You are presuming they were maliciously making up evidence. The story isn&#x27;t super clear but it seems like the examiners were overstanting certainty and that they were using dubious statistics.<p>People do that sort of thing all the time, not out of maillice , but out of ignorance or bias.<p>The article doesn&#x27;t even talk about what the actual problems were. Was the forensics based on wrong assumptions or research later proven inaccurate.<p>There is a difference between being wrong in good faith, being wrong because of bias, and straight up lying.<p>Even the statistics in this article reek of bias. 95% of reports overstated the matches. By how much? Are we talking about 99.9% matches being called 100%. Or are we talking about 30% chance being called 100%. How many times was it substantially overstated?<p>The biggest problem is that there isn&#x27;t really an academic field for most of forensics. Which is pretty odd.