I would like to note the Daubert standard applies to how a court actions (how it accept or reject expert opinion). While our subject is not court actions, but t

I would like to note the Daubert standard applies to how a court actions (how it accept or reject expert opinion). While our subject is not court actions, but the expert actions - was he committing a perjury. It's a different topic. But I understand the difficulties, it's a subtle issue. I even admit it could be just ignorance of the "expert", without intentions - just and accident. I do not pretend to provide a correct and well formulated accusation, I mean there are ways to explore. It would of course require time and efforts (collect facts, speak with the ex-prisoner, reading the case materials, questioning the "expert"). Did the "expert" have motives? Was he instructed by superiors how to testify? Did he really perform those thousands of tests - according to the article this phrase was a common cliche circulating between FBI agents, so probably he didn't really perform the experiments. There might be facts allowing to differentiate this case either as a intended pejury, criminal negligence or an accident. BTW, another surprising thing in this article is how little care the court gives to the fate of this guy. They were just told about 8 to 10 cases when similar hairs were from different people, and nevertheless sentenced the guy without any other reliable evidence.