Forensic science is in turmoil ..... or is there some turmoil in the use of forensic science?

"Forensic science more broadly is in turmoil as prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges confront evidence that many long used methods, like handwriting analysis and microscopic hair comparisons, were based more on tradition than science and do not hold up under scrutiny. Even fingerprint and certain kinds of DNA matches are not quite as certain as many once believed, scientists say."

There is sufficient evidence that some forensic disciplines lack scientific basis, a subject of discussion over decades, which has warranted the scrutiny of academia and the legal system on the back of wrongful convictions.  To place all forensic sciences that have been under scrutiny at various times in the one basket is somewhat of a misrepresentation as some are no longer applied (because they were not sound) and other disciplines have worked to address any shortfalls, and successfully so.

The issue that needs to be discussed is how forensic evidence, which is neutral evidence, is used and presented in courts of law. Forensic witnesses have little control over the questioning they receive in the witness box, and no control over the final summary presented prior to a court retiring to consider a verdict.  Forensic evidence, in many cases, could be best discussed as a "shade of grey" as compared to "black and white" as this will better reflect the true outcome of the opinions expressed.