Name: CSI On Trial
Uploaded: 2022
Description: Just how much ‘science’ is in ‘forensic science’? It’s time to put crime scene investigation methods on trial.

Just how much ‘science’ is in ‘forensic science’? It’s time to put crime scene investigation methods on trial.

Based on expert testimony from bloodstain pattern analysts, a jury convicted former state trooper David Camm of killing his family. He was exonerated years later when a shocking new piece of evidence came to light. How did bloodstain pattern analysis get it so wrong? Is it good science?

embedded

Can investigators decipher what happened at a crime scene based on the size and shape of bloodstains left behind? What can fluid dynamics tell us about the technique?

Blood Pattern Analysis

As a young sailor, Keith Harward was convicted of a vicious assault based on bitemark analysis. After 33 years in prison, DNA testing exonerated him and proved the bite evidence was junk. The bitemark analysis field has seen intense in-fighting and government investigations.

Bitemark Analysis appeared to fit neatly in the respected field of forensic dentistry until two researchers performed a bitemark study on cadavers.

Bite Mark Analysis

Firearms Analysis is one of the most common forensic science practices in the US, but recently the science behind it has come under fire. The national battle over whether to allow firearms analysis evidence in court is not just theoretical.

Firearms Analysis is one of the most relied upon forensic science methods in the US, but its foundational validity and reliability are now facing serious questions.

Firearm Examination

Suburban mom, Audrey Edmunds, was convicted of shaking a neighbor’s baby to death. But she was freed after 11 years when the pathologist who testified against her admitted he was no longer sure about Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Shaken Baby Syndrome is a household name, but shockingly it may not be a valid diagnosis at all. New biomechanical research has changed the conversation.

Shaken Baby Syndrome

The shoe print at the grisly Idaho crime scene seemed to match Charles Fain’s shoe– both showed a small nail hole in the sole. Based on that physical evidence, he was convicted and sentenced to death.

Shoe prints seem like the most classic, helpful piece of evidence at a crime scene. But how does the science behind this comparison technique hold up?

Footwear Analysis

David Gavitt served almost 27 years in prison before new arson investigation science exonerated him. Anthony Kyles and countless others are still behind bars. What happens when the science behind crime scene investigations moves forward, but legal precedent only looks backward?

In just one generation Arson investigation changed from myth-based to a science-based discipline. What is the future for those still wrongly behind bars?