Double Loop Podcast

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...

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 lat...

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...

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...

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 Br...

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...

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 t...

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 ASC...

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 coll...

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...

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, legislatur...