"With the exception of DNA analysis, a great deal of so-called "forensic science" -- that is, the analysis of tool marks, bite marks, hair comparisons, fingerprints, blood spatters, arson patterns, and crime scene investigation in general - is not science at all. Its assumptions have rarely been tested in any rigorous fashion, its methodology relies heavily on subjective impressions, and its results are often unreliable. But by clothing itself in the trappings of 'science,' it conveys to judges and juries an undeserved impression of certainty that not infrequently results in the criminal convictions of innocent persons."
Has the 'science' "been rigorously tested?"
Has it been "peer reviewed in independent peer-reviewed journals?"
Does it have "a known and only modest error rate?"
Is its "methodology consistently applied?"
Has it been "generally accepted by the overall scientific community?"
“In the case of all but a very few of the forensic sciences, the answer to all of these questions would be ‘no’”
Per here: https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/is-forensic-science-a-misnomer/