I have been reading the story referenced below and felt compelled to offer up yet another opinion on the matter:
It would seem that when a persons private and professional reputation are at stake a forensic investigation would strive to perform due diligence in regards to their investigative techniques including reporting. I would think that this would cut down on “erroneous” forensic testimony.
For more details on the situations past and present please read the following blog posts:
I just don't even know where to begin here. Suppressed evidence from the defense's technical witness? Failure of the local Teacher's Union to step forward and do the right thing? The judge who criticized bloggers for trying to “improperly influence the court”? This case is a very strong example of how much ignorance still exists concerning computers, malware, strong information security policies, proper training, etc.