In 1980 the prosecution used teeth-mark evidence to convict Ted Bundy for 3 murders he committed in Florida. This jury felt with this and all the other evidence that Bundy was the killer. He was not the first to have his teeth come back and 'bite him in the butt'. At the time of Bundy's trial the teeth-mark defense had been used in court in at least a dozen trials.
Although the method has it's critics, as forensics have improved and better and more exact imaging machines are used for crime detection, it is certainly gaining more respect, and when paired with other evidence it can make a much stronger case.
A:We have no reliable evidence that Saint Mark ever performed any miracles.
It is not infallable, but it is considered reliable enough to be use as evidence.
ill founded
Basing historical accounts on reliable evidence
Circumstantial evidence can be considered reliable in court, but it may not be as strong as direct evidence. It can still be used to prove a case if it is convincing and points to a logical conclusion.
When a source for evidence is not convincing or reliable, it should be considered unreliable or questionable. It is important to verify information from credible sources to ensure accuracy and authenticity.
You cannot. There is no reliable and definitive evidence that ghosts exist.
There are no known reliable evidence regarding the fathers of apostles.
It shows us it's age. The larger the teeth are, the older the horse is.
There has been no evidence that sugar free gum actually whitens your teeth. Regular toothpaste does that.
Forensic Dentistry.
they had flat teeth for eating leaves and plants