While somewhat of a challenge to your correspondent's math skills, the linked resources in this post on sources of error in DNA testing are excellent supplements to recent MSM reports, particularly this recent law review article critiquing common statistical descriptions of the likelihood of a match when trawling large DNA databases.
Especially notable from his archives: Two posts from February discussing error rates among fingerprint examiners, including an adumbration of a study which found a three percent false positive rate (among self-selected examiners who knew they were being evaluated). Most posts are fairly detailed fact-and/or-math-based assessments
Incidentally, Prof. Kaye was one of several authors in 2011 of a paper titled "The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences." So I suspect he was pleased as I was to see that the Texas-based Laura and John Arnold Foundation is funding a massive investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Science into "the underlying scientific bases for the forensic tools and methods currently used in the criminal justice system," focusing on ten specific forensic disciplines:
- Bloodstain Pattern Analysis
- Digital Evidence
- Fire Investigations
- Firearms and Toolmarks/Ballistics
- Footwear and Tire Tracks
- Forensic Odontology- Bitemark Analysis
- Latent Fingerprints
- Trace Evidence- Fibers
- Trace Evidence- Hair
- Trace Evidence- Paint & Other coatings
Judge Barbara Hervey of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is on the project's Advisory Panel. See related coverage from Forensic magazine.