A Boomer and GenXer Walk into a Bar
Wit and wisdom, some smart assery, and a Mother and Daughter questioning “Are we even related?”
A Boomer and GenXer Walk into a Bar
When Certainty Is An Illusion: Rethinking “Scientific” Evidence S:2E:13
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Ever wonder how a confident expert can sway a jury with evidence that later falls apart? We dive into the uneasy fault line between courtroom certainty and scientific reality, exploring why some techniques—like polygraphs, bite mark analysis, and even traditional fingerprint comparisons—have led to devastating mistakes.
DNA stands out as a powerful anchor when collected and interpreted with care. We talk CODIS, next-generation sequencing for degraded samples, and where genetic genealogy and phenotyping can help or mislead. Throughout, our focus stays on error rates, independent review, clear uncertainty statements, and a cultural shift from “trust the examiner” to “trust the validated method.” We end with practical resources—the Marshall Project and the Innocence Project—for listeners who want to explore how junk science has shaped real cases and what stronger standards could fix.
If this conversation challenges how you think about evidence and justice, share it with a friend, follow the show, and leave a quick review telling us the one forensic method you now question most.
email: boomerandgenxer@gmail.com
Banter And Tooth Tales
SPEAKER_00Welcome back to one today on the webinar video where we have to start some wet and wisdom of more that three. And another and daughter questioning of teeth related. My name is Moby Toy. My co-host is my mom Jane. And uh I think we're related today because before we started recording, we uh we're comparing missing teeth that we have.
SPEAKER_01Oh my goodness! It's crazy. We both look like crack whores. So we've lost at some point a tooth or two. Mine was because I broke a root canal tooth and they had to dig that root canal tooth out, which I'm happy to have my root canal out of my mouth. But yours were because of why, Bobby.
SPEAKER_00Well, one because um I bit into a frozen Snickers bar uh when we lived down in Texas and it shattered my tooth up into my gums. Nice, yeah, and the other ones were just from um some kind of like toxic decay or something. I don't know. I never found out what that was.
SPEAKER_01She calls it toxic decay, I call it early acid drop. I don't know.
SPEAKER_00I mean, being said, I used to eat tubes of crest toothpaste, you would think that my teeth would be better.
SPEAKER_01That is so gross, Bobby. You don't eat toothpaste. I'm just telling you right now. I should have probably told you that when you were younger. You don't eat toothpaste. Good point. Hey, what you know what? So you gave me a topic and it scared me. I would just be honest with you. It really scared me because I really had to do some research on this, and I'm not happy about that, but I did.
Introducing Junk Science In Forensics
SPEAKER_00And what are we talking about today, Bob? So today we are delving into my world. Um, it's what that I did study in college, but it's something that a lot of people don't know about, but you know, they watch a lot of these crime shows like Law and Order and things like that, or you know, Dateline. And we're gonna be talking about junk science used in forensics. Wow.
SPEAKER_01And I'm just gonna remind our listeners as you stated, we are still in rabbit run, and so some of our audio right now is not the best. And I apologize for that. I will tell you here in the next couple episodes, we will have that resolved because we will have the studios back together. But it's just tough sometimes because if we're out in the mountains and we have somebody else that's in the Midwest and somebody else that's somewhere else, it's just difficult to do. So we appreciate you so much bearing with us on this. I am scared to death of this topic because you know more about this than I do. So I'm gonna hand the reins over to you.
SPEAKER_00Well, I'm gonna ask you, you know, do you do you know some forensic techniques that are no longer used today or that have come into question?
SPEAKER_01Well, that have come into question. Um, I think some of the techniques, and you correct me if I'm wrong, would be like the lie detector tests, right? And so those, you know, those were like the number one thing. It's like, oh, he didn't pass a lie detector test. They're really not that accurate to begin with, and they still are not today.
SPEAKER_00Is that correct? That's correct. They're actually not admissible in court because a variety of factors. Um, anything from taking anti-anxiety medications to just normal human reaction to things can make a lie detector not detect lies, I guess.
Polygraphs And Why They Fail
SPEAKER_01And the other thing is, is people have figured out how to circumvent them, they have figured out how to fool them. And let's face it, we've got some people who are pretty darn good actors or are psychopaths or sociopaths. They have the ability to regulate their body temperatures, they have the ability to regulate their blood flow, they have the ability to regulate a lot of what's going on there, Dr. Domain. You might want to calm down. I don't know what just fell down, but it was probably him. It was probably him. He's probably laying cold on the floor somewhere, and we're still talking about this. People have figured out how to kind of circumvent that entire process.
SPEAKER_00That's correct. Yeah, they've they've learned how to beat the system basically on that. And like you said, you know, psychopaths and sociopaths, they don't have the reactions that regular people do. So if they're telling a lie, they don't feel bad about it. And some people even tell lies to where they believe it themselves. Isn't that wild?
SPEAKER_01So they don't think that they're lying. I can give you a prime example, the Ed Gean story. If you've watched that on monsters, and I would tell you that is like what a seven-part series, six or seven-part series, and I will tell you, it took me every last breath of energy to even get to number two in that series because it was so disgusting. A lot of people will trick their minds into believing that that is true, and once you believe that it is true, it is certainly easy to fool a system.
SPEAKER_00Correct. And another one that has come up, and these this is stuff that people have actually been convicted and even executed over. Um, you know, some of these sciences, another one is uh bite mark analysis. Okay, so talk to us about the bite mark analysis. So a bite mark analysis is basically say you bite into a block of cheese and you look down and you know, you see a pattern of your teeth that's it's it's pretty, I don't know, unique to your own mouth. So what they would do is, you know, in a lot of these crimes, especially the assaults and the um sexual assaults, people would get bit during these crimes, and they would use bite mark analysis to say, oh, beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is where their teeth are. That and it has proven over and over and over again to be false.
SPEAKER_01So has that been point of contention then in the court system? Has that been something that they've kind of thrown out, or do they still rely on that or they just bring it up as part of the evidence?
SPEAKER_00So a lot of times now they will try to bring it up as part of the evidence. Now, any good defense lawyer is going to bring up the fact that, you know, this is considered junk science now. And a lot of courts have either revisited cases or overturned cases that that was their primary evidence was a bite mark on a person that they they tied to what they thought was the offender.
SPEAKER_01Now it is something that they still allow in the court, but it's really not something that would be the determining factor. Is that what you're saying?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, yeah, I'm sure a lot of prosecutors would still try to bring it up. Um, you know, bring in their quote unquote experts saying, you know, oh, well, this is this is definitely their their bite and things like that. But you know, any prosecutor, any judge worth their salt is going to say absolutely not.
SPEAKER_01So some of the things that have stood the test of time obviously have been things like fingerprints, right? I mean, those fingerprinting is fingerprint, isn't it?
Bite Marks Under Fire
SPEAKER_00Yes and no. So the the big flaw with fingerprints is the fact that how do I put this? There aren't fingerprint specialists out there. You have regular detectives comparing fingerprints, you have flawed computer systems comparing fingerprints. You know, there's only so many points. I think it's like 11 or 13 points on that fingerprint that they have to match out of, you know, almost a hundred in order to get a match to a person. And so it's not a hundred percent match, it's not like DNA, where it's like, okay, well, only one person in you know, 200 billion has this DNA, and there's not even that many people on the planet. They have they have gone back and shown that even fingerprinting has been flawed in the past because of inexperience or the you know, not having the knowledge, maybe having a smeared fingerprint, and they only have you know nine points of comparison, you know, compared to 90. Uh, so it's it's actually one that has come up as a possible junk science that is going to be reviewed.
SPEAKER_01So you say it's come up as a possible junk science, but currently in our judicial system, that is something that is still acceptable, that is something that is still allowed in the judicial system as considered part of the scientific evidence, correct?
SPEAKER_00Correct. I mean, you know, nowadays we do have more of a AI technology type, the real the reliability of the fingerprint analysis it is a little more reliable. Back then, it definitely wasn't. So on the fingerprint analysis, I actually have an example after the March 2004 terrorist bombings in Madrid. Um, I I don't know if you remember that, it killed almost 200 people. A partial fingerprint was found on a bag of detonators that was then sent to the FBI. Now, this is only you know 21 years ago. This isn't like ancient science. So it was sent to the FBI lab. An examiner who examined the fingerprints determined that the prints belonged to someone I just know as Mayfield. I'm not sure what his for oh, Brandon Mayfield. Sorry, Brandon Mayfield, he was later detained. And in total, four fingerprint examiners declared that his print matched the ones from that they found on the bag of detonators, except and so I'm gonna stop you right there though.
SPEAKER_01When they testified that his fingerprints matched, they were only matching a certain number of those what do I want to say, patterns on the fingerprints, correct?
SPEAKER_00Right, a ridge analysis, correct. Yes, and here's the problem: um, it it wasn't Mr. Mayfield's print at all. Later, Spanish officials matched the partial print to an Algerian man, and he was convicted. And so he, you know, Brandon Mayfield had to fight this fight of, you know, this isn't my fingerprint. You're taking on the FBI, you're taking on, you know, some of the top researchers and scientists in this field and trying to prove your innocence.
Fingerprints’ Limits And The Mayfield Case
SPEAKER_01I want to come back to the DNA analysis because uh well, that's gonna be the last part of our discussion because that's really kind of the smoking gun. And then I really want to do another podcast on judicial justice uh in the courtroom as it relates to this. So remind me of that, Bobby. Some of the focus on things like trace evidence, which would link people to where they were, places, objects, microscopic analysis, all of those enhanced capabilities sometimes are wrong. And especially when we're talking about technology, you know, the use of AI for image analysis, three 3D crime scene reconstruction is really important, but it can be wrong. Unfortunately, what's happening is that's being brought into evidence in a courtroom as being kind of the gospel. This is the last, you know, this is the last and final information that you need to know regarding this, advanced micro microscopy, uh, and powerful database or genetic genealogy. All of that, and and again, I want to talk about DNA last, but all of those things are still available when convicting someone.
SPEAKER_00And you also have to think that, you know, they bring in these specialists, these people who say that they specialize in certain things, whether it be blood spatter or ballistics information, which is of course firearms and bullets, um, arson investigators. And in reality, there is so much flawed science in that. But you know, as a lay person who is sitting on a jury listening to this, these people can convince you, you know, that this one little tiny drop of blood means that this person murdered this person because of the way that it formed a pattern. And so that's that's what's really scary. You know, we and I did I touched on you know, bite mark analysis, ballistics evidence has come been called into question. Tool marks when somebody uses a tool to jimmy open a door or break in some of the colours.
SPEAKER_01Or even to or even to beat somebody to death, right? Correct, correct that leads me, that leads me to the flawed evidence that's provided by a medical examiner. Yes, so a medical examiner does nothing but MDs. He is not a scientist, he is not a um somebody who looks at these patterns, he is not somebody who, I mean, the fact is, is there's a lot of weight put on the decision of what a medical examiner says.
SPEAKER_00And a lot of people forget that this is all open to interpretation. So when they ask, what does this blood spatter mean? They tell them, well, this means that the person was standing 10 feet away and this is back blow. That's their interpretation of the evidence. That is not, you know, the God's honest truth. This is the know all end all to everything. You know, this is this is all open to interpretation. And, you know, a big one is arson investigation. So I know it's crazy. And there have been people who have been convicted and executed, uh, convicted of murder for arson when later on it was their their methods were disproven, and it was proven that it was an accident, you know. Another one which is huge is shake and baby syndrome.
SPEAKER_01Oh, it's terrifying. And you know, you don't hear a lot about shake and baby syndrome anymore. Uh, does it still exist? Of course it does, but you don't hear about that uh much anymore because that is so difficult to prove. And um, you know, again, I go back to the shift to scientific rigor, which you know, we're moving from trust the examiner to trust the science, even with blood splatters and things like that. I always feel like it takes more than two or three people looking at it, not only independently, but together. Because sometimes when you get together, you kind of go, Oh, I missed that, or yeah, I see what you're saying. And it's not to persuade the other person in a scientific uh conclusion, but it's really to say, Did you take this into consideration?
SPEAKER_00Right. And and there is that bias, because I have studied this for this many years that I would know more about it than you. Well, you might have studied it. I I'm not sure that you would know more about it than me. A good example is uh hair analysis. This is a huge one that a lot of people have been convicted over, you know, where they find a hair that has a you know follicle on it or doesn't have a follicle on it, and they compare it to a victim's hair, you know, under a microscope, and they look the same. And so that person says, okay, well, this came from the victim. That's been proven time and time again to not be true.
SPEAKER_01Let me ask you this. Some of the new evidence types, obviously, that they've been looking at have been social media, cell phone location. They've been tracking financial records alongside traditional physical evidence, right?
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_01Um, I think that has some, think that has some value.
SPEAKER_00Uh it's kind of like, you know, in the old days when they would look for receipts from gas stations. Right. It's kind of the same thing. It is, but at the same time, you know, when I log in, um, you know, let's say I log into my uh work app on my phone, it pings me in Springfield, Missouri when I'm in Iowa and I'm in the middle of Iowa. So how am I being pinged in Springfield, Missouri?
Trace Evidence, AI, And Courtroom Persuasion
SPEAKER_01Bobby, what are you doing in Springfield? Oh my goodness. I know, right? Oh my goodness. So you're saying that there's still some flaws in the digital forensics, you know, with the evidence from phones and computers and the internet. And, you know, it still has to be open to interpretation. And I understand repeaters, and uh Dr. Domain understands all of that stuff a lot more than I could ever even think of, but it can repeat off of a of different towers. So I think that that also comes into question. One thing that has never come into question yet, and I don't know that it will, has been the DNA analysis. Yes, well, the biggest game changer has been moving, you know, beyond blood typing to, you know, genetic fingerprinting and now, you know, next generation sequencing, and you know, and for detailed analysis of degraded samples, you know, leading to CODIS. And I'm I'm just gonna mention what CODIS is. Yeah. Um, CODIS is the combined DNA index system, and that's the FBI's national database. It's a DNA database that they have linking not only local but state and national DNA profiles. But you gotta remember, folks, all of those have to be convicted offenders and they have to be arrestees that are in the system. So even if they had Bobby's DNA, Bobby's never been convicted of anything, she's never been brought in for anything. Her DNA has never been collected for any anything, neither is mine. And so to say, oh, we have their DNA. And another thing they're doing with DNA to compare it to, yeah.
SPEAKER_00Another thing they're doing with DNA is you know, they can build profiles now. Um, so they can take an unknown DNA source and they can say, Okay, well, this is a mostly white male who most likely has brown hair, brown eyes, some kind of stature. He grew up in this area. I don't trust that, I don't trust any of that because you know it might be close, but I have yet to see it where it has actually. You know, really nailed somebody with it.
SPEAKER_01But on the other hand, I mean, I have seen situations where they have taken DNA and they have made like um sketches of what that person would look like based on what their DNA profile was. And I'm not kidding you, Bobby, it's been pretty darn close. But I guess, you know, to get to your point, and I don't know that this is your point. I'm just gonna ask you, is your point that you you really can't 100% trust that type of evidence? I think that we still have to question does it make sense? And we're and again, we're gonna get into the court cases in another episode because I really want to talk about that really bad. But this is so interesting to look at this. And when you brought it up, I thought, oh, this is scaring me because I don't know a whole lot about this at all. But the more I looked into it, some of the evidence and and the places and people and the links to all of these things, it's amazing. And I would encourage people to go in and look at it because you know, when they hear something on the news, they immediately go, oh, they're guilty or they're innocent. We don't know, right?
SPEAKER_00Right, and it honestly should scare people because if we can convict people off of junk science to life in prison or death, you know, imagine the possibilities. I I could go in and, you know, like I said on an episode before, I can go in and say, Well, I'm a spit pattern analysis, and because of this spit pattern that was found, um, you know, he he choked this girl to death. When in reality, all I have to do is convince a jury that I know what I'm talking about.
SPEAKER_01And we'll get into that. I think that's a whole different podcast. And it makes me sad how that has how that has transformed. Because it used to be that you were judged by a jury of your peers based on the facts, and that's not the case anymore. And it just it really and truly does make me sad. So we're gonna talk about you know, preponderance of evidence, but evidence beyond a shadow of a down shadow of a doubt, and then you know, what does uh propensity evidence really mean? And so I really do want to talk about that another time. But is there something else that you wanted to leave us with today?
SPEAKER_00So I do. So uh this one should scare you. So this is something that we grew up with.
SPEAKER_01Does this have to do with Ed Gene?
SPEAKER_00Oh man, do you remember growing up on the well when I was growing up on the cemetery? You know, my dad was the sexton of the cemetery. Okay, wait a minute.
SPEAKER_01Back, back, back, back up, back up, back up. Because you just said when I grew up on the cemetery, you didn't grow up on a cemetery, Bobby, surrounded by a cemetery. Okay, your dad was a sexton right for a cemetery, that is correct, right?
Blood Spatter, Ballistics, Arson, And Bias
SPEAKER_00So, do you remember that he used to use witching? Witching rods, witching rods. I still use them, right? And they are a tool that can be used. Did you know that there is someone that is out there teaching witching to police officers to find corpses? I think it's a great idea because it has to do with the why, why, why we have technologies today, ground penetrating radar, things like that that make this obsolete. You're taking a guy with two sticks out there, okay. Granted, yeah, they can find rocks and water and things like that. Uh, like I don't know, 70% of the time they're gonna be accurate, but come on, you're no, no, we we are too far in civilization and technology for this to be a thing. Way too far.
SPEAKER_01You know, the fact of the matter is is you know, and we can talk about the earth's energy and the electrical currents from the underground water and minerals and pipes and things like that, and the biological electricity. And the fact of the matter is, is the earth is a source of all of that. And I I will tell you, I've used them a number of times and they work. The what it what does it hurt? What does it hurt? It's not like you're saying, you know, okay, I'm you know, it's right here and we're not gonna dig it up, but we know we buried somebody there. That's not the case, it is nothing more than just another tool.
SPEAKER_00No, but uh, you're looking at it the wrong way. You're wasting time and resources of these people.
SPEAKER_01Give me a break, you're gonna talk about that another time, oh, where would the dead body be? Oh my god, no, no. I mean, first of all, the body generates electricity, right? That interacts with these rods and they can cause them to react to water uh alone. But the fact is, is the earth has a lot of energy that it can it can connect to. We can talk about let's talk about it another time because it's really called water witches.
SPEAKER_00I'm not I'm not saying it doesn't work. What I'm saying is let's quit wasting resources on it. If Uncle Bob wants to go out there on his own with some witching rods, I say let him, but let's not dedicate a police force to it when they could be using higher technology that has more accurate goodness.
SPEAKER_01I don't think anybody's dedicating an entire police force to it, but nevertheless, uh the national forensics, national forensics academy is actually learning it right now.
SPEAKER_00You just have to have the last word, Benjamin.
SPEAKER_01You just have to have the last word, but I'm just gonna say, wait a minute, that's all the absurdity we have for today. And so you're gonna have to come back. I'm gonna shut her down.
SPEAKER_00But hey, listen, um, if anybody wants to read up on this, two good sites are called the Marshall Project and the Innocence Project, and all they have to do is research the junk science, and they will find out some things they never wanted to know.
SPEAKER_01It really is good information, and I think it is it really does behoove people to go in and look at this information and understand. I mean, maybe it doesn't ever affect you, but maybe one day it would. We appreciate you joining us here at the rabbit run studio. Be sure to follow us. We look forward to spending time with you each week, don't we, Bobby? We do. Please like us. And if you have some feedback for us, or if you have a topic that you'd like to talk about, drop us a short email at BoomerandgenX or at gmail.com. If you have hate mail, uh, we're not really interested in that. You can bury it in the ground. We'll try to find it with those witching rods. But until now, until next week, I'm Jane Burt and I'm Bobby Joy. And you're stuck with us, aren't we? We are. Okay, peace out later.