts, utilizing nearly identical methodology derived from the same body of scientific knowledge, and analyzing exactly the same data, get it wrong at such an alarming rate? Certainly, if the New England Journal of Medicine had such a dismal track record, there would be wholesale changes in the editorial staff, cries of fraud, and a mass exodus of those who provide financial support to that esteemed publication. One would certainly question the integrity of the contributors and carefully scrutinize both their methodology and their objectivity, not to mention their ability to honestly interpret the data.
