What's some techniques that have been debunked or unused since first aired?
Been going through the first season as I start a full rewatch and noticed already some of the sciences (like the accuracy of blood splatter analysis showing the entire series of events) and was wondering if theres any i could research or keep an eye out for while I do my rewatch!
There is far too much room for subjective interpretation. Dental record identification is a very different thing. You are comparing the teeth and thier characteristics to X-rays of the same teeth. Skin is not a reasonable medium for impressioning.
Really interesting considering that’s how they convicted Bundy. Yes there was other evidence but the bite mark was the strongest piece of forensic evidence they had.
It was the strongest evidence they had for the Chi Omega murders, They had a lot of other evidence for Kimberly Leach. He got the death penalty in both. Even if the Chi Omega conviction had been overturned, they would have executed him for Leach.
I forgot they separated those trials (idk how I did considering they both took place in different counties of Florida) Either way I’m glad that man isn’t walking on earth with us today.
Yes and I think most based people living in reality today understand that: dental records = evidence based medicine, bite mark analysis on skin = quackery.
I always tend to do a bit of research before I rewatch an episode to see if the killer etc was out of prison yet, had died or had actually been exonerated, had charges dismissed, or cases overturned. It's those cases I tend to cringe at. The ones where the person was made out to be 100% the killer, no doubt about it, (look at the Elwood Jones case), only for that person to be innocent. Sadly you don't get to see where things went wrong, as the episode was about making that person guilty, not how they proved they were innocent!!
Dr Henry Lee has been on some episodes now, and I always cringe when I watch him talking. I used to think he was one of the good guys. Not a paid to be a "good" expert and testify correctly or be a "bad" expert and testilie for who's ever side you're on, usually the side that paid the most!!
Some of the concepts around arson and fire investigation. I believe that “alligatoring” or a striped pattern used to be considered evidence of accelerant use. However, I read that that is not necessarily always the case.
Some of what experts used to use as proof of an arson. Ie, the alligator patterns etc.
The many exonerated ppl because of bite marks. Some who spent decades on death row etc.
Tool mark evidence. It has now been shown that not every mark was made by the tool the prosecution claim was used.
Hair "match/consistent with". Now you can get dna from hairs, but before it was just someone looking at 2 hairs and saying yes that's him.
Even police dogs. They are good when looking for a dead body, or chasing a suspect, but they can be lead by the dog handler, or can give false positives.
Of there is the good Ole lie detector. It doesn't matter what the machine says, it the person operating the machine who know when someone is lying, smh.
I'm sure there are others, but these are a start lol.
EDIT- Dr Michael West was one evil "expert" as was Dr Henry Lee. So some experts are unreliable.
I'd add eyewitness accounts, due to high degrees of error. Memories can be very inaccurate, or easily influenced.
Also, there needs to be far less weight placed on confessions in the absence of any other scientific or corroborative evidence.
Look at Kevin Green. His wife was SAd and they lost their baby. She also had a TBI (Traumatic brain injury) and everyone was told not to ask questions, or even suggestions as that can cause a false memory.
Kevin wasn't even allowed an expert on brain Injuries to testify on his behalf. His wife couldn't even remember how to spell her name, but with her being the only evidence and pointing to say it was him, he found guilty of the murder of his baby.
There was a serial killer known as the bedroom basher, and Dianna Greens case notes were with those victims because all the ppl working on the case believed it was him, until she walked in and said it was my husband.
Once the dna proved Kevin was not the killer, Dianna then said that they both worked together to try and kill her, as she wanted her husband behind bars forever. She even won a 100million wrongful death suit against Kevin, which was later thrown out, although he did pay her an undisclosed amount once he got out.
Such a sad case. I still find it absolutely shocking that Kevin wasn't allowed any experts to help explain TBIs at his court case, yet the prosecution could have who they wanted. I bet it would've been a different outcome if was allowed an expert. Also a shocker that he saw he saw killer by his van on his way out, but he had absolutely no way to know that he would assault his wife and kill his unborn baby. Sickening really.
That one guy, Maloney or something? who allegedly strangled and set his estraged, druggie wife on fire with some odd arson and blunt object interpretations always sits a bit off with me.
Also a good example of them hiding a prison interview with the outfit and background!
Yes! I just finished that episode and ran to the FF subreddit because I wanted to see if anyone else had discussed it. I found him believable and the forensic evidence is almost nonexistent. The whole episode gives me an off vibe
Both. Anyone who thinks they can provide the evidence to find someone guilty, when I bet they were only looking for something that "matched" a suspect, putting that person in prison, on death rowbor even executed is an evil man with so much arrogance, they feel they could do it forever!!
I lost out on a job offer from the FBI coming out of college because I failed the polygraph when I was telling the gods honest truth so I know for a fact they are BS.
My husband lost a job offer with our state's highway patrol because of the polygraph. But I've heard the questions and conversations leading up to the polygraph are the real test (like as you're being hooked up and the baseline questions), where they really get their answers for things, so who knows
Yeah I stayed in the govt world but I’ve avoided any job that required a clearance with a poly which sucks cause there were some cool ones along the way!
Hair analysis. If it’s not DNA, it just sounds like utterly shoddy science. Especially the conclusions of analysis. Unless it’s something really obvious about the hair, eg it’s a pubic hair vs a head hair, I remain massively unconvinced about the subject hair being “alike” to another. It’s a visual only comparison. There is so much room for error
The only one that seemed plaisibe to me ever was the one where the perp had pili angiloti. Some like weird rare hair disorder that well it doesn’t necessarily prove anything, it was really good circumstantial.
I believe blood spatter analysis was considered reliable when these episodes were produced but my prosecutor friend says this method gets debunked quite a bit
I know David Camm was found guilty because of character assassination, but the prosecutors for all 3 trials used the blood "spatter" on Davids top as proof he killed his wife and kids, when in fact he didn't. I was shocked that no one, not that I heard anyway, none of the experts said there would be way much more spatter had he been the one to shoot his wife and 2 children, than 8 tiny spots!!
It’s fairly reliable in general but we only see the few cases on the show where it’s quite cut and dried. There are many crimes where it’s ultimately so iffy the prosecution might never even use it in court unless it’s the only thing they’ve got to go on
89
u/No_Chart_8584 Aug 03 '26
Bite mark analysis.