That's what he did.
Rather, Mincer said "I came to the conclusion with reasonable certainty that it was not a human bite mark"? Do you not comphrened the difference, or do you just not care?
He's playing with legalese. I understand if you don't get it. It's a nuance to the system. Did he compare the partials? I missed it if he looked at the partials and compared them. My recollection was that he only looked at the photos and the driving force behind his opinion was that since it was known the other injuries weren't bite marks, neither was this one. I'll go back an re-read his testimony but I don't recall him actually doing comparisons with the partials in particular.