I included this case in my research paper on forensics fraud (which will be published here in December after this semester ends). It’s an aberration that she faked evidence to “seem like a good worker”.
Just because science and technology has advanced the potential to prove or disprove someone’s involvement in a crime doesn’t mean it is fraud-proof. It is so very important that we stick to the scientific method when processing evidence. In my forthcoming research paper, I discuss methods that other professionals in the field recommend to make it further fraud resistant such as double blind tests and even an “evidence line up” where the forensic examiner is presented with several items, only one of which is truly evidence from a crime scene. The examiner would then have to test all objects, not knowing which is real evidence, and falsify each item to reveal the evidence.
Brent Turvey has a textbook on forensics fraud and I’m tempted to add it to my library even though it isn’t for any of my classes. He authored my criminal profiling class textbook and I loved it. It’s very different and applies a scientific method, denouncing the organized/disorganized dichotomy that is currently employed in that field.