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.

> it's literally a battle of what side can make the most compelling argument

So it's exactly as I characterized it, a racket. It's not science.

Almost all forensic tests are bullshit, and forensic experts simply cannot determine what they say they are able to under any scrutiny.