A point some would have us overlook:
Forensic investigations, like all investigations, rely heavily on history. How does one determine what type of firearm was used when a bullet is found? One consults the historic records of gun manufacturers. This is true of all evidence. If the history is flawed, the results will be flawed. If the manufacturers lie, or a misprint even takes place (say '3.8 cal.' instead of '.38 cal.) the results can be wrong, can they not?

So if all history is dubious because people lie and make mistakes, all results of all investigations which rely upon history are at least equally dubious.

My position has been mischaracterized severely by some posters. It's common practice to always seek out the most reliable sources first when investigating history. Only in special cases, like when one is trying to obtain bogus results, would one seek out unreliable sources first.

It'll be a short discussion if folks decide to acknowledge my actual position on how to investigate. Discover, verify, reconcile. A simple, simple formula to remember, and one that works.

The supplemental procedures are so natural and habitually practiced that they almost need not be mentioned. For example, one should always judge a person's motives by their actions rather than their words if there is any conflict between the two. You'll do this habitually, without batting an eye - you don't need to be reminded very often, do you?

In fact, it's a red flag any time someone asks you to do otherwise. If someone would have us judge Hitler by his words rather than his actions, FLAG! Alarm! Watch out! You wouldn't think of doing this yourself, and neither would anyone else who wanted the truth. They're pushing antihistory.