With ML-enhanced photos, you might have a distanced face that is "enhanced" by the model, to become a face that wasn't there. Or a fingerprint, a birthmark, a mole, etc.
The nice thing about this was that you could hand the E-6 off to a magazine and end up with a photograph printed in the magazine that was very close to the original film. Any color shifts or changes in contrast you could see just with your eyes. You could drop the film in a scanner and visually confirm that the scan looks identical to the original. (You cannot do this with C-41.)
This was not used for forensic photography, though. The point of using E-6 was for the photographer to make artistic decisions and capture them on film, so they can get back to taking photos. My understanding is that crime scene photography was largely C-41, once it was relatively cheap.
This might seem like a quibble, but once you dive a little deeper into it, you realise that there's enormous latitude and subjectivity in the way you do that interpretation.
What's even crazier is that this didn't come with digital photography. Analogue film photography has the same problem. The silver on the film doesn't become an image until it's interpreted by someone in the darkroom.
There is no such thing as an objective photograph. It's always a subjective interpretation of an ambiguous record.