alea, I'm good with that, I really don't know on the matter. Having looked into it things like hair, fiber, ballistics are really rather remarkable things to ever attempt to make a 'beyond a reasonable doubt" argument for as the DNA based innocence project is showing.
Over and over again, a shaky identification and some hair, fiber, ballistics gives a made for television "match" things that are better suited to ruling out something, but not saying it is.
The US National Academy of Sciences has basically come out and said forensic science isn't, uh, science. Bitemark experts ... really?
Frmo the NAS:
"With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however,
no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source."
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf
I guess the notion is that in order to be an expert on something, there needs to be some means of defining expertise.
| 
