https://www.propublica.org/article/understanding-junk-scienc...
The innocence project is rather pointed example of how many times forensic science has been used improperly to sentence people to death.
You can note all the weasel words they use, as well as weaseling and interpreting other's words to mean what they want them to mean.
How they say junk science has "limited evidence" to justify it, but then later on link to studies with limited evidence that are supposed to justify their claims.
How they explicitly link to some evidence that supposedly justifies their claims but for other claims they just say "studies exist" but don't bother to provide names, dates, or any details about the studies.
Going to just stop reading there and mark that notch down as propublica being a source of "junk journalism".