The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case was due to the mistaken views held by some of the forensic scientists involved in the case, who believed that they owed allegiance only to the prosecuting lawyers. Justice was thwarted because these forensic scientists failed to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution. Hence it is not forensic evidence in general that should be condemned for this injustice. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? ['Many forensic scientists do not believe that any miscarriage of justice occurred in the Barker case.', 'Most forensic scientists acknowledge a professional obligation to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution.', 'Most prosecuting lawyers believe that forensic scientists owe a special allegiance to the prosecution.', 'Many instances of injustice in court cases are not of the same type as that which occurred in the Barker case.']