Transcription complète de Forensic Science

00:04:30.850 --> 00:04:32.930 she gets pretty excited about her work. 70 00:04:33.529 --> 00:04:33.769 Ah! 71 00:04:34.129 --> 00:04:35.230 I feel that all the time, though. 72 00:04:35.649 --> 00:04:36.589 What are we going to do now? 73 00:04:37.430 --> 00:04:37.889 Science! 74 00:04:39.050 --> 00:04:41.149 Sybil tells us that if you want to use bugs 75 00:04:41.250 --> 00:04:43.550 to tell how long a person has been dead for, 76 00:04:43.769 --> 00:04:46.290 you've got to figure out how old the insects that 77 00:04:46.310 --> 00:04:50.089 are crawling on the corpse are. Flies turn up on 78 00:04:50.110 --> 00:04:53.430 a dead body almost immediately. They'll start eating the body 79 00:04:53.610 --> 00:04:56.370 and then they'll really move in. They'll fall in love. 80 00:04:56.430 --> 00:04:59.759 They'll start making fly babies called maggots. And when the 81 00:04:59.800 --> 00:05:02.279 maggots grow up, they crawl off the body. They make 82 00:05:02.319 --> 00:05:05.240 a little shell for themselves like a cocoon. And then 83 00:05:05.680 --> 00:05:08.660 they'll escape out of their shell and fly away. 84 00:05:10.240 --> 00:05:12.319 For all the cases I ever do, what I'm looking 85 00:05:12.399 --> 00:05:15.500 for are the oldest maggot. And what that's going to 86 00:05:15.519 --> 00:05:19.850 tell me is how long... that body has had fly activity. 87 00:05:20.670 --> 00:05:24.389 Different species will colonise the body at different times. Blowflies, 88 00:05:24.430 --> 00:05:27.149 for example, like a fresh corpse, and they can colonise 89 00:05:27.189 --> 00:05:30.879 the body really quickly. Now, in the best case scenario 90 00:05:30.939 --> 00:05:34.259 for Sybil, the flies will get to make and fly 91 00:05:34.339 --> 00:05:37.819 babies right away. They'll lay their eggs and she will 92 00:05:37.860 --> 00:05:42.589 catch the first generation of maggots. From here, Sybil says 93 00:05:42.689 --> 00:05:45.930 that she can date the corpse with remarkable accuracy. 94 00:05:45.949 --> 00:05:49.019 I would look at age of the maggot, and then 95 00:05:49.100 --> 00:05:50.040 that would get you today. 96 00:05:50.060 --> 00:05:52.339 That would get you today? 97 00:05:52.360 --> 00:05:52.430 Wow. 98 00:05:52.660 --> 00:05:54.459 It can. It can get you today. 99 00:05:54.490 --> 00:05:57.930 A paper published this year looked at the accuracy of 100 00:05:57.990 --> 00:06:02.389 this technique. It modelled how different conditions, like places and seasons, 101 00:06:02.730 --> 00:06:07.069 can affect death estimations using bugs. In the best case, 102 00:06:07.230 --> 00:06:09.819 the paper found that reading the bugs on a body 103 00:06:10.120 --> 00:06:14.680 got it right to within one day. Change the conditions, though... 104 00:06:15.170 --> 00:06:18.930 And the estimations could be wrong by up to 19 days. 105 00:06:19.709 --> 00:06:22.110 When would that process not be as accurate as you'd 106 00:06:22.129 --> 00:06:22.629 like it to

be? 107 00:06:22.870 --> 00:06:25.410 If the death occurred in the winter and the remains 108 00:06:25.430 --> 00:06:27.389 were placed outside, there might not be a lot of 109 00:06:27.449 --> 00:06:31.870 insects around. And they wouldn't colonize the cadaver until temperatures 110 00:06:31.889 --> 00:06:32.509 warmed up enough. 111 00:06:32.990 --> 00:06:37.560 On top of that, there are always surprises. Like here's 112 00:06:37.620 --> 00:06:40.230 a weird one. There's some evidence that if the victim 113 00:06:40.269 --> 00:06:43.000 died with cocaine in their system, the maggots would eat 114 00:06:43.040 --> 00:06:45.980 that up and can be found talking someone's ear off 115 00:06:46.040 --> 00:06:49.939 at a dance party. No, they don't do that. They 116 00:06:49.959 --> 00:06:55.160 don't talk. Actually, when bodies have cocaine in them, there's 117 00:06:55.199 --> 00:06:57.500 some evidence to suggest that the maggots will grow up 118 00:06:57.620 --> 00:07:00.240 faster than they usually would, and this can affect the 119 00:07:00.300 --> 00:07:04.120 assessment of the time of death. Plus, in some cases, 120 00:07:04.439 --> 00:07:09.420 flies might get to an injured person before they're even dead. 121 00:07:10.420 --> 00:07:13.740 Don't think about that one while you're having breakfast. Sybil 122 00:07:13.800 --> 00:07:17.100 is still uncovering new things about which bugs turn up 123 00:07:17.459 --> 00:07:21.279 and when. She and her team are constantly doing experiments 124 00:07:21.360 --> 00:07:24.000 researching this, and she told us about one time when 125 00:07:24.040 --> 00:07:27.120 her team made a two-inch cut into the belly of 126 00:07:27.170 --> 00:07:30.810 a corpse. They then buried the body in a shallow grave. 127 00:07:31.750 --> 00:07:35.889 And then the team waited for the flies to show up. 128 00:07:36.540 --> 00:07:39.860 But this time, a very different bug got to the 129 00:07:39.899 --> 00:07:46.079 body first. Fire ants. They were taking dirt, putting it 130 00:07:46.120 --> 00:07:48.019 in the fluids of the wound, and then they would 131 00:07:48.100 --> 00:07:50.060 pick up the soggy piece of dirt and bring it 132 00:07:50.100 --> 00:07:53.189 back to the nest, possibly to slurp it up later. 133 00:07:54.110 --> 00:07:56.649 They were using the dirt as sponges, and they did 134 00:07:56.670 --> 00:07:59.529 this for nine days. And then on the ninth day, 135 00:07:59.550 --> 00:08:04.089 it rained, and it warmed up, and the body blew 136 00:08:04.269 --> 00:08:08.129 up like a volcano, just... All the guts came out. 137 00:08:08.350 --> 00:08:11.180 And at that point, the fire ants lost their monopoly 138 00:08:11.600 --> 00:08:14.560 of this small incision and the flies were able to 139 00:08:14.579 --> 00:08:17.439 come in and lay eggs. So that's an example where 140 00:08:17.560 --> 00:08:20.459 the fire ants could have interfered with the estimation by 141 00:08:20.500 --> 00:08:20.939 nine days. 142 00:08:21.720 --> 00:08:22.180 Wow. 143 00:08:23.000 --> 00:08:25.060 And that if you hadn't, if someone, so if someone 144 00:08:25.079 --> 00:08:27.329 just came into that dead body and just saw the 145 00:08:27.350 --> 00:08:27.930 maggots there. 146 00:08:28.129 --> 00:08:30.970 They would think, yeah. And they saw like eggs and 147 00:08:31.029 --> 00:08:33.250 itty bitty maggots. They would think that that body had 148 00:08:33.289 --> 00:08:37.120 been there for maximum time. An hour or two. 149 00:08:38.440 --> 00:08:41.580 Given all of these variables, the weather, the fire ants, 150 00:08:41.659 --> 00:08:45.370 the cocaine, researchers are still working out how often they 151 00:08:45.399 --> 00:08:49.470 get their estimations for the time of death using bugs wrong. 152 00:08:50.450 --> 00:08:53.470 Researchers from Texas A & M University wrote in a 153 00:08:53.509 --> 00:08:56.789 paper earlier this year that the accuracy of these estimates, 154 00:08:57.029 --> 00:09:02.429 generally speaking, are, quote, unknown, end quote. Sybil says that 155 00:09:02.490 --> 00:09:06.049 if your entire case rides on an entomologist, a bug expert, 156 00:09:06.830 --> 00:09:10.409 then your case is probably really bad. She says you 157 00:09:10.470 --> 00:09:13.690 need other types of evidence as well. Bugs are just 158 00:09:13.990 --> 00:09:19.210 one tool. Conclusion. Using flies to date a body has 159 00:09:19.309 --> 00:09:22.240 solid science behind it. We have a good idea of 160 00:09:22.269 --> 00:09:24.679 the life cycle of a fly and how quickly they 161 00:09:24.720 --> 00:09:28.000 grow once they've infested the body. But since each crime 162 00:09:28.039 --> 00:09:31.159 scene is different, you can't always rely on the bugs. 163 00:09:32.950 --> 00:09:36.629 Next up, bite marks. Bite marks have been allowed as 164 00:09:36.730 --> 00:09:41.470 evidence and routinely accepted in legal systems for decades. They've 165 00:09:41.490 --> 00:09:44.509 been used to investigate sexual assault and murder cases around 166 00:09:44.529 --> 00:09:48.120 the world, including in Australia, the UK, Norway and the US. 167 00:09:49.220 --> 00:09:52.059 Perhaps the most well-known case was of a serial killer, 168 00:09:52.259 --> 00:09:55.139 Ted Bundy. Two bite marks found on one of his 169 00:09:55.200 --> 00:09:58.419 victims were linked to Ted and this dental evidence helped 170 00:09:58.480 --> 00:10:03.220 secure his conviction. But bite marks had a really unusual 171 00:10:03.299 --> 00:10:06.960 entry into US courts. The first ever recorded victim in 172 00:10:06.980 --> 00:10:11.210 a bite mark legal case wasn't a person. It was 173 00:10:11.230 --> 00:10:13.590 a piece of cheese. Cheese? 174 00:10:14.289 --> 00:10:17.289 Yeah. 175 00:10:19.549 --> 00:10:19.730 Yep. 176 00:10:20.870 --> 00:10:21.370 Jeez. 177 00:10:22.250 --> 00:10:24.720 We heard this story from Chris Fabricant, who works at 178 00:10:24.750 --> 00:10:27.200 the Innocence

Project. This is a group of lawyers who 179 00:10:27.240 --> 00:10:30.179 work to overturn convictions. They've recently been working with the 180 00:10:30.299 --> 00:10:33.259 FBI and Department of Justice to look into cases where 181 00:10:33.320 --> 00:10:37.080 faulty forensic science has been used. So, back to the cheese. 182 00:10:37.600 --> 00:10:39.759 Chris told us that the scene of the crime was 183 00:10:39.799 --> 00:10:42.909 a grocery store in a small Texas town in the 1950s. 184 00:10:45.100 --> 00:10:46.860 A burglar had taken a bite of a piece of 185 00:10:46.919 --> 00:10:50.940 cheese and some enterprising young detective had found this piece 186 00:10:50.980 --> 00:10:53.570 of cheese and deduced that if we could find the 187 00:10:53.610 --> 00:10:55.649 person who bit this cheese, we have our burglar. 188 00:10:56.169 --> 00:10:59.330 The sheriff suspected a local drunk of robbing the store, 189 00:10:59.570 --> 00:11:02.269 so he gave him another piece of cheese to bite into. 190 00:11:02.820 --> 00:11:05.639 The detective then made a cast of that cheese as 191 00:11:05.679 --> 00:11:08.399 well as the one from the store. He compared them 192 00:11:08.720 --> 00:11:13.240 and said, boom, they're a match. The police department brought 193 00:11:13.279 --> 00:11:16.590 in a dentist who agreed with the cop. What a 194 00:11:16.759 --> 00:11:17.909 gooder day at work. 195 00:11:18.690 --> 00:11:23.490 They matched that cheese to the suspected burglar and we 196 00:11:23.750 --> 00:11:24.750 had bite mark evidence. 197 00:11:25.710 --> 00:11:26.570 Tasty or brie? 198 00:11:26.610 --> 00:11:28.909 You know, the truth is, I don't know what kind 199 00:11:28.929 --> 00:11:29.649 of cheese it was. 200 00:11:30.149 --> 00:11:31.250 Can you brieve him? 201 00:11:31.269 --> 00:11:32.679 Nah. 202 00:11:33.399 --> 00:11:36.220 OK, that was back in the 1950s. Bite mark cases 203 00:11:36.279 --> 00:11:39.879 eventually moved from matching marks on cheese to skin and 204 00:11:39.899 --> 00:11:43.970 they're still used in courts today. So here's how bite 205 00:11:43.990 --> 00:11:47.590 marks work today. Forget about the cheese. Say you have 206 00:11:47.629 --> 00:11:50.289 a body that's got what looks like bite marks. A 207 00:11:50.330 --> 00:11:52.570 photograph is taken of the patch of skin with the 208 00:11:52.610 --> 00:11:55.250 mark and if there's a suspect, a mould is made 209 00:11:55.340 --> 00:11:58.639 of that person's teeth. A dentist then takes this mould 210 00:11:58.960 --> 00:12:01.639 and uses it to bite something, like pig skin or 211 00:12:01.720 --> 00:12:05.179 even a cadaver, a dead body. She then takes the 212 00:12:05.220 --> 00:12:08.200 photograph of this second mark and then she puts the 213 00:12:08.240 --> 00:12:10.960 two photos side by side, one from the crime scene 214 00:12:11.120 --> 00:12:13.950 and one from the suspect's teeth. She compares how similar 215 00:12:14.009 --> 00:12:16.639 the bite marks are. And if they look very similar, 216 00:12:16.659 --> 00:12:21.559 then boom, it's a match. And your suspect did the biting. 217 00:12:21.580 --> 00:12:24.539 To see how this all happens in real life, we 218 00:12:24.580 --> 00:12:27.519 spoke to Barry Fisher, a forensic scientist who headed up 219 00:12:27.559 --> 00:12:30.269 the LA County Crime Lab, one of the biggest crime 220 00:12:30.309 --> 00:12:33.470 labs in America. By the way, crime labs are often 221 00:12:33.549 --> 00:12:36.049 part of police departments and it's where cops send their 222 00:12:36.110 --> 00:12:40.559 evidence to be processed by forensic scientists. Barry is now retired, 223 00:12:40.740 --> 00:12:43.820 but he remembers when he first arrived in L.A. all 224 00:12:43.860 --> 00:12:44.700 those years ago. 225 00:12:44.720 --> 00:12:48.419 The twinkling lights on the palm trees, it was at 226 00:12:48.480 --> 00:12:52.360 night when I got in, were magical a la Disneyland. 227 00:12:52.580 --> 00:12:55.200 I said, boy, this is wonderful. This is the place 228 00:12:55.240 --> 00:12:55.500 to be. 229 00:12:56.019 --> 00:12:58.419 Barry stayed in L.A. and ended up heading up the 230 00:12:58.460 --> 00:13:02.519 crime lab for 22 years. He's now retired. When he 231 00:13:02.559 --> 00:13:04.960 was head of the crime lab, he represented the squad 232 00:13:05.059 --> 00:13:08.259 as the president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 233 00:13:10.220 --> 00:13:15.200 The thing is, even Baza has some concerns about bite 234 00:13:15.240 --> 00:13:18.710 mark evidence. For one, he told us that if you 235 00:13:18.750 --> 00:13:22.549 bite into skin, it bounces back. It can be stretched 236 00:13:22.610 --> 00:13:23.389 and contorted. 237 00:13:23.950 --> 00:13:29.470 The problem with skin is it's elastic, and it's a 238 00:13:29.549 --> 00:13:33.080 representation of the bite, but it's not going to be 239 00:13:34.120 --> 00:13:37.419 an exact representation. 240 00:13:36.539 --> 00:13:40.370 Of Another problem is that you can't reliably tell people's 241 00:13:40.450 --> 00:13:44.289 teeth apart. In 2010, a study looked at hundreds of 242 00:13:44.350 --> 00:13:49.250 sets of teeth and found, quote, uniqueness cannot be demonstrated, 243 00:13:49.269 --> 00:13:53.450 end quote. In a follow-up study using more than 1,000 244 00:13:53.450 --> 00:13:57.309 3D-scanned sets of teeth, it found again that teeth don't 245 00:13:57.409 --> 00:14:01.370 vary that widely from person to person. And there's one 246 00:14:01.409 --> 00:14:02.350 more thing you should know. 247 00:14:02.370 --> 00:14:06.940 There have been instances that have been reported where Some 248 00:14:07.019 --> 00:14:09.200 experts have claimed it to be a bite mark and 249 00:14:09.259 --> 00:14:11.740 others have said, no, it's not a bite mark, it's 250 00:14:11.759 --> 00:14:12.259 a scratch. 251 00:14:13.139 --> 00:14:16.700 Yep, a scratch. Earlier this year, that report by the 252

00:14:16.740 --> 00:14:20.600 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology wrote on 253 00:14:20.620 --> 00:14:25.059 the topic of bite marks that examiners, quote, cannot even 254 00:14:25.200 --> 00:14:30.009 consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bite mark, 255 00:14:30.429 --> 00:14:33.870 end quote. And so in April this year, after a 256 00:14:33.909 --> 00:14:38.769 six-month investigation, the Texas Forensic Science Commission unanimously recommended a 257 00:14:38.870 --> 00:14:42.809 moratorium on the use of bite mark analysis until the 258 00:14:42.850 --> 00:14:47.379 science improved. But the thing is, the President's Council report, 259 00:14:47.600 --> 00:14:49.320 the one we mentioned at the beginning of the show, 260 00:14:50.080 --> 00:14:53.159 wrote in September this year that bite mark analysis was 261 00:14:53.419 --> 00:14:59.299 so bad that it may not be, quote, salvageable, end quote. 262 00:15:00.299 --> 00:15:00.440 And. 263 00:15:01.590 --> 00:15:07.690 Yikes. And yet, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that bite 264 00:15:07.710 --> 00:15:14.460 mark analysis is unreliable, some dentists, rebranding themselves as forensic dentists, 265 00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:18.000 have been going into court saying that they are certain 266 00:15:18.159 --> 00:15:22.000 that teeth marks found on a body belong to a suspect. 267 00:15:22.679 --> 00:15:25.919 Right now, Chris over at the Innocence Project has clients 268 00:15:25.980 --> 00:15:28.720 who are on death row because of cases that included 269 00:15:28.879 --> 00:15:32.610 bite mark evidence. Halfway through our conversation, he got a 270 00:15:32.629 --> 00:15:34.889 call from a colleague about a case he's working on. 271 00:15:43.320 --> 00:15:48.279 Well, we're on the side of science. I guess the 272 00:15:48.299 --> 00:15:49.759 judge is not going to want to hear from me. 273 00:15:50.600 --> 00:15:52.399 All right, we'll talk. No problem. We'll talk to you soon. 274 00:15:55.679 --> 00:15:56.279 What was that about? 275 00:15:56.320 --> 00:15:59.330 It's a death penalty case in Pennsylvania. 276 00:15:59.350 --> 00:15:59.429 Yeah. 277 00:16:00.210 --> 00:16:05.389 Where the prosecution is seeking to introduce bite mark comparison 278 00:16:05.429 --> 00:16:09.190 evidence and we are seeking to challenge the admissibility of 279 00:16:09.230 --> 00:16:09.750 that evidence. 280 00:16:11.429 --> 00:16:14.269 It's not clear how often bite mark evidence is introduced 281 00:16:14.309 --> 00:16:17.429 into court these days. No one keeps reliable records on this. 282 00:16:18.240 --> 00:16:21.269 But for Chris, these cases just keep popping up. 283 00:16:21.779 --> 00:16:24.580 Sometimes it feels like whack-a-mole, you know what I mean? 284 00:16:25.340 --> 00:16:28.139 And sometimes it just feels like moles with no whacking. 285 00:16:28.159 --> 00:16:28.799 Yeah. 286 00:16:29.450 --> 00:16:34.330 It's a process, never-ending process. It would be funny if 287 00:16:34.389 --> 00:16:36.230 there wasn't an innocent man on death row. 288 00:16:37.850 --> 00:16:41.320 Conclusion. Saying in court that you can definitively link a 289 00:16:41.360 --> 00:16:45.639 bite mark to an individual is bad science. Teeth aren't 290 00:16:45.679 --> 00:16:48.500 that unique and neither are the bite marks they leave 291 00:16:48.559 --> 00:16:52.940 behind on stretchy skin. After the break, getting fingerprints from 292 00:16:52.980 --> 00:17:02.350 a bloody crime scene and a big FBI bungle. Hey, 293 00:17:02.710 --> 00:17:04.880 it's Wendy from Science Versus, and I want to tell 294 00:17:04.910 --> 00:17:08.359 you about a podcast that I love, Science Friday. They 295 00:17:08.380 --> 00:17:10.920 cover all sorts of amazing things in the weird and 296 00:17:11.079 --> 00:17:15.269 wonderful world of science, from how concussions affect our brain 297 00:17:15.410 --> 00:17:18.549 to the inner secrets of a snake with a spider 298 00:17:18.690 --> 00:17:21.849 on its Welcome back. It's time to talk about fingerprints. 299 00:17:21.869 --> 00:17:24.269 Fingerprint analysis has been used for more than a century 300 00:17:24.289 --> 00:17:48.650 by investigators at crime scenes and prosecutors in court. and 301 00:17:48.690 --> 00:17:52.930 it's been used in some pretty amazing cases. Our forensic 302 00:17:52.950 --> 00:17:55.779 scientist Barry told us about one of his first cases 303 00:17:55.859 --> 00:18:00.319 involving fingerprints. It was from the 1980s. A woman was 304 00:18:00.359 --> 00:18:03.720 found dead in East LA. She'd been stabbed, and on 305 00:18:03.779 --> 00:18:05.680 her stomach, something was written. 306 00:18:06.769 --> 00:18:13.009 Written with some creamy substance. It's spelled out F-U-C, and 307 00:18:13.029 --> 00:18:16.480 then he ran out of room. It was pretty obvious 308 00:18:16.619 --> 00:18:20.180 what the perpetrator was trying to dispel out. 309 00:18:20.960 --> 00:18:24.299 Barry found a squeezed-out tube of moisturising cream in the 310 00:18:24.319 --> 00:18:27.240 woman's handbag, so his job was to try to get 311 00:18:27.279 --> 00:18:30.710 a fingerprint off that tube. But the tube was all 312 00:18:30.869 --> 00:18:33.150 crumpled up, so it was tough to get clean prints 313 00:18:33.210 --> 00:18:36.109 off it. It was then that he came up with 314 00:18:36.130 --> 00:18:40.289 a very clever plan. Barry used to carry around this 315 00:18:40.390 --> 00:18:44.279 handy toolbox with all sorts of gadgets, including a syringe. 316 00:18:45.200 --> 00:18:47.539 So he put the cap on the tube and closed 317 00:18:47.579 --> 00:18:48.019 it tight. 318 00:18:48.640 --> 00:18:52.940 Then I stuck the syringe into the bottom of the 319 00:18:53.000 --> 00:18:56.740 tube and I pulled out the plunger and I blew 320 00:18:56.799 --> 00:18:59.970 it up and just puffed right out. 321 00:19:00.529 --> 00:19:03.269 It worked. The team was able to get some pretty 322

00:19:03.430 --> 00:19:06.430 clean prints off this very crummy tube. 323 00:19:07.309 --> 00:19:11.230 It just kind of surprised me that how such a simple, 324 00:19:11.609 --> 00:19:13.849 obvious thing just Did the trick. 325 00:19:14.109 --> 00:19:16.849 Barry says the fingerprint on the tube was a match 326 00:19:17.009 --> 00:19:20.349 for the woman's boyfriend. And as Barry tells it, when 327 00:19:20.369 --> 00:19:23.890 the boyfriend was confronted with the prints, he confessed to 328 00:19:23.910 --> 00:19:26.859 the crime. But the question for us is how do 329 00:19:26.900 --> 00:19:32.559 forensic scientists know it's a match? On TV, they show 330 00:19:32.640 --> 00:19:35.839 fingerprints running up against a database until you hear that 331 00:19:36.059 --> 00:19:40.460 satisfying chirp followed by a... Russell Huntley's prints are on 332 00:19:40.480 --> 00:19:41.079 the Jupiters. 333 00:19:41.200 --> 00:19:42.079 That's not surprising. 334 00:19:42.500 --> 00:19:44.720 And if you need iced tea to translate for you... 335 00:19:44.859 --> 00:19:45.880 First spit. 336 00:19:45.619 --> 00:19:47.849 That lollipop out before I smack it out your mouth. 337 00:19:49.470 --> 00:19:53.880 But the science... is just a tad more complicated. Fingerprint 338 00:19:53.920 --> 00:19:59.940 matching technology doesn't match up an entire fingerprint swirl for swirl. Instead, 339 00:20:00.039 --> 00:20:02.890 they match up certain features on the fingerprint, like the 340 00:20:02.970 --> 00:20:06.109 point where the ridges end or split off. And there's 341 00:20:06.180 --> 00:20:08.809 no consensus on how many features need to be the 342 00:20:08.869 --> 00:20:13.430 same to call two fingerprints a match. Some countries say 343 00:20:13.450 --> 00:20:16.950 you need at least 12 points, some say 7 or 16. 344 00:20:16.950 --> 00:20:20.700 Still other countries, like the US, don't have any minimum 345 00:20:20.839 --> 00:20:26.119 number at all. This is ultimately because experts don't actually 346 00:20:26.180 --> 00:20:30.079 know how unique any of these points on a fingerprint are. 347 00:20:30.599 --> 00:20:35.430 Large population studies on the uniqueness of various features on fingerprints... 348 00:20:35.480 --> 00:20:39.440 haven't been done. Plus, on the TV, these points of 349 00:20:39.519 --> 00:20:44.210 similarity are all matched on computers. But like most dreams 350 00:20:44.250 --> 00:20:51.130 of technology, where's my jetpack? The technology just isn't that good. 351 00:20:51.630 --> 00:20:53.970 At the FBI, one of the best forensic crime labs 352 00:20:54.029 --> 00:20:57.450 in the world, there is a database of millions of fingerprints. 353 00:20:57.950 --> 00:21:00.579 But it only gets you so far. Here's Barry. 354 00:21:01.849 --> 00:21:04.130 We haven't gotten to the point where we're relying on 355 00:21:04.190 --> 00:21:09.230 computers to say it's an identification. What we're still using 356 00:21:09.309 --> 00:21:13.930 is

a human being to have a look at this stuff. 357 00:21:14.529 --> 00:21:17.250 So a computer will throw up potential matches. The FBI 358 00:21:17.269 --> 00:21:20.210 told us it's typically three. And then it's up to 359 00:21:20.339 --> 00:21:25.059 humans to narrow down those matches to an individual. And 360 00:21:25.119 --> 00:21:30.890 as Stalin once said, once you've got people, you've got problems. Well, 361 00:21:31.049 --> 00:21:33.789 it sounds like something he would say. Which brings us 362 00:21:33.930 --> 00:21:34.549 to this guy. 363 00:21:35.269 --> 00:21:37.190 My name is Dr. 364 00:21:37.589 --> 00:21:38.430 ETL. 365 00:21:39.049 --> 00:21:41.099 And you pronounce ETL like the letters ETL. 366 00:21:41.309 --> 00:21:44.549 You know the movie ET? So it's an L. 367 00:21:44.579 --> 00:21:45.079 ETL. 368 00:21:45.420 --> 00:21:46.319 Yes, perfect. 369 00:21:47.119 --> 00:21:48.759 And you can say it a bit faster if you 370 00:21:48.799 --> 00:21:52.099 practice it a lot and say ETL. Thank you. 371 00:21:52.579 --> 00:21:52.819 Dr. 372 00:21:52.900 --> 00:21:57.200 ETL Draw at the University College London researches cognitive bias 373 00:21:57.359 --> 00:21:59.490 in experts. Or as he puts it. 374 00:22:00.269 --> 00:22:04.390 When smart people do stupid things, when do competent experts 375 00:22:04.650 --> 00:22:08.730 make mistakes, not because they're not motivated or drunk or whatever. 376 00:22:09.359 --> 00:22:13.519 So ETL says that all humans, dumb, smart, drunk, sober, 377 00:22:13.839 --> 00:22:18.819 have biases. And this can become a problem when analysing fingerprints. 378 00:22:19.539 --> 00:22:22.380 When it's not easy call, it's not clearly a match 379 00:22:22.420 --> 00:22:28.230 or not a match, then there's more interpretation involved. Subjectivity 380 00:22:28.390 --> 00:22:32.680 is involved. It's not totally objective. It's not CSI Hollywood. 381 00:22:36.980 --> 00:22:40.660 Now, these issues with fingerprints weren't really considered to be 382 00:22:40.700 --> 00:22:46.740 a problem until this happened. There's been a devastating terrorist 383 00:22:46.779 --> 00:22:48.299 attack in Spain. 384 00:22:48.700 --> 00:22:50.880 Without warning, a coordinated. 385 00:22:50.460 --> 00:22:55.039 Series of rush hour explosions struck three train stations in Madrid. 386 00:22:55.710 --> 00:22:59.950 In March 2004, bombs were detonated on several trains in Madrid, 387 00:23:00.049 --> 00:23:04.670 killing around 200 people and leaving more than 1,800 injured. 388 00:23:05.329 --> 00:23:08.829 Spanish authorities recovered fingerprints on a bag of detonators and 389 00:23:08.849 --> 00:23:11.490 then sent them to the FBI laboratory to help get 390 00:23:11.509 --> 00:23:15.029 the culprit. Because, as we mentioned before, the FBI has 391 00:23:15.109 --> 00:23:18.329 one of the best forensic laboratories in the world. The 392 00:23:18.470 --> 00:23:21.650 FBI ran their prints through their database of millions of 393

00:23:21.710 --> 00:23:26.460 fingerprints and it suggested 20 candidates. It was then, as usual, 394 00:23:26.799 --> 00:23:29.460 up to the FBI examiner to compare the prints found 395 00:23:29.519 --> 00:23:33.509 on the bag to potential matches. One of those 20 396 00:23:33.509 --> 00:23:37.950 potentials was an attorney based in Portland, Oregon, called Brandon Mayfield. 397 00:23:38.329 --> 00:23:41.960 The fingerprint examiner claimed there were 15 distinct points on 398 00:23:42.019 --> 00:23:45.980 Brandon's fingerprint that matched the ones on the detonator bag. 399 00:23:46.880 --> 00:23:50.740 And so the examiner said it was a match. The 400 00:23:50.779 --> 00:23:53.880 prints were then sent to three other experts and all 401 00:23:54.019 --> 00:23:56.539 four of them agreed that the print on the detonator 402 00:23:56.740 --> 00:24:02.619 matched Brandon's. Meanwhile, the FBI got busy rifling through Brandon's 403 00:24:02.700 --> 00:24:05.740 records and surveilling him. They found out that Brandon was 404 00:24:05.819 --> 00:24:09.559 Muslim and he'd defended a convicted terrorist in a child 405 00:24:09.579 --> 00:24:14.789 custody case. Soon, Brandon was arrested. But then, around two 406 00:24:14.809 --> 00:24:18.490 weeks later, the Spanish authorities said they had found another 407 00:24:18.529 --> 00:24:23.049 match for this print. a man who, unlike Brandon, was 408 00:24:23.170 --> 00:24:26.890 actually in Spain at the time of the bombing. The 409 00:24:27.009 --> 00:24:29.920 FBI admitted they screwed up. They offered him $ 2 million 410 00:24:30.140 --> 00:24:33.880 and apologised. Here's Brandon speaking after the fact. 411 00:24:34.740 --> 00:24:37.500 I honestly felt like I was being framed because I 412 00:24:37.900 --> 00:24:39.660 hadn't been out of the country for over 10 years. 413 00:24:40.440 --> 00:24:42.519 And a year and a half later, the Department of 414 00:24:42.619 --> 00:24:45.390 Justice put out a report trying to figure out what 415 00:24:45.569 --> 00:24:49.740 went wrong. Their report highlighted a couple of things. First, 416 00:24:49.900 --> 00:24:52.460 they pointed out that the prints, Brandon's and the ones 417 00:24:52.509 --> 00:24:56.630 found on the bag, had an unusual similarity. That is, 418 00:24:56.750 --> 00:24:59.789 they really did have a bunch of matching points. But 419 00:25:00.170 --> 00:25:03.549 the FBI also acknowledged that there were some problems in 420 00:25:03.589 --> 00:25:07.509 their process. Like at one point in the investigation, this 421 00:25:07.529 --> 00:25:10.829 was after the initial match, the fingerprint examiners knew that 422 00:25:10.890 --> 00:25:13.690 Brandon had acted as an attorney for a convicted terrorist 423 00:25:14.109 --> 00:25:17.319 and that he was Muslim. The Department of Justice noted 424 00:25:17.380 --> 00:25:20.160 that one of the fingerprint examiners admitted that if the 425 00:25:20.220 --> 00:25:23.299 person who had been identified

had been a different kind 426 00:25:23.339 --> 00:25:29.369 of person, quote, like the Maytag repairman, end quote, the 427 00:25:29.410 --> 00:25:33.450 lab might have caught the error. OK, so Brandon's prints 428 00:25:33.529 --> 00:25:35.680 apparently did look a lot like the prints on the 429 00:25:35.700 --> 00:25:40.380 detonator bag. But the Department of Justice report noted that 430 00:25:40.420 --> 00:25:43.869 examiners began to find more features in the fingerprints that 431 00:25:43.910 --> 00:25:48.990 looked similar, which, quote, were not really there, end quote. 432 00:25:49.849 --> 00:25:52.690 What seemed to be happening was the examiners were focusing 433 00:25:52.789 --> 00:25:56.029 on similarities with the fingerprints and they were explaining away 434 00:25:56.089 --> 00:25:59.519 the little differences they saw. And then when other examiners 435 00:25:59.579 --> 00:26:01.900 saw the prints, they might have been influenced by what 436 00:26:01.940 --> 00:26:06.279 their colleagues thought they saw. ETL has a phrase for 437 00:26:06.299 --> 00:26:10.339 when this kind of thing happens, the snowball bias effect. 438 00:26:10.940 --> 00:26:13.519 It biases more and more elements and more and more 439 00:26:13.559 --> 00:26:17.130 people involved. Their bias gets very, very big, like a snowball. 440 00:26:17.470 --> 00:26:20.369 That's why I call it the biased snowball effect. And 441 00:26:20.470 --> 00:26:23.170 everybody is happy we sent the guilty person to jail. 442 00:26:23.470 --> 00:26:26.950 So ETL watched as the FBI fumbled the Madrid bombing case, 443 00:26:27.190 --> 00:26:31.230 and he couldn't stop thinking about context and bias. So 444 00:26:31.289 --> 00:26:34.849 he ran a little experiment of his own. He gave 445 00:26:35.049 --> 00:26:39.190 five fingerprint examiners two sets of fingerprints. One, he said, 446 00:26:39.289 --> 00:26:42.359 was Brandon Mayfield, the American accused of the Madrid bombing. 447 00:26:43.019 --> 00:26:45.299 And the other, he said, were the prints found on 448 00:26:45.319 --> 00:26:49.019 the detonator bag. Now, the experts knew that this was 449 00:26:49.079 --> 00:26:53.480 a high-profile case that had been bungled. So, perhaps unsurprisingly, 450 00:26:53.900 --> 00:26:56.240 four out of five of these experts said that the 451 00:26:56.309 --> 00:27:00.990 prints did not match. But the thing is, ETL had 452 00:27:01.109 --> 00:27:04.519 tricked them. He didn't give them Brandon's fingerprints and the 453 00:27:04.559 --> 00:27:08.039 prints on the detonator bag. He actually gave each examiner 454 00:27:08.119 --> 00:27:11.279 a set of prints from a totally different case, an 455 00:27:11.400 --> 00:27:14.240 earlier case that each examiner had worked on and had 456 00:27:14.460 --> 00:27:18.369 once said were a match. This meant that thinking they 457 00:27:18.430 --> 00:27:21.329 knew the context of a case actually caused four out 458 00:27:21.349 --> 00:27:24.369 of five

examiners to change their minds about whether two 459 00:27:24.490 --> 00:27:28.500 sets of prints were a match. Now, ETL's study was 460 00:27:28.559 --> 00:27:31.960 very small, only five examiners, but it was one of 461 00:27:32.019 --> 00:27:34.980 the first to look at how bias and context can 462 00:27:35.019 --> 00:27:40.190 affect fingerprint analysis. Since then, other work has also demonstrated 463 00:27:40.250 --> 00:27:46.519 that fingerprint examiners can change their analysis depending on different circumstances. Now, 464 00:27:46.680 --> 00:27:49.539 it's important to note, though, that these later studies suggest 465 00:27:49.559 --> 00:27:52.680 that the impact of subjectivity is not as dramatic as 466 00:27:52.720 --> 00:27:55.720 what ETL found, with four out of five people changing 467 00:27:55.759 --> 00:27:59.660 their minds. An FBI study estimates that examiners get it 468 00:27:59.740 --> 00:28:04.170 wrong one in every 306 cases. Now, how you feel 469 00:28:04.269 --> 00:28:07.650 about that error rate probably depends on where you sit 470 00:28:07.710 --> 00:28:10.630 in the courtroom. But ETL doesn't want us to give 471 00:28:10.690 --> 00:28:13.650 up on fingerprints, even though he studies the problems around them. 472 00:28:13.970 --> 00:28:15.410 He remains a big fan. 473 00:28:16.069 --> 00:28:20.269 Fingerprinting is one of the best forensic science evidence. 474 00:28:23.509 --> 00:28:28.279 Conclusion. Fingerprint analysis isn't perfect. It's complicated and there is 475 00:28:28.339 --> 00:28:32.460 human judgment involved. But still, it is a pretty good 476 00:28:32.500 --> 00:28:36.240 way to identify someone. The problem is that it's not 477 00:28:36.400 --> 00:28:42.140 as infallible as many people and jurors think. Final stop, 478 00:28:42.740 --> 00:28:47.509 hair analysis. On TV shows, investigators are always combing through 479 00:28:47.529 --> 00:28:51.490 the crime scene, searching for that one telltale strand of hair. 480 00:28:51.509 --> 00:28:52.789 Take a look at this hair. 481 00:28:52.809 --> 00:28:55.569 I happen to catch a glimpse of this blonde hair 482 00:28:55.630 --> 00:28:56.289 in the zipper here. 483 00:28:57.849 --> 00:28:58.130 Hair. 484 00:28:59.269 --> 00:29:01.630 Detectives want to find a hair so they can match 485 00:29:01.670 --> 00:29:05.849 it to a potential suspect. Here's how it works. A 486 00:29:05.890 --> 00:29:08.269 hair turns up at a crime scene. Examiners look at 487 00:29:08.309 --> 00:29:10.609 it under the microscope and then they see if it's 488 00:29:10.650 --> 00:29:14.569 similar to someone else's hair, like a suspect's. The idea 489 00:29:14.640 --> 00:29:17.589 is that there are teeny tiny differences within hair that 490 00:29:17.609 --> 00:29:20.569 are unique to each person. And we're not just splitting 491 00:29:20.609 --> 00:29:23.529 hairs here. This has been used in cases where people 492 00:29:23.569 --> 00:29:26.829 have been put on death row. For decades, the FBI 493 00:29:26.890 --> 00:29:30.049 went around the country training hundreds of experts on how 494 00:29:30.109 --> 00:29:33.690 to compare hair samples. Here's an FBI training video from 495 00:29:33.710 --> 00:29:34.650 the 1960s. 496 00:29:35.650 --> 00:29:39.809 From a microscopic examination of hairs, we can determine race, 497 00:29:40.359 --> 00:29:44.500 body area. Hairs recovered from the victim's garment can be 498 00:29:44.559 --> 00:29:46.259 compared with hairs from a suspect. 499 00:29:46.819 --> 00:29:49.920 The people trained by the FBI then used that expertise 500 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:53.109 in hundreds of cases, helping to put some people on 501 00:29:53.200 --> 00:29:53.900 death row. 502 00:29:54.630 --> 00:29:54.789 But. 503 00:29:55.640 --> 00:29:58.920 What can looking at hair under a microscope really tell 504 00:29:58.960 --> 00:30:02.859 you about a suspect? Patrick Bazzini is an Associate Professor 505 00:30:02.900 --> 00:30:06.400 of Forensic Science at Sam Houston State University. He told 506 00:30:06.460 --> 00:30:08.710 us that there was good science to tell the difference 507 00:30:08.789 --> 00:30:11.410 between whether a hair comes from a human, a cat 508 00:30:11.509 --> 00:30:14.690 or a dog. And Patrick says this is pretty obvious 509 00:30:14.769 --> 00:30:15.670 under a microscope. 510 00:30:16.329 --> 00:30:19.670 Oh, definitely, yes. I think that the microscope is really 511 00:30:19.690 --> 00:30:22.750 the best instrument to make this type of determination. It's 512 00:30:22.809 --> 00:30:23.210 a must. 513 00:30:23.599 --> 00:30:25.720 Okay, so there's good science to show this is a 514 00:30:25.779 --> 00:30:29.029 human hair. Where do we start getting into the bad science? 515 00:30:29.309 --> 00:30:30.529 What do you mean the bad science? 516 00:30:31.390 --> 00:30:32.450 I think you know what I mean. 517 00:30:32.750 --> 00:30:34.269 Yes, I was just teasing you, of course. 518 00:30:34.970 --> 00:30:38.349 In 2002, a landmark study found that in 9 out 519 00:30:38.369 --> 00:30:41.319 of 80 cases where hair examiners had said that two 520 00:30:41.400 --> 00:30:44.819 hairs look the same under the microscope, they actually came 521 00:30:44.960 --> 00:30:47.119 from different people. So that means 71 out of 80 522 00:30:47.119 --> 00:30:52.380 were right. That's not bad. if you're doing a test 523 00:30:52.440 --> 00:30:55.970 and you're in primary school, but maybe not so good 524 00:30:56.029 --> 00:30:58.230 if you're sitting in a courtroom and your life depends 525 00:30:58.289 --> 00:31:01.990 on it. Is it possible to take a hair sample 526 00:31:02.029 --> 00:31:05.930 from a crime scene and say, Wendy, this is your hair? 527 00:31:07.210 --> 00:31:11.230 Absolutely not. Not at least if there is the possibility 528 00:31:11.269 --> 00:31:14.819 that another unknown individual may have originated that hair. 529 00:31:15.660 --> 00:31:19.299 And while there might be teeny,

seemingly special microscopic features 530 00:31:19.359 --> 00:31:22.940 in my hair... There are no good big studies showing 531 00:31:23.039 --> 00:31:27.119 how unique those features really are, which means that experts 532 00:31:27.180 --> 00:31:30.150 cannot say with any level of confidence that a certain 533 00:31:30.230 --> 00:31:33.910 hair came from a particular person. And the Department of 534 00:31:33.990 --> 00:31:37.730 Justice agrees. They acknowledge that you can't match a person 535 00:31:37.829 --> 00:31:41.490 to a particular strand of hair based on microscopic evidence. 536 00:31:42.390 --> 00:31:46.829 The problem is that throughout the 1990s, courtroom experts were 537 00:31:46.910 --> 00:31:50.690 claiming that they could match a hair sample to a person. 538 00:31:51.109 --> 00:31:54.410 But today, the FBI is acknowledging the problems with hair. 539 00:31:55.029 --> 00:31:57.630 In June of this year, the director of the FBI 540 00:31:57.670 --> 00:32:00.420 wrote a letter admitting that there were problems with how 541 00:32:00.519 --> 00:32:06.359 their examiners were talking about hair comparisons in court. He said, quote... 542 00:32:06.319 --> 00:32:09.460 In many cases, we have discovered that the examiners made 543 00:32:09.549 --> 00:32:12.970 statements that went beyond the limits of science in ways 544 00:32:13.009 --> 00:32:17.509 that put more weight on hair comparison than scientifically appropriate. 545 00:32:18.170 --> 00:32:21.710 End quote. Chris Fabricant from the Innocence Project says. 546 00:32:21.869 --> 00:32:25.789 My favourite example is actually a favourite example from Texas. 547 00:32:25.910 --> 00:32:28.170 The hair examiner in that case had said that the 548 00:32:28.210 --> 00:32:31.160 chances that somebody apart from the defendant had left the 549 00:32:31.200 --> 00:32:33.640 hair at the crime scene were slim to none and 550 00:32:33.700 --> 00:32:34.619 none just left town. 551 00:32:36.500 --> 00:32:38.859 As in, the hair examiner said that there is no 552 00:32:38.920 --> 00:32:41.779 chance I'm wrong, I know this hair belongs to the suspect. 553 00:32:42.960 --> 00:32:45.819 The FBI is now working with the Innocence Project to 554 00:32:45.880 --> 00:32:50.799 review more than 3,000 criminal cases that used microscopic hair analysis. 555 00:32:51.380 --> 00:32:54.619 As of March last year, the FBI announced that in 556 00:32:54.619 --> 00:32:58.130 268 cases where the FBI testimony was used against a 557 00:32:58.160 --> 00:33:03.109 defendant at trial, in 96% of cases, wrong statements were 558 00:33:03.150 --> 00:33:04.710 made about hair analysis. 559 00:33:04.710 --> 00:33:06.710 96%. 560 00:33:06.789 --> 00:33:12.150 In 33 of those cases, people were sentenced with the 561 00:33:12.230 --> 00:33:16.799 death penalty. Nine of those were executed. Five died of 562 00:33:16.880 --> 00:33:25.339 other causes while on death row. Conclusion. There's no good 563 00:33:25.420 --> 00:33:28.220 scientific evidence that you can match a strand of hair 564 00:33:28.299 --> 00:33:32.000 to an individual by looking at that hair under the microscope. 565 00:33:33.119 --> 00:33:33.240 So. 566 00:33:33.730 --> 00:33:37.430 When it comes to forensic science, does it stack up? 567 00:33:39.359 --> 00:33:43.440 How accurately can scientists use bugs to tell when someone died? Well, 568 00:33:43.660 --> 00:33:46.480 under ideal conditions, they can nail the time of death 569 00:33:46.619 --> 00:33:51.369 to the day. But when things are unexpected, like fire 570 00:33:51.470 --> 00:33:56.650 ants or cocaine, the science can get messy. Bite marks. 571 00:33:57.029 --> 00:33:59.470 Can you match a bite mark to a suspect's set 572 00:33:59.529 --> 00:33:59.950 of teeth? 573 00:34:00.839 --> 00:34:01.099 No. 574 00:34:02.539 --> 00:34:04.799 Teeth haven't been shown to be that unique and the 575 00:34:04.839 --> 00:34:09.199 bite marks that they make are even less unique. Fingerprints, 576 00:34:09.469 --> 00:34:13.010 how reliable are they? Most of the time, fingerprint examiners 577 00:34:13.110 --> 00:34:16.269 get it right, but they're not perfect and human judgement 578 00:34:16.510 --> 00:34:20.530 is involved. And hair, can you pin a suspect based 579 00:34:20.630 --> 00:34:26.369 on a microscopic analysis of their hair? Nope. Science is 580 00:34:26.449 --> 00:34:29.090 not good enough to see hair under a microscope... and 581 00:34:29.159 --> 00:34:33.980 match it to a particular person. But hair is very 582 00:34:34.119 --> 00:34:38.179 useful in other ways. There's a goldmine of information in 583 00:34:38.219 --> 00:34:41.019 the DNA of hair and that can pin a suspect 584 00:34:41.179 --> 00:34:44.820 to a crime. DNA has in fact become the gold 585 00:34:45.019 --> 00:34:48.119 standard of forensic science and there's good science behind it 586 00:34:48.179 --> 00:34:52.300 with clear statistical certainty. DNA has been used to put 587 00:34:52.380 --> 00:34:55.119 guilty people away and set innocent people free. 588 00:34:56.320 --> 00:34:56.530 But. 589 00:34:57.409 --> 00:35:01.530 Forensic scientists have now started pushing the boundaries of what 590 00:35:01.710 --> 00:35:05.800 DNA evidence can do. They're able to extract tiny amounts 591 00:35:05.860 --> 00:35:09.400 of genetic evidence from doorknobs, coffee mugs and even weapons 592 00:35:09.860 --> 00:35:12.420 in a way that just wasn't possible decades ago. A 593 00:35:13.380 --> 00:35:18.780 new generation of forensic science is upon us. But is 594 00:35:18.820 --> 00:35:23.050 it any better than the old stuff? That's coming up 595 00:35:24.269 --> 00:35:28.969 next time on Science Versus. We'll be back with part 596 00:35:29.070 --> 00:35:33.239 two of Science vs Forensic Science in two weeks. And 597 00:35:33.280 --> 00:35:37.679 when we do, we're getting our hands really dirty. So 598 00:35:37.880 --> 00:35:39.340 is this person wearing a shirt? 599 00:35:39.719 --> 00:35:42.000 No, that is what the flesh ends up looking like 600 00:35:42.059 --> 00:35:43.460 throughout the decomposition process. 601 00:35:43.519 --> 00:35:45.820 It looks like they're wearing clothes, but it's actually skin. 602 00:35:46.539 --> 00:35:49.760 This episode has been produced by Shruti Ravindran, Diane Wu, 603 00:35:50.119 --> 00:35:53.940 Austin Mitchell, Heather Rogers and Caitlin Kenney. Our senior producer 604 00:35:54.039 --> 00:35:58.420 is Caitlin Soarey. edited by Annie Rose Strasser, fact-checking by 605 00:35:58.440 --> 00:36:02.239 Michelle Harris. Sound design and music production is by Matthew Boll. 606 00:36:02.360 --> 00:36:04.900 This has been mixed by Martin Peralta and Bobby Lord. 607 00:36:05.320 --> 00:36:09.710 Music written by Bobby Lord. I'm Wendy Zuckerman. Fact you 608 00:36:09.750 --> 00:36:10.110 next time.