http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=39071#Post39071
Oh, but he said "Please don't", didn't he? Well, the fact that he included this in his response indicates he probably thinks the argument may sway someone - otherwise why publish it again? Discussing things in the proper thread is just the right thing to do, and I'm actually pleased if it cuts down on clutter and confusion. It'd cut down further if these issues were posted in the proper thread to begin with, but there appears to be a strong aversion to the practice in general, and this thread in particular.

First thing to note: the claim is totally absent, and its existence isn't supported in by the question.

Forensic science is valid, so long as it is performed properly and understood in perspective. Not all evidence at a crime scene is terribly useful. Only that which actually has an impact on the investigation. One could look into the composition of the paint on the walls with all the tools available and not find a single clue as to the value of stolen jewelry. Indeed, if forensic science were so all-powerful, there'd be no need for witnesses, no need for video tape, and no need to test more than one or two items. All crimes could be solved merely by testing the air in the room or the wax on the furniture.

There is much that cannot be learned by examining physical evidence. Does the most detailed examination of a pyramid tell us the names of its builders, or the contents of their conversations? So far, it hasn't even told us how it was built!