What happens when the science we trust most in court turns out to be far less certain than television taught us to believe?In this conversation, Professor Ruth Morgan explores forensic science, the danger of false certainty, and why the real challenge is often not collecting evidence, but interpreting it well. She explains how bias enters investigations, where AI could help, where it could make things worse, and why better justice may depend on asking better questions, not just finding faster answers.But this isn’t just a story about crime scenes and lab work.It’s about a deeper shift:🔹 What happens when evidence is treated as objective, even though human judgment shapes every stage of how it is collected and understood?🔹 Could AI improve forensic work while also accelerating error, bias, and overconfidence?🔹 And if truth in court is always more fragile than people think, how should science, law, and technology work together? At the centre of the discussion is a harder question:If justice depends not just on evidence but on interpretation, context, and human judgment, can we build systems that become more accurate without becoming more blindly confident?Because the danger in forensic science is not just getting the answer wrong, but believing the answer was certain all along.