I’d heard about the problems with the blood sample of Henri Paul. But it’s all the more interesting to hear it from the person who actually investigated it for the inquest.
It's sobering to learn about DNA transfer & the reliability issues, when most of us consider DNA evidence to be incontrovertible. Fascinating interview.
Another brilliant guest. I particularly enjoy your episodes where you've brought in an expert or professional working in a field that we normally only see through media. This one is similar to the lady you had on who did biohazard clean ups. In this one for example, I think most people consider DNA at a crime scene to be open and shut, however when you hear that DNA is can actually be unreliable, and here are the many ways it can fail, if not actually mislead a jury - that is super interesting.
What the Prof said during the introductory part of the video was interesting. He spoke about 'probability'. Many people will connect that with the civil law and have the belief that probability is a lower standard then that of what the prosecution must prove in a criminal trial. So, civil law is determined on 'the balance of probability. It may still be a common misconception that in a criminal case, the standard of proving guilt requires 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. However, out laws have changed and that standard is now based upon what a reasonable person believes or accepts. I would have liked to have heard the Prof comment on this change.
Plz cut out the annoying music each time a question is phrased. For those just listening to the video rather than watching, reading out the questions would be much more useful.
I like that musical sting, captures the show really well. I generally haven't had an issue inferring what the questions is after hearing two or three sentences when just listening to the episodes.
I’d heard about the problems with the blood sample of Henri Paul. But it’s all the more interesting to hear it from the person who actually investigated it for the inquest.
It's sobering to learn about DNA transfer & the reliability issues, when most of us consider DNA evidence to be incontrovertible. Fascinating interview.
Another brilliant guest. I particularly enjoy your episodes where you've brought in an expert or professional working in a field that we normally only see through media. This one is similar to the lady you had on who did biohazard clean ups. In this one for example, I think most people consider DNA at a crime scene to be open and shut, however when you hear that DNA is can actually be unreliable, and here are the many ways it can fail, if not actually mislead a jury - that is super interesting.
Thank you so much - these comments are really valuable to us to help us understand what people are enjoying
Now we’re back to good guest ! I’m excited for this one 🎉
Thanks! Always keen to hear what you want to see!
What the Prof said during the introductory part of the video was interesting. He spoke about 'probability'. Many people will connect that with the civil law and have the belief that probability is a lower standard then that of what the prosecution must prove in a criminal trial. So, civil law is determined on 'the balance of probability.
It may still be a common misconception that in a criminal case, the standard of proving guilt requires 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. However, out laws have changed and that standard is now based upon what a reasonable person believes or accepts. I would have liked to have heard the Prof comment on this change.
Really interesting...if a little disconcerting...thank you!
Very interesting 🙏
A very interesting guy, he passes on scientific knowledge in a very interesting and understandable manner.
Love the channel and content but please can you read out the questions as a lot of people just listen rather than watch ❤
We will look into this!
That stupid music at the start is so annoying , I am off ski. Looked a good doc, but get rid of that annoying music crap.
Plz cut out the annoying music each time a question is phrased. For those just listening to the video rather than watching, reading out the questions would be much more useful.
I like that musical sting, captures the show really well. I generally haven't had an issue inferring what the questions is after hearing two or three sentences when just listening to the episodes.
So many RUclips channels do this. Its really irritating.
"Only 2 cases" ...Delphi,Indiana enters the conversation...
Only two cases he has worked on.
2/3 through and then it's Diana's case???!!!!! almost zero...total clickbait
Far too many adverts in these short videos.