I agree with the purpose and discussion of this article. But I find it funny that, to help support its argument that forensic methods lack sizeable scientific

I agree with the purpose and discussion of this article. But I find it funny that, to help support its argument that forensic methods lack sizeable scientific support, it uses 2 wrong-conviction examples and an experiment with only 6 fingerprint examiners. That's the difference between the media and science, I suppose. And it is a difference that needs to be clearer in the courtroom.