I was already familiar with the story of Fred Zain.
It is not clear what your point is. Perhaps you yourself would benefit from rereading the post of mine you cited. You don't seem to have grasped the fundamentals of it yet.
It doesn't matter how many examples of malfeasance or misadventure from elsewhere you can cite. No one is challenging the fact that such things can happen, or that they do happen. The problem is that these examples have absolutely no merit as evidence, much less proof, that it happened this time.
Endless litanies of instances of deplorable acts or regrettable errors serve only as an appeal to emotion. That is a rhetorical device, not any sort of deductive, inferential, or logical progression towards proof. No matter how many more of them you cite, or how often you repeat them the basic truth of this does not change.
If you really want to try and pursue such a form of persuasion then the very least you need to do is establish some sort of demonstration of how often this happens out of all criminal cases. Is it 1% of the time? 10%? 0.000001%? This might begin to make such citations germane, but even that would only be a beginning.
Otherwise all you are doing is a sort of spotlighting, singling out examples you find convenient for your position, and asserting a commonality to this instance without any support for the assertion, while ignoring a preponderance of other examples which are less useful to your argument.
If I were to present an interminable procession of cases where the accused were actually guilty and the prosecutors were innocent of any misdeeds even though the defense claimed otherwise you would disregard that as being irrelevant to this discussion, and rightfully so. The tactic is no more legitimate when it is used by the side of the discussion you have aligned yourself with.
From
http://www.truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm
Fred Zain is the victim of his own success. Over the years, Zain rose to the position of Chief of Serology at the West Virginia Department of Public Safety (crime laboratory). What he couldn't establish in the laboratory was arrived at through a unique form of logic called "backwards reasoning." If the defendant is guilty, it is likely that ... is the predicate for such reasoning. It presumes the defendant's guilt, and bases its findings on that presumption. But when you add to that presumptive base inadequate facilities, conflicting duties, an overwhelming caseload, and put them in the hands of an unqualified "expert," you have the prescription for disaster.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it IS a duck.
Duck or plural duck a : any of various swimming birds (family Anatidae, the duck family) in which the neck and legs are short, the feet typically webbed, the bill often broad and flat, and the sexes usually different from each other in plumage
When an animal fits the definition of a duck, it probably is a duck.
When someone fits the description of a quack forensic 'expert' it probably is a quack forensic expert.
Endless litanies of instances of deplorable acts or regrettable errors serve only as an appeal to emotion. That is a rhetorical device, not any sort of deductive, inferential, or logical progression towards proof. No matter how many more of them you cite, or how often you repeat them the basic truth of this does not change.
The first idea is to show that there have been quack forensic experts and therefore it is wrong to assume that every forensic expert should be considered trustworthy.
The second idea is to define a quack forensic expert with previous examples. Once defined we look at the White Queen of DNA and ask ourselves if her work fits the definition for quack forensics that we have established.
Quack quack goes the white queen.
What is your definition of a quack forensic specialist, or what example best defines a quack?
