Yes it is awful, and multiple experts do see correlations between the use of inadequately studied testing methods of physical evidence.
"According to a 2009 report of the National Academy of Sciences, many forensic science methods are inadequately validated, which means they have not been sufficiently tested to establish how well they work and how often and under what conditions they fail. Avery’s case provides a dramatic example of the uncertainty and confusion that can arise when experts rely on such methods, especially when the court allows the findings to be introduced as scientific evidence at trial."
The EDTA testing was created by the FBI especially for the Avery case. The testing the FBI did showed the results were accurate only 50% of the time.
This is similar to how the DNA testing in the case mentioned above was "fudged" on the part of the prosecution.
I'm not sure how those similarities are not obvious. Perhaps you would like to read more:
Here is the full article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...iable-as-you-might-think/stories/201603200003