While forensic evidence tends to be much more reliable than eyewitness testimony (really), it's still subject to an array of variables, both human (who measured things and how, who interpreted the results and with what expectations) and non- (actual technical limitations of equipment and the tests themselves). Not to provoke an anti-science backlash, but programs like CSI and the like do a disservice by promoting certainty where certainty rarely exists.
Unfortunately, both the legal system and juries hate uncertainty. They want authoritative answers, and get frustrated (for different reasons) when such are not forthcoming. Which leads to evidence (or lack thereof) being ignored, and innocents being convicted. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Is forensic evidence trustworthy? – Boing Boing
Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, was at the center of international controversy in 2004 after the FBI and an independent analyst incorrectly matched his prints to a partial print found on a bag of …