Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray continue their interview with Matt Marvin from Ron Smith and Associates about the erroneous identifications and eventual exoneration of Beniah Alton Dandridge. This video (available on YouTube via RayForensics.com) goes through an in-depth and technical review of the latent prints, the errors, the exclusions to Dandridge, and the eventual identifications to the victim's son (who discovered the body).

Eric Ray hosts a live Double Loop Podcast discussion at the 2017 Florida Division IAI Conference in Panama City Beach, FL, and Glenn Langenburg joins via phone for the discussion. The audience hit Eric and Glenn with a variety of questions and the conversation swings from AFIS automation to using AFIS as a support for an identification decision. From the requirements that Florida courts put on latent print examiners to how to keep improving yourself so that you can make that jump into a career in forensics.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg are joined by Matt Marvin of Ron Smith and Associates to discuss in greater detail the details of the Beniah Dandridge case. Matt discusses how he and RSA got involved in the case, the history of the Manning murder, the original investigation, the Dandridge trial, his appeals, RSA's involvement, and Dandridge's eventual release. Check back to RayForensics.com soon for a YouTube video detailing the comparisons in this case.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss two forensic cases that have been in the news in the past few years. First, the guys talk about the recent Golden State Killer case. How did DNA testing and genealogy combine to solve these 40 year old crimes? What databases were accessed and was it ethical to do so? Secondly, Eric and Glenn discuss how accessing profiles of Y chromosomes from online sites led Idaho Falls detectives to Michael Usry, Jr. In 1996 Angie Dodge was murdered and Chris Tapp has been in prison for decades, but things get turned upside down when new technology comes into play.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray tackle two articles in one fantastic episode. First, "Lay Understanding of 'Identification': How Jurors Interpret Forensic Identification Testimony" by Henry Swofford and Jessica Cino from the Journal of Forensic Identification. Secondly, the guys tackle a paper from the Journal of Forensic Sciences, "Comparing Categorical and Probabilistic Fingerprint Evidence" by Brandon Garrett, et al. The big question is: should we say "identification" or should we express the same conclusion in a probabilistic manner?

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg continue their discussion with Alicia Wilcox on her research into how juries hear forensic testimony. This time we focus even more on questions of opposing experts, error rates, and what's the most important thing for an expert to have. A degree? Years of experience? An accredited lab?

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray join with Dr. Alicia Wilcox from Husson University in Bangor, Maine in a discussion of her research juries and their understanding of forensic testimony. Even though forensic scientists may try to present data in precise and sometimes mathematical way, jurors tend to interpret forensic testimony according to whether the evidence fits well into the story that they have constructed of the crime.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss last year's article, Using the PCAST Report to Exclude, Limit, or Minimize Experts by Eric Alexander Vos published in Criminal Justice. We note the extreme bias of the article to exploit the emotions of the judge and jury instead of logic, reason, or data, and we find the serious flaws in many aspects of the paper.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray follow up from last week's discussion of Glenn's recent Daubert hearing with a 2016 article from Jonathan Koehler entitled, Intuitive Error Rate Estimates for the Forensic Sciences. As Glenn suspected, the findings of this article are suspiciously close to the center of the group of choices that participants were presented with. Although there are some larger themes that are interesting, the exact values of the error rate estimates from potential jurors do not match personal experience or even some of the cited prior works.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray return after another hiatus to share travel stories and then to discuss a Daubert hearing that Glenn recently testified in. Short version: having all this new research is way better than when we didn't have it.