This misses the point. Peer review is just one of many processes that can be used to ensure that good science is more likely to have happened through intentiona

This misses the point. Peer review is just one of many processes that can be used to ensure that good science is more likely to have happened through intentional external analysis and critique. And the idea here is that forensics is not based on good science to begin with, not that lack of peer review is what makes it not good science, but that peer review might have been able to catch the falseness before it entered mainstream judicial use.