This week we take a hard look at the evidence before deciding that it's all useless. Join us as we discuss the incredible fallibility of fingerprints, hair, and bite marks.

Sources:

https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5159

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/FBI-Admits-Pseudoscientific-Hair-Analysis-Used-in-Hundreds-of-Cases-180955070/

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.safeta.org/resource/resmgr/imported/GLOSSARY%20OF%20FORENSIC%20TERMS.pdf

https://strangeremains.com/2016/01/16/a-13th-century-guide-to-forensic-anthropology/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/21/a-brief-history-of-forensics/

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/07/white-house-report-concludes-that-bite-mark-analysis-is-junk-science/

https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hair-analysis-flawed-forensic-technique.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction

https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/bite-mark-evidence/

https://theconversation.com/fingerprinting-to-solve-crimes-not-as-robust-as-you-think-85534

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464344a.html