Why do Christians become Christians?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Oh, and by the way I wasn't indicating a "conspiracy theory"... I'm not even sure how such a thing would work.

It's not exactly a surprise that people who are driven by the motive (indeed, the mandate) to attain convictions as a prerequisite to their continued advancement in their career would attain a bias that often blinded them to the unsound practices they were employing to do so.

Again, read the Innocence Project's stories, and see how often the police misled the defendants into false confessions, or manipulated witnesses directly (or accidentally), and how many times the DA resisted overturning the convictions despite the scientific information showing the person they put in prison could not be guilty. It's not a conspiracy, it's human weakness... the very thing the scientific method was invented to counter, but which has been slow to enter the justice system.

I'd say the problem, then, is that they rely too much on the human element (such as eyewitness testimony, despite its now-well-understood flaws) and not enough on "scientism", just as religious people tend to do. And that was my whole point.

Look up the definition of conspiracy theory.... that is exactly what you are describing in regards to Church History.  I'm skeptical without further evidence, and find what you implying to be largely untenable and unsupported.

I would guess, that if the scientific evidence pointed to you for a crime, and yet witness testimony describes someone completely different, that you wouldn't be singing the same tune.   Or would you confess based on the scientific evidence, not trusting your own memory?

What you're describing here is pseudoscience, in which people (in this case, the FBI "experts") claim to speak with the authority of a scientific methodology, but are in fact ignoring it. That's why they rely on people to say, "In my expert opinion".

If I had no memory of an event, and DNA (for instance) evidence provided unequivocal (meaning it was clearly, objectively not tampered with) proof that I was the culprit, then yes I would plead guilty, or at least Nolo contendre, to the crime.

Because of their bias in how they apply science, the prosecution teams will often use pseudoscience to bolster their case (it's part of the reason I said the scientific method was slow to reach the courts), such as Arson "experts" who ignore the scientific consensus on how fire spreads and use their personal version to explain that the fire must have had an accelerant, or that the hair follicles "definitively" point to the suspect. In those cases, the police "experts" ignored the consensus of science on the subject in favor of their personal biases-- as you too often do with issues like common descent. Sadly, juries tend to believe police experts over the actual scientists brought in by defense lawyers (assuming you even have such a lawyer-- Public Defenders rarely have the time or resources to even do that), resulting in false convictions. "After all," they [the jury] think, "why shouldn't I trust that man with a Badge of Authority?" I'm not simply making this up; it has been extensively studied by outside groups, but largely ignored by the justice system and the politicians who form it.

Finally, while a finding of Not Guilty by a jury doesn't mean the person is actually innocent of the crime, the Innocence Project deals primarily/overwhelmingly in overturning "Manifest Injustice" cases (following failure by the Defendant in appealing the case), in which the Courts will only accept what is called "evidence of actual innocence". In other words, 99% of the cases you'll read about in that section involve Actual Innocence, and the way they proved the person could not have possibly been the perpetrator, despite all the eyewitness testimony and police "expert" testimony that they were.