1 00:00:01,840 --> 00:00:10,000 Speaker 1: Also media. Oh, welcome back to Behind the Bastards, the 2 00:00:10,080 --> 00:00:15,040 Speaker 1: only podcast on the Internet that you're currently listening to 3 00:00:15,400 --> 00:00:19,080 Speaker 1: unless you're one of those weird people who's like trying 4 00:00:19,120 --> 00:00:23,200 Speaker 1: to trying to like maximize your intellectual benefit because you 5 00:00:23,239 --> 00:00:25,919 Speaker 1: listen to too many weird YouTube grifters and you've got 6 00:00:25,920 --> 00:00:28,280 Speaker 1: a different earbud to a different phone in each ear, 7 00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:31,400 Speaker 1: and you're like double podcasting as you read a book 8 00:00:31,480 --> 00:00:33,519 Speaker 1: because that's going to get you the most knowledge so 9 00:00:33,560 --> 00:00:36,480 Speaker 1: that you can probably put a bunch of scam books 10 00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:39,720 Speaker 1: up on Amazon or get into fucking, I don't know, 11 00:00:40,640 --> 00:00:44,320 Speaker 1: real estate fraud. God, the Internet's a great place and 12 00:00:44,400 --> 00:00:48,000 Speaker 1: one of the great things about the Internet is the 13 00:00:48,080 --> 00:00:53,400 Speaker 1: guest we're bringing on today. And as a doctor obviously, 14 00:00:53,520 --> 00:00:56,760 Speaker 1: doctor cave Joda has made a vow to first do 15 00:00:56,920 --> 00:00:59,520 Speaker 1: no harm, which is weird because every time we have 16 00:00:59,600 --> 00:01:01,560 Speaker 1: him on the show, he kills it. 17 00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:02,360 Speaker 2: Kava. 18 00:01:02,560 --> 00:01:05,080 Speaker 3: Welcome to the program was fantastic. 19 00:01:05,280 --> 00:01:07,440 Speaker 1: I know, I thought about the Woe this morning and 20 00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:08,480 Speaker 1: I was just waiting to use it. 21 00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:11,959 Speaker 3: Goodness, I'm going to steal that another day. Working her 22 00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:14,760 Speaker 3: fingers to the bone in the podcast Minds Good Buddies' 23 00:01:14,840 --> 00:01:17,120 Speaker 3: Happy to be back. Thank you so much for having me. 24 00:01:17,680 --> 00:01:22,120 Speaker 1: Yes, yes, now, Cava. This is a coming during a 25 00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:26,080 Speaker 1: difficult time. Actually wrote most of this episode in the 26 00:01:26,120 --> 00:01:29,280 Speaker 1: bone marrow transplant ward and then the ICU that my 27 00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:32,640 Speaker 1: dad was in as I was doing overnights watching him. 28 00:01:32,959 --> 00:01:35,320 Speaker 1: And I have a question for you because the hospital 29 00:01:35,319 --> 00:01:37,080 Speaker 1: I'm at, I'm not going to give the precise name, 30 00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:40,520 Speaker 1: but I'm in North Texas. The hospital I'm at, and 31 00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:43,720 Speaker 1: the bottom floor next to like one of the restaurants 32 00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:46,840 Speaker 1: has an antique store. And this antique store is so 33 00:01:47,000 --> 00:01:49,280 Speaker 1: crowded with stuff that you can barely walk in it. 34 00:01:49,320 --> 00:01:52,800 Speaker 1: And the proprietor and only employee is a man who 35 00:01:52,840 --> 00:01:57,040 Speaker 1: seems to be in his eighties. And where's at least 36 00:01:57,080 --> 00:01:59,520 Speaker 1: as far as I can tell, only like three piece suits. 37 00:01:59,560 --> 00:02:02,240 Speaker 1: And I'm is he the Is this the devil? I 38 00:02:02,280 --> 00:02:03,000 Speaker 1: found the devil? 39 00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:04,200 Speaker 2: Wait? 40 00:02:04,280 --> 00:02:06,720 Speaker 3: Wait, wait, wait, hold on, let's let's back up just 41 00:02:06,720 --> 00:02:11,040 Speaker 3: a moment. Because you said there is restaurants and an 42 00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:12,400 Speaker 3: antique store. 43 00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:14,560 Speaker 1: There's an antique store in the hospital. 44 00:02:15,000 --> 00:02:17,280 Speaker 3: It's next to a sub hospital that. 45 00:02:17,360 --> 00:02:21,280 Speaker 1: Is next to a subway, so on in I know 46 00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:24,519 Speaker 1: why you'd want a subway in a hospital, because what 47 00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:27,520 Speaker 1: you need food at the hospital when you're watching. 48 00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:31,519 Speaker 3: Nothing nothing said says hospital ambiance, like expired lunch. 49 00:02:32,440 --> 00:02:33,240 Speaker 2: I don't understand. 50 00:02:33,320 --> 00:02:37,440 Speaker 3: I mean, my California mind cannot comprehend. I've never worked 51 00:02:37,760 --> 00:02:40,280 Speaker 3: or been in a hospital in which there are more 52 00:02:40,320 --> 00:02:43,720 Speaker 3: than I mean, there's a cafeteria, but not anything. I 53 00:02:43,760 --> 00:02:47,640 Speaker 3: would say it's close to a restaurant, it's nothing like 54 00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:53,440 Speaker 3: nothing that resembles an antique store maybe against ball. Why 55 00:02:53,480 --> 00:02:56,120 Speaker 3: are you going to an antique store in the hospital. 56 00:02:56,200 --> 00:02:57,480 Speaker 3: What is happenings? 57 00:02:57,600 --> 00:03:00,359 Speaker 1: I mentioned this too, why a doctor brother who practice 58 00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:02,200 Speaker 1: I don't know it and he was like, he was like, 59 00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:04,320 Speaker 1: oh yeah, And I was like, what do you mean? 60 00:03:04,360 --> 00:03:07,440 Speaker 2: Oh yeah, He's like why but why He. 61 00:03:07,520 --> 00:03:09,120 Speaker 1: Was not phrased by it, and I was like, this 62 00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:11,040 Speaker 1: is I'm like, what is happening there anyway? 63 00:03:11,120 --> 00:03:12,080 Speaker 3: And yes it is the devil? 64 00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:15,000 Speaker 1: Yeah, there's there's no way. This is not a needful 65 00:03:15,040 --> 00:03:18,239 Speaker 1: thing kind of situation here right right? 66 00:03:18,480 --> 00:03:23,080 Speaker 3: Yeah, don't there's some weird gin monkey paw think anything 67 00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:25,040 Speaker 3: that person sells, don't buy it. 68 00:03:25,240 --> 00:03:27,839 Speaker 1: Because I've been talking to the nurses too, and every 69 00:03:27,919 --> 00:03:29,040 Speaker 1: nurse I ask it is like, I have. 70 00:03:29,040 --> 00:03:29,960 Speaker 2: No fing idea. 71 00:03:30,080 --> 00:03:33,520 Speaker 3: It doesn't make any sense make any sense unless they 72 00:03:33,600 --> 00:03:36,320 Speaker 3: built the hospital on the antique store and the antique 73 00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:37,760 Speaker 3: store was like, YESO, the. 74 00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:39,640 Speaker 1: Antique store was there first. 75 00:03:40,120 --> 00:03:43,720 Speaker 3: They just had to put out house forever. It's been 76 00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:44,280 Speaker 3: here forever. 77 00:03:45,080 --> 00:03:52,760 Speaker 1: Sometimes it's older than the hills themselves, right Cove. Yes, 78 00:03:53,800 --> 00:03:57,640 Speaker 1: you're a scientist as a doctor scientist. 79 00:03:57,280 --> 00:03:59,560 Speaker 3: Yeah, sort of scientific method is something I understand. 80 00:04:00,200 --> 00:04:03,560 Speaker 1: Yeah, you utilize science, correct. What do you know? How 81 00:04:03,600 --> 00:04:07,760 Speaker 1: do you feel about forensic science? You know, stuff like fingerprinting, 82 00:04:09,080 --> 00:04:12,160 Speaker 1: you know, DNA analysis, that kind of jazz. 83 00:04:12,400 --> 00:04:16,480 Speaker 3: Will it is interesting. I feel like there are certain 84 00:04:16,480 --> 00:04:18,640 Speaker 3: parts of it that are very interesting to me and 85 00:04:18,680 --> 00:04:22,080 Speaker 3: seem to have, you know, some good evidence behind it, 86 00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:26,880 Speaker 3: like toxicology, DNA stuff. I think we've gotten fairly good 87 00:04:26,880 --> 00:04:29,760 Speaker 3: at that. That's a it's like a science. But I 88 00:04:29,760 --> 00:04:31,560 Speaker 3: don't know. I mean a lot of it seems to me. 89 00:04:31,800 --> 00:04:33,840 Speaker 3: Maybe you'll correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm guessing 90 00:04:33,920 --> 00:04:36,080 Speaker 3: not because that's what the topic of the Today Show is. 91 00:04:36,080 --> 00:04:38,240 Speaker 3: But I feel like just because you label something a 92 00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:42,359 Speaker 3: science doesn't necessarily mean it's a science, like scientology for example. 93 00:04:42,400 --> 00:04:44,279 Speaker 3: You know, so, I feel like there might be some 94 00:04:44,360 --> 00:04:47,520 Speaker 3: parts of forensic science that are not Can I tell 95 00:04:47,520 --> 00:04:49,360 Speaker 3: you a little bit of a backstory on this one? 96 00:04:49,640 --> 00:04:51,520 Speaker 2: Sure? Please? So when I was. 97 00:04:51,560 --> 00:04:56,599 Speaker 3: In medical school, I did my psychiatry rotation in a jail, 98 00:04:56,920 --> 00:05:01,240 Speaker 3: so I actually did forensic psychiatry. And I sat down 99 00:05:01,279 --> 00:05:04,760 Speaker 3: with a warden once who considered himself like a world expert. 100 00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:06,240 Speaker 3: And there were a lot of great people that worked 101 00:05:06,240 --> 00:05:09,000 Speaker 3: in the jill believe it or not, social workers and 102 00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:11,360 Speaker 3: stuff I worked with that were amazing. But I'm not 103 00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:13,880 Speaker 3: talking about that. I'm talking about this warden who who 104 00:05:14,080 --> 00:05:17,880 Speaker 3: ran it, who was like an expert in like micro expressions. 105 00:05:19,240 --> 00:05:22,279 Speaker 1: Someone's line, it's my favorite cop bullshit science. 106 00:05:22,800 --> 00:05:23,880 Speaker 2: And I remember he. 107 00:05:23,880 --> 00:05:25,919 Speaker 3: Sad me down for like this lecture about it to 108 00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:27,600 Speaker 3: like go over it and me it was like fun, 109 00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:29,440 Speaker 3: I'm like, will this work? And I try, like if 110 00:05:29,440 --> 00:05:31,640 Speaker 3: I look up into the left, does that mean the 111 00:05:31,640 --> 00:05:32,480 Speaker 3: person's lying? 112 00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:33,240 Speaker 2: You know what I mean. 113 00:05:33,520 --> 00:05:35,360 Speaker 3: There's all these little tiny things I was looking for, 114 00:05:35,520 --> 00:05:38,279 Speaker 3: But I'm like, I just I can't believe this is 115 00:05:38,279 --> 00:05:40,960 Speaker 3: a real science. Someone would really need to convince me 116 00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:43,680 Speaker 3: of the of the research behind it before I ever 117 00:05:43,880 --> 00:05:45,839 Speaker 3: like allowed that in court. Not that I'm a judge 118 00:05:45,920 --> 00:05:47,560 Speaker 3: or anything, but you know what I mean, that's so 119 00:05:47,960 --> 00:05:50,200 Speaker 3: I'm torn on forensic science? Is the long is a 120 00:05:50,200 --> 00:05:50,919 Speaker 3: short answer to that? 121 00:05:51,480 --> 00:05:54,400 Speaker 1: Yeah, I had a fucking cop and Brady Texas pull 122 00:05:54,480 --> 00:05:56,680 Speaker 1: me over and repeatedly tell me as he was waiting 123 00:05:56,720 --> 00:05:58,520 Speaker 1: for the dogs because I wouldn't let him search my 124 00:05:58,600 --> 00:06:02,640 Speaker 1: car that, like, I've been trained to recognize lying, and 125 00:06:02,680 --> 00:06:05,200 Speaker 1: I believe that you are lying because like you did 126 00:06:05,200 --> 00:06:06,839 Speaker 1: this or did that when you say that you don't 127 00:06:06,839 --> 00:06:09,400 Speaker 1: have any marijuana in the car, and they didn't have 128 00:06:09,440 --> 00:06:11,200 Speaker 1: any marijuana in the car, but I still wasn't gonna 129 00:06:11,240 --> 00:06:12,120 Speaker 1: let them fucking search me. 130 00:06:12,600 --> 00:06:13,840 Speaker 2: Yeah. 131 00:06:13,920 --> 00:06:17,360 Speaker 1: No, The best advice I ever got about being an 132 00:06:17,360 --> 00:06:19,680 Speaker 1: adult was from my speech and debate coach who got 133 00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:22,080 Speaker 1: fired because he had not disclosed that he had an 134 00:06:22,200 --> 00:06:26,120 Speaker 1: arrest on his record or something right after this, but 135 00:06:26,320 --> 00:06:28,640 Speaker 1: told us, if you ever have to lie to would judge, 136 00:06:28,720 --> 00:06:32,320 Speaker 1: don't break eye contact. Just look a judge or a cop. 137 00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:34,080 Speaker 1: Just look them right in the eye and tell them 138 00:06:34,080 --> 00:06:35,840 Speaker 1: what they need to hear for you to go home. 139 00:06:36,320 --> 00:06:37,680 Speaker 1: And by god, has it worked. 140 00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:38,239 Speaker 2: Yeah? 141 00:06:38,320 --> 00:06:40,320 Speaker 1: No, that's gotten me out of trouble a lot of times. 142 00:06:42,279 --> 00:06:45,320 Speaker 1: But yes, as that as that introduction kind of makes 143 00:06:45,360 --> 00:06:50,320 Speaker 1: it clear, there are sciences within forensics, like, for example, 144 00:06:50,520 --> 00:06:53,880 Speaker 1: matching DNA. You know, if there's blood at the scene 145 00:06:53,880 --> 00:06:55,800 Speaker 1: of a murder that does not belong to the victim, 146 00:06:55,839 --> 00:06:58,719 Speaker 1: and then you find a person with an injury and 147 00:06:58,800 --> 00:07:02,440 Speaker 1: their blood matches, that blood might suggest that they're the murder. Right, 148 00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:05,960 Speaker 1: there's real science there. I don't think anyone would would 149 00:07:06,040 --> 00:07:08,880 Speaker 1: argue with that. Likewise, you find some fingerprints at the 150 00:07:08,920 --> 00:07:11,720 Speaker 1: scene on a murder weapon, they match another dude, you know, 151 00:07:11,800 --> 00:07:15,160 Speaker 1: a person that you catch later, that might suggest that 152 00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:19,280 Speaker 1: you know that person did the murder. However, while both 153 00:07:19,320 --> 00:07:24,920 Speaker 1: of those things are sciences, both fingerprinting and DNA analysis 154 00:07:25,040 --> 00:07:29,440 Speaker 1: do not work as well as people often believe, and 155 00:07:30,200 --> 00:07:33,000 Speaker 1: there's kind of this whole field that's grown up around 156 00:07:33,040 --> 00:07:35,840 Speaker 1: them because of how solid the actual scientific basis in 157 00:07:35,880 --> 00:07:39,920 Speaker 1: both fingerprinting and DNA analysis is. They've provided sort of 158 00:07:39,960 --> 00:07:43,280 Speaker 1: like an umbrella under which a lot of other or 159 00:07:43,360 --> 00:07:46,200 Speaker 1: like a canopy under which like this kind of mushroom 160 00:07:46,360 --> 00:07:51,080 Speaker 1: cloud of toxic fake forensic science has also grown up. 161 00:07:51,120 --> 00:07:53,560 Speaker 1: I was mixing my metaphors there, but I think it's forgivable. 162 00:07:53,600 --> 00:07:54,280 Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I got it. 163 00:07:54,320 --> 00:07:57,720 Speaker 1: Anyway, that's what we're talking about today, because all forensic 164 00:07:57,800 --> 00:08:01,600 Speaker 1: science is a bastard. That's not entirely true, but it's 165 00:08:01,640 --> 00:08:04,520 Speaker 1: as true as forensic science is. So well, we'll allow 166 00:08:04,840 --> 00:08:08,840 Speaker 1: you know. On May thirtieth, nineteen ninety seven, a Boston 167 00:08:08,880 --> 00:08:12,440 Speaker 1: police officer entered the backyard of a house in Jamaica. 168 00:08:12,520 --> 00:08:16,280 Speaker 1: Plane he engaged in a short struggle with an unknown 169 00:08:16,360 --> 00:08:19,800 Speaker 1: person who ambushed the officer and managed to gain access 170 00:08:19,800 --> 00:08:23,880 Speaker 1: to his service weapon. The assailant fired twice, wounding the officer, 171 00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:28,160 Speaker 1: whose last words before losing consciousness probably sound in something like. 172 00:08:28,280 --> 00:08:31,560 Speaker 3: Oil you've Boston. 173 00:08:31,040 --> 00:08:36,040 Speaker 1: Sorry, sylthily what I wasn't gonna not gonna do my 174 00:08:36,120 --> 00:08:37,679 Speaker 1: award winning Boston accents. 175 00:08:37,880 --> 00:08:39,679 Speaker 3: And the best part is I had no idea was 176 00:08:39,720 --> 00:08:43,920 Speaker 3: coming that I know. Really, it was a sneak attacked. 177 00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:46,920 Speaker 1: I mean, we've all known Boston cops. They all sound 178 00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:52,079 Speaker 1: like that when you get shot Henny Kenny. Anyway, he survives, 179 00:08:52,160 --> 00:08:55,800 Speaker 1: so it's not in bad taste after shooting the officer 180 00:08:55,880 --> 00:08:57,160 Speaker 1: the assailant, isn't it. 181 00:08:58,679 --> 00:09:00,360 Speaker 3: I'm not sure you're off the hook, but go on, 182 00:09:00,559 --> 00:09:01,520 Speaker 3: I think I'm fine. 183 00:09:01,600 --> 00:09:07,040 Speaker 1: I'm letting you have this one. After it's been so 184 00:09:07,240 --> 00:09:10,720 Speaker 1: long since I brought the Boston accent out the people 185 00:09:10,800 --> 00:09:14,280 Speaker 1: have demanded. I did see like color go back into 186 00:09:14,280 --> 00:09:17,880 Speaker 1: your cheeks when he said, you're like more a lot 187 00:09:18,160 --> 00:09:21,800 Speaker 1: now than you were two minutes ago. Yeah, that's why 188 00:09:21,840 --> 00:09:24,640 Speaker 1: I got into podcasting, is to do that Boston accent. 189 00:09:24,679 --> 00:09:29,160 Speaker 1: We just got sidetracked by dictators. So after shooting this 190 00:09:29,240 --> 00:09:32,040 Speaker 1: cop with his own gun, which has to be embarrassing 191 00:09:32,080 --> 00:09:35,480 Speaker 1: as a cop, the assailant started shooting at a bystander 192 00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:39,640 Speaker 1: who was standing by a second story window watching. Thankfully 193 00:09:39,760 --> 00:09:42,960 Speaker 1: doesn't hit this random person, and then he flees the scene, 194 00:09:43,280 --> 00:09:46,199 Speaker 1: leaving behind nothing but a baseball hat that was knocked 195 00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:49,920 Speaker 1: off in the struggle. He breaks into a home near 196 00:09:49,960 --> 00:09:52,920 Speaker 1: where the shooting had taken place because he was thirsty. 197 00:09:53,800 --> 00:09:56,160 Speaker 1: A family is there and they like watch while he 198 00:09:56,400 --> 00:09:59,400 Speaker 1: drinks a glass of water and then leaves the CoP's 199 00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:04,280 Speaker 1: gun and sweatshirt behind. Now this seems like, well that's 200 00:10:04,280 --> 00:10:05,880 Speaker 1: a lot of evidence. You shoul probably be able to track 201 00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:09,440 Speaker 1: this guy down, right, A ton of witnesses leaves this 202 00:10:09,480 --> 00:10:14,000 Speaker 1: sweatshirt behind. Yeah, anyway, it takes about two weeks for 203 00:10:14,080 --> 00:10:16,079 Speaker 1: the injured officer to be well enough to sit in 204 00:10:16,120 --> 00:10:18,960 Speaker 1: front of a photo array of suspects and like potentially 205 00:10:19,080 --> 00:10:22,320 Speaker 1: identify somebody, and he picks a guy out of this lineup, 206 00:10:22,360 --> 00:10:27,480 Speaker 1: a man named Stephen Cohens Cowa NS And he does 207 00:10:27,480 --> 00:10:29,800 Speaker 1: this on two separate occasions, so the police think, well, 208 00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:32,600 Speaker 1: that's probably a pretty good id. The person who had 209 00:10:32,600 --> 00:10:35,600 Speaker 1: been shot at from his second floor idd Cohen's two. 210 00:10:36,120 --> 00:10:38,959 Speaker 1: Now that sounds again. This is one of those things 211 00:10:38,960 --> 00:10:40,240 Speaker 1: where if you see this in like a cop show, 212 00:10:40,280 --> 00:10:42,040 Speaker 1: where you'd be like, well, then it's obviously him, right, 213 00:10:42,080 --> 00:10:43,599 Speaker 1: he got id by both people at the scene. But 214 00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:46,120 Speaker 1: here's the thing, and this is something I hope people 215 00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:51,040 Speaker 1: are getting more aware of. Eyewitness accounts and identifications are garbage. 216 00:10:51,440 --> 00:10:55,560 Speaker 1: They're oftentimes worse than nothing at all. People are terrible 217 00:10:55,640 --> 00:10:58,520 Speaker 1: at recognizing shit that's had. I remember this one moment 218 00:10:58,920 --> 00:11:03,280 Speaker 1: during the protests and where like somebody pulled a gun 219 00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:07,240 Speaker 1: after like driving their car through a chunk of the protest, 220 00:11:07,440 --> 00:11:09,160 Speaker 1: And the first thing I heard from like a bunch 221 00:11:09,160 --> 00:11:10,800 Speaker 1: of different people was like a guy just pulled an 222 00:11:10,960 --> 00:11:12,880 Speaker 1: AR fifteen and a bunch of protesters and I looked 223 00:11:12,880 --> 00:11:14,440 Speaker 1: over to Garrison and I'll say, I'll bet you fucking 224 00:11:14,480 --> 00:11:16,880 Speaker 1: anything it was a handgun. And as soon as pictures 225 00:11:16,920 --> 00:11:18,880 Speaker 1: come out, so it's a nine millimeter handgun. And it's 226 00:11:18,920 --> 00:11:22,520 Speaker 1: not people aren't trying to like be lie or fantasized. 227 00:11:22,559 --> 00:11:25,960 Speaker 1: It's like memory is bad. We're bad remembering things that 228 00:11:26,040 --> 00:11:26,880 Speaker 1: happened to us. 229 00:11:27,120 --> 00:11:29,920 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I assume, especially when you're not expecting to, 230 00:11:30,880 --> 00:11:33,160 Speaker 3: you know, memorize things when it just happens and like 231 00:11:33,240 --> 00:11:34,760 Speaker 3: catching it and then looking back. 232 00:11:34,840 --> 00:11:35,320 Speaker 2: Yeah. 233 00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:38,240 Speaker 1: Yeah. And this is why when they train people to 234 00:11:38,320 --> 00:11:40,680 Speaker 1: you know, do jobs, like you know whatever, FBI agents 235 00:11:40,679 --> 00:11:43,160 Speaker 1: and stuff, there is training and like how to try 236 00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:47,040 Speaker 1: and like analyze a scene. And and I think it's 237 00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:48,720 Speaker 1: debatable as to how well that works, but it is 238 00:11:48,720 --> 00:11:50,440 Speaker 1: a thing that you need to try and train because 239 00:11:50,480 --> 00:11:54,000 Speaker 1: we're not naturally good at it. Now. Part of why 240 00:11:54,080 --> 00:11:57,120 Speaker 1: I bring up the fact that these are terrible ideas 241 00:11:57,400 --> 00:12:00,360 Speaker 1: is that both the you know, the cop is kind 242 00:12:00,400 --> 00:12:02,480 Speaker 1: of ambushed. He doesn't get a good look at this 243 00:12:02,520 --> 00:12:05,560 Speaker 1: guy who shoots him. He's ambushed and horribly injured. And 244 00:12:05,600 --> 00:12:08,120 Speaker 1: the fam or and the guy who like looks at 245 00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:10,840 Speaker 1: him from that second story window and then get shot 246 00:12:10,920 --> 00:12:13,000 Speaker 1: at is not close to him, right. The two who 247 00:12:13,080 --> 00:12:16,560 Speaker 1: identify Cohen's as the guy. The family in the house 248 00:12:16,640 --> 00:12:19,560 Speaker 1: that the assailants forced their way into see this the 249 00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:23,520 Speaker 1: assailant at close range, and they don't ID Cohens. Now, 250 00:12:24,120 --> 00:12:26,440 Speaker 1: as a journalist, if I if I'm just trying to 251 00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:29,160 Speaker 1: determine what i think is more credible, I'm going to 252 00:12:29,400 --> 00:12:31,240 Speaker 1: be more credible to the family who. 253 00:12:31,080 --> 00:12:33,880 Speaker 3: Was right next to the guy and shot the guy 254 00:12:33,920 --> 00:12:37,040 Speaker 3: in your living room, that that makes sense. You might 255 00:12:37,080 --> 00:12:40,160 Speaker 3: be able to recognize that that's a decent ID. Probably right, Yeah, 256 00:12:40,280 --> 00:12:42,319 Speaker 3: you have a better shot. You have a bear shot. Yeah, 257 00:12:42,360 --> 00:12:45,480 Speaker 3: certainly so. The fact that these folks who had been 258 00:12:45,520 --> 00:12:47,199 Speaker 3: closest to the shooter and spent the most time with 259 00:12:47,280 --> 00:12:49,440 Speaker 3: him didn't id Cohen's should have been a warning. But 260 00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:52,559 Speaker 3: their testimony is not what cinched Cohen's conviction, and he 261 00:12:52,640 --> 00:12:57,000 Speaker 3: is convicted of this crime. Instead, prosecutors used a fingerprint 262 00:12:57,160 --> 00:12:59,840 Speaker 3: found on the glass of water the assailant drank from 263 00:12:59,880 --> 00:13:02,439 Speaker 3: it in their home. They bring in a fingerprint expert. 264 00:13:02,480 --> 00:13:06,000 Speaker 3: He concludes the Layton print matches Cohen's left thumb, and 265 00:13:06,040 --> 00:13:11,080 Speaker 3: that sounds pretty bulletproof. Right, fingerprints are real. Matching fingerprints 266 00:13:11,120 --> 00:13:14,679 Speaker 3: is a real thing you can do. Seems like a 267 00:13:14,720 --> 00:13:17,079 Speaker 3: good id. So Cohens goes off the prison where he's 268 00:13:17,120 --> 00:13:21,040 Speaker 3: going to stay for more than six years. He does 269 00:13:21,080 --> 00:13:25,520 Speaker 3: not accept this conviction because spoilers. He's innocent, so he 270 00:13:25,760 --> 00:13:28,080 Speaker 3: fights this as much as he can from prison, and 271 00:13:28,160 --> 00:13:30,880 Speaker 3: the Innocence Project worked with Cohens for several years, and 272 00:13:30,920 --> 00:13:33,040 Speaker 3: in two thousand and three they succeeded in pushing the 273 00:13:33,040 --> 00:13:35,840 Speaker 3: Suffolk Superior Court to release the glass mug that that 274 00:13:35,920 --> 00:13:38,520 Speaker 3: latent fingerprint had been taken from swabs of the mug, 275 00:13:38,920 --> 00:13:41,679 Speaker 3: the baseball hat, and the sweatshirt that the assailant had 276 00:13:41,720 --> 00:13:44,000 Speaker 3: left behind to do DNA testing and see if any 277 00:13:44,000 --> 00:13:47,280 Speaker 3: of it matched Cohen's and the DNA tests are conclusive. 278 00:13:47,559 --> 00:13:50,160 Speaker 3: While the DNA on the hat matched the DNA from 279 00:13:50,200 --> 00:13:52,160 Speaker 3: the swabs, so they knew that the hat that was 280 00:13:52,240 --> 00:13:54,800 Speaker 3: left at the scene where the officer was shot belonged 281 00:13:54,840 --> 00:13:57,959 Speaker 3: to the same person who drank from that mug, neither 282 00:13:58,120 --> 00:14:03,199 Speaker 3: test matched Cohen's. Right yeah, tests on the sweatshirt reveal 283 00:14:03,240 --> 00:14:05,720 Speaker 3: the same thing, and with this new evidence, the Suffolk 284 00:14:05,760 --> 00:14:08,440 Speaker 3: DA reanalyzed the fingerprint match that had been used to 285 00:14:08,480 --> 00:14:12,400 Speaker 3: convict Cohen's Upon re examination, it was concluded that the 286 00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:16,160 Speaker 3: fingerprint was not left by Cohens. On January twenty third, 287 00:14:16,200 --> 00:14:19,040 Speaker 3: two thousand and four, he was released. He lived in 288 00:14:19,080 --> 00:14:21,320 Speaker 3: freedom for the next three years until he was shot 289 00:14:21,360 --> 00:14:23,320 Speaker 3: to death in two thousand and seven in his own home. 290 00:14:25,520 --> 00:14:29,120 Speaker 1: A fright. A really depressing number of Innocence Project people 291 00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:32,440 Speaker 1: who get like released die very soon after getting released 292 00:14:32,880 --> 00:14:34,600 Speaker 1: for a variety of reasons. Inclaning, A lot of them, 293 00:14:34,640 --> 00:14:37,840 Speaker 1: you know, go back into situations where their living situation 294 00:14:37,960 --> 00:14:40,640 Speaker 1: isn't very safe. Yeah, because the time they've spent in 295 00:14:40,640 --> 00:14:42,560 Speaker 1: prison certainly didn't give them the ability to get into 296 00:14:42,560 --> 00:14:43,960 Speaker 1: a saber one exactly. 297 00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:47,280 Speaker 3: I mean it's also like they probably picked people who 298 00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:49,880 Speaker 3: are at risk anyways, those are the people they are 299 00:14:49,880 --> 00:14:51,640 Speaker 3: being accused of this, or people who probably aren't in 300 00:14:51,640 --> 00:14:53,640 Speaker 3: a fantastic situation to begin with. 301 00:14:54,000 --> 00:14:54,640 Speaker 2: Then they go to. 302 00:14:54,640 --> 00:14:58,160 Speaker 3: Jail, they spend whatever amount of time not making money, 303 00:14:58,200 --> 00:15:01,280 Speaker 3: earning an income, learning anything, advancing their lives, and then 304 00:15:01,320 --> 00:15:02,720 Speaker 3: they have to try and start over. A lot of 305 00:15:02,720 --> 00:15:05,120 Speaker 3: them are going to be much worse off. So yeah, yeah, 306 00:15:05,160 --> 00:15:07,120 Speaker 3: I'm not shocked to hear that, I guess. 307 00:15:07,520 --> 00:15:07,920 Speaker 2: Yeah. 308 00:15:08,040 --> 00:15:12,000 Speaker 1: Now, Cohenes's story from the use of unreliable forensic science 309 00:15:12,040 --> 00:15:14,600 Speaker 1: to convict him to his tragic early death after release 310 00:15:14,680 --> 00:15:17,440 Speaker 1: is again very common and just as common as the 311 00:15:17,440 --> 00:15:19,480 Speaker 1: fact that he was a black man, and the officer 312 00:15:19,520 --> 00:15:22,880 Speaker 1: he was accused of wounding was white next to DNA, So. 313 00:15:23,440 --> 00:15:25,960 Speaker 2: I'm sorry that I didn't even have to ask his color. 314 00:15:26,080 --> 00:15:28,200 Speaker 2: No you. Yeah, of course, figure that. 315 00:15:28,160 --> 00:15:29,920 Speaker 3: Was going to be the situation here, that they were 316 00:15:29,960 --> 00:15:32,880 Speaker 3: gonna just find another guy that matched the color and 317 00:15:32,920 --> 00:15:33,360 Speaker 3: that was it. 318 00:15:33,880 --> 00:15:38,400 Speaker 1: Yeah, it happens quite often now next to DNA testing. 319 00:15:38,520 --> 00:15:41,160 Speaker 1: Fingerprint matching is one of the most reliable methods of 320 00:15:41,200 --> 00:15:46,520 Speaker 1: forensic analysis we have. But that fact, which is undeniable, 321 00:15:47,000 --> 00:15:50,400 Speaker 1: does not mean that it's reliable enough you would want 322 00:15:50,440 --> 00:15:52,840 Speaker 1: to risk your freedom on it. It does not mean 323 00:15:53,160 --> 00:15:55,320 Speaker 1: that it's perfect, and it doesn't mean that you can 324 00:15:55,360 --> 00:15:58,640 Speaker 1: take an expert saying this fingerprint belongs to this person 325 00:15:59,080 --> 00:16:00,200 Speaker 1: as red right. 326 00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:01,640 Speaker 2: None of that is. 327 00:16:02,280 --> 00:16:05,400 Speaker 1: You simply can't rely on any of that because there's 328 00:16:05,560 --> 00:16:09,760 Speaker 1: a big difference between the actual science behind fingerprints and 329 00:16:09,840 --> 00:16:11,960 Speaker 1: fingerprint forensic science. 330 00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:12,640 Speaker 2: Right. 331 00:16:13,120 --> 00:16:16,840 Speaker 1: Fingerprinting experts, prosecutors and law enforcement like to portray it 332 00:16:16,920 --> 00:16:20,120 Speaker 1: as a thing of objective science where you get one 333 00:16:20,200 --> 00:16:23,080 Speaker 1: hundred percent confirmation of a perpetrator's presence of a crime 334 00:16:23,120 --> 00:16:26,680 Speaker 1: scene because you matched them to a fingerprint, and that 335 00:16:26,840 --> 00:16:30,760 Speaker 1: is not true. Basically, everything you've ever heard about forensic 336 00:16:30,800 --> 00:16:34,640 Speaker 1: science and fingerprint science is a lie. And outside of 337 00:16:34,640 --> 00:16:36,880 Speaker 1: stuff like fingerprints and blood, which do at least have 338 00:16:36,920 --> 00:16:39,360 Speaker 1: a basis in science, most of what is done in 339 00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:41,320 Speaker 1: the forensic field, or at least a lot of it, 340 00:16:41,360 --> 00:16:45,800 Speaker 1: has more in common with witchcraft than science. So I'm 341 00:16:45,840 --> 00:16:49,040 Speaker 1: starting with fingerprinting both because people should know that it 342 00:16:49,080 --> 00:16:51,720 Speaker 1: does not work the way they think it does, and 343 00:16:51,880 --> 00:16:55,160 Speaker 1: because it kind of kickstarts the field of forensic science 344 00:16:55,200 --> 00:16:57,920 Speaker 1: in the modern sense and in the US that starts 345 00:16:57,920 --> 00:17:01,360 Speaker 1: in nineteen eleven when fingerprinting first is used in a 346 00:17:01,440 --> 00:17:05,800 Speaker 1: court case. So unlike most of what we're talking today, again, 347 00:17:06,080 --> 00:17:08,840 Speaker 1: this does have real use in catching people who have 348 00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:12,320 Speaker 1: done bad things. The first case in which fingerprints were 349 00:17:12,359 --> 00:17:14,760 Speaker 1: introduced as evidence was the nineteen to ten trial of 350 00:17:14,840 --> 00:17:18,840 Speaker 1: Thomas Jennings, who was accused of murdering Clarence Hiller. And 351 00:17:18,880 --> 00:17:20,679 Speaker 1: I'm going to quote now from an article by General 352 00:17:20,760 --> 00:17:25,080 Speaker 1: Nuken in Issues in Science and Technology. Quote the defendant 353 00:17:25,160 --> 00:17:27,879 Speaker 1: was linked to the crime by some suspicious, circumstantial evidence, 354 00:17:27,920 --> 00:17:30,359 Speaker 1: but there was nothing definitive against him. However, the Hiller 355 00:17:30,400 --> 00:17:32,439 Speaker 1: family had just finished painting their house and on the 356 00:17:32,480 --> 00:17:34,879 Speaker 1: railing of their back porch. Four fingers of a left 357 00:17:34,880 --> 00:17:37,520 Speaker 1: hand had been imprinted in the still wet paint. The 358 00:17:37,520 --> 00:17:41,080 Speaker 1: prosecution wanted to introduce expert testimony, concluding that these fingerprints 359 00:17:41,080 --> 00:17:44,119 Speaker 1: belonged to none other than Thomas Jennings. Four witnesses from 360 00:17:44,240 --> 00:17:47,600 Speaker 1: various bureaus of identification testified for the prosecution, and all 361 00:17:47,640 --> 00:17:49,879 Speaker 1: concluded that the fingerprints on the rail were made by 362 00:17:49,880 --> 00:17:53,199 Speaker 1: the defendant's hand. The judge allowed their testimony and Jennings 363 00:17:53,280 --> 00:17:56,520 Speaker 1: was convicted. The defendant argued unsuccessfully on appeal that the 364 00:17:56,520 --> 00:17:59,959 Speaker 1: princes were improperly admitted, citing authorities such as the Encyclopedia 365 00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:03,600 Speaker 1: Britannica and a treatise on Handwriting identification. The court emphasized 366 00:18:03,640 --> 00:18:07,119 Speaker 1: that standard authorities on scientific subjects discussed the use of 367 00:18:07,160 --> 00:18:10,800 Speaker 1: fingerprints as a system of identification, concluding that experience has 368 00:18:10,800 --> 00:18:15,000 Speaker 1: shown it to be reliable, and you know, that's all good. 369 00:18:15,200 --> 00:18:18,440 Speaker 1: This is probably a case of fingerprinting being used to actually, 370 00:18:18,720 --> 00:18:23,040 Speaker 1: like convict a guy who did crime. You know, it's 371 00:18:23,080 --> 00:18:25,360 Speaker 1: interesting to me that human beings have pretty much always 372 00:18:25,400 --> 00:18:28,080 Speaker 1: known that there was potential in fingerprints as a method 373 00:18:28,160 --> 00:18:32,080 Speaker 1: of identification. The idea that they are unique to each 374 00:18:32,080 --> 00:18:37,359 Speaker 1: individual goes back very far. Ancient Babylonians used fingerprint indentations 375 00:18:37,400 --> 00:18:41,320 Speaker 1: as part of their records for business transactions. Yeah, but 376 00:18:41,400 --> 00:18:44,520 Speaker 1: fingerprinting didn't enter the criminal justice system in an organized 377 00:18:44,560 --> 00:18:47,960 Speaker 1: way until the mid eighteen hundreds. Like most innovations in 378 00:18:48,000 --> 00:18:50,800 Speaker 1: criminal justice, it was first tested by the British raj 379 00:18:50,920 --> 00:18:54,000 Speaker 1: in India, initially as part of like a fraud prevention measure. 380 00:18:54,119 --> 00:18:54,320 Speaker 2: Right. 381 00:18:54,760 --> 00:18:56,920 Speaker 1: A major breakthrough came a few years later in the 382 00:18:56,960 --> 00:19:00,800 Speaker 1: eighteen seventies, courtesy of a Scottish doctor, him Falds, who 383 00:19:00,800 --> 00:19:04,480 Speaker 1: was a missionary in Japan. Falds started inking his coworker's 384 00:19:04,520 --> 00:19:08,040 Speaker 1: fingerprints after noticing fingerprints trapped in two thousand year old 385 00:19:08,080 --> 00:19:11,560 Speaker 1: pottery shirts. This led to the first recorded case of 386 00:19:11,600 --> 00:19:14,720 Speaker 1: a solved crime due to fingerprints. One of his employees 387 00:19:14,800 --> 00:19:17,000 Speaker 1: was stealing booze from the hospital and drinking it from 388 00:19:17,040 --> 00:19:19,800 Speaker 1: a beaker. Falds found a print on the glass and 389 00:19:19,840 --> 00:19:22,560 Speaker 1: matched it to the culprit. That is apparently the first time. 390 00:19:24,080 --> 00:19:28,320 Speaker 3: Crime whom's amongst us in medicine does not occasionally use 391 00:19:28,320 --> 00:19:31,120 Speaker 3: a beaker for that purpose. Come on, yeah, it's a crime. Now, 392 00:19:31,280 --> 00:19:31,879 Speaker 3: that's a crime. 393 00:19:32,840 --> 00:19:37,080 Speaker 1: It's bullshit, It's this is the first great injustice caused 394 00:19:37,080 --> 00:19:39,080 Speaker 1: by finger printing exactly. 395 00:19:39,359 --> 00:19:41,639 Speaker 3: You know, it's interesting to hear this because it's like, 396 00:19:42,160 --> 00:19:44,240 Speaker 3: you know, we talked about some of the forensic signed 397 00:19:44,280 --> 00:19:46,879 Speaker 3: stuff before, like the stuff I'm a little more familiar with, 398 00:19:46,880 --> 00:19:50,520 Speaker 3: like DNA and toxicology. The reason I know about those 399 00:19:50,600 --> 00:19:53,280 Speaker 3: is because they're kind of born out of like research, 400 00:19:53,560 --> 00:19:57,639 Speaker 3: out of like universities, hospitals, peer reviewed journals, et cetera. 401 00:19:57,760 --> 00:19:59,879 Speaker 3: But like some of these other things seem like they're 402 00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:04,119 Speaker 3: born out of like law enforcement, which is like a 403 00:20:04,160 --> 00:20:05,360 Speaker 3: big difference. It feels like. 404 00:20:05,920 --> 00:20:09,879 Speaker 1: And fundamentally not scientific. And even when they're quote unquote 405 00:20:10,240 --> 00:20:14,199 Speaker 1: using science, their goal is not scientific because it's always 406 00:20:14,200 --> 00:20:17,040 Speaker 1: starting from a I there's a crime, and I need 407 00:20:17,080 --> 00:20:19,639 Speaker 1: to identify who did it, and usually I think it, 408 00:20:19,800 --> 00:20:21,560 Speaker 1: I know who did it, and I'm trying to find 409 00:20:21,560 --> 00:20:24,040 Speaker 1: evidence to prove it. That's gonna be one of the 410 00:20:24,080 --> 00:20:28,240 Speaker 1: recurrent problems in this field. Not with every case, but 411 00:20:28,280 --> 00:20:31,960 Speaker 1: it's it's pretty frequent, so fouls. He's kind of like 412 00:20:32,000 --> 00:20:35,520 Speaker 1: the first real like a person who's trying to study 413 00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:39,000 Speaker 1: fingerprints like in an actual scientific measure, and he does 414 00:20:39,040 --> 00:20:41,480 Speaker 1: some cool stuff. He like scrapes the ridges off of 415 00:20:41,520 --> 00:20:44,280 Speaker 1: his fingertips and then waits for them to grow back, 416 00:20:44,359 --> 00:20:47,119 Speaker 1: and fingerprints himself again to confirm that if you like 417 00:20:47,320 --> 00:20:49,880 Speaker 1: fuck up your fingerprints, they grow back the same way. 418 00:20:50,880 --> 00:20:53,760 Speaker 1: He's the guy who like found that children's fingerprints remain 419 00:20:53,800 --> 00:20:56,800 Speaker 1: the same as they grow up. And in eighteen eighty 420 00:20:56,840 --> 00:20:59,120 Speaker 1: he wrote a letter to the journal Nature and suggested 421 00:20:59,160 --> 00:21:02,320 Speaker 1: that police should use fingerprints to identify suspects. And again 422 00:21:02,520 --> 00:21:04,960 Speaker 1: this is not initially like a in order to catch them. 423 00:21:05,040 --> 00:21:07,360 Speaker 1: It's more of like a when you have people arrested, 424 00:21:07,359 --> 00:21:09,280 Speaker 1: we can do fingerprints and that can help us, like 425 00:21:09,720 --> 00:21:13,720 Speaker 1: you know, sort through people. The idea, though, of using 426 00:21:13,720 --> 00:21:15,720 Speaker 1: them as part of in like a forensic sense, starts 427 00:21:15,760 --> 00:21:17,960 Speaker 1: to pick up steam, and in eighteen ninety two a 428 00:21:18,000 --> 00:21:21,520 Speaker 1: eugenicist and scientists named Sir Francis Galton publishes a book 429 00:21:21,560 --> 00:21:25,320 Speaker 1: called Fingerprints, which outlines the first attempt at a scientific 430 00:21:25,359 --> 00:21:29,119 Speaker 1: classification of fingerprints based on patterns of arches, loops and 431 00:21:29,200 --> 00:21:33,200 Speaker 1: whirls now. Around the same time, this French cop named 432 00:21:33,240 --> 00:21:36,720 Speaker 1: Bertillon developed his own method of measuring people's bodies in 433 00:21:36,800 --> 00:21:39,320 Speaker 1: order to identify criminals. And as you might have guessed, 434 00:21:39,400 --> 00:21:42,080 Speaker 1: the science of fingerprinting has always been deeply tied to 435 00:21:42,160 --> 00:21:46,120 Speaker 1: scientific racism, as these guys all believe that, like, criminals 436 00:21:46,160 --> 00:21:50,399 Speaker 1: have physiological differences from law abiding citizens, right Bertolan's measuring 437 00:21:50,480 --> 00:21:53,280 Speaker 1: people's bodies straight, Like, how can you tell from measurements 438 00:21:53,280 --> 00:21:54,880 Speaker 1: if someone's going to commit crimes? 439 00:21:54,960 --> 00:21:58,040 Speaker 2: You know what does look like? Exactly? 440 00:21:58,119 --> 00:21:59,880 Speaker 1: Like these beliefs go hand in hand with the idea 441 00:22:00,000 --> 00:22:03,040 Speaker 1: that some races are more inclined to criminality than others. 442 00:22:03,600 --> 00:22:06,360 Speaker 1: But as is always the case with this kind of science, 443 00:22:06,440 --> 00:22:09,760 Speaker 1: you have this mix of like stuff that's absolute races togwash, 444 00:22:09,840 --> 00:22:12,439 Speaker 1: and actual science. And some of what they're doing and 445 00:22:12,480 --> 00:22:16,720 Speaker 1: trying to like classify fingerprints is actual science and is rigorous. 446 00:22:17,400 --> 00:22:20,600 Speaker 1: The classification system for fingerprints that wins out at the 447 00:22:20,720 --> 00:22:23,480 Speaker 1: end of the nineteenth century is a modification of Galton's. 448 00:22:23,840 --> 00:22:26,440 Speaker 1: It was tested by British police in India and adopted 449 00:22:26,440 --> 00:22:29,840 Speaker 1: by Scotland yard in nineteen oh one. Fingerprints were accepted 450 00:22:29,880 --> 00:22:32,200 Speaker 1: for the first time in English courts in nineteen oh two, 451 00:22:32,640 --> 00:22:34,639 Speaker 1: and of course, the first recorded court case in the 452 00:22:34,760 --> 00:22:37,760 Speaker 1: US using fingerprint evidence is like nineteen ten and nineteen 453 00:22:37,800 --> 00:22:41,879 Speaker 1: eleven is previously discussed. By the mid century fingerprinting has 454 00:22:41,880 --> 00:22:45,720 Speaker 1: cemented itself as the most scientific and unimpeachable tool for 455 00:22:45,800 --> 00:22:49,320 Speaker 1: confirming guilt. A whole industry of experts grows up alongside 456 00:22:49,400 --> 00:22:51,560 Speaker 1: the discipline, and hundreds of men and women begin to 457 00:22:51,640 --> 00:22:55,080 Speaker 1: make their careers as experts on fingerprinting for the police 458 00:22:55,080 --> 00:22:58,520 Speaker 1: and the court system. In case studies published in scientific 459 00:22:58,600 --> 00:23:02,159 Speaker 1: journals and in statements to the mess these experts reinforced 460 00:23:02,160 --> 00:23:06,520 Speaker 1: the idea that fingerprinting was a hard, objective science. Manuken writes, 461 00:23:06,600 --> 00:23:11,520 Speaker 1: quote writers on fingerprinting routinely emphasized that fingerprint identification could 462 00:23:11,520 --> 00:23:14,680 Speaker 1: not be erroneous, Unlike so much other expert evidence, which 463 00:23:14,720 --> 00:23:18,320 Speaker 1: could be and generally was disputed by other qualified experts, 464 00:23:18,600 --> 00:23:22,879 Speaker 1: fingerprint examiners seemed always to agree generally, the defendants and 465 00:23:22,960 --> 00:23:26,160 Speaker 1: fingerprinting cases did not offer fingerprint experts of their own, 466 00:23:26,280 --> 00:23:29,960 Speaker 1: Because no one challenged fingerprinting in court, either its theoretical 467 00:23:30,000 --> 00:23:33,080 Speaker 1: foundations or, for the most part, the operation of the technique. 468 00:23:33,080 --> 00:23:37,200 Speaker 1: In that particular instance, it seemed especially powerful. The idea 469 00:23:37,240 --> 00:23:40,639 Speaker 1: that fingerprints could provide definite matches was not contested in court. 470 00:23:40,920 --> 00:23:43,359 Speaker 1: In the early trials in which fingerprints were introduced, some 471 00:23:43,440 --> 00:23:46,680 Speaker 1: defendants argued that fingerprinting was not a legitimate form of evidence, 472 00:23:47,040 --> 00:23:49,880 Speaker 1: but typically defendants did not introduce fingerprint experts of their 473 00:23:49,880 --> 00:23:53,639 Speaker 1: own fingerprinting, thus avoided the spectacle of clashing experts on 474 00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:57,040 Speaker 1: both sides of a case whose contradictory testimony befuddled jurors 475 00:23:57,040 --> 00:24:00,520 Speaker 1: and frustrated judges. And so you see why this is 476 00:24:00,560 --> 00:24:03,239 Speaker 1: so powerful, Right, every other kind of expert you might 477 00:24:03,280 --> 00:24:05,439 Speaker 1: bring into a court case, there could be a counter 478 00:24:05,560 --> 00:24:09,520 Speaker 1: expert to say, here's another explanation. But if fingerprinting is 479 00:24:09,520 --> 00:24:12,639 Speaker 1: a hard science, there can't be It's like DNA, right, 480 00:24:12,680 --> 00:24:14,720 Speaker 1: you wouldn't have there can't be two opinions on whether 481 00:24:14,800 --> 00:24:16,760 Speaker 1: or not someone's DNA matches right exactly. 482 00:24:16,880 --> 00:24:17,120 Speaker 2: Yeah. 483 00:24:17,240 --> 00:24:20,080 Speaker 3: No, I mean, like the if I have the facts 484 00:24:20,160 --> 00:24:21,800 Speaker 3: right about the OJ Simpson case. That was part of 485 00:24:21,840 --> 00:24:24,320 Speaker 3: the problem is that the defense never actually had their 486 00:24:24,320 --> 00:24:27,280 Speaker 3: own DNA expert because I don't think they could find 487 00:24:27,280 --> 00:24:30,520 Speaker 3: someone that would do it. But this is like, this 488 00:24:30,600 --> 00:24:34,960 Speaker 3: is a major issue in general nowadays. Maybe forever you 489 00:24:35,040 --> 00:24:37,800 Speaker 3: have someone who seems like a very authoritative figure, maybe 490 00:24:37,800 --> 00:24:39,760 Speaker 3: they have some titles behind their name, they speak in 491 00:24:39,760 --> 00:24:42,800 Speaker 3: a certain way. Listen to my podcast recent episode about 492 00:24:42,800 --> 00:24:45,800 Speaker 3: Andrew Huberman, for example, and they seem like a very 493 00:24:45,920 --> 00:24:49,119 Speaker 3: learned man of books and they can it's who's a 494 00:24:49,200 --> 00:24:51,359 Speaker 3: jury to say at that point, Well, this person seems 495 00:24:51,400 --> 00:24:54,280 Speaker 3: to know what they're saying. This person seems very worldly 496 00:24:54,320 --> 00:24:56,879 Speaker 3: and intelligent, and they seem to be an expert, and 497 00:24:57,000 --> 00:24:59,320 Speaker 3: they're they're the authority on it. So yeah, okay, yeah, 498 00:24:59,400 --> 00:25:01,119 Speaker 3: obviously this is the person that did the crime. 499 00:25:01,359 --> 00:25:05,639 Speaker 1: Yeah, And that is like, that's what happens, right, And 500 00:25:06,040 --> 00:25:09,240 Speaker 1: it's it's this kind of ce change in the way 501 00:25:09,280 --> 00:25:12,640 Speaker 1: that the justice system works, because suddenly you have this 502 00:25:12,760 --> 00:25:15,440 Speaker 1: thing that is in a total class of its own 503 00:25:15,760 --> 00:25:19,120 Speaker 1: as far as evidence goes. Right, Now, here's the thing. 504 00:25:19,720 --> 00:25:22,639 Speaker 1: Fingerprinting is not like DNA analysis and never and by 505 00:25:22,640 --> 00:25:25,120 Speaker 1: the way, DNA analysis, while it is real and does 506 00:25:25,160 --> 00:25:27,919 Speaker 1: work quite well, also isn't perfect. There are errors, people 507 00:25:27,960 --> 00:25:30,119 Speaker 1: make mistakes, there are a mistaken you know that that 508 00:25:30,440 --> 00:25:32,560 Speaker 1: is a thing that can happen. But it is an 509 00:25:32,560 --> 00:25:36,600 Speaker 1: objective science, right, Like there's a lot of study on that. 510 00:25:37,480 --> 00:25:42,159 Speaker 1: The fingerprints analysis is not an objective science in the 511 00:25:42,160 --> 00:25:45,280 Speaker 1: way that you would consider anything from like medical science 512 00:25:45,320 --> 00:25:47,680 Speaker 1: to be an objective science. One of the pieces of 513 00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:51,320 Speaker 1: evidence for that is that there are no like from 514 00:25:51,400 --> 00:25:57,320 Speaker 1: state to state, what counts as a fingerprint ID differs wildly, right. 515 00:25:57,880 --> 00:26:01,879 Speaker 1: So there's a case Daubert that is kind of the 516 00:26:01,920 --> 00:26:06,520 Speaker 1: case that currently establishes like what counts as science when 517 00:26:06,520 --> 00:26:10,400 Speaker 1: you're like introducing expert evidence into court, right, And under 518 00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:13,879 Speaker 1: the Daubert judgment, judges are supposed to examine whether or not, 519 00:26:14,200 --> 00:26:16,560 Speaker 1: like judge, whether or not something can be admitted based 520 00:26:16,600 --> 00:26:19,480 Speaker 1: on whether or not the expert evidence has been adequately tested, 521 00:26:19,800 --> 00:26:21,600 Speaker 1: if it has a known error rate, and if there's 522 00:26:21,640 --> 00:26:25,480 Speaker 1: standards and techniques that like control the operation right, subject 523 00:26:25,480 --> 00:26:30,040 Speaker 1: to peer review, right, which sounds reasonable. But judges are 524 00:26:30,040 --> 00:26:36,359 Speaker 1: not scientists, right, and they often mistake stuff that sounds 525 00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:39,840 Speaker 1: like evidence of peer review but really isn't. And some 526 00:26:39,880 --> 00:26:42,320 Speaker 1: of the evidence for this is that, like fingerprinting, examiners 527 00:26:42,359 --> 00:26:44,879 Speaker 1: often use point counting, which is a method where you 528 00:26:45,400 --> 00:26:48,479 Speaker 1: count the number of ridge characteristics on the prints in 529 00:26:48,600 --> 00:26:51,640 Speaker 1: order to like say these are identical prints. But there 530 00:26:51,720 --> 00:26:54,920 Speaker 1: is no nationally recognized fixed requirement for how many points 531 00:26:54,920 --> 00:26:57,879 Speaker 1: of similarity are needed. Some states at six, some states 532 00:26:57,880 --> 00:27:01,919 Speaker 1: it's nine, some states it's twelve. That's not science, yea. 533 00:27:03,240 --> 00:27:05,879 Speaker 3: And I'm so glad you brought up error rate studies. 534 00:27:06,200 --> 00:27:08,359 Speaker 3: It's sort of like an important part of like determining 535 00:27:08,400 --> 00:27:10,720 Speaker 3: if a test will be a good one or not, 536 00:27:10,840 --> 00:27:14,560 Speaker 3: you know. And it feels like judges are not a lawyer, 537 00:27:14,600 --> 00:27:17,679 Speaker 3: but it feels that judges are more likely to allow 538 00:27:17,800 --> 00:27:20,080 Speaker 3: evidence to come in even if it's sort of questionable, 539 00:27:20,240 --> 00:27:24,160 Speaker 3: because they're worried about maybe like excluding something that would 540 00:27:24,160 --> 00:27:27,000 Speaker 3: be important, so they'll allow it to go in. Yeah, 541 00:27:27,240 --> 00:27:29,600 Speaker 3: even if it's sort of like they don't understand the science. 542 00:27:30,440 --> 00:27:32,640 Speaker 3: My guess is they would be more willing to allow 543 00:27:32,680 --> 00:27:34,960 Speaker 3: it than to be strict about excluding it unless they 544 00:27:35,040 --> 00:27:36,280 Speaker 3: understood the science really well. 545 00:27:36,920 --> 00:27:39,200 Speaker 1: Yeah, And the problem is that like all of these 546 00:27:39,200 --> 00:27:43,080 Speaker 1: people have really impressive sounding credentials and they are a 547 00:27:43,200 --> 00:27:46,720 Speaker 1: part of what appear to be scientific bodies, and in fact, 548 00:27:46,960 --> 00:27:48,399 Speaker 1: in a lot of cases we'll talk about some of 549 00:27:48,400 --> 00:27:51,680 Speaker 1: these organizations are bodies that a lot of what they 550 00:27:51,720 --> 00:27:56,520 Speaker 1: do is scientific, but there's just not actually oversight, right, 551 00:27:56,600 --> 00:27:59,280 Speaker 1: Like Minuchin sums up kind of the current state of 552 00:27:59,280 --> 00:28:03,000 Speaker 1: how like messy as well. When they write local practices 553 00:28:03,119 --> 00:28:07,040 Speaker 1: vary and no established minimum or norm exists. Others reject 554 00:28:07,119 --> 00:28:10,000 Speaker 1: point counting for a more holistic approach. Either way, there 555 00:28:10,000 --> 00:28:13,240 Speaker 1: are no generally agreed upon standards for determining precisely when 556 00:28:13,240 --> 00:28:16,600 Speaker 1: to declare match. Although fingerprint experts insist that a qualified 557 00:28:16,600 --> 00:28:19,439 Speaker 1: expert can infalliably know when two fingerprints match, there is 558 00:28:19,480 --> 00:28:23,080 Speaker 1: in fact no carefully articulated protocol for ensuring that different 559 00:28:23,080 --> 00:28:26,400 Speaker 1: experts reach the same conclusion. And that's a problem, right. 560 00:28:26,880 --> 00:28:30,800 Speaker 1: It imagined if like cancer diagnosis worked this way, if 561 00:28:30,840 --> 00:28:33,040 Speaker 1: like every hospital was like, well, this is what we 562 00:28:33,160 --> 00:28:34,720 Speaker 1: consider cancers. 563 00:28:34,880 --> 00:28:37,119 Speaker 2: You know, I mean, you know. 564 00:28:37,920 --> 00:28:39,840 Speaker 3: Also part of the thing is this, to some degree, 565 00:28:39,960 --> 00:28:42,480 Speaker 3: there is uncertainty in medicine. Like say, if you had 566 00:28:42,480 --> 00:28:45,680 Speaker 3: a pathology report and you take a biopsy of something 567 00:28:45,680 --> 00:28:46,880 Speaker 3: and sure all just looks at it. 568 00:28:46,920 --> 00:28:47,959 Speaker 2: They do have criteria. 569 00:28:48,200 --> 00:28:49,920 Speaker 3: They have to be like, okay, there're a certain amount 570 00:28:49,960 --> 00:28:52,800 Speaker 3: of these types of cells I'm seeing and if there's 571 00:28:52,800 --> 00:28:54,920 Speaker 3: a question, then they reach out to someone else to 572 00:28:55,040 --> 00:28:57,360 Speaker 3: review it, and second, you know, and look over it. 573 00:28:57,520 --> 00:29:01,240 Speaker 2: But that is known to us. We're known. 574 00:29:01,240 --> 00:29:03,560 Speaker 3: They're like, okay, this is the degree of certainty we 575 00:29:03,640 --> 00:29:05,600 Speaker 3: have here. It's not one hundred percent, but this is 576 00:29:05,640 --> 00:29:08,160 Speaker 3: what we have. And sometimes that happens, so there's a 577 00:29:08,200 --> 00:29:10,920 Speaker 3: transparency there that's important, you know what I mean. 578 00:29:11,160 --> 00:29:14,080 Speaker 1: And likewise, you know, there is a science within the 579 00:29:14,120 --> 00:29:18,040 Speaker 1: approach of fingerprint analysis because people have fingerprints, and we know, 580 00:29:18,560 --> 00:29:21,240 Speaker 1: you know, they're generally unique to each person, you know, 581 00:29:21,360 --> 00:29:24,880 Speaker 1: based on the best data that we have. But these 582 00:29:24,920 --> 00:29:27,520 Speaker 1: people are not getting up and saying, you know, based 583 00:29:27,560 --> 00:29:32,320 Speaker 1: on this established, you know framework that is universally agreed upon, 584 00:29:32,840 --> 00:29:35,760 Speaker 1: there's this percentage of likelihood that this is a yes, 585 00:29:35,800 --> 00:29:38,640 Speaker 1: they're saying, I can tell as an expert, this is 586 00:29:38,680 --> 00:29:39,719 Speaker 1: infalliably amassed. 587 00:29:39,960 --> 00:29:42,360 Speaker 3: Right, it's so much more valuable as an expert. 588 00:29:42,200 --> 00:29:46,560 Speaker 1: Right, right, Yeah, it's and it's messy. So fingerprinting takes 589 00:29:46,600 --> 00:29:48,720 Speaker 1: off like and again, you know, the fact that this 590 00:29:48,960 --> 00:29:51,800 Speaker 1: is really deeply flawed and fucks a lot of people 591 00:29:51,800 --> 00:29:53,760 Speaker 1: over it doesn't mean that's what it does in the 592 00:29:53,760 --> 00:29:56,400 Speaker 1: majority of cases. Right, I'm not saying that, I actually 593 00:29:56,440 --> 00:30:01,080 Speaker 1: kind of suspected the majority of cases it's reasonably good, right, 594 00:30:01,600 --> 00:30:03,840 Speaker 1: But that still leaves a lot of people to fall 595 00:30:03,840 --> 00:30:06,560 Speaker 1: through the cracks and get their lives ruined by imperfect 596 00:30:07,120 --> 00:30:12,720 Speaker 1: and badly applied scientific reasoning. There was no serious questioning 597 00:30:12,720 --> 00:30:15,600 Speaker 1: of fingerprinting as a method of forensic science until the 598 00:30:15,680 --> 00:30:18,600 Speaker 1: end of the twentieth century, when DNA profiling began to 599 00:30:18,680 --> 00:30:22,640 Speaker 1: enter common use. This questioning started, ironically, with questions by 600 00:30:22,720 --> 00:30:26,400 Speaker 1: defendants as to the legitimacy of DNA matches. Right, so, 601 00:30:27,000 --> 00:30:30,080 Speaker 1: DNA evidence starts being introduced in court cases, and because 602 00:30:30,120 --> 00:30:32,880 Speaker 1: the science is so new and is not as straightforward 603 00:30:32,960 --> 00:30:36,240 Speaker 1: to understand as matching to fingerprints, there's a lot more 604 00:30:36,280 --> 00:30:39,120 Speaker 1: debate and debate in court cases about what it means 605 00:30:39,160 --> 00:30:41,560 Speaker 1: to match DNA samples and how likely it is that 606 00:30:41,600 --> 00:30:44,200 Speaker 1: such matches might be made in error. And that kind 607 00:30:44,240 --> 00:30:46,720 Speaker 1: of causes some people to go, did we ever subject 608 00:30:46,720 --> 00:30:50,680 Speaker 1: fingerprinting to this level of scrutiny? Perhaps we should, We 609 00:30:50,800 --> 00:30:54,200 Speaker 1: might want to look into this sum you know, because 610 00:30:54,240 --> 00:30:56,280 Speaker 1: it hadn't had to answer these questions. 611 00:30:55,920 --> 00:30:56,280 Speaker 2: Right it was. 612 00:30:56,680 --> 00:30:59,440 Speaker 3: I mean not to say that Western medicine and universities 613 00:30:59,440 --> 00:31:01,040 Speaker 3: and all the stuff I'm used to is like the 614 00:31:01,120 --> 00:31:03,719 Speaker 3: end all be all, but because again, it didn't come 615 00:31:03,760 --> 00:31:05,760 Speaker 3: out of those places where it was already a part 616 00:31:05,760 --> 00:31:08,280 Speaker 3: of the process, you know, it was baked into it. 617 00:31:08,840 --> 00:31:11,040 Speaker 1: And by the way, it's good that DNA matching was 618 00:31:11,080 --> 00:31:14,520 Speaker 1: subject to a lot of scrutiny. Everything should when people's 619 00:31:14,560 --> 00:31:16,120 Speaker 1: lives are on the line exactly. 620 00:31:16,240 --> 00:31:16,520 Speaker 2: Yeah. 621 00:31:16,600 --> 00:31:19,640 Speaker 1: Yeah, So the sheer act of publicly debating the matter 622 00:31:19,680 --> 00:31:22,880 Speaker 1: brings new scrutiny to fingerprinting, and once DNA science was 623 00:31:22,960 --> 00:31:25,360 Speaker 1: accepted because it is the best thing we've got, and 624 00:31:25,400 --> 00:31:27,480 Speaker 1: that when it comes to this sort of stuff, it 625 00:31:27,520 --> 00:31:29,920 Speaker 1: helps to ignite a new series of questions as to 626 00:31:29,960 --> 00:31:32,800 Speaker 1: whether or not fingerprinting was as rock solid a discipline 627 00:31:32,800 --> 00:31:36,320 Speaker 1: as its expert practitioners claimed. One of the first things 628 00:31:36,360 --> 00:31:38,800 Speaker 1: you'll hear, and I'm sure everyone listening to this podcast 629 00:31:38,880 --> 00:31:42,320 Speaker 1: has heard, the claim, no two people have the same fingerprints. 630 00:31:42,520 --> 00:31:45,720 Speaker 1: Right now, how would you prove that? 631 00:31:46,920 --> 00:31:50,160 Speaker 3: I mean, I suppose you would have to do a 632 00:31:50,200 --> 00:31:53,080 Speaker 3: ton of testing and you would have to test a 633 00:31:53,120 --> 00:31:56,840 Speaker 3: bunch of people and see if there is any people 634 00:31:56,920 --> 00:31:58,800 Speaker 3: that have the same one, and you'd have to have 635 00:31:58,840 --> 00:32:02,200 Speaker 3: a pretty big n number of people involved in the 636 00:32:02,200 --> 00:32:03,560 Speaker 3: study to prove it. 637 00:32:03,560 --> 00:32:07,400 Speaker 1: It doesn't really exist now. It is based on the 638 00:32:07,440 --> 00:32:10,440 Speaker 1: sheer number of people who have been fingerprinted, very likely 639 00:32:10,560 --> 00:32:14,400 Speaker 1: that fingerprints are unique. But this is just common wisdom 640 00:32:14,480 --> 00:32:17,680 Speaker 1: that started being said. It isn't something that was introduced 641 00:32:17,720 --> 00:32:20,600 Speaker 1: that people started claiming because they had done a big study. 642 00:32:20,800 --> 00:32:24,440 Speaker 1: Right again, the sheer length of time that we have 643 00:32:24,440 --> 00:32:27,320 Speaker 1: been doing finger printing. Pretty likely that this is the case, 644 00:32:27,440 --> 00:32:30,080 Speaker 1: But it was not something people started saying because they 645 00:32:30,080 --> 00:32:32,040 Speaker 1: had a good fucking reason to say it. It was 646 00:32:32,080 --> 00:32:36,320 Speaker 1: something people started claiming as an advertising method, right, interesting, 647 00:32:36,600 --> 00:32:38,880 Speaker 1: And the fact that it is likely true doesn't mean 648 00:32:38,880 --> 00:32:41,720 Speaker 1: that that's not kind of sketchy, right, And we're dealing 649 00:32:41,760 --> 00:32:46,720 Speaker 1: with people's lives again again, Yeah, exactly, Speaking of advertising 650 00:32:46,760 --> 00:32:51,760 Speaker 1: and sketchy, it's about time. Yeah, this podcast is supported 651 00:32:52,080 --> 00:32:59,200 Speaker 1: entirely by the concept of DNA. DNA, get some welding again, 652 00:32:59,640 --> 00:33:02,760 Speaker 1: do be a silicon based life form? No, you're not 653 00:33:02,960 --> 00:33:04,960 Speaker 1: gonna be one of those Like if you do get 654 00:33:04,960 --> 00:33:08,560 Speaker 1: one of those like spit into a thing. M hm, oh, 655 00:33:08,600 --> 00:33:11,280 Speaker 1: don't do those things people. Those things are bullshit. Are 656 00:33:11,320 --> 00:33:13,960 Speaker 1: you sell your fucking data to somebody's. 657 00:33:13,560 --> 00:33:16,240 Speaker 3: Schedule that wasn't our fault? 658 00:33:17,000 --> 00:33:18,560 Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah. 659 00:33:18,760 --> 00:33:20,880 Speaker 1: Also, I might take their money in the future, but 660 00:33:20,920 --> 00:33:32,479 Speaker 1: it's bullshit. You know, it's bullshit. Ah, We're back, And 661 00:33:32,640 --> 00:33:34,360 Speaker 1: I just want to say to our listeners who are 662 00:33:34,400 --> 00:33:38,120 Speaker 1: silicon based life forms, I actually I don't have any 663 00:33:38,120 --> 00:33:41,200 Speaker 1: issue with silicon based life you know, I'm a big 664 00:33:41,280 --> 00:33:44,200 Speaker 1: rock Monster fan. I think you guys should have the 665 00:33:44,200 --> 00:33:46,800 Speaker 1: same rights that the rest of us have. I'm looking 666 00:33:46,840 --> 00:33:48,800 Speaker 1: forward to our first rock monster president. 667 00:33:48,920 --> 00:33:49,080 Speaker 2: You know. 668 00:33:49,160 --> 00:33:51,480 Speaker 1: I assume it'll be like the guy from Galaxy Quest, 669 00:33:51,880 --> 00:33:53,360 Speaker 1: and I think that would be a lot better for 670 00:33:53,400 --> 00:33:56,440 Speaker 1: this country. To be honest, man, say they wouldn't prefer 671 00:33:56,480 --> 00:33:59,080 Speaker 1: a rock monster to the choices we're currently looking at. 672 00:34:00,080 --> 00:34:04,280 Speaker 3: Yeah, better, Uh, rock or I was looking for a 673 00:34:04,320 --> 00:34:06,880 Speaker 3: red or or dead sort of thing. Yeah, I couldn't 674 00:34:06,880 --> 00:34:10,600 Speaker 3: with rock or rock or you suck. 675 00:34:11,520 --> 00:34:11,759 Speaker 2: Yeah. 676 00:34:12,000 --> 00:34:13,480 Speaker 1: I don't think he's going to be able to like 677 00:34:13,520 --> 00:34:16,160 Speaker 1: accomplish a lot proactively, but I do think if we 678 00:34:16,160 --> 00:34:18,640 Speaker 1: were to let a rock monster loose in Congress, it 679 00:34:18,680 --> 00:34:20,880 Speaker 1: would be generally good for everyone. 680 00:34:21,360 --> 00:34:25,879 Speaker 3: It's the little things, just like that scene and utt things, 681 00:34:27,239 --> 00:34:27,920 Speaker 3: that's the simple. 682 00:34:30,960 --> 00:34:32,879 Speaker 1: Everybody in that movie knocks it out of the park, 683 00:34:33,320 --> 00:34:35,120 Speaker 1: even Tim Allen, and I hate Tim. 684 00:34:34,880 --> 00:34:38,239 Speaker 3: Allen exactly, I thought the same exact thing. 685 00:34:39,680 --> 00:34:42,359 Speaker 1: Anyway. I can already hear some people saying, you know, 686 00:34:43,320 --> 00:34:46,680 Speaker 1: I get that the whole finger every fingerprint is unique 687 00:34:46,680 --> 00:34:49,440 Speaker 1: thing isn't something that you can conclusively prove, But you 688 00:34:49,680 --> 00:34:53,200 Speaker 1: just admitted it's probably true. You're just kind of splitting 689 00:34:53,239 --> 00:34:56,040 Speaker 1: hairs by complaining about experts claiming that they're sure of something, 690 00:34:56,080 --> 00:34:58,560 Speaker 1: and I don't think I am splitting hairs here. The 691 00:34:58,719 --> 00:35:01,919 Speaker 1: power of fingerprinting in criminal justice system comes from its 692 00:35:02,040 --> 00:35:08,040 Speaker 1: presumed unimpeachability. People have been killed repeatedly in large numbers 693 00:35:08,080 --> 00:35:11,640 Speaker 1: on the certainty that fingerprint analysts know what they're doing, 694 00:35:12,080 --> 00:35:15,000 Speaker 1: and we have data that shows they often don't. Here's 695 00:35:15,000 --> 00:35:19,799 Speaker 1: Minucan again quote. Although some FBI proficiency tests show examiners 696 00:35:19,800 --> 00:35:22,960 Speaker 1: making few or no errors, these tests have been criticized 697 00:35:23,000 --> 00:35:27,759 Speaker 1: even by other fingerprint examiners as unrealistically easy. Other proficiency 698 00:35:27,760 --> 00:35:31,800 Speaker 1: tests shown more disturbing results. In one nineteen ninety five tests, 699 00:35:32,000 --> 00:35:35,279 Speaker 1: thirty four percent of test takers made an erroneous identification. 700 00:35:35,719 --> 00:35:39,080 Speaker 1: Especially when an examiner evaluates a partial, latent print, a 701 00:35:39,120 --> 00:35:42,879 Speaker 1: print that may be smudged, distorted, and incomplete, it is impossible, 702 00:35:42,920 --> 00:35:45,280 Speaker 1: on the basis of our current knowledge to have any 703 00:35:45,400 --> 00:35:47,640 Speaker 1: real idea of how likely she is to make an 704 00:35:47,640 --> 00:35:52,799 Speaker 1: honest mistake. And maybe it's much lew, but honestly, if 705 00:35:52,880 --> 00:35:56,239 Speaker 1: ten percent of the time an average fingerprint examiner is 706 00:35:56,280 --> 00:36:00,399 Speaker 1: fucking up, that's a sizeable error rates, especially if your 707 00:36:00,440 --> 00:36:03,440 Speaker 1: life is some line you know and thirty four percent 708 00:36:03,560 --> 00:36:04,640 Speaker 1: is real fucking bad. 709 00:36:05,360 --> 00:36:06,880 Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a big number. 710 00:36:07,280 --> 00:36:09,560 Speaker 1: I mean, this is fine if you are making this 711 00:36:09,719 --> 00:36:12,719 Speaker 1: kind of data aware, if the jury is aware of it, 712 00:36:12,800 --> 00:36:14,560 Speaker 1: and if you were saying stuff like, you know, we 713 00:36:14,680 --> 00:36:17,799 Speaker 1: got some imperfect fingerprints and they suggest it might be 714 00:36:17,840 --> 00:36:21,120 Speaker 1: this person, but our level of confidence is maybe fifty 715 00:36:21,200 --> 00:36:23,279 Speaker 1: nine percent or whatever, right that, So we think that 716 00:36:23,400 --> 00:36:25,799 Speaker 1: it's likely, but we can't prove it. You give that 717 00:36:25,840 --> 00:36:29,200 Speaker 1: information to a jury, I think a reasonably intelligent person 718 00:36:29,640 --> 00:36:32,840 Speaker 1: can put that in context with other evidence. That's not 719 00:36:32,960 --> 00:36:34,520 Speaker 1: how it's presented a lot of the time. 720 00:36:34,719 --> 00:36:36,600 Speaker 3: You don't have to throw it out. I mean, you 721 00:36:36,640 --> 00:36:38,640 Speaker 3: should use it, but we need to at least know 722 00:36:38,680 --> 00:36:41,480 Speaker 3: the limitations of it, at least be yes transparent with 723 00:36:41,560 --> 00:36:43,759 Speaker 3: the science or lack thereof behind it. 724 00:36:44,160 --> 00:36:45,920 Speaker 1: And this is where we get to the problem where 725 00:36:46,040 --> 00:36:49,319 Speaker 1: there's not a lot of counter experts and while when 726 00:36:49,320 --> 00:36:51,600 Speaker 1: there are, it's because someone has the money to pay 727 00:36:51,600 --> 00:36:54,000 Speaker 1: for them. So the people who do not have the 728 00:36:54,040 --> 00:36:57,680 Speaker 1: ability to like introduce the doubt that ought to be 729 00:36:57,760 --> 00:37:00,319 Speaker 1: present with a lot of these fingerprint analyzes are like 730 00:37:00,440 --> 00:37:04,480 Speaker 1: poor people, you know, yeah, right, and that's who gets often. 731 00:37:04,719 --> 00:37:06,839 Speaker 1: You know, it's not a bunch of rich people going 732 00:37:06,840 --> 00:37:12,880 Speaker 1: to prison for bad fingerprint analysis. Primarily they can afford 733 00:37:12,880 --> 00:37:13,240 Speaker 1: the people. 734 00:37:13,280 --> 00:37:15,600 Speaker 3: I mean, there are das who are overworked, I'm sure 735 00:37:15,600 --> 00:37:18,279 Speaker 3: trying to like defend them. How are they going to 736 00:37:18,320 --> 00:37:20,600 Speaker 3: get that together? I just yeah, it sounds like it 737 00:37:20,600 --> 00:37:22,080 Speaker 3: would be a massive undertaking. 738 00:37:22,719 --> 00:37:25,640 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's I mean, yeah, it's too much to ask for, 739 00:37:25,760 --> 00:37:28,360 Speaker 1: like the average public defender who is already dealing with 740 00:37:28,400 --> 00:37:30,680 Speaker 1: way too many fucking cases on zero money. 741 00:37:31,000 --> 00:37:31,640 Speaker 2: Yeah. 742 00:37:31,719 --> 00:37:35,880 Speaker 1: So, published studies on fingerprinting tend to be case studies 743 00:37:36,360 --> 00:37:39,799 Speaker 1: where after conviction, an expert will walk the reader through 744 00:37:39,880 --> 00:37:45,000 Speaker 1: this process that looks to a layman like a scientific study, 745 00:37:45,680 --> 00:37:49,520 Speaker 1: but it's not. That's analyzing a case in which, like 746 00:37:49,680 --> 00:37:52,840 Speaker 1: somebody got convicted and walking through your work, as opposed 747 00:37:52,840 --> 00:37:56,759 Speaker 1: to like actually trying to objectively find good data on 748 00:37:56,880 --> 00:38:00,840 Speaker 1: how often the matches these people make are right, because 749 00:38:01,080 --> 00:38:02,879 Speaker 1: there's not really again, there's not really any good way 750 00:38:02,920 --> 00:38:04,960 Speaker 1: to do that. You often don't find out that someone's 751 00:38:04,960 --> 00:38:08,760 Speaker 1: been wrongly convicted on the basis of it'll take ten, fifteen, 752 00:38:08,800 --> 00:38:12,759 Speaker 1: twenty years, right, How like it's getting this kind of 753 00:38:12,800 --> 00:38:15,319 Speaker 1: information on how flawed this field has took a lot 754 00:38:15,320 --> 00:38:17,200 Speaker 1: of time, and a lot of people have gotten hurt 755 00:38:17,239 --> 00:38:20,719 Speaker 1: in the interim. In two thousand and four, Brandon Mayfield 756 00:38:20,800 --> 00:38:23,680 Speaker 1: was a lawyer in Portland, Oregon, and a pretty prominent 757 00:38:23,719 --> 00:38:27,280 Speaker 1: one too. He had recently represented the so called Portland Seven, 758 00:38:27,440 --> 00:38:30,160 Speaker 1: a group of local Muslims who'd been convicted of conspiring 759 00:38:30,200 --> 00:38:33,279 Speaker 1: to support the Taliban. After nine to eleven that year, 760 00:38:33,320 --> 00:38:36,120 Speaker 1: he went on vacation to Madrid. And my god, this 761 00:38:36,200 --> 00:38:39,360 Speaker 1: man picked the worst time to go on vacation to 762 00:38:39,440 --> 00:38:43,600 Speaker 1: Madrid anyone has ever picked. A group of Islamic extremists 763 00:38:43,680 --> 00:38:46,279 Speaker 1: carried out a terrorist attack on a commuter train while 764 00:38:46,280 --> 00:38:48,920 Speaker 1: he was in Madrid that killed nearly two hundred people. 765 00:38:49,680 --> 00:38:52,759 Speaker 1: Because the FBI be how the FBI do? They flew 766 00:38:52,800 --> 00:38:55,640 Speaker 1: in to help out the Spanish authorities, and they identified 767 00:38:55,680 --> 00:38:58,600 Speaker 1: a partial print on a plastic bag that had contained 768 00:38:58,680 --> 00:39:03,239 Speaker 1: detonators and stick to Brandon, Brandon who was on their 769 00:39:03,280 --> 00:39:06,279 Speaker 1: shit list because he had defended these guys they had 770 00:39:06,280 --> 00:39:10,160 Speaker 1: accused of supporting the Dalaban. In the book Junk Science, 771 00:39:10,200 --> 00:39:14,480 Speaker 1: Innocence Project, lawyer Chris Fabricant writes, to the FBI, Mayfield 772 00:39:14,520 --> 00:39:18,000 Speaker 1: looked good for it. Spanish fingerprint experts disagreed. But the 773 00:39:18,040 --> 00:39:21,440 Speaker 1: FBI would not back down. A court appointed expert conducted 774 00:39:21,440 --> 00:39:25,880 Speaker 1: an additional examination and confirmed the FBI's conclusions. Mayfield remained 775 00:39:25,960 --> 00:39:29,760 Speaker 1: jailed virtually in communicado for weeks. Only after Spanish police 776 00:39:29,800 --> 00:39:33,600 Speaker 1: associated the fingerprints with an Algerian national named Daud o'nane 777 00:39:33,960 --> 00:39:36,400 Speaker 1: did the FBI admit it was wrong, and Mayfield was 778 00:39:36,440 --> 00:39:39,960 Speaker 1: finally released, after which he successfully sued for two million 779 00:39:40,000 --> 00:39:42,840 Speaker 1: dollars and elicited something rarer than money from the FBI 780 00:39:43,160 --> 00:39:44,319 Speaker 1: a public apology. 781 00:39:44,520 --> 00:39:48,399 Speaker 2: Oh wow, good on him. Strong, Yeah, strong work. 782 00:39:49,760 --> 00:39:51,799 Speaker 1: Yeah, very rare case. It shows you how much they 783 00:39:51,840 --> 00:39:54,839 Speaker 1: fucked up, right, And also they made the mistake of 784 00:39:54,880 --> 00:39:59,040 Speaker 1: going after a lawyer. Lawyer, right, yeah, thankfully. I mean, 785 00:39:59,040 --> 00:40:01,759 Speaker 1: this is obvious. My heart goes out to him for 786 00:40:01,840 --> 00:40:03,920 Speaker 1: how stressful this must have been. But at least he 787 00:40:03,960 --> 00:40:05,760 Speaker 1: had the capacity to defend himself. 788 00:40:05,800 --> 00:40:06,000 Speaker 2: Yeah. 789 00:40:06,640 --> 00:40:08,840 Speaker 1: Now, with hindsight, we can see that the prime reasons 790 00:40:08,840 --> 00:40:11,480 Speaker 1: the FBI went after Mayfield was that he himself was 791 00:40:11,520 --> 00:40:15,400 Speaker 1: a convert to Islam who had represented accused terrorists. But 792 00:40:15,480 --> 00:40:18,880 Speaker 1: at the time, they argued that their experts couldn't be biased. 793 00:40:19,080 --> 00:40:23,279 Speaker 1: They were using unimpeachable science, even though their experts disagreed 794 00:40:23,360 --> 00:40:27,240 Speaker 1: with Spanish experts who were presumably using the same science, 795 00:40:27,840 --> 00:40:31,839 Speaker 1: and they're more experts. They were more experter If you're 796 00:40:32,400 --> 00:40:37,160 Speaker 1: again framing this to the people making choices accurately, that's 797 00:40:37,200 --> 00:40:39,880 Speaker 1: no worse than saying like, well, this doctor says someone 798 00:40:40,000 --> 00:40:42,440 Speaker 1: likely has the syndrome, but this doctor has a different conclusion. 799 00:40:42,480 --> 00:40:44,520 Speaker 1: Because this is just not something we understand well, right, 800 00:40:44,520 --> 00:40:47,200 Speaker 1: But that's not how it's being presented. It came out 801 00:40:47,280 --> 00:40:50,399 Speaker 1: later that the court appointed expert brought in for Mayfield's case, 802 00:40:50,440 --> 00:40:53,200 Speaker 1: the guy who found a match that matched the FBI's case, 803 00:40:53,360 --> 00:40:57,520 Speaker 1: had been informed before doing his analysis that the elite 804 00:40:57,600 --> 00:41:00,560 Speaker 1: FBI fingerprint analysts had found a match before he made 805 00:41:00,600 --> 00:41:05,240 Speaker 1: his report, Right, So that is something like that's bad science. 806 00:41:05,360 --> 00:41:10,840 Speaker 1: If someone is conducting is attempting to analyze a fingerprint determined, 807 00:41:10,840 --> 00:41:14,239 Speaker 1: if it's a match, you shouldn't tell them beforehand that 808 00:41:14,360 --> 00:41:19,040 Speaker 1: another analyst has made a match because that could prejudice them. 809 00:41:19,360 --> 00:41:23,319 Speaker 3: Right, it's not blinded study. It's very unblinded. 810 00:41:23,480 --> 00:41:23,840 Speaker 2: I don't know. 811 00:41:23,920 --> 00:41:27,239 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, but that happens all the time with this shit, 812 00:41:27,320 --> 00:41:30,319 Speaker 1: because again, it has this it's dressed as science, but 813 00:41:30,400 --> 00:41:33,160 Speaker 1: it's not treated that way by a lot of its practitioners, 814 00:41:33,320 --> 00:41:35,040 Speaker 1: which is again a lot of the people who are 815 00:41:35,040 --> 00:41:40,240 Speaker 1: criticizing these bad identifications are fingerprint analysts who do treat 816 00:41:40,280 --> 00:41:42,799 Speaker 1: it as a science. My issue is not that those 817 00:41:42,840 --> 00:41:47,200 Speaker 1: people don't exist, it's that it is not standardized that 818 00:41:47,200 --> 00:41:50,880 Speaker 1: that's the expectation for how a fingerprint analyst should operate. 819 00:41:51,160 --> 00:41:54,640 Speaker 1: You know, this was a public enough fuck up that 820 00:41:54,680 --> 00:41:58,839 Speaker 1: a cognitive neuroscience tist conducted a rare study into how 821 00:41:58,880 --> 00:42:02,439 Speaker 1: cognitive bias mightn't form results in forensic studies. He got 822 00:42:02,480 --> 00:42:05,160 Speaker 1: six fingerprint experts and he gave them eight sets of 823 00:42:05,200 --> 00:42:07,759 Speaker 1: prints to analyze. Unbeknownst I love this. 824 00:42:07,800 --> 00:42:09,560 Speaker 3: Song I love. I was about to say, I love 825 00:42:09,600 --> 00:42:10,879 Speaker 3: studies like this. 826 00:42:10,880 --> 00:42:14,640 Speaker 1: This is this one's real fun because unbeknownst to them, 827 00:42:14,840 --> 00:42:18,600 Speaker 1: all the sets they were analyzing came from previous cases 828 00:42:18,800 --> 00:42:22,680 Speaker 1: they had analyzed. So all of these guys had gotten 829 00:42:22,719 --> 00:42:26,239 Speaker 1: these prints before and made ideas in court cases. Nice 830 00:42:26,560 --> 00:42:29,440 Speaker 1: they're given the same prints, but not told they're the 831 00:42:29,520 --> 00:42:35,120 Speaker 1: same prints. Fantastic Thirds of them came to different conclusions 832 00:42:35,239 --> 00:42:37,959 Speaker 1: while analyzing the same fingerprints a second time. 833 00:42:38,640 --> 00:42:39,880 Speaker 2: That's so amazing. 834 00:42:40,320 --> 00:42:42,879 Speaker 3: You reminds me of if I made if I made 835 00:42:42,880 --> 00:42:45,440 Speaker 3: tangent for just one moment. One of my favorite studies 836 00:42:45,480 --> 00:42:48,880 Speaker 3: I ever saw it was a study of like wine connoisseurs, 837 00:42:48,880 --> 00:42:51,959 Speaker 3: because you know how there's people who love wine. They've 838 00:42:51,960 --> 00:42:54,600 Speaker 3: done this some variation of the study a number of 839 00:42:54,640 --> 00:42:57,719 Speaker 3: times where they took like a bottle of wine and 840 00:42:57,760 --> 00:42:59,480 Speaker 3: they had it in like a paper bag, and they 841 00:42:59,480 --> 00:43:02,239 Speaker 3: had another wine in the paper bag. And they said 842 00:43:02,280 --> 00:43:05,319 Speaker 3: to them, they said, hey, look these are like wine officionados, 843 00:43:05,360 --> 00:43:07,279 Speaker 3: people who are like you know, some all the aids, 844 00:43:07,320 --> 00:43:08,200 Speaker 3: et cetera, and. 845 00:43:08,120 --> 00:43:09,040 Speaker 2: These wine nerds. 846 00:43:09,200 --> 00:43:11,640 Speaker 3: Yeah, they said, this one is like one hundred dollars 847 00:43:11,880 --> 00:43:13,760 Speaker 3: bottle of wine. This one's like a ten dollars bottle 848 00:43:13,760 --> 00:43:16,839 Speaker 3: of wine. Rate review them, use different use whatever word 849 00:43:16,920 --> 00:43:18,920 Speaker 3: you want to describe them, and they would, you know, 850 00:43:19,160 --> 00:43:23,560 Speaker 3: generally rate them very differently. They would describe them very differently, 851 00:43:23,800 --> 00:43:26,600 Speaker 3: and they were the same exact bottle of wine. And 852 00:43:26,760 --> 00:43:30,200 Speaker 3: it was just like still objective, How objective this thing 853 00:43:30,320 --> 00:43:30,600 Speaker 3: can be. 854 00:43:31,360 --> 00:43:34,359 Speaker 1: This happens a lot. It happens with pot, right, There's 855 00:43:34,400 --> 00:43:36,040 Speaker 1: a lot of pots where people they're like, well, this 856 00:43:36,080 --> 00:43:37,719 Speaker 1: one will get you this kind of and this one 857 00:43:37,719 --> 00:43:39,920 Speaker 1: will gets you this kind of high and like, that's 858 00:43:40,000 --> 00:43:42,800 Speaker 1: kind of true in that different levels of like different 859 00:43:42,920 --> 00:43:45,920 Speaker 1: cannabinoids can affect the high. But like a lot of 860 00:43:45,920 --> 00:43:48,879 Speaker 1: what people say about like different strains of pot is bunk. 861 00:43:48,960 --> 00:43:50,799 Speaker 1: And the same thing happens with cratim where they'll be like, 862 00:43:51,040 --> 00:43:52,880 Speaker 1: well they've got this kind and this kind and this 863 00:43:52,960 --> 00:43:55,080 Speaker 1: kind is like well, it's just kind of matters how 864 00:43:55,160 --> 00:43:57,040 Speaker 1: much of the active ingredient is in it. 865 00:43:58,760 --> 00:44:00,240 Speaker 2: But it's also like. 866 00:44:00,080 --> 00:44:02,200 Speaker 1: You know, with a wine somalia or with you know, 867 00:44:02,560 --> 00:44:05,520 Speaker 1: drug nerds or whatever, what's the harm of some guy 868 00:44:05,600 --> 00:44:08,080 Speaker 1: being like, I know all of the all of the 869 00:44:08,120 --> 00:44:10,719 Speaker 1: wines that have the best wine text. It's fine, You're 870 00:44:10,719 --> 00:44:13,919 Speaker 1: not hurting anybody. The worst case scenario is some rich 871 00:44:13,960 --> 00:44:17,080 Speaker 1: people pay more money for a fancy or wine experience 872 00:44:17,719 --> 00:44:20,520 Speaker 1: with the fingerprint stuff. It's a real problem. But I 873 00:44:20,560 --> 00:44:22,680 Speaker 1: do think it's it's kind of worth comparing to that 874 00:44:22,760 --> 00:44:25,680 Speaker 1: Somalia study because it is it is a kind of 875 00:44:25,719 --> 00:44:28,600 Speaker 1: like really similar. And again, the point here is not 876 00:44:28,640 --> 00:44:31,960 Speaker 1: that fingerprint analysis is bunk science or useless. It's that 877 00:44:32,040 --> 00:44:35,799 Speaker 1: fingerprint analysts are not performing objective science. They are making 878 00:44:35,920 --> 00:44:38,640 Speaker 1: judgments based on their opinions. They are often being informed 879 00:44:38,640 --> 00:44:41,120 Speaker 1: ahead of time we think this guy did it, can 880 00:44:41,160 --> 00:44:44,000 Speaker 1: you tell us if the fingerprint matches, you know, which 881 00:44:44,040 --> 00:44:47,480 Speaker 1: is not how it should work. It's the same thing 882 00:44:47,520 --> 00:44:49,640 Speaker 1: with like, you'll hear a lot about how great fucking 883 00:44:49,680 --> 00:44:52,120 Speaker 1: police dogs are and how they can identify if you've 884 00:44:52,120 --> 00:44:54,319 Speaker 1: got a little bit of a speck of marijuana and 885 00:44:54,400 --> 00:44:57,040 Speaker 1: you know, a fucking car or whatever full of stuff. 886 00:44:57,640 --> 00:45:02,120 Speaker 1: They've got these incredible noses and dog knows are that incredible. Also, 887 00:45:02,200 --> 00:45:05,160 Speaker 1: that's not how police dogs work. Police dogs are primarily 888 00:45:05,200 --> 00:45:08,520 Speaker 1: paying attention to when the police officer expects to find 889 00:45:09,040 --> 00:45:11,879 Speaker 1: drugs and where an alerting off of that. That's how 890 00:45:11,920 --> 00:45:14,359 Speaker 1: they work. Ask me how I know? 891 00:45:15,800 --> 00:45:16,680 Speaker 2: I really want to know. 892 00:45:17,040 --> 00:45:21,719 Speaker 3: Really, just because I beat them once, can we talk 893 00:45:21,760 --> 00:45:22,160 Speaker 3: about this? 894 00:45:24,160 --> 00:45:26,000 Speaker 1: I had fuck it, I got I'd gotten pulled over 895 00:45:26,040 --> 00:45:28,640 Speaker 1: and this is like fucking fifteen years over, pulled over 896 00:45:28,760 --> 00:45:31,319 Speaker 1: with pot in a car. They brought the dogs out. 897 00:45:31,400 --> 00:45:34,919 Speaker 1: I had been told by an old head that like, yeah, man, 898 00:45:35,120 --> 00:45:36,759 Speaker 1: if you get caught, if you get pulled over by 899 00:45:36,760 --> 00:45:39,960 Speaker 1: the police dogs, look anywhere but at the car. Do 900 00:45:40,120 --> 00:45:42,279 Speaker 1: not look at the vehicle while they're doing anything, because 901 00:45:42,320 --> 00:45:44,680 Speaker 1: the cop is watching you to see when you get 902 00:45:44,719 --> 00:45:46,640 Speaker 1: nervous when the dog gets to a part of your 903 00:45:46,680 --> 00:45:49,479 Speaker 1: car where the drugs are, and then the cop will 904 00:45:49,520 --> 00:45:52,640 Speaker 1: either he believed that the cops had a secret signal 905 00:45:52,680 --> 00:45:55,000 Speaker 1: to the dogs. I think it's actually more likely that 906 00:45:55,120 --> 00:45:58,040 Speaker 1: you tense up when the dog gets near where the 907 00:45:58,120 --> 00:46:00,960 Speaker 1: drugs are. The cop sees you tense up, and the 908 00:46:01,040 --> 00:46:04,000 Speaker 1: dog sees the cop tends up. You know, maybe both 909 00:46:04,000 --> 00:46:06,080 Speaker 1: of those things are happening. There have been studies on this, 910 00:46:06,120 --> 00:46:08,200 Speaker 1: though you can actually read into this. They do not 911 00:46:08,280 --> 00:46:10,480 Speaker 1: work as well as they say they do. It is 912 00:46:10,560 --> 00:46:13,600 Speaker 1: easy for police dogs to be biased because the dog 913 00:46:13,640 --> 00:46:16,880 Speaker 1: doesn't know what it's actually doing. Right, The dog is 914 00:46:16,920 --> 00:46:19,960 Speaker 1: trying to make people happy. That's all the dogs trying 915 00:46:20,000 --> 00:46:25,320 Speaker 1: to do. I'll smell down, okay, yeah, sure again. Dogs 916 00:46:25,360 --> 00:46:28,680 Speaker 1: are capable of that kind of sense analysis, but that 917 00:46:28,719 --> 00:46:31,400 Speaker 1: doesn't mean that's what they're always doing. Just like fingerprints 918 00:46:31,400 --> 00:46:35,520 Speaker 1: analysts are capable of analyzing fingerprints on the scene and 919 00:46:35,560 --> 00:46:38,040 Speaker 1: matching them to a person, but that doesn't mean that's 920 00:46:38,080 --> 00:46:42,200 Speaker 1: what they're doing every time they claim they're doing that, right, Yep, 921 00:46:42,640 --> 00:46:46,120 Speaker 1: Bias be a thing. Bias and this is the case 922 00:46:46,360 --> 00:46:49,960 Speaker 1: with every other kind of investigative technique in criminal justice. 923 00:46:50,120 --> 00:46:53,520 Speaker 1: But forensic science is not treated that way. Part of 924 00:46:53,560 --> 00:46:55,560 Speaker 1: why is that there's an awful lot of money in 925 00:46:55,719 --> 00:46:58,920 Speaker 1: ensuring that it is treated as hard scientific truth. The 926 00:46:59,000 --> 00:47:02,239 Speaker 1: success fingerprint experts have enjoyed in this arena has inspired 927 00:47:02,320 --> 00:47:05,360 Speaker 1: other would be experts to build their own careers peddling 928 00:47:05,440 --> 00:47:09,600 Speaker 1: science much more questionable than fingerprint analysis. But you know 929 00:47:09,680 --> 00:47:12,320 Speaker 1: what's a lot more questionable than even that cave. 930 00:47:12,640 --> 00:47:16,880 Speaker 3: Boy, I hope it's some sort of very morally questionable ad. 931 00:47:17,280 --> 00:47:19,720 Speaker 1: It is it is, it's an ad for. 932 00:47:21,120 --> 00:47:21,480 Speaker 2: I don't know. 933 00:47:21,520 --> 00:47:23,759 Speaker 1: I don't actually know what's more morally questionable than our 934 00:47:23,760 --> 00:47:33,560 Speaker 1: current advertisers. So just buy whatever they're selling. We're back, cave. 935 00:47:34,640 --> 00:47:35,439 Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm back too. 936 00:47:36,120 --> 00:47:39,879 Speaker 1: Fingerprint analysis is fun. By fun, I mean it's infuriating 937 00:47:39,960 --> 00:47:42,640 Speaker 1: how often it does not work the way it's supposed to, 938 00:47:42,840 --> 00:47:47,640 Speaker 1: but it is at least based in real stuff. Now, 939 00:47:47,680 --> 00:47:50,600 Speaker 1: I'm going to bring us to a true villain, to 940 00:47:50,680 --> 00:47:55,560 Speaker 1: some absolute, real bullshit forensic science. And of course, the 941 00:47:55,600 --> 00:47:59,040 Speaker 1: true villain of this episode, Kava, is history's greatest monster. 942 00:48:00,080 --> 00:48:06,520 Speaker 2: Tists expect it. Got me again? 943 00:48:06,680 --> 00:48:07,360 Speaker 3: Got me again? 944 00:48:09,160 --> 00:48:13,480 Speaker 2: Adab baby? Yeah, no, good dentist's right, ight. 945 00:48:15,320 --> 00:48:19,720 Speaker 1: So this part of the story starts in September nineteen 946 00:48:19,760 --> 00:48:23,400 Speaker 1: eighty two, when twenty two year old Teresa Perrin noticed 947 00:48:23,480 --> 00:48:27,760 Speaker 1: a sailor hitchhiking near her coastal Virginia home. Seeing sailors 948 00:48:27,760 --> 00:48:29,960 Speaker 1: in uniform was not odd where she lived. There was 949 00:48:30,000 --> 00:48:32,960 Speaker 1: an aircraft carrier dock nearby, and her husband worked at 950 00:48:32,960 --> 00:48:36,040 Speaker 1: a nearby naval base. But when she failed to pick 951 00:48:36,080 --> 00:48:38,319 Speaker 1: this man up, he screamed at her, and later in 952 00:48:38,360 --> 00:48:40,799 Speaker 1: the days she noticed a similar looking man in a 953 00:48:40,840 --> 00:48:44,400 Speaker 1: sailor uniform loitering outside her house as she dried her laundry. 954 00:48:45,000 --> 00:48:48,239 Speaker 1: She went on with her day somewhat agitated until her 955 00:48:48,320 --> 00:48:50,840 Speaker 1: husband came home. She was finally able to get to sleep. 956 00:48:51,640 --> 00:48:53,320 Speaker 1: She wakes up in the middle of the night to 957 00:48:53,360 --> 00:48:56,399 Speaker 1: see a man in a sailor's uniform standing above her. 958 00:48:56,680 --> 00:48:59,160 Speaker 1: He beats her husband to death with a crowbar while 959 00:48:59,239 --> 00:49:03,520 Speaker 1: he sleeps, and then he rapes Teresa repeatedly the granular 960 00:49:03,560 --> 00:49:05,880 Speaker 1: details it I mean, this goes on. I am telling 961 00:49:05,920 --> 00:49:08,719 Speaker 1: you these start. This is a hideous fucking case. What 962 00:49:08,800 --> 00:49:12,480 Speaker 1: happens to this woman is just an absolute nightmare. And 963 00:49:12,520 --> 00:49:15,319 Speaker 1: the whole time she's basically doing everything she can to 964 00:49:15,520 --> 00:49:18,640 Speaker 1: like make keep him happy because her kids are also 965 00:49:18,680 --> 00:49:20,799 Speaker 1: in the house and she doesn't want him to kill 966 00:49:20,840 --> 00:49:22,680 Speaker 1: them too. It's just a fucking nightmare. 967 00:49:23,400 --> 00:49:23,960 Speaker 2: One thing I do. 968 00:49:24,280 --> 00:49:25,680 Speaker 1: Again, I'm not going to try to go into too 969 00:49:25,719 --> 00:49:27,520 Speaker 1: much detail, but I do have to note for what 970 00:49:27,600 --> 00:49:29,799 Speaker 1: comes next that when the man raped her for the 971 00:49:29,920 --> 00:49:33,000 Speaker 1: second time, he bit her repeatedly on the thighs, hard 972 00:49:33,080 --> 00:49:35,920 Speaker 1: enough to leave a mark. This is crucial to what 973 00:49:35,960 --> 00:49:42,120 Speaker 1: comes next. Teresa survives, thankfully, and the case immedia obviously 974 00:49:42,160 --> 00:49:44,760 Speaker 1: becomes the biggest news in town. Right, this guy gets away, 975 00:49:45,239 --> 00:49:48,239 Speaker 1: and it's of course people freak out, right there is 976 00:49:48,280 --> 00:49:53,520 Speaker 1: some unbelievably violent, horrible man on the loose, Like, yeah, 977 00:49:53,800 --> 00:49:56,200 Speaker 1: a literal monster on the loose. This is one of 978 00:49:56,239 --> 00:49:58,680 Speaker 1: those cases where everyone panics and it's like, yeah, man, 979 00:49:59,120 --> 00:50:02,200 Speaker 1: the reason I'd be sleeping with a fucking gun every night, 980 00:50:02,360 --> 00:50:06,239 Speaker 1: you know, yeah, I would be putting the family in 981 00:50:06,280 --> 00:50:08,720 Speaker 1: the fucking panic room and have a rifle by my guy. 982 00:50:08,680 --> 00:50:09,759 Speaker 2: Outside, like. 983 00:50:11,440 --> 00:50:14,600 Speaker 1: I don't already. So Teresa was given a rape kit 984 00:50:14,680 --> 00:50:17,520 Speaker 1: by a doctor and her injuries were documented in detail. 985 00:50:17,840 --> 00:50:22,000 Speaker 1: She was so shown mugshots, but no clear culprit materialized. 986 00:50:22,640 --> 00:50:24,920 Speaker 1: A security guard at the base reported that he had 987 00:50:25,040 --> 00:50:27,360 Speaker 1: seen a sailor with blood on his uniform enter the 988 00:50:27,360 --> 00:50:30,200 Speaker 1: shipyard gate at two thirty am. I will note that 989 00:50:30,320 --> 00:50:33,640 Speaker 1: like that seems like, well, obviously that's the guy. If 990 00:50:33,680 --> 00:50:37,120 Speaker 1: you've known navymen, a sailor showing up with blood on 991 00:50:37,160 --> 00:50:39,440 Speaker 1: their uniform at two thirty in the morning to go 992 00:50:39,480 --> 00:50:43,400 Speaker 1: to bed not uncommon, doesn't mean they've necessarily committed a murder. 993 00:50:45,200 --> 00:50:50,000 Speaker 1: Sometimes that's just how sailors be. Given the time Teresa 994 00:50:50,040 --> 00:50:53,239 Speaker 1: said the assault had taken place, this guy could not 995 00:50:53,400 --> 00:50:57,399 Speaker 1: have been the culprit right two thirty am according to her. 996 00:50:57,480 --> 00:50:59,480 Speaker 1: And again she's awake with this guy. He's there for 997 00:50:59,600 --> 00:51:03,280 Speaker 1: hours according to when she said the assault took place, 998 00:51:03,719 --> 00:51:05,719 Speaker 1: This guy with blood on his uniform couldn't have been 999 00:51:05,719 --> 00:51:06,920 Speaker 1: the one who did it. It had to have just 1000 00:51:06,920 --> 00:51:10,799 Speaker 1: been a coincidence. But the DA in this case has 1001 00:51:10,840 --> 00:51:14,239 Speaker 1: the security guard hypnotized the security guard who said, yeah, 1002 00:51:14,280 --> 00:51:16,640 Speaker 1: this guy came in at two thirty am, and after 1003 00:51:16,680 --> 00:51:19,279 Speaker 1: being hypnotized, the security guard says no, no, no, he 1004 00:51:19,320 --> 00:51:24,320 Speaker 1: came in at five am. Now that's already very questionable. 1005 00:51:24,480 --> 00:51:27,959 Speaker 3: I can't think of a softer science than hypnotism. 1006 00:51:28,160 --> 00:51:31,879 Speaker 1: Yes, that is wow, that is that is the chinchilla 1007 00:51:31,960 --> 00:51:34,280 Speaker 1: fur a forensic science. 1008 00:51:34,400 --> 00:51:38,040 Speaker 3: It's it's such a it was so nice and sometimes 1009 00:51:38,080 --> 00:51:39,040 Speaker 3: I'm so proud of you. 1010 00:51:39,360 --> 00:51:41,359 Speaker 2: And then that reference right there was. 1011 00:51:41,440 --> 00:51:45,160 Speaker 3: One of the beautiful, beautiful moment, beautiful. 1012 00:51:45,200 --> 00:51:48,439 Speaker 1: So unfortunately, and this is, you know, we'll talk about 1013 00:51:48,480 --> 00:51:52,400 Speaker 1: hypnotism some other day. This is kind of really at 1014 00:51:52,440 --> 00:51:55,200 Speaker 1: a peak point in the early eighties of hypnotism being 1015 00:51:55,280 --> 00:51:58,520 Speaker 1: introduced into court cases. This also plays into the Satanic Panic, 1016 00:51:58,520 --> 00:52:01,160 Speaker 1: which is happening around the same time. But they decided 1017 00:52:01,200 --> 00:52:04,080 Speaker 1: to have Teresa. The DA has Teresa hypnotized as well, 1018 00:52:04,120 --> 00:52:07,200 Speaker 1: and after being hypnotized, she claims that the sailor who 1019 00:52:07,320 --> 00:52:10,759 Speaker 1: attacked her was definitely the same guy as the hitchhiking 1020 00:52:10,840 --> 00:52:13,719 Speaker 1: sailor who had yelled at her earlier. Obviously, a shitload 1021 00:52:13,719 --> 00:52:16,040 Speaker 1: of sailors are in town. The idea that one of 1022 00:52:16,040 --> 00:52:18,000 Speaker 1: them would be a murderer and a rapist and not 1023 00:52:18,120 --> 00:52:20,080 Speaker 1: the same guy who just like yelled at her randomly 1024 00:52:20,120 --> 00:52:22,640 Speaker 1: when she drove past him in town pretty actually good 1025 00:52:22,640 --> 00:52:25,840 Speaker 1: odds that they're not the same guy. But the DA 1026 00:52:26,880 --> 00:52:30,320 Speaker 1: once that's an easier like line of logic. So the 1027 00:52:30,400 --> 00:52:33,600 Speaker 1: DA you know, has her hypnotized, and then she changes 1028 00:52:33,680 --> 00:52:36,080 Speaker 1: her story right to be like, I'm sure it was 1029 00:52:36,120 --> 00:52:41,200 Speaker 1: the same guy. So again, already, just from a fact standpoint, 1030 00:52:41,239 --> 00:52:43,480 Speaker 1: we're not off to a great start with this case, 1031 00:52:43,600 --> 00:52:47,200 Speaker 1: with like trying to track down the culprit based a. 1032 00:52:47,120 --> 00:52:51,399 Speaker 3: Real, real eighties like movie of the week sort of like. 1033 00:52:51,680 --> 00:52:52,960 Speaker 2: We used hypnosis. 1034 00:52:53,000 --> 00:52:55,719 Speaker 3: It's a brand new science out of Europe to like 1035 00:52:56,040 --> 00:52:59,399 Speaker 3: get these people to like open up their minds more. Oh, 1036 00:52:59,440 --> 00:53:01,240 Speaker 3: it's terrible, it's so depressing. 1037 00:53:01,520 --> 00:53:04,279 Speaker 1: It's rough stuff. It's rough stuff. And based on this 1038 00:53:04,400 --> 00:53:06,880 Speaker 1: very flawed information, it has decided that the man who 1039 00:53:06,960 --> 00:53:09,760 Speaker 1: had attacked her must be a sailor on the nearby 1040 00:53:09,880 --> 00:53:13,120 Speaker 1: USS Carl Vinson. Now again, this is the aircraft carrier 1041 00:53:13,120 --> 00:53:15,799 Speaker 1: that's in town. Pretty good chance that the guy who 1042 00:53:15,920 --> 00:53:18,840 Speaker 1: attacked her was, But also not the only sailors in town. 1043 00:53:18,920 --> 00:53:23,200 Speaker 1: So the district attorney on the case, Willard Robinson, asked 1044 00:53:23,200 --> 00:53:26,040 Speaker 1: the captain of the Carl Vinson to provide the state 1045 00:53:26,120 --> 00:53:28,800 Speaker 1: with dental records for all thirteen hundred of the sailors 1046 00:53:28,880 --> 00:53:32,640 Speaker 1: under his command. That way a dental expert could analyze them. 1047 00:53:32,800 --> 00:53:35,920 Speaker 1: He had already had an expert analyzed Teresa's bites, and 1048 00:53:35,960 --> 00:53:38,480 Speaker 1: the expert had concluded that the assailant had possessed a 1049 00:53:38,520 --> 00:53:43,799 Speaker 1: pointed front tooth that was misaligned. Now, extensive analysis did 1050 00:53:43,800 --> 00:53:47,320 Speaker 1: not come forward with any clear identification. The case languished, 1051 00:53:47,320 --> 00:53:50,080 Speaker 1: and the family started complaining to elected officials in both 1052 00:53:50,120 --> 00:53:54,279 Speaker 1: the DA and Navy felt extreme pressure to resolve the case. Then, 1053 00:53:54,560 --> 00:53:58,200 Speaker 1: in March, a twenty six year old sailor on the Vincent, 1054 00:53:58,600 --> 00:54:02,520 Speaker 1: Keith Allen Harwood, was arrested over a domestic dispute. He 1055 00:54:02,640 --> 00:54:04,720 Speaker 1: was drunk as hell during this fight and is alleged 1056 00:54:04,760 --> 00:54:08,680 Speaker 1: to have bitten his girlfriend. Again, that sounds damning until 1057 00:54:08,719 --> 00:54:10,759 Speaker 1: I note that he bites her after she hits him 1058 00:54:10,800 --> 00:54:12,839 Speaker 1: with a frying pan, which does make it sound less 1059 00:54:12,880 --> 00:54:15,279 Speaker 1: like this guy is a biting psychopathem and more like, well, 1060 00:54:15,280 --> 00:54:17,440 Speaker 1: this was just a real bad relationship. 1061 00:54:17,600 --> 00:54:21,320 Speaker 3: That's a very toxic relationship. That the frying that's a 1062 00:54:21,360 --> 00:54:21,719 Speaker 3: nice time. 1063 00:54:22,280 --> 00:54:26,000 Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, again, you wouldn't call this good behavior, 1064 00:54:26,120 --> 00:54:29,200 Speaker 1: but it's hardly like evidence that this man is a murderer. 1065 00:54:29,600 --> 00:54:32,040 Speaker 1: But once he's in custody, you have got a sailor 1066 00:54:32,239 --> 00:54:35,880 Speaker 1: and he bits somebody, you know, not he's a surprising 1067 00:54:36,000 --> 00:54:39,440 Speaker 1: he's a bier. Yeah, yeah, right, so he starts to 1068 00:54:39,440 --> 00:54:42,120 Speaker 1: look pretty good to this increasingly desperate DA who was 1069 00:54:42,200 --> 00:54:46,440 Speaker 1: really getting pressured to solve this fucking case now, Because 1070 00:54:46,520 --> 00:54:48,600 Speaker 1: this guy was on the Carl Benson and they'd provided 1071 00:54:48,680 --> 00:54:52,440 Speaker 1: dental records to the to the state, this guy's teeth 1072 00:54:52,440 --> 00:54:55,279 Speaker 1: had already been looked at, and experts had analyzed his 1073 00:54:55,360 --> 00:54:57,799 Speaker 1: teeth and said he couldn't be the man who had 1074 00:54:57,840 --> 00:55:01,759 Speaker 1: bit Teresa, right, So that's a problem. 1075 00:55:01,920 --> 00:55:02,160 Speaker 2: Now. 1076 00:55:02,239 --> 00:55:03,680 Speaker 1: I'm going to read from a write up in the 1077 00:55:03,760 --> 00:55:07,160 Speaker 1: National Registry of Exonerations which should give you an idea 1078 00:55:07,200 --> 00:55:08,440 Speaker 1: of where this case ends up. 1079 00:55:08,640 --> 00:55:09,600 Speaker 2: Quote. 1080 00:55:09,640 --> 00:55:11,800 Speaker 1: Harward had been among those whose teeth were examined in 1081 00:55:11,880 --> 00:55:14,400 Speaker 1: the immediate aftermath of the investigation, but he had been 1082 00:55:14,480 --> 00:55:16,800 Speaker 1: ruled out as the source of the bitemarks on Teresa 1083 00:55:16,800 --> 00:55:19,720 Speaker 1: by a civilian dental consultant working with a Newport News 1084 00:55:19,719 --> 00:55:23,160 Speaker 1: City medical examiner. When Harward came to court, Teresa was 1085 00:55:23,200 --> 00:55:26,839 Speaker 1: there but could not identify him as the attacker. At 1086 00:55:26,840 --> 00:55:29,960 Speaker 1: that point, police asked Harward to submit to a second 1087 00:55:30,000 --> 00:55:33,080 Speaker 1: procedure to obtain a cast of his teeth. The cast 1088 00:55:33,200 --> 00:55:36,120 Speaker 1: was sent to Lowell Levine, then a budding superstar in 1089 00:55:36,160 --> 00:55:39,240 Speaker 1: the fledgling field of bitemark analysis, who had gained fame 1090 00:55:39,280 --> 00:55:42,439 Speaker 1: for his testimony linking bite marks to serial killer Ted 1091 00:55:42,480 --> 00:55:46,800 Speaker 1: Bundy and to Nazi war criminal Joseph Mengela. Levine concluded 1092 00:55:46,840 --> 00:55:50,080 Speaker 1: that Harward was responsible for the bitemarks on Teresa's body. 1093 00:55:50,320 --> 00:55:53,600 Speaker 1: Police showed a photographic lineup to Wade, who selected Harward's 1094 00:55:53,600 --> 00:55:56,040 Speaker 1: picture as the man who came through the security gate 1095 00:55:56,080 --> 00:55:59,719 Speaker 1: with a blood spattered uniform. On May sixteenth, nineteen eighty three, 1096 00:56:00,040 --> 00:56:03,520 Speaker 1: police arrested Harward on charges of capital murder, rape, robbery, 1097 00:56:03,640 --> 00:56:08,000 Speaker 1: and burglary. He is ultimately convicted and he is sentenced 1098 00:56:08,000 --> 00:56:11,400 Speaker 1: to life in prison. He appealed that, and the Virginia 1099 00:56:11,440 --> 00:56:14,120 Speaker 1: Supreme Court did grant him a new trial in nineteen 1100 00:56:14,160 --> 00:56:17,759 Speaker 1: eighty six. Levine testified at this that's the bitemark guy 1101 00:56:17,840 --> 00:56:20,200 Speaker 1: testified at this second trial that there was a quote 1102 00:56:20,520 --> 00:56:23,840 Speaker 1: very very very very high degree of probability that Harward's 1103 00:56:23,880 --> 00:56:28,320 Speaker 1: teeth had made the bite marks. Now that's not scientific language. 1104 00:56:28,520 --> 00:56:30,960 Speaker 1: So he followed by assuring jurors there that there was 1105 00:56:31,000 --> 00:56:34,680 Speaker 1: a quote practical impossibility that someone else would have all 1106 00:56:34,680 --> 00:56:38,800 Speaker 1: these characteristics that Levine found in the bite marks. And again, 1107 00:56:38,840 --> 00:56:42,640 Speaker 1: what we have here is a real science. That is 1108 00:56:42,760 --> 00:56:47,799 Speaker 1: providing cover for a pseudo science, because dental analysis is 1109 00:56:47,920 --> 00:56:51,239 Speaker 1: very real, very real thing. You can like, like, that's 1110 00:56:51,239 --> 00:56:54,000 Speaker 1: how we identify dead bodies and stuff by their dental 1111 00:56:54,120 --> 00:56:57,719 Speaker 1: records all the time. You know, dental analysis. 1112 00:56:57,160 --> 00:56:57,719 Speaker 2: Is a thing. 1113 00:56:58,200 --> 00:57:04,520 Speaker 1: This guy is good at dental analysis. Bite mark analysis 1114 00:57:04,560 --> 00:57:07,000 Speaker 1: not a thing in the same way. I'm going to say. 1115 00:57:07,000 --> 00:57:10,640 Speaker 1: You can never identify a bite mark and match them 1116 00:57:10,680 --> 00:57:13,600 Speaker 1: to someone's teeth, but it is not the same as 1117 00:57:13,680 --> 00:57:16,440 Speaker 1: identifying someone by their dental records. 1118 00:57:16,840 --> 00:57:19,440 Speaker 3: Can I give an example of this, Yeah, yeah, please? 1119 00:57:19,760 --> 00:57:23,200 Speaker 3: Wrestling with my three children and somebody bit me. It 1120 00:57:23,320 --> 00:57:25,560 Speaker 3: left the mark, and I was like, all right, I 1121 00:57:25,560 --> 00:57:28,600 Speaker 3: should be able to determine because it was really deep 1122 00:57:28,640 --> 00:57:31,560 Speaker 3: into my flesh. Which one of the little bastards did this? 1123 00:57:32,120 --> 00:57:35,000 Speaker 3: And when I held up all their teeth like to 1124 00:57:35,080 --> 00:57:37,120 Speaker 3: the bite they all looked like they could have gone 1125 00:57:37,120 --> 00:57:39,480 Speaker 3: in it all looked like they could have been the one. Like, 1126 00:57:39,560 --> 00:57:41,080 Speaker 3: there's no way, there's no way to tell, there's a 1127 00:57:41,120 --> 00:57:42,680 Speaker 3: way to tell. I know that's not scientific. I'm just 1128 00:57:42,720 --> 00:57:45,640 Speaker 3: telling you my experience, but I feel like I see 1129 00:57:45,640 --> 00:57:46,440 Speaker 3: where you're going with this. 1130 00:57:47,240 --> 00:57:50,280 Speaker 1: Your experience does hint at the actual science, which is 1131 00:57:50,280 --> 00:57:54,240 Speaker 1: that you have two problems, key problems when it comes 1132 00:57:54,240 --> 00:57:56,840 Speaker 1: to try to identify a bite mark in this way. 1133 00:57:56,920 --> 00:57:59,800 Speaker 1: If the person who is bit survives, as Teresa does, 1134 00:58:00,600 --> 00:58:05,000 Speaker 1: once you are bit, you start to heal. That process 1135 00:58:06,200 --> 00:58:09,560 Speaker 1: of reacting to the injury, which includes swelling up, which 1136 00:58:09,560 --> 00:58:12,480 Speaker 1: could include getting infected, which can include which and eventually 1137 00:58:12,480 --> 00:58:15,760 Speaker 1: includes like the healing of the injury starts immediately, so 1138 00:58:15,840 --> 00:58:19,520 Speaker 1: by the time your injuries are analyzed, and it's likely 1139 00:58:19,800 --> 00:58:21,840 Speaker 1: you know, cops generally when they come under the scene 1140 00:58:21,840 --> 00:58:23,880 Speaker 1: of a rape and murder, the first thing you're doing 1141 00:58:24,080 --> 00:58:27,439 Speaker 1: is not carefully documenting the bitemarks in such a way 1142 00:58:27,480 --> 00:58:30,480 Speaker 1: that it will be helpful to a forensic dentist. Necessarily, 1143 00:58:31,640 --> 00:58:35,560 Speaker 1: already that bite mark has started to change, right, In fact, 1144 00:58:35,600 --> 00:58:37,640 Speaker 1: it's going to change immediately because generally, like when you 1145 00:58:37,680 --> 00:58:39,840 Speaker 1: bite someone hard enough, they swell up, and that's going 1146 00:58:39,840 --> 00:58:42,440 Speaker 1: to alter the look of that bitemark. Likewise, if you've 1147 00:58:42,440 --> 00:58:45,160 Speaker 1: got a corpse that you know someone got murdered and 1148 00:58:45,200 --> 00:58:49,600 Speaker 1: they were bit decomposition also starts immediately, So you cannot 1149 00:58:49,720 --> 00:58:54,360 Speaker 1: say that the skin, like human skin is not like 1150 00:58:54,440 --> 00:58:55,480 Speaker 1: a dental cast. 1151 00:58:55,880 --> 00:58:59,120 Speaker 3: Right, No, right, And you're exactly right, Like there is 1152 00:58:59,160 --> 00:59:03,160 Speaker 3: a difference between mean someone analyzing like teeth remains of 1153 00:59:03,200 --> 00:59:05,760 Speaker 3: teeth and being like these belong to this person or 1154 00:59:05,760 --> 00:59:08,400 Speaker 3: et cetera. You know, there's a difference between that and saying, well, 1155 00:59:08,760 --> 00:59:11,520 Speaker 3: this bite is related to this person because of there's 1156 00:59:11,520 --> 00:59:14,560 Speaker 3: all these other factors that tie into that, mechanical factors 1157 00:59:14,600 --> 00:59:17,560 Speaker 3: and all these variables that like, it seems like it 1158 00:59:17,560 --> 00:59:19,680 Speaker 3: would be difficult. Maybe there are scientists who can prove 1159 00:59:19,680 --> 00:59:22,160 Speaker 3: me wrong on that, but I could see this being 1160 00:59:22,200 --> 00:59:25,200 Speaker 3: a much more difficult process and just identifying teeth. 1161 00:59:25,880 --> 00:59:26,160 Speaker 2: It is. 1162 00:59:26,360 --> 00:59:28,360 Speaker 1: Again, I'm not saying it's a thing you could never do, 1163 00:59:28,440 --> 00:59:30,240 Speaker 1: but it is not in any way the same kind 1164 00:59:30,280 --> 00:59:32,680 Speaker 1: of thing as identifying someone from their dental records. But 1165 00:59:32,880 --> 00:59:35,880 Speaker 1: because Levion is the guy who got famous identifying people 1166 00:59:35,880 --> 00:59:38,720 Speaker 1: from their dental records, and now he is testifying about 1167 00:59:38,760 --> 00:59:42,600 Speaker 1: bite marks, it sure seems like the same thing to again, 1168 00:59:42,640 --> 00:59:45,200 Speaker 1: the people who are not dentists or science authority. 1169 00:59:45,480 --> 00:59:48,000 Speaker 3: He's an authority exactly how you do not believe him? 1170 00:59:49,040 --> 00:59:53,480 Speaker 1: Now Harward's testimony again, because he the Supreme would gets 1171 00:59:53,520 --> 00:59:56,240 Speaker 1: in the second case, after Lemne says like it's impossible 1172 00:59:56,280 --> 00:59:58,200 Speaker 1: for someone else to have all the characteristics I found 1173 00:59:58,200 --> 01:00:01,320 Speaker 1: in these bite marks. Hardward's testimony includes some pretty good 1174 01:00:01,400 --> 01:00:04,360 Speaker 1: counter evidence to exonerate him, including the fact that he 1175 01:00:04,440 --> 01:00:08,240 Speaker 1: had an alibi during the time Teresa had been attacked. 1176 01:00:08,560 --> 01:00:11,280 Speaker 1: He had been at a mandatory drug and alcohol abuse 1177 01:00:11,320 --> 01:00:15,600 Speaker 1: program after being caught aboard with weed. He had an alibi. Also, 1178 01:00:16,120 --> 01:00:20,200 Speaker 1: Teresa specifically recalled the rank on the man's uniform because again, 1179 01:00:20,240 --> 01:00:23,320 Speaker 1: her husband works at the naval base. She knows this 1180 01:00:23,440 --> 01:00:27,640 Speaker 1: kind of stuff, and Harward's rank insignia did not match 1181 01:00:27,720 --> 01:00:31,440 Speaker 1: the signia she recalled seeing on her attacker. None of 1182 01:00:31,480 --> 01:00:34,440 Speaker 1: this mattered. Harward was sentenced again largely on the strength 1183 01:00:34,440 --> 01:00:39,880 Speaker 1: of the bitemark analysis and would spend thirty years in prison. Now, again, 1184 01:00:40,480 --> 01:00:44,280 Speaker 1: just as a spoiler, he's innocent. Let's take a look 1185 01:00:44,280 --> 01:00:47,479 Speaker 1: at this expert, Lowell Levine. At the time of the case, 1186 01:00:47,520 --> 01:00:50,240 Speaker 1: he was the most prominent bitemark analyst in the country. 1187 01:00:50,560 --> 01:00:53,760 Speaker 1: His CV took a full half hour to read in court, 1188 01:00:53,880 --> 01:00:57,000 Speaker 1: and like that was a strategy on behalf of the 1189 01:00:57,040 --> 01:01:01,520 Speaker 1: prosecution in the early nineteen seventies, though before this case begins, 1190 01:01:01,600 --> 01:01:05,520 Speaker 1: he was just another dentist. And it's generally like it's 1191 01:01:05,560 --> 01:01:07,600 Speaker 1: a little bit of a this is debatable, but like 1192 01:01:07,640 --> 01:01:10,520 Speaker 1: some people will argue that dentists struggle with depression and 1193 01:01:10,560 --> 01:01:13,400 Speaker 1: dissatisfaction in their jobs at high levels compared to other 1194 01:01:13,440 --> 01:01:14,320 Speaker 1: health professionals. 1195 01:01:14,400 --> 01:01:17,720 Speaker 3: High rates a suicide I've been told, yeah, yes, compared 1196 01:01:17,720 --> 01:01:19,080 Speaker 3: to other health professionals. 1197 01:01:19,160 --> 01:01:22,160 Speaker 1: Yeah, there's there's some evidence of that, although it is 1198 01:01:22,200 --> 01:01:25,080 Speaker 1: actually kind of inconclusive. It is worth noting that between 1199 01:01:25,120 --> 01:01:27,320 Speaker 1: twenty three and twenty twenty one alone, the number of 1200 01:01:27,400 --> 01:01:31,080 Speaker 1: dentists experiencing extreme anxiety tripled. Again, that might have more 1201 01:01:31,080 --> 01:01:34,360 Speaker 1: to do with COVID than anything else. I don't know, 1202 01:01:34,800 --> 01:01:37,640 Speaker 1: it's inconclusive, but I bring this up just because the 1203 01:01:37,680 --> 01:01:41,560 Speaker 1: young doctor Levine seemed kind of unfulfilled in his career 1204 01:01:41,640 --> 01:01:45,120 Speaker 1: cleaning teeth and more interested in the sexy, daring work 1205 01:01:45,160 --> 01:01:48,000 Speaker 1: of a forensic detective. He wrote an article for New 1206 01:01:48,040 --> 01:01:52,080 Speaker 1: York Journal of Medicine titled Dentistry and Emerging Forensic Science. 1207 01:01:52,440 --> 01:01:55,439 Speaker 1: Bite mark analysis had never been used in a court 1208 01:01:55,440 --> 01:01:58,760 Speaker 1: case before, but Levine pitched the idea, as Chris Fabricant 1209 01:01:58,760 --> 01:02:02,520 Speaker 1: notes in the book Junk Signs, to truly gain acceptance 1210 01:02:02,520 --> 01:02:05,920 Speaker 1: by his colleagues as a forensic scientist and recognition as 1211 01:02:05,920 --> 01:02:09,920 Speaker 1: an expert Levine advocated for some sort of certification the 1212 01:02:10,000 --> 01:02:12,760 Speaker 1: dentists had to be had to more than contribute to 1213 01:02:12,840 --> 01:02:16,240 Speaker 1: victim identification. Bite marks could be very valuable to be 1214 01:02:16,280 --> 01:02:18,880 Speaker 1: able to establish the identity of the perpetrator of the 1215 01:02:18,920 --> 01:02:22,520 Speaker 1: bite for legal purposes, Levine argued, But he also acknowledged 1216 01:02:22,560 --> 01:02:24,880 Speaker 1: that there was a sea of knowledge we must accumulate 1217 01:02:24,920 --> 01:02:27,880 Speaker 1: before we are willing to make positive identifications in court 1218 01:02:28,000 --> 01:02:31,200 Speaker 1: involving homicide cases, and he was candid about the lack 1219 01:02:31,240 --> 01:02:34,480 Speaker 1: of an objective scientific basis to the new technique. As 1220 01:02:34,520 --> 01:02:37,960 Speaker 1: a result, bitemarks will never be truly comparable to a fingerprint, 1221 01:02:37,960 --> 01:02:41,200 Speaker 1: since we cannot reproduce the three dimensions of the bitten surface. 1222 01:02:42,120 --> 01:02:44,800 Speaker 1: So that's what he writes in the seventies. And that's 1223 01:02:44,840 --> 01:02:46,000 Speaker 1: all kind of reasonable. 1224 01:02:46,520 --> 01:02:48,880 Speaker 3: Can I think it's very reasonable to I feel for 1225 01:02:48,920 --> 01:02:51,480 Speaker 3: the guy. I'll tell you why. I'm a gastroentrologist, as 1226 01:02:51,520 --> 01:02:54,000 Speaker 3: you know, and I've been pitching this idea of being 1227 01:02:54,040 --> 01:02:57,920 Speaker 3: a forensic proctologist and solving crimes through the dead innus, 1228 01:02:58,480 --> 01:03:01,520 Speaker 3: like reading rings on tree, the sort of thing, right right, 1229 01:03:01,560 --> 01:03:04,720 Speaker 3: I've been pitching the show to NBC for a while. 1230 01:03:04,760 --> 01:03:07,720 Speaker 3: I haven't gotten any positive feedback yet, but I'm not 1231 01:03:07,760 --> 01:03:10,440 Speaker 3: gonna stop because I think there's something to this, and 1232 01:03:10,640 --> 01:03:12,320 Speaker 3: so I understand where this guy is coming from. 1233 01:03:12,320 --> 01:03:12,680 Speaker 2: I get it. 1234 01:03:12,720 --> 01:03:15,240 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like mind Hunter but for butts. Butt hunter. 1235 01:03:15,440 --> 01:03:18,080 Speaker 2: But yeah, well there it is nailed it. 1236 01:03:18,160 --> 01:03:21,160 Speaker 1: Man, ma'am, I know you're very distraught right now because 1237 01:03:21,200 --> 01:03:23,640 Speaker 1: your whole family was murdered. But what can you tell 1238 01:03:23,640 --> 01:03:26,080 Speaker 1: me about what the insight of the man's ass probably 1239 01:03:26,120 --> 01:03:26,560 Speaker 1: looked like? 1240 01:03:28,080 --> 01:03:29,920 Speaker 3: We're gonna need to look at your husband's buttle. 1241 01:03:30,040 --> 01:03:30,800 Speaker 2: I'm sorry. 1242 01:03:31,840 --> 01:03:36,800 Speaker 1: So again in you know, this guy writes, like, ten 1243 01:03:36,880 --> 01:03:40,640 Speaker 1: years or so before the Hardward case, bite marks will 1244 01:03:40,640 --> 01:03:42,800 Speaker 1: never be comparable to a fingerprint. They can't be for 1245 01:03:43,280 --> 01:03:48,440 Speaker 1: very you know, basic reasons. Ten years later, though, Levine 1246 01:03:48,520 --> 01:03:51,040 Speaker 1: is a board certified member of the American Board of 1247 01:03:51,080 --> 01:03:56,440 Speaker 1: Forensic Odontology, and he testifies scientific certainty that mister Harward 1248 01:03:56,480 --> 01:03:59,040 Speaker 1: caused the bitemark on Teresa Peron's leg. I think ten 1249 01:03:59,120 --> 01:04:02,240 Speaker 1: years ago he said you couldn't do with bitemarks, and 1250 01:04:02,320 --> 01:04:04,920 Speaker 1: his certainty was so convincing that the two dentists who 1251 01:04:04,920 --> 01:04:08,080 Speaker 1: had ruled that Harward hadn't been the bier changed their 1252 01:04:08,120 --> 01:04:13,160 Speaker 1: testimony based on his Wow. So how he and his 1253 01:04:13,240 --> 01:04:16,560 Speaker 1: colleagues accomplished this was that they forced their way into 1254 01:04:16,560 --> 01:04:20,120 Speaker 1: the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and, as he'd written it, 1255 01:04:20,200 --> 01:04:23,040 Speaker 1: created a board certifying entity to ensure they could back 1256 01:04:23,120 --> 01:04:25,840 Speaker 1: up their claims whenever they would analyze a bitemark with 1257 01:04:25,920 --> 01:04:29,680 Speaker 1: titles that sounded impressive to judges and juries. This all 1258 01:04:29,720 --> 01:04:32,240 Speaker 1: started with a conference at a hotel in Chicago with 1259 01:04:32,360 --> 01:04:34,959 Speaker 1: Levine and seven other dentists who had been working ad 1260 01:04:35,000 --> 01:04:38,680 Speaker 1: hoc as experts for prosecutors at local medical examiner offices. 1261 01:04:39,240 --> 01:04:42,200 Speaker 1: They recognized how much money and respect could be theirs 1262 01:04:42,240 --> 01:04:44,960 Speaker 1: if they locked down a more formal role, and they 1263 01:04:45,040 --> 01:04:47,960 Speaker 1: knew the AAFS was the way to do it. The 1264 01:04:48,000 --> 01:04:51,760 Speaker 1: American Academy of Forensic Sciences was the most influential body 1265 01:04:51,800 --> 01:04:54,000 Speaker 1: in the field, and membership was seen as something of 1266 01:04:54,040 --> 01:04:57,080 Speaker 1: a rubber stamp that whatever forensic science you were pushing 1267 01:04:57,480 --> 01:05:00,560 Speaker 1: is the real shit, so. 1268 01:05:00,560 --> 01:05:01,840 Speaker 3: Good stuff, that's how you do it. 1269 01:05:01,960 --> 01:05:03,320 Speaker 2: That's yeah, do it. 1270 01:05:04,080 --> 01:05:07,200 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, this is like a very clever plan. So 1271 01:05:07,480 --> 01:05:09,760 Speaker 1: these odontologists knew that if they get in and if 1272 01:05:09,800 --> 01:05:12,040 Speaker 1: they you know, have suddenly a certification, that's going to 1273 01:05:12,080 --> 01:05:14,880 Speaker 1: make it impossible for any layman defense attorney to question 1274 01:05:14,960 --> 01:05:17,160 Speaker 1: their claims, which is going to make them very valuable 1275 01:05:17,160 --> 01:05:20,040 Speaker 1: for prosecutors. They are looking at what's happened with fingerprint 1276 01:05:20,080 --> 01:05:22,320 Speaker 1: experts and they want the same thing for bite marks. 1277 01:05:23,120 --> 01:05:26,800 Speaker 1: The AAFS obviously includes a lot of real experts, because 1278 01:05:26,800 --> 01:05:30,720 Speaker 1: there are real forensic scientists and people in the AFS 1279 01:05:30,800 --> 01:05:33,440 Speaker 1: are trying their level best who helps all horrible crimes. 1280 01:05:33,720 --> 01:05:36,160 Speaker 1: But it also includes a lot of grifter assholes who 1281 01:05:36,200 --> 01:05:38,280 Speaker 1: want money in respect and don't care how many people 1282 01:05:38,360 --> 01:05:42,600 Speaker 1: get wrongly convicted for that to be possible. So when 1283 01:05:43,160 --> 01:05:46,200 Speaker 1: you know, again, I say all this book because I'm 1284 01:05:46,240 --> 01:05:48,920 Speaker 1: deeply critical of this organization for what comes next. And 1285 01:05:48,960 --> 01:05:51,280 Speaker 1: also I think a lot of the people who are not, 1286 01:05:51,640 --> 01:05:56,720 Speaker 1: you know, odontologists in this organization probably see what Levine 1287 01:05:56,720 --> 01:05:59,240 Speaker 1: and the others are claiming about bite marks and assume 1288 01:05:59,280 --> 01:06:03,440 Speaker 1: they know their's because they're doctors, you know, and because 1289 01:06:03,480 --> 01:06:06,040 Speaker 1: not just because of that, odontologists had always been a 1290 01:06:06,040 --> 01:06:09,360 Speaker 1: big part of forensics, because dental records are that's a 1291 01:06:09,400 --> 01:06:13,320 Speaker 1: real way to identify remains, you know. So these folks 1292 01:06:13,400 --> 01:06:15,479 Speaker 1: feel like Levine and his crew are the real deal, 1293 01:06:15,800 --> 01:06:17,960 Speaker 1: even though bite mark analysis has nothing to do with 1294 01:06:18,000 --> 01:06:21,040 Speaker 1: id in corpses via dental records. And I want to 1295 01:06:21,080 --> 01:06:23,320 Speaker 1: read a quote from Fabricat's book, just sort of laying 1296 01:06:23,400 --> 01:06:29,560 Speaker 1: into how flawed this is. Bitemark analysis involves subjective interpretation 1297 01:06:29,680 --> 01:06:32,160 Speaker 1: of a bruison skin and guessing whether it could have 1298 01:06:32,200 --> 01:06:34,680 Speaker 1: been made by teeth, and if so, whether a particular 1299 01:06:34,720 --> 01:06:37,680 Speaker 1: suspects teeth made the mark. You appreciate that the sub 1300 01:06:37,720 --> 01:06:40,920 Speaker 1: disciplines of forensic odontology have nothing whatsoever to do with 1301 01:06:41,000 --> 01:06:43,120 Speaker 1: each other, that they can be made to sound like 1302 01:06:43,200 --> 01:06:46,280 Speaker 1: they do. Forensic dentists identify people through their teeth and 1303 01:06:46,280 --> 01:06:49,360 Speaker 1: through the bite marks their teeth make. That sounds straightforward, 1304 01:06:49,400 --> 01:06:51,720 Speaker 1: but it's actually more like a geologist claiming that because 1305 01:06:51,720 --> 01:06:54,080 Speaker 1: he can identify rocks, he can identify the rock that 1306 01:06:54,200 --> 01:06:56,760 Speaker 1: was used to bash someone's skull. And geologists out there, 1307 01:06:56,760 --> 01:06:58,480 Speaker 1: there's a lot of money for you if you want 1308 01:06:58,480 --> 01:06:59,360 Speaker 1: to take that one up. 1309 01:07:00,560 --> 01:07:04,400 Speaker 3: So business idea number thirty three is fantastic. 1310 01:07:04,480 --> 01:07:08,440 Speaker 1: Yeah, using real forensic dentistry as cover Levine and his 1311 01:07:08,560 --> 01:07:11,560 Speaker 1: cadra of I can't call them grifters legally, but I'm 1312 01:07:11,640 --> 01:07:14,720 Speaker 1: very critical of these people slide into the AAFS. They 1313 01:07:14,720 --> 01:07:17,560 Speaker 1: are accepted despite the fact that very there's not a 1314 01:07:17,600 --> 01:07:20,680 Speaker 1: lot of them, and crucially, there's not any rigorous scientific 1315 01:07:20,760 --> 01:07:24,320 Speaker 1: data laying out the objective best practices for comparing bite 1316 01:07:24,400 --> 01:07:27,160 Speaker 1: marks to teeth. A lot of real experts might point 1317 01:07:27,200 --> 01:07:29,560 Speaker 1: out that there are deep flaws in the the iver. Again, 1318 01:07:29,760 --> 01:07:32,640 Speaker 1: what everything I've said about like tissue, it's kind of 1319 01:07:32,640 --> 01:07:35,520 Speaker 1: the only really good bite marks that you can do 1320 01:07:35,600 --> 01:07:38,640 Speaker 1: a cast of someone's teeth and match to the bitemark 1321 01:07:38,800 --> 01:07:43,200 Speaker 1: is what are called. It's basically like cartilage bites, right, Like, 1322 01:07:43,240 --> 01:07:44,920 Speaker 1: if you get bit in the nose, you can sometimes 1323 01:07:44,920 --> 01:07:47,600 Speaker 1: get a really good bitemark from that because cartilage keeps 1324 01:07:47,720 --> 01:07:51,160 Speaker 1: the mark better. Yeah, it doesn't heal as well skin, right, 1325 01:07:52,640 --> 01:07:55,920 Speaker 1: So this is again these guys are real dentists. 1326 01:07:56,000 --> 01:07:56,560 Speaker 2: They know this. 1327 01:07:56,680 --> 01:07:59,439 Speaker 1: They know that if they want to make the case 1328 01:07:59,480 --> 01:08:01,560 Speaker 1: that this is a real science, they need like a 1329 01:08:01,640 --> 01:08:05,920 Speaker 1: famous court case that they solve with bitemark analysis. And 1330 01:08:06,040 --> 01:08:11,120 Speaker 1: because very few bitemarks can actually be analyzed with rigorous science, 1331 01:08:11,520 --> 01:08:14,080 Speaker 1: they're kind of like waiting for a while to find 1332 01:08:14,120 --> 01:08:17,479 Speaker 1: the perfect case to like make a big splash with. 1333 01:08:17,560 --> 01:08:19,120 Speaker 1: You know, this is this is a tough thing. You 1334 01:08:19,160 --> 01:08:22,360 Speaker 1: need a case that's horrific enough that it captures imaginations 1335 01:08:22,400 --> 01:08:25,000 Speaker 1: and gets media attention, and bite marks need to be 1336 01:08:25,040 --> 01:08:29,040 Speaker 1: involved somehow, and most importantly, the suspect needs to be poor, 1337 01:08:29,280 --> 01:08:31,360 Speaker 1: you know, so that experts. 1338 01:08:32,720 --> 01:08:34,559 Speaker 3: It's so it's such a bummer to take a step 1339 01:08:34,560 --> 01:08:37,200 Speaker 3: back for a second and be like, there's enough bite 1340 01:08:37,240 --> 01:08:42,120 Speaker 3: related crime, Like there's vicious attacks so terrible that people 1341 01:08:42,160 --> 01:08:46,559 Speaker 3: are biting in this animalistic way, victims biting people, Like 1342 01:08:46,640 --> 01:08:49,160 Speaker 3: this is a thing that's developing. That's that's kind of 1343 01:08:49,200 --> 01:08:52,559 Speaker 3: a weird concept for me to understand, Like that's common 1344 01:08:52,840 --> 01:08:55,360 Speaker 3: enough that this is even something that they're trying to 1345 01:08:55,360 --> 01:08:55,800 Speaker 3: look for. 1346 01:08:56,479 --> 01:08:58,519 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's it is that. 1347 01:08:58,360 --> 01:09:00,759 Speaker 2: People the worst they were weird. 1348 01:09:02,080 --> 01:09:05,799 Speaker 1: In February of nineteen seventy four, Levine and his colleagues 1349 01:09:05,800 --> 01:09:09,479 Speaker 1: got their dream case. A seventy three year woman was beaten, 1350 01:09:09,600 --> 01:09:12,479 Speaker 1: stabbed in the genitals, and murdered. She had been bitten 1351 01:09:12,520 --> 01:09:15,000 Speaker 1: on the tip of her nose, and it created the 1352 01:09:15,000 --> 01:09:18,840 Speaker 1: perfect bitemark for forensic dentistry. Levine had written two years 1353 01:09:18,880 --> 01:09:21,480 Speaker 1: prior about the need for such a three D bitemark, 1354 01:09:21,520 --> 01:09:24,719 Speaker 1: which was rare, to establish the legitimacy of his field. 1355 01:09:25,120 --> 01:09:28,480 Speaker 1: Now they had it. The prosecutor in this case suspected 1356 01:09:28,479 --> 01:09:31,120 Speaker 1: that Walter Marx was the guilty party because he had 1357 01:09:31,120 --> 01:09:34,160 Speaker 1: rented a room from her, but there was no actual 1358 01:09:34,280 --> 01:09:37,080 Speaker 1: evidence that he had committed the crime. So the prosecutor 1359 01:09:37,120 --> 01:09:39,840 Speaker 1: reached out to three dentists and they responded by saying 1360 01:09:39,880 --> 01:09:42,200 Speaker 1: the judge needed a subpoena Marx for a cast of 1361 01:09:42,200 --> 01:09:45,360 Speaker 1: his teeth. Marx refused, and so a judge jailed him 1362 01:09:45,400 --> 01:09:49,120 Speaker 1: for six weeks until he complied. Now, Fabricant notes that 1363 01:09:49,200 --> 01:09:51,679 Speaker 1: the mere process of forcing someone to have a mold 1364 01:09:51,760 --> 01:09:56,320 Speaker 1: taken is biasing, right, that it can bias, like the 1365 01:09:56,360 --> 01:09:58,920 Speaker 1: people analyze that mold because like, well, why would this 1366 01:09:59,040 --> 01:10:01,080 Speaker 1: be taken unless they was a reason to believe this 1367 01:10:01,120 --> 01:10:04,240 Speaker 1: guy was guilty, you know. And no structures were set 1368 01:10:04,280 --> 01:10:06,360 Speaker 1: up within the field of bite mark analysis to ensure 1369 01:10:06,360 --> 01:10:10,000 Speaker 1: that people comparing molds of wounds and teeth were objective right, 1370 01:10:10,360 --> 01:10:13,519 Speaker 1: looking at the information purely as information, rather than acting 1371 01:10:13,560 --> 01:10:16,880 Speaker 1: as paid members of a prosecution team. Jerry Vale, one 1372 01:10:16,880 --> 01:10:18,960 Speaker 1: of the dentists brought in for the case, was over 1373 01:10:19,000 --> 01:10:21,479 Speaker 1: the moon with excitement about the quality of the bite 1374 01:10:21,560 --> 01:10:24,400 Speaker 1: marks in this specific case. He convinced the judge that 1375 01:10:24,439 --> 01:10:27,520 Speaker 1: he was an expert, and Marx was convicted. The prosecutor 1376 01:10:27,600 --> 01:10:30,160 Speaker 1: later told the La Times there is no question, but 1377 01:10:30,240 --> 01:10:32,000 Speaker 1: this case is going to go down as the most 1378 01:10:32,000 --> 01:10:36,719 Speaker 1: significant bitemark case in forensic history. People v. Marx became 1379 01:10:36,760 --> 01:10:40,200 Speaker 1: the foundational case in the field of bitemark analysis, even 1380 01:10:40,200 --> 01:10:44,040 Speaker 1: though it opened by acknowledging no established science of identifying 1381 01:10:44,040 --> 01:10:45,280 Speaker 1: persons from bite marks. 1382 01:10:46,080 --> 01:10:47,080 Speaker 2: But see that's good. 1383 01:10:47,800 --> 01:10:51,320 Speaker 3: The problem here, and you're probably going to go into 1384 01:10:51,600 --> 01:10:55,040 Speaker 3: is that, like, this is the fundamental difference between like 1385 01:10:55,320 --> 01:10:59,919 Speaker 3: law and science, is that now this is set as precedent. 1386 01:11:00,439 --> 01:11:03,360 Speaker 3: Now in the legal sense, they are going to be like, Okay, 1387 01:11:03,439 --> 01:11:05,960 Speaker 3: well we've done this one thing and it seems that 1388 01:11:06,280 --> 01:11:08,280 Speaker 3: I mean, if what I've watched on TV is correct, 1389 01:11:08,280 --> 01:11:11,320 Speaker 3: again not a lawyer, if what I've seen is correct, 1390 01:11:11,320 --> 01:11:13,200 Speaker 3: then is like they're going to use that as precedent 1391 01:11:13,479 --> 01:11:17,040 Speaker 3: later in another case, whereas science is the opposite. You 1392 01:11:17,080 --> 01:11:19,000 Speaker 3: don't go based on precedent. You go based on things 1393 01:11:19,040 --> 01:11:22,160 Speaker 3: are constantly changing, it's always evolving. It should be they 1394 01:11:22,160 --> 01:11:24,759 Speaker 3: should be progressing. Sort of problem with COVID for example, 1395 01:11:24,840 --> 01:11:25,160 Speaker 3: you know. 1396 01:11:25,280 --> 01:11:29,160 Speaker 1: With our knowledge of COVID, if science was based on precedent, 1397 01:11:29,280 --> 01:11:32,680 Speaker 1: like oncologists would be like, well, we really think this 1398 01:11:32,760 --> 01:11:35,280 Speaker 1: chemotherapy thing might help me, Like, well, no, no, no, I'm sorry. 1399 01:11:35,320 --> 01:11:39,120 Speaker 1: We established with precedent that we melt people's cancer with fire, 1400 01:11:39,479 --> 01:11:42,040 Speaker 1: you know, like that's what we've been doing for thirteen 1401 01:11:42,120 --> 01:11:42,760 Speaker 1: hundred years. 1402 01:11:42,840 --> 01:11:45,600 Speaker 3: Yeah, the president is clear, right, but now it's a 1403 01:11:45,640 --> 01:11:48,040 Speaker 3: precedent and that's all you need in law, like present 1404 01:11:48,080 --> 01:11:49,879 Speaker 3: from one hundred years ago about whatever. 1405 01:11:50,000 --> 01:11:54,240 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, anyway, cobab that's the end of part one. 1406 01:11:54,400 --> 01:11:56,320 Speaker 1: In part two, we have a lot more things that 1407 01:11:56,320 --> 01:11:58,679 Speaker 1: are going to make you angry. But first, why don't 1408 01:11:58,720 --> 01:12:01,400 Speaker 1: you make the audience know where your pluggables are. 1409 01:12:02,160 --> 01:12:05,160 Speaker 3: Yes, you can find my podcast, The House of Pod. 1410 01:12:05,680 --> 01:12:09,080 Speaker 3: It is a humor adjacent medical podcast. We look at 1411 01:12:09,120 --> 01:12:14,000 Speaker 3: the intersections of public health and social justice sometimes and 1412 01:12:14,160 --> 01:12:17,320 Speaker 3: pop culture and it's fun. And if you like Behind 1413 01:12:17,320 --> 01:12:20,759 Speaker 3: the Bastards, you're probably gonna like our show. We're similar, 1414 01:12:20,800 --> 01:12:24,080 Speaker 3: but not as good. So check us out with that's 1415 01:12:24,080 --> 01:12:26,679 Speaker 3: a pretty good sell, right, We're not as good. Check 1416 01:12:26,760 --> 01:12:29,920 Speaker 3: us out anywhere you get podcasts. And if you want 1417 01:12:30,000 --> 01:12:34,120 Speaker 3: to follow me on socials the Cave, look up CAVEMD, 1418 01:12:34,360 --> 01:12:34,839 Speaker 3: or look. 1419 01:12:34,680 --> 01:12:35,559 Speaker 2: Up The House of Pod. 1420 01:12:36,160 --> 01:12:37,800 Speaker 1: You know, Cava, I've found this is one of my 1421 01:12:37,880 --> 01:12:40,639 Speaker 1: life hacks that you listeners at home can take. People 1422 01:12:40,720 --> 01:12:43,000 Speaker 1: really like and trust you more when you use self 1423 01:12:43,040 --> 01:12:46,040 Speaker 1: deprecating humor. So I've started whenever I meet new people 1424 01:12:46,160 --> 01:12:49,880 Speaker 1: saying hi, I'm Robert and just so you know, three 1425 01:12:49,960 --> 01:12:51,760 Speaker 1: years ago I was involved in a hit and run 1426 01:12:51,800 --> 01:12:52,840 Speaker 1: that killed seven people. 1427 01:12:53,400 --> 01:12:55,400 Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a great way to bring you guys. 1428 01:12:55,240 --> 01:12:57,400 Speaker 1: It makes it, It makes them trust. You're like, oh, you know, 1429 01:12:57,479 --> 01:12:59,519 Speaker 1: this guy is not you know all you know, up 1430 01:12:59,520 --> 01:13:02,160 Speaker 1: on his own about stuff, right, you know, and he 1431 01:13:02,240 --> 01:13:04,559 Speaker 1: makes mistakes just like me. He kills seven people in 1432 01:13:04,600 --> 01:13:05,479 Speaker 1: a hit and run, you know. 1433 01:13:05,680 --> 01:13:07,559 Speaker 3: And they're like, this is a Wendy sir. What do 1434 01:13:07,600 --> 01:13:12,320 Speaker 3: you I have a Hamberg? 1435 01:13:13,439 --> 01:13:18,840 Speaker 1: Mm hmm, all right, until I got part one's done, Goodbye, Goodbye. 1436 01:13:22,080 --> 01:13:24,759 Speaker 1: Behind the Bastards is a production of cool Zone Media. 1437 01:13:25,120 --> 01:13:27,720 Speaker 1: For more from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool 1438 01:13:27,840 --> 01:13:31,760 Speaker 1: Zonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, 1439 01:13:31,880 --> 01:13:34,200 Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.