Double Loop Podcast

Today Eric and Glenn finish Part 2 on the 2023 Report of the Texas Forensic Science Commission dealing with a latent print case. They continue to discuss the TFSC report that followed an investigation into a complaint filed against the latent print contractor(s) in the Joseph Webster case. In part 2, the guys focus on Glenn's examination which concluded that the Webster palm mark was a complex mark and that 3 critical things will shape the conclusion rendered by an examiner: 1) which images were used; 2) which features were relied upon; 3) how the examiner applied the ACE-V methodology. Finally, they discuss the over 2 dozen recommendations that the Commission made for fingerprint examiners in Texas to follow in latent print examinations. www.txcourts.gov/media/1457617/fi…-as-of-12623.pdf

Today Eric and Glenn start Part 1 of a two-parter on the 2023 Report of the Texas Forensic Science Commission dealing with a latent print case. First the guys do some catching up and play Where in the Whorld. They also discuss an email from Simon Cole and inquire on the impact of the recent AI paper on fingerprints. Then they discuss the TFSC report that followed an investigation into a complaint filed against the latent print contractor(s) in the Joseph Webster case. The webster case was a homicide cold case that eventually broke with a CODIS hit and a subsequent apparent bloody palm print at the scene of the crime. Initially the palm print was not identified to Webster, but then after the CODIS hit occurred to Webster and a second person, the latent print evidence was re-visited in 2013, and an identification was declared (pursuant to reviewing additional palm print exemplars of Webster). Testimony occurred in 2016 by a project manager, but not any of the original examiners. In 2020, a contractor for the defense was hired to review the case and several examiners were unable to verify the identification. This conflict, as well as a review of the testimony, sparked a complaint to the TFSC in the case. The guys review the facts and details of the case in Part 1. Link to TFSC Report https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457617/fir-complaint-2216-rsa-latent-prints-as-of-12623.pdf

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg sit down for a chat with Steve Johnson about face examiners, face comparisons, and the IAI. Steve's background includes latent prints, forensic art, face comparison, crime scene, and many positions with the IAI. He shares the future of the face discipline and how the IAI is working towards a certification process.

Eric and Glenn host another guest from Australia in today’s episode. After another round of Where in the Whorld and a few stories from Eric’s childhood, the guys welcome Chloe George from New South Wales Police Force, Australia. Glenn saw Chloe present at IAFS, where her presentation on phalange pattern classification won best Oral (Presentation). Chloe introduces a system of phalange pattern classification first described by Marie Ploetz-Radmann in 1937. She walks us through the system and the 12 general pattern types in phalanges and then also shares her personal data and testing that she performed. A copy of her IAFS presentation can be found here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yrUsOFM5alJV1rQcrTGXiQkDb-3DuWUO/edit#slide=id.p5

In this post-New Year’s Eve 2023-2024 episode, the guys start by discussing their New Year’s Eve and play another round of Where in the Whorld. They then introduce their guest from the New South Wales Police Force, Andrew Chapman. Glenn had the benefit of seeing Andy’s presentation at IAFS in Sydney. Andy presented on a fingerprint black box error rate study conducted with laypeople, trainees, and experts in New South Wales, Australia. The guys discuss various statistics in the study, especially when comparing across the participant groups. The Aussie data are very similar to U.S. examiner data and the guys draw some parallels to other research. The guys also discuss some novel aspects to the study design that make this one such a fascinating study.

Glenn and Eric start by talking about their Christmas plans, followed by a game of “Where in the Whorld”. They then welcome their guest, Dr. Bethany Growns, a lecturer and psychologist at the University of Canterbury, in New Zealand. Bethany joins the show to discuss her research on matchers, super-matchers, and research she has conducted with novices (lay people), fingerprint, firearms, and facial recognition experts. She discusses the advantages of natural ability v. trained expertise and how it impacts one’s ability to perform matching tasks in the expert’s domain v. other domains. The guys ask questions about how to utilize this research to impact training programs. Finally, they discuss more aspects of the IAFS conference where Glenn met Bethany. Growns B, Dunn JD, Mattijssen EJAT, Quigley-McBride A, Towler A. Match me if you can: Evidence for a domain-general visual comparison ability. Psychon Bull Rev. 2022 Jun;29(3):866-881. doi: 10.3758/s13423-021-02044-2. Epub 2022 Jan 7. PMID: 34997551; PMCID: PMC9166871. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9166871/ Other publications by Growns https://www.bethanygrowns.com/publications Are you a super-matcher? Test your skills! Sign up to participate in studies by Dr. Growns: https://canterbury.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_038MorkGlc9SDoW

Eric and Glenn respond to the recent allegations that a computer science undergraduate at Columbia University, using Artificial Intelligence, has “proven that fingerprints aren’t unique” or at least…that’s how the media is mischaracterizing a new published paper by Guo, et al. The guys dissect the actual publication (“Unveiling intra-person fingerprint similarity via deep contrastive learning” in Science Advances, 2024 by Gabe Guo, et al.). They state very clearly what the paper actually does show, which is a far cry from the headlines and even public dissemination originating from Columbia University and the author. The guys talk about some of the important limitations of the study and how limited the application is to real forensic investigations. They then explore some of the media and social media outlets that have clearly misunderstood this paper and seem to have little understanding of forensic science. Finally, Eric and Glenn look at some quotes and comments from knowledgeable sources who also have recognized the flaws in the paper, the authors’ exaggerations, and lack of understanding of the value of their findings. Gabe Guo et al. ,Unveiling intra-person fingerprint similarity via deep contrastive learning.Sci. Adv.10, eadi0329(2024). DOI:10.1126/sciadv.adi0329 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi0329 https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/news/ai-discovers-not-every-fingerprint-unique https://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/ https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/world/fingerprints-ai-based-study-scn/index.html

In this episode, Eric and Glenn interview Caitlin Rough, a Masters student at the University of Western Sydney. Glenn saw Caitlin present at the IAFS conference back in November 2023. She comes onto the podcast to discuss her research project involving the interactions of latent prints (sebaceous residues) and blood. This work is near and dear to Glenn because of his previous work with Praska (see reference below). Caitlin discusses her observations with blood and a new twist of applying blood through various blood stain pattern mechanisms, such as swipes, spatter, pooling, and dripping. She observed the blood’s lipophobic reaction to the sebaceous ridge detail, which re-distributes the blood (often into the furrows of the mark). She also observed intermittent reactions of the blood with unknown components in the residue (as Glenn and Praska previously did). The guys discuss the implications of the research and next steps with Caitlin. Praska, N. and G. Langenburg. “Reactions of latent prints to exposed blood.” Forensic Science. International. 2013. (224): 51-58. 77 Bloody fingermark training available at www.EvolveForensics.com https://learn.evolveforensics.com/product-category/webinars/

Eric and Glenn discuss their holiday parties and preparations, play another round of "Where in the Whorld?", and then interview a guest all the way from Sydney, Australia. Teneil Hannah, a PhD candidate at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), joins the podcast to talk about some of her recently presented research on fingermark grading/quality scales. These are scales used by practitioners or researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of potentially new processing and visualization techniques to develop latent fingerprints. Whenever a laboratory is deciding to adopt a new treatment or change an existing one, the lab is expected to perform testing to evaluate the technique. There are a number of scales available to assess latent prints. Teneil walks us through what the most common scales are, who is using what, why are these scales important, and what modifications can be made to existing scales to improve their wide spread adoption and usage. References from Episode: CAST Scale Bandey, H.L. and Gibson, A.P., The Powders Process, Study 2: Evaluation of Fingerprint Powders on Smooth Surfaces, in Fingerprint Development and Imaging Newsletter. 2006. UNIL Scale Becue, A., Moret, S., Champod, C., and Margot, P., Use of quantum dots in aqueous solution to detect blood fingermarks on non-porous surfaces. Forensic Science International, 2009. 191: p. 36-41. UC Scale McLaren, C., Lennard, C., and Stoilovic, M., Methylamine Pretreatment of Dry Latent Fingermarks on Polyethylene for Enhanced Detection by Cyanoacrylate Fuming. Journal of Forensic Identification, 2010. 60: p. 199-222. IFRG Guidelines International Fingerprint Research Group, Guidelines for the assessment of fingermark detection techniques. Journal of Forensic Identification, 2014. 64: p. 174-197. Hockey, D; Dove, A; Kent, T. Guideline for the use and statistical analysis of the Home Office fingermark grading scheme for comparing fingermark development techniques. For Sci Intl 318 (2021) 110604. Hanna, T; Chadwick, S; Moret, S. Fingermark quality assessment, a transversal study of subjective quality scales. For Sci Intl 350 (2023) 111783.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray spent the past few months traveling to conferences far and wide. This episode they catch up with each other on recent travels, stories from the road, and some of the presentations that they saw over the past few months. It's a laid-back episode, so join us for as we catch up with each other. (There's also a big reveal in this episode. Can you figure it out before Eric does?)

Eric and Glenn return with a super-sized episode where they trade courtroom stories. Glenn had two cases in 2023 where the judges and decisions were rather surprising. From being hurried, harried, and harassed, there were some oddball moments for Glenn. Eric similarly shared a few unusual court moments for him. We also encouraged our listeners to share their moments whether you were a witness, attorney or even as a juror, we’d like to hear your stories too!

Eric and Glenn share their adventures at the 2023 International Association for Identification conference held in August in National Harbor, MD in the Washington D.C. area. They discuss various lectures and workshops they attended. They also discuss Becca running the Double Loop Podcast “merch” booth and this year’s hot selling fingerprint tee-shirt. Becca interviews several attendees and gets some of the international flavor that is so much a part of each IAI annual conference.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg are at the 2023 IAI conference in National Harbor, MD with Erin West and Ashley Church of Gap Science. They've developed a series of classes and an entire virtual conference dedicated to training for forensic supervisors and management. How many people should be reporting to one supervisor? What resources are available to forensic professionals? What if you're supervising a discipline that you're not trained in? Listen to the discussion and then join the FREE conference during Forensic Science Week.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg catch up after an extended hiatus and then review the recent PCAST report. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology issued a scathing report calling for the end of many forensic disciplines. The Double Loop Podcast responds.

To start the episode, Glenn tells Eric a story relating to Edmond Locard and Galdino Ramos, a doctor with an interesting connection to the history of fingerprints. Later in the episode the guys take on a listener question “What forensic discipline is the most reliable?” In order to address the question, they do a quick recap of various studies that attempt to estimate how lay people assess the reliability of different disciplines and contrast those data with black box error rate studies for each discipline, when available. Finally, Eric and Glenn discuss a new paper on DNA from Hicklin, et al. dealing with the accuracy of DNA analysts determining the number of contributors (NOC) to a DNA mixture. This study, and several other DNA papers, tie into the comparison between fingerprints and DNA, and which one they think is more “reliable”. All in all, a good general discussion for lay people and forensic scientists regarding what is meant by “reliable” in the eyes of jurors and what do these studies tell us about the accuracy of these different forensic techniques.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray bring the podcast to the California State Division of the IAI. Tom Busey joins the panel, and they discuss one of Tom's recent papers on an alternate method for calculating a fingerprint likelihood ratio. What if you didn't have to make decisions in fingerprint comparisons anymore? Big thanks again to the CSDIAI for inviting us to hold this panel discussion and for putting on a great conference.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss the recent article from Tom Busey - Tracking the growth of visual evidence in fingerprint comparison tasks. Examiners were shown features one at a time and asked to reach conclusions after each one. The study measured differences from the order of features revealed, their diagnosticity, and their clarity.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray eventually discuss the results of the recent NIST Evaluation of Latent Friction Ridge Technology. But first there are a couple of detours. Glenn discusses recent testimony regarding questionable nanogram testing for the presence of drugs. Eric talks about the Cousins By Blood podcast and his involvement in that case. Once the discussion returns to NIST testing, the guys review the differences between the most recent tests and the previous round in 2012. Follow along with the discussion by viewing the results at: https://pages.nist.gov/elft/elft_1_x/results/

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg tackle three new Black Box / Accuracy studies from Austin Hicklin, et al and Noblis. Results from research into the accuracy of forensic handwriting comparison, footwear comparison, and bloodstain pattern comparison have been recently published. The guys break down the nuances of this research and how its similar and different from the latent fingerprint and palm print black box accuracy studies.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined by Alan McNamara to continue discussing the case that sent him to jail. Alan shares his story from the day the police first knocked on his door through the trials and appellate hearings. His first-hand account of this miscarriage of justice is an eye-opener for forensic scientists and for everyone with an interest in the criminal justice system anywhere in the world. Images and reports from this case are available at patreon.com/DoubleLoopPodcast.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg continue their discussion of the Alan McNamara case from the UK. This time they start with the trial and then go through many of the expert witnesses that got involved in this case. Why do all the test lifts from the jewelry box have a wood grain in the background, but there is no grain in the evidence lift? Does the hook or Chinese character shape mean anything? How important is testimony about the homeowner's cleaning schedule? Can latent prints survive regular cleanings? Should there be questions about the accuracy of the latent print identifications to the homeowner? Eric then reads some of the internet comments that were made when the Alan McNamara case was first featured on the BBC's Panorama. Join us again on the next episode where we interview Alan McNamara.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray discuss the case of Alan McNamara from the UK. In this episode we cover the details of the burglary and how the police focused on Alan McNamara. Despite many issues in the latent print evidence, charges moved forward. The prosecution's entire case was based on a single latent print with questionable documentation.

Eric and Glenn return from a hiatus to have a more relaxed catch-up episode. They share an adventure or two including the great Arizona Treasure Hunt that they participated in. Eric shares some experiences from the User Conference he worked. And finally the guys talk about the Double Loop Podcast booth experience at the 2022 Omaha IAI Educational Conference. They play a bunch of clips and recordings from our “Correspondent” Rebecca Coutant who was running the booth and playing “(Wo)Man on the Street” to get some attendee perspectives.

Eric and Glenn interview returning guest, and newly minted PhD, Dr. Henry Swofford on his recent paper, with co-author Prof. Christophe Champod: “Probabilistic reporting and algorithms in forensic science: Stakeholder perspectives within the American criminal justice system” (For Sci Intl Synergy 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100220). The new article discusses interview responses from judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, scholars, and forensic laboratory managers regarding their perspective on how to validate, implement, litigate, and communicate probabilistic tools and algorithms in American courts. They discuss different quotes and perspectives from the paper and relate that to their own experiences and observations. Henry also makes an important reference to a companion paper, that provides concrete recommendations and a strategy towards implementation by practitioners: “Implementation of algorithms in pattern and impression evidence: A responsible and practical roadmap” (FSI Synergy 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100142).

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray sit down with Brianne Breedlove from Uncover Forensics to discuss online training and how things have changed in professional forensic training over the past few years. What are the challenges in this new format? What are the benefits that we could never do before? At the beginning Eric and Glenn finish off last episode's discussion on disclosure. Make sure to check out the new shirts and other merchandise at DoubleLoopPodcast.com.

Today, Eric and Glenn FINALLY review the Stephan Cowans case, a case of an erroneous identification from Boston where a fingerprint identification was critical evidence used to convict Cowans in 1998. This case is one of the few Innocence Project cases where there was an erroneous fingerprint identification but DNA was able to exonerate Cowans in 2004 (and the true source of the latent print was later identified). Eric and Glenn go through the major elements of the case and the subsequent review of the Boston Police Department Latent Print Unit by an external consultant. At the end, they discuss the critical improvements and advancements made in the wake of the error and why these cases are still important today to review and remember.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg go round and around on the topic of how to disclose errors to defense. Should your errors be listed in your CV? Should they be disclosed to defense automatically? Only on request? They guys finish the episode reading an email from a listener about their experience with QC after an erroneous identification.

In this episode, the guys interview fingerprint examiner, multi-book author, and instructor, Hillary Moses Daluz . Hillary discusses her new book "Courtroom Testimony for the Fingerprint Examiner" (CRC Press; 2021). They discuss some of the difficult hot topics that examiners struggle with during testimony and how keep testimony training positive and optimistic.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg catch up on a mix bag of topics in the first episode of 2022. Emails on the new conclusion proposal, setups for photography with transmitted light, and the main topic on "qualitative statements". ANAB accreditation requires agencies to include a statistic or a qualitative statement when reporting an association. What does that mean? What qualifies as quantitative? Is this a new thing? Thanks for listening for another year!

In this episode, the guys talk about Thanksgiving: Eric’s amazing food preparation and Glenn’s travel to Canada to teach. Eric also gives a plug for Kasey Wertheim’s fingerprint book library that is up for auction. In the main segment, they discuss two of the new ASB proposed standards out for public comment. Specifically, they examine differences with these documents and those proposed by OSAC, noting the pros and cons between the two versions. They discuss the ASB 013 – “Standard for Friction Ridge Examination Conclusions” and ASB 144 – Best Practice Recommendations for the Verification Component of Friction Ridge Examination. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss the recent paper on Blind Proficiency Testing from the Houston Forensic Science Center: "Latent print quality in blind proficiency testing: Using quality metrics to examine laboratory performance" by Brett O. Gardner, Maddisen Neuman, and Sharon Kelley. The paper describes the results of over two years of blind proficiency testing in the latent print unit. No false positive errors were detected over all samples when the examiners were not aware that they were being tested. The paper also describes the use of LQMetric in measuring the Quality of the sample latent prints. A fantastic paper and a great model for other agencies to imitate.

The long awaited/dreaded return of the “Dad Joke Intro”! In this episode, Todd Weller (firearms expert) returns to the show to talk to Eric and Glenn about the article on inconclusive decisions by Itiel Dror and Nicholas Scurich [(Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science; Forensic Science International, 2020; 2:333-338]. Todd gives his views on how the article mischaracterizes the error rate computations and designs of various firearms studies. The guys try to relate it back to their view on the article and fingerprint studies.

Return with Glenn and Eric to the IAI Conference in Nashville, TN. The guys are joined by Josh Connelly, Kurt Aebersold, JP Rodriguez, and Claudine Carter Pereira. New accuracy studies, open field research, and stat talk. And we're already looking forward to next year's conference in Nebraska!

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray review the 2020 article from Itiel Dror and Nicholas Scurich. "(Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science" was published in Forensic Science International: Synergy. The article criticizes published accuracy studies in the latent print and firearms disciplines and suggests an alternative method for handling inconclusive decisions and calculating an error rate for the field. The episode details factual errors in almost every part of the article and suggests the real motivation behind these arguments. But first Eric and Glenn read some emails and catch up on our return to conferences.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray discuss how to testify in court after an error occurs. Examiners nervous about upcoming testimony can find tips whether you made the error or a co-worker made an error and whether it was an erroneous identification or an erroneous exclusion. The court and juries do not expect us to be perfect, and we should claim to be. It's important to be able to discuss the Quality Assurance protocols that our labs have in place. Watch Eric and Glenn compare fingerprints here - https://youtu.be/C5KmM6cAKpk And join us for Wed Happy Hour here - https://discord.gg/b39pp6j

In this episode, the guys return for Round 2 with Dr. Heidi Eldridge and Prof. Christophe Champod. This time, they discuss the second paper arising from the palm print black box study (discussed in DLP Episode #234). The focus in this episode is “Mind-set – How bias leads to errors in friction ridge comparisons” by Eldridge, de Donno, and Champod in Forensic Science Int’l 318 (2021). This paper explores how instances of false positives and false negatives may have resulted from cognitive biases and assumptions formed about the latent print during the examination. The authors discuss some of the differences between mindset in false positives versus false negatives. They end the interview with suggestions for breaking mindset and reducing errors. Link to paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110545

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined by Todd Weller to discuss the firearms/toolmarks discipline. Todd was involved in the NY firearms case from Episode 227 and shares his experiences there. The guys then talk through accuracy studies for firearms examiners and similarities and differences between firearms and fingerprints. Lots to cover in an extra-long episode.

In this episode, Eric and Glenn are joined by Dr. Heidi Eldridge and Prof, Christophe Champod, the authors of "Testing the accuracy and reliability of palmar friction ridge comparisons - A black box study". The guests describe the design, the aims, and the results of the study. We get into discussions about the meaning and usefulness of error rate statistics and confidence intervals from performance studies such as this. Link to the Article (open source): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110457 Link to study results in shinyapp: https://cchampod.shinyapps.io/Results_BBStudy/ Link to confidence interval tools in shinyapp: https://cchampod.shinyapps.io/app_CI/ Link to error rate primer prepared by Champod, Eldridge, Lambert: zenodo.org/record/3734560#.YB8Ki5NKhbt

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray finally get back on track with a review of a recent article on GYRO markings. "Evaluating the Accuracy and Weight of Confidence in Examiner Minutiae Annotations" was written by Jeremy John and Henry Swofford and published in the JFI. The study measured whether examiners placed minutiae markers on true minutiae using Green, Yellow, and Red markers. It then compared the color choices of examiners against the color choices of the automatic LQMetric and DFIQI algorithms. Eric and Glenn will soon be publishing videos of themselves conducting comparisons, using GYRO, and discussing their similarities and differences. Keep an eye out for those coming soon. Also, the 8pm (ET) Wednesday night virtual Happy Hour continues at https://discord.gg/b39pp6j

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray review the newest article from Austin Hicklin, Bradford Ulery, Madeline Ausdemore, and JoAnn Buscaglia. Why do latent fingerprint examiners differ in their conclusions? reviews data from the Black Box, White Box, and Eye Tracking papers, summarizes trends through all of that research, and recommends changes for the fingerprint field.

After some Halloween talk, Eric and Glenn discuss this episode’s research article: “The Utility of Expanded Conclusion Scales During Latent Print Examinations” by Carter, Vogelsand, Vanderkolk, and Busey in J Forensic Sciences (online, 2020). This study examines the results of 27 experts who completed 30 comparisons under a 3-point SWGAST scale versus 30 comparisons under a 5-point OSAC scale. The guys discuss error rates, changes in apparent decision thresholds, and the rate of misleading evidence of “support for…” decisions. Article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1556-4029.14298?af=R Interpol Paper Reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X20300139

In this Halloween episode, Eric and Glenn discuss a new paper published by Koehler and Liu titled “Fingerprint error rate on close non-matches” (Journal of Forensic Sciences, Sept. 2020). The paper raises a lot of discussion between the guys regarding close non-matches, inconclusives, training, and testimony. They each have a different take on some of the key issues in the paper, but in the end identify what common ground on which they agree.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray pay special tribute this week to a giant in the fingerprint world, Bob Garrett. With the passing of Bob and a few other close friends and colleagues, Glenn and Eric want to look back at the contributions of Bob Garrett in particular. In his single year as president of the IAI, he was instrumental in responding to the NAS Report, addressing the McKie controversy, and moving forward the Standardization II Committee. Please join us in remembering Bob and all of the other friends and colleagues that we've recently lost.

In this episode, Glenn and Eric discuss a recent case Glenn was involved in: a knuckle-crease case. The case had a Daubert hearing in addition to trial testimony for jurors. The guys discuss if non-friction ridge skin associations would meet the Daubert factors. If you were preparing for such a hearing, what research and testing would you need to demonstrate expertise of the expert, or demonstrate reliability of the methods and principles? Does expertise in fingerprints using ACE-V translate to the comparison of non-friction ridge skin or any other objects you might encounter in photographs? Stay tuned…their answers may surprise you!

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray review a recent court decision on firearms testimony. NY v Ross was a recent Frye case where the testimony of firearms examiners was restricted to only class characteristics. Was this a fair decision? Did the judge raise good points? How does this case relate to latent print testimony and latent print accuracy studies? Join us for an hour of fun talk as we dive deep into the nerdy intersection of science and law. https://legalaidnyc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Ross-Frye-Decision_Full-.pdf

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray were recently asked which latent print books they recommend the most. This episode they talk through the absolute creme de la creme of fingerprint tomes. New books, old books, green books, blue books. Whether you're developing or comparing ridges, we've got a list of what you need to read. Also make sure to join us Wed nights at 8pm EDT for Virtual Happy Hour at https://discord.gg/b39pp6j

This week, the guys review and share their reactions to the documentary “The Most Dangerous Animal of All” (produced by Campfire Productions and available now on F/X and Hulu). This is a story about Gary Stewart who believes his father, Earl Van Best, Jr. was the infamous Zodiac Killer in San Francisco in the 1960s/1970s. The series reveals who Gary is and his obsession with the Zodiac. Then it shows all of the extensive evidence that he and his co-author accumulate to prove Earl Van Best was the Zodiac. Glenn and Eric discuss the forensic evidence in this case and share their views and reactions. At approximately 53:00 minutes we give a spoiler alert as the series and this podcast episode take a turn. We highly recommend watching the 4-part documentary first before hearing our views on this case. Discord link (Wed 5-7PM PST) https://discord.gg/b39pp6j Webinars: www.evolveforensics.com

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray take a break from normal interviews and research reviews to host a laid-back happy hour discussion on how things have been different in the past few months in forensic crime labs. Carey Hall, Becca Coutant, and Josh Connelly join our discussion that meanders from discussions on web-based training, remote testimony, recent changes to in lab life, and TV recommendations. Our Discord server is at https://discord.gg/b39pp6j. Happy Hour is Wed's at 8pm EDT.

In the final and third part of the series on the Massachusetts drug scandals and Netflix documentary, we interview Luke Ryan, the defense attorney featured in the documentary and who represented several of the clients affected by the scandal. Luke described how and why he fought to uncover the truth that was being swept under the rug by the Attorney General’s office. We also discussed a number of other issues that were not shown in the documentary, including deliberate and willful collusion by the drug chemists to mislead the court, the results of a quality audit that occurred, and early signs that drug chemists were engaged in misconduct for years. Luke also shared his views on a number of criminal justice and social issues such as civil forfeitures, the war on drugs, discovery of predicate questions, and field test kits for narcotics. Settle in for a super-sized episode uncovering the unbelievable and fantastic story behind the Netflix documentary and the perfect storm that could allow such behavior to go unchecked for years.

Eric and Glenn finish out their discussion of the new Netflix documentary “How to Fix a Drug Scandal” (2020). In this episode we switch our focus on the dry-labbing of drug tests by Annie Dookhan, and how long it took for those tests and convictions from those test to finally get tossed. The episode concludes with the story of Luke Ryan and his crusade to finally find the evidence that clearly demonstrated that Sonja Farak had been using drugs for years and not just months. Join Glenn and Eric on Discord for virtual Latent Print Examiner Happy Hour, Wednesdays 8-10PM EST (5-7PM PST) during the Shelter in Place orders (discord.gg.b39pp6j).

In the first of two episodes, Glenn and Eric discuss Netflix’s “How to Fix a Drug Scandal” (2020), covering the actions and consequences of two Massachusetts drug chemists. In this episode, they mostly focus on the Sonja Farak aspect, who was a drug chemist, addicted to drugs and stealing drugs from her standards cabinet and evidence. The guys discuss the issue of ‘random drug screenings’ of crime lab employees and the lack of other various controls in the U.S. The lack of controls can allow circumstances like this to occur, here and elsewhere, undetected for a long time. They also share some personal experiences from their past related to friends/co-workers with serious drug problems. Also, they remind everyone to join them on Discord for virtual Latent Print Examiner Happy Hour, Wednesdays 8-10PM EST (5-7PM PST) during the Shelter in Place orders (http://discord.gg.b39pp6j).

In this episode, Eric and Glenn start the show discussing a few kind emails and reviews of this podcast. They also talk about a weekly social event online—an online Happy Hour on Discord for Latent Print Examiners and friends of the show. In the main segment, the guys review Hundl et al. (2019) “Implementation of a Blind Quality Control Program in a Forensic Laboratory” in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. This research paper discusses the results of introducing over 140 realistic ground truth cases, without the analysts’ awareness that the case is a test case, at the Houston Forensic Science Center (HFSC) in Houston, Texas, over a period of several years. Join other listeners of the Double Loop Podcast for a LPE Happy Hour on Discord, Wednesdays 5-7pm PDT (8-10pm EDT) at https://discord.gg/b39pp6j

The case against David Camm is about to be turned on its head. Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg continue the story with a second and third trial and the introduction of a mountain of evidence against a new suspect. The episode concludes with an in-depth discussion on the importance of considering multiple scenarios in bloodstain pattern and all forensic disciplines. It all ties back to our previous discussions of activity level propositions.

In this multi-part series on the Indiana v. David Camm case, Eric and Glenn review the evidence over multiple episodes. In this first episode they review the evidence of the Prosecution and the first trial. There is discussion regarding latent print evidence, DNA evidence, crime scene reconstruction, medical examiner findings, and blood stain pattern evidence. The blood stain evidence is fairly critical in placing David Camm at the scene of a triple homicide (his wife and two young children).

In the wake of COVID-19 and so many of us staying at home, we decided as an April Fools’ Episode to make a list of movies that we enjoy and feature an aspect of forensic science. Eric and Glenn run down our top 10 movies (with two “so bad, they’re good” recommendations) and a few honorable mentions for you to consider while deciding what movies or shows to binge. We also alert listeners at the end to a call for research, regarding a new “verification practices” survey that you can take.

Glenn Langenburg returns from international travels (just in time) and brings stories from distant lands of England and Minnesota. As the discussion turns to conclusions, Eric Ray brings an update from the OSAC Friction Ridge Subcommittee. Check the NIST OSAC website in the near future for updated versions of Friction Ridge Subcommittee proposed standards.

Eric and Glenn wrap up their “activity level series” by discussing two articles (Girod, et al. 2016; and Hinners, et al. 2020) which propose determination of aging of latent fingerprint residue. The techniques use instrumental techniques to identify breakdown products of various fatty components in latent print residue, and use these results to classify whether a latent print is a couple of days old, or older (up to a week or month old depending on the paper). This is a nice finale to the series to explore what the realities and limitations of aging latent prints entails, rather than relying on visual inspection and qualified “consistent with” statements that previous episodes revealed could be misleading or just plain wrong. Glenn also starts the show by relaying a little bit of his experience joining the new NIST/NIJ Human Factors Expert Working Group on DNA mixture interpretation.

Glenn Langenburg is joined by Simon Bunter from Keith Borer Consultants to discuss a number of cases where activity level propositions were key factors. Can a print survive after the surface is cleaned? What if the surface is painted over? Simon tells some amazing stories that should make every latent print examiner question the timeline of when a latent print was left on a surface.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg are joined by Anouk de Ronde from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences to continue the discussion on activity level propositions. Anouk has published on how to construct a logical framework for considering all the information in a latent print to assist in establishing probabilities for competing hypotheses. Did he climb the railing or just lean against it? Was the pillowcase changed or was the pillow pressed down? Just like you wouldn't reach an Identification without looking at each individual minutiae, this framework allows for examination of each data point before making a conclusion on the likelihood of different activity level propositions.

In this episode Glenn and Eric dig into ‘activity level propositions’, which will start a series of episodes that takes a deep dive into this topic. We lay the groundwork for the topic by discussing fundamental forensic science papers, such as Evett, et al. “The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements” (Science & Justice, 2000) and other works by Cook and Jackson. We highlight the need for formal declaration of propositions regarding ‘source’, ‘activity’, and ‘crime (offense)’ levels. Lastly, we discuss aging (time since deposition) of latent prints and the dangers of these statements based on a visual exam alone. We reference Girod, Ramotowski, et al. “Fingermark age determinations: Legal considerations, review of the literature, and practical propositions” (For Sci Intl, 2016) for important points here. Also Glenn has some news at the beginning of the show to share with Eric regarding DNA.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg get passionate about policies. Stirred up about standards. PO'd about SDO's. After a quick refresher on how NIST, OSAC, AAFS, and ASB fit together in the Standards Development process, Eric and Glenn give an update on the draft standards for latent prints. Where are the standards that we've been waiting for? There was a recent meeting the Friction Ridge group with ASB, and things did not go well for those of us that would like to see the process move forward. While you're waiting for things to move forward, don't forget to check out the Double Loop Podcast merch store at www.doublelooppodcast.com

In this episode, Glenn and Eric interview Brendan Max, Chief of the Cook County Public Defender Forensic Science Unit in Illinois. They discuss his new article “Assessing Latent Print Proficiency Tests: Lofty Aims, Straightforward Samples, and the Implications of Non-Expert Performance” (Max, Cavise, and Gutierrez in JFI 2019;69(3)). Brendan shares his views on proficiency tests: are they meaningful? What about verifications in proficiency testing? What does it mean to ‘fail’ a test? How do lawyers and judges view proficiency tests? He describes his basic strategy for litigating forensic evidence and explains why the research in the field of latent prints is so critical. Pay attention towards the end: Eric legitimately stumps Glenn with a great question!

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg talk through the latest document out of the OSAC Friction Ridge Subcommttee. Last month they released an updated, and detailed, process map for friction ridge examinations. Follow along by downloading the pdf from the OSAC FRS website, https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/friction-ridge-subcommittee. Eric and Glenn are also happy to announce the Double Loop Podcast merch store. Go to doublelooppodcast.com, click on the Store tab, and help support the show.

This episode, the guys review and discuss a paper about resolving conflict resolution from Montani, et al. titled “Resolving differing expert opinions” (Science & Justice 2019). They explore the nuances of the recommendations from the paper and Glenn applied the principles to a recent case and conflict resolution he experienced. But before getting into the paper, Eric gushes some more about his new job and discusses a recent podcast that he guested on (“Stinker Madness”). Glenn also discusses some draft documents available through OSAC and some upcoming changes to OSAC.

Eric Ray starts the show sharing some big news with Glenn Langenburg and the listeners. The guys are then joined by AC Brogdon, president of the California State Division of the IAI for an discussion on the importance of the work that we do. AC shares some stories of his early life, and how those experiences shaped the person that he is and how that continues to inspire and motivate him. It's vitally important for examiners and investigators to remember the victims as they do their work and that it's not just another day at the office for those directly affected by the crime. Part of maintaining that motivation is to recognize that this job comes with unique stress, especially for those collecting and documenting evidence at the crmie scene. Employee assistance programs are available through most agencies to help all of us deal with the terrible things that we can exposed to every day.

In this episode, Eric and Glenn tackle the 2018 proposed OSAC Friction Ridge Subcommittee (FRS) Standards for Conclusions. They review the entire document and provide the definitions for 5 conclusions: identification, exclusion, inconclusive, and support for same/different sources. They give their thoughts and reactions to these terms and give examples of when they might apply. Glenn discusses an upcoming jury trial where he will be using these terms and how they appear in his reports. Bonus: an unexpected discussion of Downton Abbey! Upcoming classes mentioned at the end. Note: this episode has premium content for our Patreon Supporters.

Glenn Langenburg leads a panel discussion (with Eric Ray joining via phone) at the Pacific Northwest Division of the IAI / Northwest Association of Forensic Scientists Joint Conference with guests and Janis Puracal from the Forensic Justice Project and Carey Hall. The panel discussion explores the Janis's history with exonerations, innocence, justice reform, and forensic science and the challenges that face those that have been erroneously convicted. The conversation also explores the challenges that forensic scientists face in these areas and steps that they can take to ensure neutrality and that justice is served. Head to DoubleLoopPodcast.com for more episodes and look through the soon-to-arrive Merch store!

Join Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray in Reno, NV for the 2019 International Association for Identification conference. We are joined by Becca Coutant, Carey Hall, Nicole Praska, Claudine Carter Pereira, and Jason Jardine and cover a number of topics including limited examinations, defense attorney perspectives, conclusion terminology, blood prints, management, and stats. There's even a little story of Glenn losing his cool and an out-take for the blooper reel. The conference was fantastic, and big thanks to all of the new listeners that we met during the week. To celebrate 200+ episodes, an old photo of Glenn with John Vanderkolk is included.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg review a new paper that's been long in the making. "The permanence of friction ridge skin and persistence of friction ridge skin and impressions: A comprehensive review and new results" by Monson, et al. was recently published in Forensic Science International. The paper details the persistence and permanence of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level detail over multiple years. There are important takeaways from the paper although it isn't quite the level of the FBI/Noblis papers. So let's see what the guys think.

Eric Ray was recently teaching in Idaho (the ID state) and had the opportunity to sit down with Nick Craven, Katlyn Shelar, Whitney Betzel, and Tara Koho and talk with them about topics ranging from latent print exclusions, AFIS candidate lists, and the future of statistical models. Glenn Langenburg then joins Eric to continue the discussion with some follow-up points and continuing the conversation further into Exclusion policies and requirements, the nature of risk, and a preview on how to use a 5 Conclusion scale.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss the new article from Austin Hicklin, Brad Ulery, Tom Busey, and company researching latent print examiners with eye tracking equipment. Gaze behavior and cognitive states during fingerprint target group localization was published in Cognitive Research and examines what we look at and how context plays a huge part in this process. Download the paper online and follow along as we explore a great new paper.

EPISODE 200!!! - Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg celebrate the big number 200 with an overseas interview with Australian latent print examiner and friend of the show, Michael Whyte. The guys talk forensics down under, some of the travels, teaching, and technology that Michael is involved with and announce DoubleLoopPodcast.com. Check it out, and let us know how we can make it even better.

Eric and Glenn return from a couple weeks off of crazy travels with a few stories from the road including a "Men Who Love My Little Pony" ("Bronies") cosplay conference. In this episode, the guys sit down for a fantastic interview with Duke Law Professor Brandon Garrett to discuss his and colleagues' recent juror study. The most recent paper provides fingerprint proficiency test results to mock jurors to see how this information may impact their decision making and how reliable they believe fingerprint evidence to be.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg start the show talking about some exciting new classes that they have developed. Then they discuss which is more correct: 2009 "NRC" Report or "NAS" Report. Finally, they describe the available facts in the recent Archie Williams Innocence Project exoneration case. He was freed after 36 years in prison for rape based on eyewitness identifications, but an AFIS hit now implicates another person.

Glenn and Eric start with a brief chat about ethics and the recent JFI letter regarding testing and studies involving human subjects. They then jump into the main discussion on the "Review of Several False Positive Error Rate Estimates for Latent Fingerprint Examination Proposed Based on the 2014 Maimi-Dade Police Department Study" by Madeline Ausdemore, Jessie Hendricks, and Cedric Neumann. The review found that the data best fit a model of two error rates: one for when the true match is not present and one where the true match is one of the individuals presented. The article concludes with follow-up letters to the JFI from Igor Pacheco, Brian Cerchiai, Stephanie Stoiloff, Glenn Langenburg, Jonathan Koehler, Carey Hall, and Brendan Max. This episode is sponsored by GO EVIDENCE.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss post-Laura Interview thoughts after last episode's "lay person" interview. They tie in a new paper surveying mock-jurors, published by Gianni Ribeiro from Australia. Later, Gianni calls in from Oz to discuss her research. Oh, and Eric and Glenn both come up with genius ideas this episode.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray interview friend-of-the-show, Laura Keck, and dive deep into how forensic evidence is interpreted by a lay person. Does one fingerprint identification vs. 13 fingerprint identifications make a difference? What if the prints were on an inner drug baggie vs. an outer drug baggie? What is an acceptable error rate for latent prints or DNA? What if there is no other forensic evidence? Laura's perspective as a lay person (but with knowledge and interest in forensic science) and what she expects from expert testimony should lead to experts taking a close look at how they testify, what they examine, and how to prepare for court.

Eric Ray shares some big news and then shares a story about the dictionary. Glenn Langenburg brings another Super Fan into the fold as the Double Loop Podcast website starts to come together and some new research from Australia ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dG6Rw8_KLg ). They both then revisit the discussion on investigative leads. It's important to understand the distinction between reporting AFIS hits as preliminary without verification and a true "investigative lead" where there are only limited features in agreement. This episdoe is sponsored by Go Evidence Laboratories.

After arguing about the Mandela Effect, Glenn and Eric catch up on some email and discuss ANAB AR3125 7.8.1.2.2 and how this impacts reporting conclusions. Glenn talks about using verbal LRs to express the perceived weight of evidence. Then the guys review a paper from Israel on investigative leads (Attias, et al. 2015) from J of For Sci & Criminology.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are proud to be joined by Mark Stolorow. Before his years guiding the creation of the OSAC and his days with NIST, he had a varied history getting kicked out of the chemistry department, avoiding the draft, working as a cop, researching blood typing, and wearing plaid jackets. Listen to the interview for all the details of a fantastic career. This episode is sponsored by GO EVIDENCE LABORATORIES.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg are joined for another episode discussing statistics and probabilities by Professor Christophe Champod from the University of Lausanne. Christophe takes us on a history of his work on fingerprint statistics, his past, current, and future research projects, his hope for the future of statistics in fingerprint comparisons, and how the newest Swiss model is available for use through the Pianos software. This episode is sponsored by GO EVIDENCE.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg interview Australian researcher Gianni Ribeiro at the December 2018 OSAC meeting in Phoenix, AZ. Gianni tells the guys about her research interests studying how juries weigh evidence vs. alibis and other jury studies. She also talks about her impressions of the experts gathered at the OSAC meeting, the discussions going on related to likelihood ratios, and the battles over issues big and small in various subcommittees. This episode is sponsored by GO EVIDENCE LABORATORIES and is sponsored by IDEMIA.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined in-person by Henry Swofford as they discuss his career with the Army Crime Lab and the development of FRStat, a model that produces a similarity score between two compared fingerprints and a ratio of how that score fits into same source or different source distributions. The guys discuss why the model was developed, how it's being used, and some of the models limitations. This episode is sponsed by GoEvidence Forensic Laboratories, and this episode is also sponsored by IDEMIA.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined by Cedric Neumann to discuss all things statistical models, probabilities, likelihood ratios, Bayes factors, and more. Cedric discusses his history of research, his history in forensics, and how that's brought him from Switzerland to the UK to the US. This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA and their new Case AFIS product.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg move into a discussion of a new case with the help of special guest Becki Daher. Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, terrorized California in the mid-1980's before he has caught with the help of fingerprints and new AFIS technology. Becki Daher was working for the Orange County Sheriff's Office at the time and lifted the fingerprint from the car window that eventually led to his arrest. Join us in a discussion of Ramirez's crimes, the terror felt by the residents of California, and the high-tech and low-tech techniques that led to his arrest and conviction. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg wrap up the final episode in their series on Making a Murderer Season 2 with all of the craziness that didn't fit in all the previous episodes. Doesn't the bloodstain shape mean that he's innocent? Or mean that he's guilty? What about the lack of fingerprints? The burn barrel? The carpet cleaner? The bullet wax? Is Teresa even dead? Is the Double Loop Podcast just another part of the grand conspiracy by the government against Steven Avery? The answer to almost all of those questions is "no", but listen anyway as we close out this case. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg start to wrap up this second season of Making a Murderer with a discussion of the other new suspects in the case, a bit of internet drama, and the vast Wisconsin conspiracy. They then finally move into the discussion of Brendan Dassey and his ongoing appeals process, and how difficult it is for federal courts to review state court decisions. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray spend this episode talking about even more of the forensic evidence from the second season of Making a Murderer. They start with a review of the DNA evidence from the hood latch and the bullet fragment. Can there be too much DNA? They also discuss the trace analysis of the bullet fragment, the lack of fingerprints, the mysteries of brain fingerprinting, and even more of the evidence in the Steven Avery case. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray delve into the second season of Making a Murderer. They start by reviewing the evidence that they had discussed from the first season and then discuss their impressions of the new characters in the docu-series. They then move into a detailed discussion of the experiments conducted by Kathleen Zellner and her new forensic experts on behalf of Steven Avery. The blood and bloodstain patterns are covered. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined by John Swartz, retired from the Tucson Police Department, for a discussion on the Prime Time Rapist case from the mid-1980's. John talks about how the series of 30 attacks on 90 people affected the Tucson community and the department investigating the crimes. Before the perpetrator could be caught, there was a fingerprint examination error that led to other mistakes and civil rights violations. After discussing the details of the case, Glenn and Eric ask John about how the error affected the examiner, the latent print unit, and how the unit was treated by other agencies after the error.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg begin the episode with a discussion of an article from a law journal by Barbara Spellman titled, Communicating Forensic Evidence: Lessons from Psychological Science. Among her main points are that statistics, likelihood rations, and random match probabilities are terrible ways of communicating information to juries. She goes on to say that there are a number of misconceptions in latent fingerprint comparisons that must be addressed to juries and that analogies might be a better way to convey information to them. While Glenn and Eric agree and disagree with some of those points, they conclude the episode by reviewing a number of their favorite analogies that they use when testifying or teaching. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray report on a heated and controversial topic that caught the attention of the latent print world in the summer of 2018, the re-designed IAI Re-Certification test. Every five years, Certified Latent Print Examiners must take a comparison test. The old one was notoriously easy, but that has recently changed, and the error rate was higher than some expected. Carl Speckels raised the topic on the CLPEX.com message board and it was discussed at length at the 2018 IAI Conference. The topic is discussed even further here with some suggestions on how to improve the test while keeping it an important aspect of latent print examination. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray interview Teresa Wu from IDEMIA about the new product launch of IDEMIA's Case AFIS. The new system can quickly scan in exemplar prints from any type of standard or non-standard cards which then serve as a mini-database for an AFIS search. Efficiency is vastly improved when the computer takes care of the searching aspect of latent print comparisons. This process can also almost eliminate erroneous exclusions from casework. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn and Eric interview Teresa Wu from 3M/Cogent about the company and new research into preventing errors and statistical models. This episode sponsored by 3M / Cogent

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray try to wrap up any final discussion points from The Staircase docu-series. After Michael Peterson's conviction was overturned and a new trial was ordered, new attorneys come in, but an Alford plea is reached and Michael Peterson is released. Should a retrial have gone forward? What decisions did the original judge regret? What mistakes did the prosecution make? What is a blowpoke? And could an owl have been the murderer and/or the murder weapon? (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are graciously joined by Bart Epstein in an interview about bloodstain and other forensic evidence from the trial of Michael Peterson in the death of Kathleen Peterson. Bart Epstein explains his involvement in the case, his opinions on the blood evidence, and where he agreed and disagreed with Duane Deaver and Dr. Henry Lee. This episode is also sponsored by IDEMIA and their new product, Case AFIS.

In our second dive down The Staircase, Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg start looking closely at all of the forensic evidence available in the case and what it all means. The documentary leaves lots of questions that we try to answer in this episode like: Can you trace an impact back to a point in space? Could the wall, rail, or step have caused all of the impact sites? Where was the defense medical examiner expert? Did the prosecutor have other bloodstain experts ready to testify besides Deaver? Was there castoff? Were there other wounds besides the scalp lacerations? Was it valid to say that there were no other beating deaths without brain or skull injuries? Was there a cleanup? Were the shorts cleaned? Were Deaver's experiments valid? What about his shirt? Quote from the episode, "People need to hear this evidence. Because I think when you watch these documentaries, you're back and forth. And if you're really suspicious of law enforcement, then you come out of this going, 'This guy got railroaded.' This guy was innocently convicted. This is a BS case. It was all on lies. But I want to go back to the evidence. I haven't seen it in 15 years, but when I saw it then, in 2002, I went, 'Oh. This is open-shut. This is clear-cut. There is no ambiguity here.'" The three big pieces of evidence were that there was an impact site on her head in space which means that someone swung an object to hit her, there was signs of a cleanup and of blood drying meaning that she was not breathing when the 911 call was made, and the blood stains on his shorts means that he was near the body when blood was flying around.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg focus their forensic science backgrounds on the infamous Kathleen Peterson murder as it was portrayed in The Staircase. The guys review their initial impressions of the case and the documentary and then tell the basic outlines of the story where Michael Peterson is suspected, arrested, charged, and convicted of the murder of his wife. There are so many twists and turns to this story that we had to get them all out of the way in this episode before focusing on the forensics in upcoming episodes.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray return to the annual IAI conference in San Antonio to talk to attendees about the interesting lectures and workshops that they've seen this year. Morgan Hays from Florida talks about how he stays current with the field as a supervisor and how the exclusion and verification topics were covered at the conference. Do you trust your verifier? Linda Manigault from Nevada then joins the conversation and discusses the workshops on FRStat and statistical models that she attended. Glenn ends the episode with a BIG announcement!