> Forensics never relies on a single piece of evidence

An uncharitable characterization is that forensics relies on many pieces of _stuff_ that cops and attorneys can reasonably convince a judge meets the rules of evidence and a jury that it is in fact evidence, while hoping the defense can't afford an expert (mind you, almost never a practitioner, but a professional legal consultant) to convince the jury it isn't evidence.

Most forensic analysis is complete bullshit, and it takes decades to convince judges to forbid the junk science.

So I wouldn't say there's "no risk." There's tons of risk.

What I would add is that you almost never have to worry about forensics if you're committing crimes, because the forensics are only going to be used to prove your guilt in court should you choose to fight it. If you're not committing crimes and become the focus of an investigation, you should be terrified of forensics.

This isn't unlike "the right to remain silent." It's weird that people don't fully understand that to mean stfu for your own good, 'cos the only notes they are writing are toward building their case against you.

Forensics isn't the way you characterized. There are forensic teams for both sides of every coin that needs forensics. It's literally a battle of what side can make the most compelling argument, and nothing more or less.

The most compelling argument is the one that has lots (the term "a preponderance" gets used in law where I am) of corroborating evidence through tools/techniques/people that are presumably not sharing and comparing notes or data with each other.