Double Loop Podcast

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg start to wrap up this second season of Making a Murderer with a discussion of the other new suspects in the case, a bit of internet drama, and the vast Wisconsin conspiracy. They then finally move into the discussion of Brendan Dassey and his ongoing appeals process, and how difficult it is for federal courts to review state court decisions. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray spend this episode talking about even more of the forensic evidence from the second season of Making a Murderer. They start with a review of the DNA evidence from the hood latch and the bullet fragment. Can there be too much DNA? They also discuss the trace analysis of the bullet fragment, the lack of fingerprints, the mysteries of brain fingerprinting, and even more of the evidence in the Steven Avery case. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray delve into the second season of Making a Murderer. They start by reviewing the evidence that they had discussed from the first season and then discuss their impressions of the new characters in the docu-series. They then move into a detailed discussion of the experiments conducted by Kathleen Zellner and her new forensic experts on behalf of Steven Avery. The blood and bloodstain patterns are covered. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined by John Swartz, retired from the Tucson Police Department, for a discussion on the Prime Time Rapist case from the mid-1980's. John talks about how the series of 30 attacks on 90 people affected the Tucson community and the department investigating the crimes. Before the perpetrator could be caught, there was a fingerprint examination error that led to other mistakes and civil rights violations. After discussing the details of the case, Glenn and Eric ask John about how the error affected the examiner, the latent print unit, and how the unit was treated by other agencies after the error.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg begin the episode with a discussion of an article from a law journal by Barbara Spellman titled, Communicating Forensic Evidence: Lessons from Psychological Science. Among her main points are that statistics, likelihood rations, and random match probabilities are terrible ways of communicating information to juries. She goes on to say that there are a number of misconceptions in latent fingerprint comparisons that must be addressed to juries and that analogies might be a better way to convey information to them. While Glenn and Eric agree and disagree with some of those points, they conclude the episode by reviewing a number of their favorite analogies that they use when testifying or teaching. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray report on a heated and controversial topic that caught the attention of the latent print world in the summer of 2018, the re-designed IAI Re-Certification test. Every five years, Certified Latent Print Examiners must take a comparison test. The old one was notoriously easy, but that has recently changed, and the error rate was higher than some expected. Carl Speckels raised the topic on the CLPEX.com message board and it was discussed at length at the 2018 IAI Conference. The topic is discussed even further here with some suggestions on how to improve the test while keeping it an important aspect of latent print examination. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray interview Teresa Wu from IDEMIA about the new product launch of IDEMIA's Case AFIS. The new system can quickly scan in exemplar prints from any type of standard or non-standard cards which then serve as a mini-database for an AFIS search. Efficiency is vastly improved when the computer takes care of the searching aspect of latent print comparisons. This process can also almost eliminate erroneous exclusions from casework. (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray try to wrap up any final discussion points from The Staircase docu-series. After Michael Peterson's conviction was overturned and a new trial was ordered, new attorneys come in, but an Alford plea is reached and Michael Peterson is released. Should a retrial have gone forward? What decisions did the original judge regret? What mistakes did the prosecution make? What is a blowpoke? And could an owl have been the murderer and/or the murder weapon? (This episode is sponsored by IDEMIA.)

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are graciously joined by Bart Epstein in an interview about bloodstain and other forensic evidence from the trial of Michael Peterson in the death of Kathleen Peterson. Bart Epstein explains his involvement in the case, his opinions on the blood evidence, and where he agreed and disagreed with Duane Deaver and Dr. Henry Lee. This episode is also sponsored by IDEMIA and their new product, Case AFIS.

In our second dive down The Staircase, Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg start looking closely at all of the forensic evidence available in the case and what it all means. The documentary leaves lots of questions that we try to answer in this episode like: Can you trace an impact back to a point in space? Could the wall, rail, or step have caused all of the impact sites? Where was the defense medical examiner expert? Did the prosecutor have other bloodstain experts ready to testify besides Deaver? Was there castoff? Were there other wounds besides the scalp lacerations? Was it valid to say that there were no other beating deaths without brain or skull injuries? Was there a cleanup? Were the shorts cleaned? Were Deaver's experiments valid? What about his shirt? Quote from the episode, "People need to hear this evidence. Because I think when you watch these documentaries, you're back and forth. And if you're really suspicious of law enforcement, then you come out of this going, 'This guy got railroaded.' This guy was innocently convicted. This is a BS case. It was all on lies. But I want to go back to the evidence. I haven't seen it in 15 years, but when I saw it then, in 2002, I went, 'Oh. This is open-shut. This is clear-cut. There is no ambiguity here.'" The three big pieces of evidence were that there was an impact site on her head in space which means that someone swung an object to hit her, there was signs of a cleanup and of blood drying meaning that she was not breathing when the 911 call was made, and the blood stains on his shorts means that he was near the body when blood was flying around.