Forensic anthropological techniques are a mixture both quantitative and qualitative although most are qualitative (Grivas & Komar, 2008). For example, sex estimation. Sexually dimorphic traits that distinguish adult males from adult females are present in the pelvis (Rogers & Saunders, 1994) and the skull, but also in long bones (Spradley & Jantz, 2011; Krogman, 1973). In the forensic anthropology community, these sex indicators have been generally accepted and are applied to casework, but arguably the methods can be criticised when applied to court suitability. Indeed, qualitative methods such as these can be considered as unreliable as they are dependant on the expert carrying out the analysis and their “preferred way” of determining sex from the array of morphometric indicators that exist, resulting in different results and conclusions (Yezerinac et. al., 1992). This preference matter and lack of research testing the accuracy and reliability of specific features demonstrates this issue of subjectivity, which is much harder to convey in court and subsequently adhere to the Daubert standards. On the other hand, although a method is “qualitative” it is based on statistically quantifiable and reproducible methodologies and possesses definable error rates (eg: Bruzek, 2002; Williams & Rogers, 2006), which do adhere to Daubert in this respect (Grivas & Komar, 2008). Pure metric (quantitative) methods also exist in sex estimation. These are based on taking measurements of landmarks of a bone in the aim of providing reproducible and more objective quantitative results that can be expressed statistically (Krogman, 1986; Gonzalez et. al., 2009). However, although the aim is to reduce subjectivity, the metric method is based on the