From the courtroom to the living room (thanks to the hit television series “CSI”), forensic science is king. Expertise on fingerprints, ballistics and bite mark analysis are routinely called on to solve the most difficult criminal cases — and to put the guilty behind bars. But how reliable is the science behind forensics?
Articles
Forensic Tools: What’s Reliable and What’s Not-So-Scientific by Jonathan Jones
No Forensic Background? No Problem by Leah Bartos ProPublica
Casey Anthony Trial Lawyers Speak Out About the Case’s Controversial Forensics by Gretchen Gavett
Mississippi Doctor’s Autopsies at Center of Wrongful Conviction Filings by Azmat Khan
Forensic Credentialing Org Responds to 'The Real CSI' by Gretchen Gavett
Discarded Doll: A Photo Essay of the Caylee Anthony Memorial Site by Andres Cediel
Dr. Cyril Wecht: The Benefits of Forensic Credentialing
Judge Harry T. Edwards: How Reliable is Forensic Evidence in Court?
Can Unconscious Bias Undermine Fingerprint Analysis? by Gretchen Gavett
A FRONTLINE investigation finds serious flaws in some of the best-known tools of forensic science and wide inconsistencies in how forensic evidence is presented in the courtroom.
From the sensational murder trial of Casey Anthony and the FBI’s botched investigation of the Madrid terrorist bombing to capital cases in rural Mississippi, FRONTLINE documents how a field with few uniform standards and unproven science can undermine the search for justice.
As part of the investigative series “Post Mortem,” correspondent Lowell Bergman reports in a joint investigation with ProPublica and the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley.
This episode originally aired in 2012.
FRONTLINE is on Facebook, and follow @frontlinepbs on Twitter.
Watch The Real CSI Preview on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Watch The Fingerprint Examiner's Achilles Heel on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
You've Never Seen This on 'CSI'
"With no access to refrigeration and no funding for a burial
Watch Post Mortem on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
