@dlowan,
disciplines of applied forensic science are merely the studied application of that particular science (or english lit or accountancy, or "questioned documents" graphology).
The omly thing unique to foerensic sciences are the specific requirements of "chains-of-custody" and QA as demanded by the court. QA for forensic chemistry is somewhat different than the standard EPA methods or "Good Lab Prcatices" .
The practices of each science or engineering (or medicine or accountancy) are defined , in the US courts to be governed by a ruling that is called the "DAubert criteria". This entire mass of proceedings and HOW data under review by the court must be backed up and presented, has been pretty much defined by the lawyers, (most of whom use but have no friggin idea about what makes up the science they are using)
In the USwe have "Expert witnesses" as well as forensic scientists". To me, expert witnesses are "hired guns" and , in civil cases of environmental insurance claims (where I do most of my work as a "forensic scientist or "expert witness") I find it usually embarrasing as to what attornies ask expwerts to say on behalf of their cases.
I find that I turn down more than 75% of cases offered me (even though the fee schedule is fairly good). I will not take a case in which my expertise is not exactly on the money with what the case is about, and secondly, if the facts of the case do not support good scince, Im out of there.
Im always surprised at how cases proceed witha whole passle of exsperts being fired across the table and with panels of judges trying to (with their own batch of experts) arrive at good decisions.