- 1 day ago
Category
馃帴
Short filmTranscript
00:00I'm Julia Zemiro and this is Crime Night, the show that goes beneath the surface to uncover
00:18the ideas, science and psychology behind crime.
00:21Tonight we're putting forensics under the microscope, how it became central to justice,
00:26how we use it and what happens when science becomes junk science.
00:30But before we dive into the evidence, let's meet our panel.
00:33She's an academic, Dean of Griffith University and an expert in offender psychology.
00:38Lie down on the couch and open your mind.
00:40It's Professor Danielle Reynolds.
00:45Danielle, what first drew you into the world of criminology and was it a TV show?
00:50Well, it actually was.
00:52So I'm originally from Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean.
00:56It would have to be a Caribbean soap opera, a classic Trinidadian soap opera called No Boundaries.
01:03And it was full of drama, crime, police investigations and I always dreamed that that would be me.
01:10Good to you fulfilling every single fantasy.
01:12How marvellous.
01:14He spent his career studying crime prevention and risk management.
01:17So if anything goes wrong tonight, we're blaming him.
01:19Please welcome Dr David Bartlett.
01:21Now David, what intrigues you most about crime?
01:28So like Danielle, I've got a psychology background, so it's the why.
01:31So why is it that some people do certain things, why do they do it in those places, when and those sorts of things.
01:37Because if we understand that, we can actually start to think about crime prevention and the best way to address offending.
01:42And how long did it take you to complete your PhD?
01:44Oh, just over 11 years.
01:46Eleven years.
01:47I mean, anyone can do it.
01:49And we're joined by a writer and an actor who recently was diagnosed with ADHD.
01:57At least we know they aren't involved in organised crime.
02:00It's Reece Nicholson.
02:01Now Reece, I wonder what crime would you have the attention span to commit?
02:08Illegally downloading Caribbean TV shows.
02:11And finally, a comedian who grew up working in her parents' plant nursery.
02:17She's perfect for this show because she's spent a lifetime around blood and bone.
02:21It's Claire Hooper.
02:22That's right.
02:23And I can dig a deep hole too.
02:29Now, Claire, have you ever been in trouble with a law?
02:34Um, just for the obvious.
02:36Looking this good.
02:41From blood spatter to browser histories, forensics blend science with logic.
02:46In a world of lies, it promised evidence you could test, measure and analyse.
02:50And if nothing else, it's inspired a lot of television that always seems to start exactly the same way.
02:55A featured extra rolls into a car park, spots a dead body and boom, they're in a crime scene.
03:02With acting like that, they won't be back.
03:04Then in comes the detective.
03:06Emotionally unavailable, complex backstory, holding a takeaway coffee they'll never drink.
03:11They're soon joined by painfully cool lab tech, who has tattoos, glasses and tweezers, so you know they're legit.
03:18We found a single fibre from a crocheted card he sold exclusively at stall 67A at the Queen Victoria markets.
03:24Exactly 42 and a half minutes later, who did it?
03:28Of course, we saw them in the opening frame.
03:31It's the guest star trying to prove they're more than just a quiz show host.
03:37Case closed.
03:39I know, I can't unsee that crocheted card again.
03:45No.
03:46Moby looks great.
03:50Today, forensics is everywhere.
03:52In our courtrooms, our headlines, even our family ancestry kits.
03:56It feels objective, conclusive and public faith is high.
04:00Danielle, what makes forensic evidence so important?
04:03Forensics has provided one of the biggest breakthroughs in criminal justice and in policing in the last century.
04:09If you think about what police had to rely on in terms of evidence before forensics,
04:13it was things like eyewitness testimony, which we know is flawed, offender confessions, which we know could be coerced.
04:20It also provided this scientific standard of proof.
04:23So, it is subject to evidence-driven approaches, testing, analysis, that's usually pretty rigorous.
04:30Most importantly, forensics has allowed us to identify offenders.
04:34So, we can now link suspects to crime scenes, to victims, to weapons with greater precision.
04:41And the cool thing these days is there's so many different types of forensics.
04:44So, you think about it, you've got fingerprints, you've got DNA, you've got ballistics, you've got forensic toxicology.
04:49And what it means is that at a particular crime scene, there can just be so many different types of forensics.
04:55In 2017, in South America, there was this case that was a heist,
04:59and there were lots of offenders involved.
05:01They went in and processed that scene and they found 457 different types of forensic evidence,
05:08which is crazy.
05:09They actually used that evidence to go back and solve crimes from almost a decade earlier.
05:14457?
05:15Are there that many bodily fluids?
05:18I only know three.
05:20Yeah.
05:21And four?
05:22Rhys, have you ever used forensics to uncover any crimes?
05:28When I'm away, when I'm on tour, because the rule in our house is our dog doesn't sleep
05:33on our bed.
05:34But when I come home, on my side of the bed, there's always a perfect egg shape that is
05:40exactly the same circumference as my dog curled up in a tight little egg, or my husband's
05:47having an affair with a tiny woman.
05:49On screen, forensics is flawless.
05:54Clues are crystal clear and lab results are back in minutes, ensuring cases are tied up
05:59neatly before the credits roll.
06:01It's great drama, but it's also warped how we think about real life evidence, especially
06:05in the jury box.
06:06That phenomenon even has a name.
06:08It's called the CSI effect.
06:11The highly seductive notion that forensic science, at least on television, never fails.
06:17But in the real world, say the experts, forensic evidence is complex and maddeningly inconclusive.
06:24The CSI effect attracts unreasonable jury expectations, and the belief that a single fingerprint can
06:31solve everything.
06:32Thanks to TV, we imagine DNA smeared everywhere, perfectly preserved crime scenes and dimly
06:38lit labs that solve murders in under an hour.
06:41I mean, please, I couldn't read a restaurant menu in that light.
06:44But in reality, forensic evidence analysis is slow, costly and not as conclusive as TV suggests.
06:50Danielle, how real a problem is the CSI effect?
06:53We know the jurors expect forensic evidence on cases.
06:58And when there's no forensic evidence on cases, they tend to view those cases as weaker.
07:03The public has this expectation that if there is DNA evidence, the crimes are going to get
07:08solved much more quickly.
07:09That is not the case in real life.
07:11We know that testing takes weeks, sometimes months.
07:15And there are even cases we know of here in some jurisdictions in Australia where sometimes
07:20there are backlogs in terms of testing.
07:22There was a report that came out in New South Wales that showed that 74 out of the 80 police
07:28commands reported that they have to manage incorrect public expectations and assumptions about
07:34forensics and about testing times.
07:36We love these TV shows.
07:38I mean, we've all got our favourites.
07:39But how do they misrepresent forensics?
07:41They misrepresent it in so many ways.
07:44So we think about fingerprints, for example, because that's the one that people are most
07:47familiar with.
07:48So you watch these shows, you would think that you can take a fingerprint off any surface.
07:52And that's just not the case.
07:53You can't take a fingerprint off a wet surface, for example, a drink bottle that's got condensation
07:58on the outside.
07:59The other issue about fingerprints is that they can't be dated.
08:04So you can leave a fingerprint somewhere.
08:06It could have been there for years.
08:07So just think about this.
08:08So think about the last time that you slept away somewhere from home.
08:12So it might be a hotel room or a friend's house or a beach house or wherever.
08:16I spend half of my life in hotel rooms.
08:18What are you about to tell me?
08:20So there's a pretty good chance that you've left fingerprints in that room, right?
08:25Now those fingerprints could still be there.
08:27Now think about if a murder happened in that particular room tonight, if the crime scene
08:32investigators go in, they're liable to find your fingerprints at that murder scene.
08:36But that fingerprint could have been days, months, weeks.
08:39In some cases, defence lawyers have argued that their client's fingerprint was left there
08:43two years before the actual crime happened.
08:45Claire, what new kind of CSI show would you love to watch or indeed be in?
08:50CSI Home Makeover, where after they've solved the crime, they clean up the blood,
08:55they replace the carpet and the curtains, give it a lick of paint and some new curtains
08:58and the grieving family gets the entertaining space they always drink.
09:10Every time we move through space, we leave a little forensic trail behind.
09:14Fingerprints, fibres and if you're enthusiastic enough, maybe even a little DNA.
09:19No judgement.
09:21Just how much evidence are we dropping without even realising?
09:24We find out in our experiment of the week.
09:32Like most of us, Claire Hooper and Reece Nicholson are no stranger to forensic crime shows.
09:37But the real question is, did it sink in or will it sink them?
09:42This is the ABC green room where Reece and Claire are joining us for what they think is a script read-through with a producer.
09:48Oh my God.
09:49But what they don't know is that they're on camera.
09:51Oh, that's cute.
09:53And that the Crime Night team have rigged the room with bits and bobs to try and encourage them to be a little more messy than usual.
10:01Do we like pizza?
10:02Yes.
10:03They look like they've travelled a long way.
10:06They're from Italy actually.
10:09Beautiful.
10:10Thanks.
10:12Reece instantly makes themselves at home.
10:18Nope.
10:22Enter producer Dave.
10:24Okay, since this is the forensics episode, we're going to do a little experiment with you.
10:32And that experiment starts right now.
10:34Okay.
10:36Good.
10:38Good news.
10:39Good news.
10:40So, you've been in here for a while.
10:41We're going to give you two minutes to clear this room of any forensic material you might have left in here.
10:47We shouldn't have had that spitting on each other competition.
10:50After that, the forensics team is going to come in, they're going to sweep the room.
10:53Your two minutes starts now.
10:56Oh God.
10:59Okay.
11:01Yeah, get them.
11:02I touched that, we touched that.
11:04This is all going in.
11:10Alright, so I touched that.
11:12We need a cloth.
11:13Get a makeup wipe.
11:14I think we just have to eat the whole pizza.
11:19How do I?
11:20Do I lint roll?
11:21You were brushing your hair!
11:23They did not have any shovels or lime.
11:27Get it!
11:28Time's up.
11:29The scene is sealed off and samples are taken from Rhys and Claire.
11:36Oh, there's going to be an internal.
11:37One cheek first.
11:39Oh!
11:41You got beautiful fingerprints.
11:44Let's go to jail!
11:46It's now over to the forensics to see what they can find.
11:49Firstly, they photograph the potential pieces of evidence.
11:53Then they swab possible sources for saliva.
11:57They use a technique called oblique lighting to look for evidence on the floor.
12:02Fluorescent dust is used to locate and lift fingerprints.
12:07And UV light to detect fibres.
12:12Time to take this to the lab.
12:13How did Rhys and Claire go in the forensic face-off?
12:23Were they successful in removing traces of themselves from the scene?
12:27We'll find out later, because that was our experiment of the week.
12:30Forensics is often seen as flawless, the courtroom's most reliable witness.
12:38But in reality, you're not just trusting the science,
12:41you're trusting the expert interpreting it.
12:43And sometimes that science is really what the field politely calls junk science.
12:48David, when we say junk science, what are we actually talking about?
12:51Junk science is a set of techniques that are very subjective.
12:54So they rely more upon the subjectivity of the scientist,
12:57rather than the actual scientific result.
13:00And we think here things like, for example, bite marks, tyre impressions, blood splatter.
13:05Bite marks are open to interpretation.
13:06I thought everyone would have a very individual set of teeth.
13:09You can't really tell the difference.
13:10No.
13:11I mean, English teeth, surely.
13:14Few cases have exposed the flaws in forensic science more clearly than one of Australia's most infamous miscarriages of justice.
13:20The Chamberlain case.
13:22Well, I just yelled out, has anyone got a torch?
13:24A dingo's got my baby.
13:25Michael and Lindy Chamberlain were on a family camping trip at Uluru in 1980, when their nine-week-old daughter Azaria disappeared from their tent.
13:35Lindy said a dingo had taken her baby, who was wearing a crocheted matinee jacket at the time.
13:40But police didn't believe her and instead charged her with murder.
13:44The prosecution leaned heavily on forensic evidence that sounded convincing until you looked at the details.
13:50The British forensic expert who testified about the dingo bite marks had never seen a dingo.
13:56Remarkable considering dingoes were central to the case.
13:58That dramatic blood stain under the Chamberlain's car dashboard, the supposed murder scene, turned out to be old milkshake and factory applied sound deadening spray.
14:07And the biologist who swore it was blood later admitted her testing was wrong and she couldn't recall how she came to make the error.
14:16The Chamberlain case was a master class in forensics gone wrong.
14:20A mix of poorly collected data and mistaken analysis.
14:23Three years later, Azaria's missing jacket was found.
14:27Blood stained and buried near a dingo's lair and the verdict was overturned.
14:31Lindy Chamberlain has been released from Darwin jail and she won't be going back.
14:35At the same time, the Northern Territory Government has announced there will be a new inquiry into the Chamberlain case.
14:42It took until 32 years and four inquiries later to officially state what Lindy had claimed since day one.
14:49A dingo did take her baby.
14:51David, how did these flawed forensics end up delivering a guilty verdict?
14:56This case really is a master class in forensic disasters and it's a forensic disgrace, quite frankly.
15:00So what essentially happened is the police, relatively early on, formed the view that Lindy was guilty and they built a circumstantial case around that.
15:10And that case was pretty weak, to be honest, until they had that forensic evidence.
15:14So the forensic evidence was the tears in the baby's clothes and the scientists testified that they were in fact caused by scissors as opposed to dingo bite marks.
15:23But also there was the blood splatter. And what we now know is that the kit used by the scientist to actually test that blood gave a false positive.
15:33So when she tested it, it actually tested positive for baby's blood, fetal blood.
15:38What we now know is that particular test kit gives false positives in relation to copper.
15:42So there was copper inside the car. There were sort of 22 individual sort of blood splatters in that car.
15:48But it was testing positive each time to copper.
15:51I can't wrap my head around how this went so wrong.
15:54I think a big part of this is that this case became this sensational media spectacle.
16:00There was so much intense national and international media scrutiny.
16:03And I think when you see that in cases, it puts an incredible amount of pressure on investigators to come up with a conclusive outcome and to do it quickly.
16:14And I think that is what led to some of the flawed investigative processes here.
16:18There were also significant mistakes that were made by the investigators in their decision making throughout the process.
16:24So the fact that they dismissed all of the alternative early explanations.
16:30So the dingo explanation was dismissed really early on because there was no precedent for the dingo taking a baby before.
16:38This case was the perfect storm. It was just littered with significant investigative errors.
16:44The media went crazy at that time. And a big part of it was the fact that this was a woman who didn't look like she was a grieving mother.
16:50She was a Seventh-day Adventist. You know, she was different. There was a real agenda.
16:55Absolutely. I mean, people talked about the fact that she didn't seem like she was emotional enough.
17:00Looking back on it with 2020 Vision, it's like rampant sexism, right?
17:04Like it's a whole country looking at someone going, oh, you're not the type of woman I think you should be being about this.
17:11You're not crying. You're not grieving in the same way.
17:14I reckon there would still be people walking around thinking about Lindy Chamberlain going, hmm, I don't know.
17:18Like it's such a strange thing.
17:19It's such a wild fluke that the matinee jacket was found because it was only, you know, like years later and it was someone else's accident that led them to find it.
17:29Do you think there's any chance that we would have gone back and assessed the forensic evidence again with fresh eyes if that jacket hadn't been found?
17:39She would still be in jail?
17:40I reckon she'd absolutely still be in jail.
17:41So there was a backpacker who decided to climb Uluru.
17:44He ended up falling and ultimately died.
17:47But the rescue team were out looking for his body.
17:50And in that process, one of the searchers stumbled upon the matinee jacket.
17:54Now he knew straight away what he'd found because he had been in the original search party looking for Azaria.
18:00What?
18:01She was just talking about it.
18:02Yeah.
18:03And as soon as he saw it, he said he knew straight away that that was Azaria's matinee jacket.
18:06He knew exactly what he'd found.
18:08I think the other piece to this case that's also mind-blowing is that there were legit experts that worked on this case who got it wrong.
18:15There was Dr James Cameron, who was an experienced forensic scientist from the UK.
18:22There was Joy Kuehl, an experienced forensic biologist from New South Wales.
18:27These guys worked on a lot of cases and both of them got it wrong.
18:32What this case has really shown us is that forensics is like any other form of evidence.
18:37It needs to be questioned.
18:39It needs to be tested in court to essentially establish that it's reliable.
18:43In the mid-80s, everything changed when a chance discovery transformed the way crimes could be solved.
18:50British geneticist Sir Alec Jeffries stumbled upon the idea that each of us carries a unique molecular fingerprint.
18:57A kind of genetic barcode.
18:59Don't you just love it when that happens?
19:01The only thing I've stumbled on lately is the fact that I now make a noise every time I get up from the couch.
19:05Jeffries had uncovered the foundation of DNA profiling.
19:09Since then, it hasn't just transformed how we solve crime.
19:13It's redefined the very concept of evidence.
19:16DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, when she's feeling fancy, changed the game.
19:21David, how did DNA testing change forensics forever?
19:25So DNA is both unique and accurate.
19:27The chances of people, other than identical twins, sharing the same DNA profile is about one in a billion.
19:32And some people even say it's as high as one in a trillion.
19:35But the actual scientific testing of it as well is really accurate.
19:39So it's about 99.5% accurate.
19:42And in really well-controlled labs, it's as high as 100%.
19:45So unlike junk science like bite marks and things like that, where there's a lot of subjectivity on the basis of the scientist,
19:51it's actually the science itself that's proving whether or not this is a match.
19:55I think it's been a game changer.
19:58It's given us the ability to solve cold cases once DNA testing has become available.
20:03And that's enabled us to prosecute people who've evaded conviction.
20:07It's also given us the power to overturn wrongful convictions.
20:10And one of the best things about the effect that DNA evidence has given us is what we see in the U.S. Innocence Project,
20:16where they've used DNA evidence to free over 375 people, 21 of whom were on death row.
20:25So I think DNA evidence genuinely saves people's lives.
20:30These days DNA doesn't just stay at the crime scene.
20:32It can turn up in the past, in places you'd never expect, with some very surprising results.
20:38Lou Wall takes a closer look.
20:40So you've sorted your super, prepaid your funeral,
20:43and now you're ready to tackle life's biggest question.
20:47What percentage Viking am I?
20:50Truthfully, I just got one of these genealogy testing kits to see if I could get an EU passport.
20:55And to confirm some deeply held suspicions about grandad's secret second family.
21:02Genealogy websites used to be harmless retirement projects,
21:05a fun way to figure out which side of the family gave you webbed feet.
21:08It was mum's.
21:09But now, thanks to a growing DNA database of people willing to give up their genetic material,
21:15you might also help uncover something unexpected.
21:18Instead of red streams, it's now DNA strands connecting the dots of blood to the suspects.
21:24Forensic genealogy can match DNA from those public databases to crime scene DNA in order to solve cold cases.
21:30One minute, it's your 8% Icelandic. Knew it. The next, it's your cousin's a serial killer.
21:37Did not knew it.
21:39In Australia, police can only access data from public opt-in genealogy websites.
21:43But in the US, they can get data from companies like Ancestry and 23andMe with a warrant.
21:47It's how they nailed the infamous Golden State Killer in 2018.
21:53Joseph James DeAngelo was finally unmasked thanks to a distant relative's DNA being uploaded to a public genealogy website.
22:01Investigators built out a family tree, narrowed it down and then followed him until he left behind a used napkin.
22:06He literally wiped away his freedom.
22:10Police in Australia have their own databases which hold 1.7 million profiles, but commercial databases hold millions more.
22:19And whilst your data is private, once you've handed over that cheek swab, technically it can be searched, sold or quietly shared in future.
22:28Even if you haven't taken a test, chances are a curious relative has.
22:32And sometimes, that's all it takes.
22:34One sample can generate hundreds, even thousands of connections.
22:40And this DNA family tree is growing faster than you can say Bob's your uncle.
22:46And possibly a drug lord.
22:51Bitter.
22:53Too much Aunt Joan.
22:57DNA might feel like the end game to us, but it's actually just a step.
23:01Danielle, what can we expect next in the world of forensics?
23:04Microbiomes.
23:06What? Isn't that in my gut?
23:08Yeah.
23:10It is actually in your gut. So human microbiomes, they're microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, viruses.
23:16They live in and on your body, in your gut, on your skin, in your mouth, in your respiratory tract, in your urogenital tract.
23:26We're talking farts, right?
23:27We're talking farts, right?
23:30Do we mean farts?
23:31Is it farts?
23:32Yes.
23:33Danielle, is it farts?
23:35You do expel them all the time, through your breath, your urine, your feces and...
23:42And your farts.
23:43So, with microbiomes, we can finally figure out who dealt it.
23:50Microbiomes, it's really in the experimental phase, okay?
23:53So there's a lot of work to be done to see whether we can actually use this or not.
23:57But there's some really cool features.
23:58So think about before when I was talking about the fingerprint and leaving the fingerprint in the last place you stayed.
24:03And you can't date that, so you don't know when it was left.
24:05The cool thing about microbiomes is there's the potential to figure out when they were left there.
24:11By the way, they multiply and mutate and things like that.
24:14But there are risks to it because, as David said, it's still in the experimental phase.
24:18We know much more about DNA than we know about microbiomes.
24:21And one of the risks is its variability, right?
24:24Microbiomes can change over time with diets, travel, illness, even if you take antibiotics.
24:31But it's really cool when you think about combining what we know from DNA with microbiomes.
24:38That's the next new thing.
24:40Earlier, Rhys and Claire tried to wipe their prints, fibres and DNA from our green room.
24:46Forensics bagged and tagged, sent it to the lab and the results are in.
24:50But who disappeared best?
24:52It's time for this week's End Game.
24:54Wipe Right.
24:55Now Rhys, do you think you were able to remove all traces of you from the green room?
25:06No, I reckon there's every chance I've absolutely scattered that place with my DNA.
25:12And do you remember the things you touched where you might have left your DNA?
25:15Hey, that's a private question.
25:17I touched the pizza and then I touched everything.
25:19And then definitely touched a bottle of water at one point.
25:23I'm a touchy guy, but not in like a HR kind of way.
25:26But like, yeah, I touched everything.
25:29So fingerprints would be everywhere.
25:31What about you, Claire? How do you think you went?
25:33Honestly, I don't know, we met the two forensic scientists and they did seem smarter than us.
25:40Oh, yeah.
25:42I'd be pretty surprised if we out-witted them.
25:44Let's take a look.
25:46So forensics have gathered quite a few fingerprints from the scene.
25:50We've got a green powdered fingerprint taken from a glass lolly jar.
25:55The unknown fingerprint perfectly overlays with the reference fingerprint from Rhys.
26:02The best result that we obtained was from the penlib.
26:06We can see that we have a full DNA profile that suggests it's from a single source.
26:10What we would do now is compare this to the reference samples that we obtained from our suspects.
26:16And we've got a match.
26:18The donor of the DNA profile on the pen lid is most likely Rhys.
26:23Based on my comparisons, Claire has not contributed to any of the crime scene sample DNA.
26:29So this is the reference sample of Rhys.
26:32It's a really exciting one actually because what you can see here is it's coloured, very distinctly coloured.
26:39It's got this beautiful red colour.
26:41In fact, this person loves their hair and it must be a very expensive colour job too.
26:45You can see the consistency of it, how even it is.
26:49Excellent hair colour job.
26:51Claire's reference sample is here.
26:53You can see it's got that lightish colour to it.
26:54The end of the hair, we actually have damage.
26:58And this is heat-based damage.
27:00And as you go along, it gets this kind of stringy appearance.
27:03It almost looks like it's melting.
27:05So in this particular case, we have three evidence samples.
27:09All of the three evidence samples are actually really nice.
27:12We have the whole length of the hair from at least the root.
27:15So looking at Rhys's hair here at the moment, because it has dyed, we can exclude it immediately.
27:22However, from the analysis, there's some unique damage within Claire's hair, which is consistent with hair too.
27:29Some would say is a match.
27:38What a thrill that I'm going to get caught for the crime, but I'm going to have the best hair in jail.
27:43I mean, he was so excited. They toned him down.
27:49Yeah.
27:51Claire, how did you feel watching that? I mean, I feel a bit triggered by that myself.
27:55I just feel outraged because Rhys was the one brushing their hair for about 20 minutes.
28:02I'm like, how did I shed?
28:05Yeah, and that's why it's such good quality hair.
28:08I look after it. I'm brushing it for 20 minutes a day because I'm childless.
28:14So Rhys, the full analysis showed that your fingerprints showed up in four different places around the room, and of course your DNA was all over that pen lid.
28:24On the other hand, Claire, you left behind no prints at all.
28:28The only thing that could tie you to the room was a single, extremely damaged hair.
28:31Well, I'll tell you why it was damaged, because someone had been carrying it in their pocket and they planted it off.
28:39Please give a huge thank you to our guests Rhys Nicholson and Claire Hooper.
28:43And of course, our resident experts, Professor Danielle Reynold and Dr David Bartlett.
28:56This week on Crime Night, we learned that forensic science isn't always fast, flawless or foolproof.
29:01But when it works, it can solve cold cases, free the innocent and rewrite the story entirely.
29:08Just maybe don't build your entire scientific knowledge from NCIS Sydney.
29:12I'm Julia Zemiro. Good night.
29:13I'm Julia Zemiro. Good night.
Be the first to comment