Whose Mark is This?

I don't know any of these people or their bites ---- but if even dentists disagree, wouldn't a jury of Frimpong's peers (or of someone's peers) NOT been able to reach a decision because of a reasonable doubt as to which dentist is accurate?

How can a guilty verdict be left stand? (But, then, again, how to go through the whole trial scene again?!)

Damn, you are a little wet behind the ears aren't you? Sorry for that, but you are a defense attorney's dream. First and foremost, anyone can be paid to say anything. And, yes, that includes prosecution experts as well. But the evidence in question is inconclusive at best. And that does not make Frimpong guilty or innocent, in and of itself. There is an abundance of other physical evidence in the case and that evidence not only points to Frimpong, but the implausible theories that the defense puts forth strain logic. The judge said the evidence in this case was overwhelming against Frimpong. Like youself, I wasn't there but the judge was and the jury were.

Suppose there was no physical evidence. The girl says she was raped and Frimpong says she grabbed down his pants getting her DNA on his crotch (unlikely from a sampling standpoint) and that he rejected her advances (unlikely from a male in his early 20's). Could she be lying? Sure, I guess. But what is the possible motive for a university student to lie? She has none that I can think of. And he does. He doesn't want to go to jail for 8 years (more like 4). It's far from a perfect system and innocent people do go to jail. Many cases upset me because of lack of evidence but I won't be losing any sleep over this one at all.

Sorry but I find it very far-fatched that this lame testimony could be grounds for setting aside the jury's verdict in this case.
First, the dental expert testimony at trial was tangential and weak at best, not at all dispositive, indicating not that the bite marks WERE the defendant's but only that the expert could not rule out the defendant as the source. (This article so poorly lays out the evidence about the victim's boyfriend, with whom she had consensual sex several days earlier, it strongly suggests he was the perpetrator, something the defense attorney was unable to sell to the jury at trial, even just to raise reasonable doubt of Frimpong's guilt).
Second, there was abundant and compelling physical evidence and testimony of Frimpong's guilt produced during the trial, as the Judge noted at the start of the hearing (the strongest such evidence the judge has ever seen in a rape case, which one hopes indicates he will ultimately deny this very ordinary post-trial motion).
Third, the defense expert upon whose testimony the defense bases its motion to set aside the jury's verdict was not prevented from testifying at trial because of anything the prosecution did nor any ruling by the judge excluding him - he was sick and couldn't make it. The idea that a jury verdict could be set aside on this basis, rather than some newly-discovered post-trial evidence, strikes me as absurd and fraught with all kinds of possibilities for misuse by less scrupulous defense lawyers.
Fourth, there appears to be a substantial possibility the defense expert has reversed the dental arches and has them upside down as three prosecution experts have concluded. Presumably, the judge will sort that one out but it underlines the inherent weakness of this type of evidence, whether offered by the prosecution or the defense.

The hearing should be concluded expeditiously, not allowed to drag on any longer than necessary, and sentence imposed. (The judge bent over backwards in even granting a hearing on this motion). No one should not lose sight of the fact that this was a vicious and brutal rape which the jury, after hearing the evidence at trial, found BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT was carried out by this defendant. The fact that he was a good soccer player or that he has teammates and friends who support him should not cloud anyone's understanding about what happened here and at trial.