How do you propose a scientific study be done of the end result with a billion confounding factors. Further the people on trial are heavily predisposed to be actually guilty to start with supposing we aren't just picking random people off the streets. They are the opposite of a random sample. Using nonsense to "prove" that the actually guilty is still false even if the ultimate answer was known by other means to be correct.

The logical thing to validate is the actual underlying science that is vastly easier to tease out and test independently and scientifically if we haven't even tried to disprove something it has limited merit and historically if its proponents resist even trying to prove it it is almost certainly hokum.

Wherein the means to test and validate the means we are using to deprive people of their freedom and sometimes their lives represents a fraction of the budget of the criminal justice system we are guilty of malpractice as a society.

This isn't something you can casually shrug off.

Nor would you dismiss it without some kind of measure. The article was no better than the worst of the practices it criticized?

You don't need to disprove measures that nobody has proved in the first place. Much as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution the burden of proof lies with those who assert they have the wherewithal to prove the defendants guilt.

This assertion is entirely inline with proper scientific thinking.