Double Loop Podcast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray wrap up the three-part discussion on the AAAS Report on the Quality and Gap Analysis of Latent Fingerprint Examination. Surprisingly, the guys agree with many of the recommendations and conclusions in the document with an occasional quibble or clarification. As was hinted in the past two episodes, there are more serious concerns with the report's suggested language and proposed limitation of the word "identification".

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray continue the discussion on the pros and cons of the AAAS report. Carey participated with the review of the report and discusses the positive recommendations and the limitations that come from the report not being published in a traditional peer-reviewed journal. After that discussion wrapped up, Carey, Eric, and Glenn get a little off-topic and talk about attending AFIS Users' Conferences. Carey and Glenn presented at the most recent Idemia conference on the benefits of the Case AFIS system. Eric talks about a local AFIS conference and user discussions on how data analysis can lead to improved search practices.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray finally get around to discussing the report on latent fingerprint comparisons from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. John Black (from Black and White Forensics) was on the committee that wrote the report and joins the discussion on some of the merits and limitations of the paper. While many of the research recommendations are the next steps that the latent print field needs, they are also the same recommendations made by other reports. One of the report's main failures is the suggested wording for the identification decision.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined by Della Wilkinson from Canada to discuss the final resolution of the Bornyk case from British Columbia. Originally, Judge Funt (see Double Loop Podcast episdoe 10) ruled that the fingerprint evidence would not be admitted after conducting his own study of latent prints and his own comparison. The Crown appealed and a new trial began with the original examiner, the verifier, Della, and Simon Cole. This episode the Double Loop Podcast also pays tribute to Tony Cantu. He will be missed.

Eric Ray sits down for an interview with Simon Cole from the University of California Irvine. Simon explains how he first became interested in forensics and in latent print comparisons in general, and then outlines the history of his criticisms of the field. Glenn Langenburg later joins Eric for a review of the interview and some of Glenn's perspectives on how Simon's criticisms and the latent print response have both evolved over time.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray continue their interview with Matt Marvin from Ron Smith and Associates about the erroneous identifications and eventual exoneration of Beniah Alton Dandridge. This video (available on YouTube via RayForensics.com) goes through an in-depth and technical review of the latent prints, the errors, the exclusions to Dandridge, and the eventual identifications to the victim's son (who discovered the body).

Eric Ray hosts a live Double Loop Podcast discussion at the 2017 Florida Division IAI Conference in Panama City Beach, FL, and Glenn Langenburg joins via phone for the discussion. The audience hit Eric and Glenn with a variety of questions and the conversation swings from AFIS automation to using AFIS as a support for an identification decision. From the requirements that Florida courts put on latent print examiners to how to keep improving yourself so that you can make that jump into a career in forensics.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg are joined by Matt Marvin of Ron Smith and Associates to discuss in greater detail the details of the Beniah Dandridge case. Matt discusses how he and RSA got involved in the case, the history of the Manning murder, the original investigation, the Dandridge trial, his appeals, RSA's involvement, and Dandridge's eventual release. Check back to RayForensics.com soon for a YouTube video detailing the comparisons in this case.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss two forensic cases that have been in the news in the past few years. First, the guys talk about the recent Golden State Killer case. How did DNA testing and genealogy combine to solve these 40 year old crimes? What databases were accessed and was it ethical to do so? Secondly, Eric and Glenn discuss how accessing profiles of Y chromosomes from online sites led Idaho Falls detectives to Michael Usry, Jr. In 1996 Angie Dodge was murdered and Chris Tapp has been in prison for decades, but things get turned upside down when new technology comes into play.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray tackle two articles in one fantastic episode. First, "Lay Understanding of 'Identification': How Jurors Interpret Forensic Identification Testimony" by Henry Swofford and Jessica Cino from the Journal of Forensic Identification. Secondly, the guys tackle a paper from the Journal of Forensic Sciences, "Comparing Categorical and Probabilistic Fingerprint Evidence" by Brandon Garrett, et al. The big question is: should we say "identification" or should we express the same conclusion in a probabilistic manner?

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg continue their discussion with Alicia Wilcox on her research into how juries hear forensic testimony. This time we focus even more on questions of opposing experts, error rates, and what's the most important thing for an expert to have. A degree? Years of experience? An accredited lab?

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray join with Dr. Alicia Wilcox from Husson University in Bangor, Maine in a discussion of her research juries and their understanding of forensic testimony. Even though forensic scientists may try to present data in precise and sometimes mathematical way, jurors tend to interpret forensic testimony according to whether the evidence fits well into the story that they have constructed of the crime.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss last year's article, Using the PCAST Report to Exclude, Limit, or Minimize Experts by Eric Alexander Vos published in Criminal Justice. We note the extreme bias of the article to exploit the emotions of the judge and jury instead of logic, reason, or data, and we find the serious flaws in many aspects of the paper.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray follow up from last week's discussion of Glenn's recent Daubert hearing with a 2016 article from Jonathan Koehler entitled, Intuitive Error Rate Estimates for the Forensic Sciences. As Glenn suspected, the findings of this article are suspiciously close to the center of the group of choices that participants were presented with. Although there are some larger themes that are interesting, the exact values of the error rate estimates from potential jurors do not match personal experience or even some of the cited prior works.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray return after another hiatus to share travel stories and then to discuss a Daubert hearing that Glenn recently testified in. Short version: having all this new research is way better than when we didn't have it.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray continue their interview with Anja Einseln regarding the merger of ASCLD-LAB and ANAB. Validation of methods and reasons for labs to choose accreditation are some of the many topics covered this time around.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray first revisit a couple of additional aspects of our previous discussion on defense interviews in Illinois before diving into the deep end of accreditation. Anja Einseln joins the Double Loop Podcast as our guest expert on ASCLD/LAB, ANAB, and all things accreditation. In the first half we talk about some of the changes that will be coming with the recent merger of ASCLD/LAB and ANAB and what it means for latent print units in accredited labs.

Eric and Glenn tackle a topic that will be a major concern of labs across the country in the next few years, the merger of ASCLD-LAB and ANAB. Some of the changes include the elimination of Latent Print Appendix, the elimination of the Administrative Review requirement, and slight wording changes that may result in huge changes to latent print reports and notes.

Glenn and Eric continue to discuss the 2017 International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics. This time Glenn tells about some troubling trends emerging from Illinois where forensic scientists are refusing to answer questions related to the foundational validity of the discipline. He also touches on new work on a different type of Likelihood Ratio approach from Cedric Neumann and colleageus.

Glenn discusses the recent 2017 International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics that was held in Minnesota. Specifically, Glenn helped lead a project that looked at how lay people from different backgrounds interpreted different types of forensic results and how those interpretations were used in a courtroom setting.

Eric sits down with Amanda, Harres, Vanessa, Jack, and Judith from the Austin Exclusionology class to talk about latent print topics and to ask questions back at the Double Loop Podcast. Glenn later joins Eric in commenting on how the discussion went and to give his own comments on conclusion language, GYRO, and how juries interpret our results.

Eric and Glenn sit down for an interview with Sandy Siegel and are also joined by a crew of Texas examiners (and one from San Diego). Sandy talks about her start in the field, her time in Austin, and then her new position with the Houston Forensic Science Center. The HFSC is a public/private entity that is separate from the police department and may be a new example for how to structure crime labs in many other jurisdictions.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray follow some good advice from Niki Osborne and interview Dr. Theresa Stotesbury from Trent University in Ontario. Theresa has developed a synthetic blood substitute using sol-gel for use in bloodstain pattern analysis training. We learned a lot and can't wait to find out more.

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

Glenn and Eric first cover the new resolution that came out of the IAI 2016 Conference. They then perfectly segue into a conversation on the recent decision to order the release or retrial of Brandon Dassey based on problems with his confession and initial attorney.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray finish their discussion of the OJ Simpson trial, the FX OJ dramatization, and the OJ 30 for 30. Mark Fuhrman, Lance Ito, Dennis Fung and all the rest, and how the climate in LA at that time directly led to the verdict.

After the success and interest of Making a Murderer episodes, Glenn and Eric travel back to the 90s to discuss the physical evidence from the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and the trial of OJ Simpson.

Glenn and Eric received some more emails about the Avery case and fill out yet another episode with the topic. They even manage to debunk a fingerprint myth from the case.

Glenn and Eric read a couple of emails from non-examiners that came across our Making a Murderer episodes. We ended up spending this whole episode talking about the ideas and comments from those emails. Unrelated to the episode is the image thumbnail. This is the Christmas gift to our patron in Indianapolis. Turn the image upside-down and it says 'fingerprint'.

Glenn and Eric answer some questions from an email that came in after the Making a Murderer episodes. Is all the extra time used to shield ourselves from bias worth the effort? Do the fact-finders and the general public want our conclusions expressed as associations instead of identifications? Which of our customers decides? The officers, accreditation boards, judges, attorneys, jurors, legislatures?

Eric and Glenn continue their discussion of the popular Netflix documentary including further discussions of the physical evidence, the EDTA test, things not discussed in the documentary, and the entire concept of true crime as entertainment.

Glenn and Eric start a two-part podcast discussion on the twisty case of Stephen Avery, now an extremely popular documentary on Netflix. As they wind their way through this very interesting case, the guys try to keep the focus on the physical evidence available and how that all played in to the convictions in this case.