March 2, 2026 • 26 mins
Ruben Miller spent 22 years at the frontline of forensic science in New Zealand. He stood in bedrooms and backyards, alongside bodies and the aftermath of extreme violence, quietly gathering evidence and maintaining professional composure.
Working on over 160 forensic homicide investigations took its toll. In 2022, he was diagnosed with complex PTSD and soon after left his job.
He's written a book called "The Blood Says Otherwise - Murder, forensics and hidden truths" which is in stores now - and he joins us today to talk us through it all...
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Daily bespoke content that you won't find on the radio
show The Hurdaki Breakfast podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Ruben Miller joins us on the podcast this morning, Good Rubin,
How are you.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Good, Hey, Jerry, I'm yeah, I'm good. I'm feeling good.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Your book The Blood Says Otherwise Murder, Forensics and Hidden
Truths is in stores today. You spent twenty two years
on the front line of forensics here in New Zealand.
You must have seen some stuff.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah, I saw a bit. Not everything I was prepared for,
but it was it was an adventure. It was certainly exciting.
I got to fulfill lots of those things I'd sort
of laid out for myself and you know, done something
cool with science, certainly something meaningful. And yeah, it really
(00:52):
hit me as well. It was. It was an eye
opening maturing experience.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
I bet it was. When you were into the studio,
what's the first thing you noticed? Like you know, when
you when you've done a job for so long, you
must see the same sorts of things everywhere you go.
What's what's Is there anything in the studio that jumps
out to you?
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Did you spot that blood that's just doing that?
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Well?
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Yeah, the details of everything right in the job. So yeah,
I mean I'm looking at that packet. I'm seeing some
of those oily stains on the inside, wondering what those
might be. You know, that is that yesterday's lunch? Is
it like a week ago? I'm not sure. You've got
an eclectic mix of things right here. Maybe trying to
cover up something else unsavory that's going on.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
It was savory. That was a cheese gone, and that's
a butter that I got the bottom of that one.
There not a body fluid then, Look, I was celebrating
over the top of that bloody good cheese gone from
across the road.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
What are some of the things that you take away
from a twenty two year career and doing this kind
of thing? You know, what's what what stays with you?
Like for example, Jerry, if he talks for longer than
three minutes, he has to stop and throw to a song.
Just an ether day conversation. Okay, that's what he's let's
his hang over.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Okay. Yeah. I think primarily the biggest thing is we're
all people and we all have stories, and we're not
just the worst thing that we've done. So it's the
job weirdly, maybe not weirdly, has given me a whole
ton of compassion for the way that people live and
(02:30):
what they're exposed to and exactly why they might have
done the things they've done.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
Yeah. I guess because when you see this kind of
stuff that you would have been looking at on the news,
you just automatically go evil person did an evil thing.
But I guess are we actually every one of us
a little bit closer to that than you'd think.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Yeah, I have to say I think so. You know,
to brand someone as evil is pretty it's it's easy, right,
it's others them, and it just makes their world not
our world.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
But you know, like I've I've been into scenes that
are absolutely horrific, and especially when I started having kids,
and you know that little bib or or nappy that
you got from the baby factory and then you see
it at a scene and you go, shit, there's this
is this is not that different?
Speaker 4 (03:19):
I've got the same one.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Yeah, I've got the same one. I see that that
that ornament there or like, you know, one of the
worst things I've ever seen is a a certificate for
diligence in maths from a primary school.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
And it's up on the wall and amongst the worst
thing you can imagine, and it's got blood spatter on it,
you know. So these the little oases of of pride,
you know, And just like everyone's everyone wants the best
for those around them, but we're just so limited.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
When you worked on over one hundred and sixty forensic
homicide investigations, one hundred and sixty, do you member details
from you think all of those one hundred and sixty?
Can you carry that with you?
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Well? I couldn't to some degree. I remember intricate details
about you know, things that are more than twenty years old.
And I also have total blanks. So you know, there
are things that you know. Over the last five or
ten years, people have actually said to me, oh, do
you remember that case you worked on? And I said, well,
how did you know that? I didn't disclose anything, and
(04:27):
they said, no, no, I saw you in the paper.
Well you know, and like that that's gone for me,
And then I start researching it's oh yeah, I did
do that, you know. So just there's very very limited
ways of making sense of this stuff as.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Part of that, just because it's your job. It's like
asking someone what they did at work on Tuesday last
week as part of it also that maybe some of
that stuff get blocked out, do you think or no.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
Ah, yeah, absolutely right, Yeah, I mean it's a survival mechanism, right, yeah,
you know, I mean it is a job, as you say,
you know, whether I'm sort of whether you're in accounts
or you know, radio DJs. I mean, thing's become you know,
every day and you don't necessarily want to talk about
them all the time, but you I actively have to
try to keep that away from bringing that home.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
So yeah, absolutely, I have always wanted to know people
at work and your line of work that you worked
in forensics.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
Dreams, dreams, because obviously we are Our dreams are the
input that we put into our brains during the day,
and that's what's working away there.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
What are your dreams?
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Like, my dreams are a lot better now, and they
weren't they pretty for quite a long time. One of
the you know, I mean you can probably imagine what
I dream when I bring my work home, but one
of my recurring dreams is actually getting into the mind
of a perpetrator trying to get away with what they've done,
(05:57):
Like as I reconstruct crime scene so I have to
get into the mind of the killer. So it's very
hard to get out of the mind of the killer,
and that mind is with me at night as well.
And it's bloody stressful trying to get away with a
crime I've had.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
I mean, I have dreams or I'm trying to where
I've woke. I'm not working up, but I'm in the dream.
But I haven't actually murdered the person on the dream.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I don't murder anyone. But you've had something, I've already
done it, and then I've got exactly the same thing.
I've got to try and get away with it. Times
I've buried a body and it's oftentimes outside and it's
in clay and there's terrible floods or rain, and it's away.
It's a horrible dream, and when you wake.
Speaker 4 (06:40):
Up, you're like, oh my god, this is bad.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I'm going to be in prison for the rest of
my life. How am I going to deal with? No,
I didn't do that.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Assion what it takes me a little longer than you
to get out of that motive. I didn't do it,
you know, because you know, especially when I'm on call,
what's the next one? That's going to come along with
whose other Whose head am I going to have to inhabit?
Speaker 4 (07:00):
What are some of the commonalities you've noticed having to
try and recreate these and get into the mindset of
that that might surprise people about how people think in
these situations.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Yeah, that we're pretty ordinary. I mean New Zealand. You know,
it's a tough thing with this job. You know, you
wait for that really elaborate, complex, premeditated crime and that
comes up. Yeah, yeah, that comes along very occasionally, and
then it's like, yes, that's why I'm doing the job,
and the rest are ordinary people reacting to weird circumstances.
So it's emotional, there's addiction, there's you know, gang extortion
(07:33):
stuff going on, and it's a quick hit over the
head of a drunken mate and then it's oh, should
I have to try and cover this up? And you
don't realize how hard it is to cover up a crime. Yeah,
So then there's a quick call to one one one
and say, oh, look, this is what I did, right,
And then we come in as the just in case
and that's that's your eighty percent of crime, right, But
(07:54):
it's the twenty percent of legitimate who done it? Yeah,
that really tests you.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Okay, have there ever been out of those one hundred
and sixty, how many got away with something that you
know happened? Obviously you can't be specific about what that was.
I don't expect that. But what's the percentage you reckon
of people that got away with something?
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I can tell you beyond a percentage, I can tell
you an exact number. Okay, And that's one one out
of the one hundred and sixty, right, okay, And that's
a bona fide unsolved homicide.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Oh right, there was no you couldn't read, there was
no like conclusive.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Well, we did our best where there were many strands,
many leads, many dead ends. But yeah, that's the only
homicide case I've worked on that remains unsolved.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Wow, because I guess nowadays as well, it's getting even
harder and harder to get away with something because of
phone records. You've got something tracking you around the whole time,
knows where you are at all times.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Yeah, oh absolutely, CCTV and cell phone towers, so a
whole ton of cases. Yeah, and you know, and in
forensic science does definitely play a role, but it's part
of a bigger investigation, right, Like I mean, the rhetoric
is that you know DNA will solve you know, and
you know you've got that one DNA hit that's the
(09:16):
case closed. It's way more complex than that, you know, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
Because all that might prove is that you know, someone
may have been there, but they might live in that
house or you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Absolutely, And the more sensitive DNA technology gets, the you've
got that double edged sword, right. So yeah, it's great
we can find DNA profiles that we previously wouldn't have
been able to. But then the explanations for that and
the care that you've got to take around contamination, yeah,
go up exponentially.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
Well off the back of Jerry's Christian how often do
you you know, like you've done the forensic analysis of
the scene of everything, you moralleyst know what's happened here,
but it can't be they can't be convicted for that.
Does that ever happen? You know, whereas in the back
of your mind you know what's happened, but you actually
can't but the literal the law, you can't get them
(10:05):
for it. Does that ever happen?
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Yeah, one hundred percent, it happens quite often actually, and
you just have to go into a mindset that actually,
and it's difficult at times when you see the results
of what people do to each other, but you have
to get into that mindset of it's not important to
me whether they're guilty or innocent. It's whether the the
evidence stacks up and is represented in an honest way,
(10:30):
and that that's critical, you know. So that's what I'm
far more interested in.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
Right, and then at that point you've done your job,
You've presented all the evidence. However that plays out past there.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Yeah, it gets sticky as well, because the endpoint to
my process is presenting in court. So then it's a
whole nother level of trying to interpret and translate scientific
findings to a lay audience a jury, you know, And
I say, how do I come across exactly?
Speaker 4 (10:58):
You know.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
There's something called the CSI fair and that's big.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
The other part about it is, I suppose sometimes you'll
be grilled by defense lawyers. Yeah yeah, and your integrity
gets called into question.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Yeah yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
How do you overcome the feeling of maybe that you're
being wrong? Yeah yeah, yeah in that sense, yeah, I.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Mean, they don't it's hard to prep for you know.
I mean I try to get round and say like
everyone needs a good defense, you know, and my integrity
should be called into question. Sometimes it gets a little
petsy from both sides. But we have this adversarial system
and not always the healthiest, you know, because it really
plays people off against each other. You've got an expert
(11:39):
from the prosecution expert against for the defense, and they
just go at it and it's like, well, who do
you believe? But it is it can be nerve wracking,
and it's like, you know, I've put all this work
in and then I'm trying to the whole case is
trying to be dismantled by one little technicality. It's pretty
hard and you have to stay pretty professional.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
You mentioned the cs What do you remember that. What's
the CSI effect?
Speaker 3 (12:02):
Well, CSI effect like if we're not careful in this environment,
like the way we're talking about, things that can perpetuate
some myths around you know what forensic science can do,
and then the public gets an idea of of what
forensic science can.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
Do and they think they know how it works.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Yeah, and they think they know how it works, and
then they watch CSI and it reinforces that and suddenly,
you know, before you know it, everyone expects that you
can get results in a day and it's conclusive, and
everyone goes home and how high fives because it's a
nice resolution and the reality is pretty far from that.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Do you ever solve crimes walking down hallways?
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Like you know?
Speaker 2 (12:38):
I find on CSI they just talk a lot about
what happened walking down hall always walking talking about very
very I would say, confidential information. Its a lot of
people are walking past you.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Well, these guys are really compromised, right, they're sort of
they're doing sort of twelve people's jobs, you know, they're
they're collecting evidence, they're interviewing suspects and victims. They're they're
completely biasing themselves. So that's one issue. And those halways,
those halways always tend to be quite dimly lit with
like a little pencil torch. And funnily enough, in New Zealand,
maybe it's a Kiwi thing. We got to crime scenes
(13:12):
when it's daytime because our biggest tool is being able
to see. So often they'll close down the scene unless
it's an emergency. I know, we'll see you guys at eight,
and then we've got a whole Day of Light Jeremy Wells.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
And Manaia Stewart. Find them on Instagram at Hrdarki Breakfast.
Jerry and Mania joined the complay the Hardarki Breakfast discussion
group on Facebook for more.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Is it impossible to depersonalize a crime scene? So to
walk into it and not feel that someone's life has
been extinguished in this situation and think about all the
things that happened in their life.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Oh, I would say, well, it's a yes or no answer.
I mean, yes, I was able to do that for
a big chunk of my career, but it came as
a bit of a lost because that's about suppression and
bearing and combat mentalization. Everyone's different, right the way they
react to this stuff. But the honest answer for me, no,
(14:10):
not entirely. And it got harder through my career where
I was paid to reconstruct, right, But I was reconstructing
those last ten minutes of someone's life, and it was
really hard to get away from what happened to them
and how that might have been for them, you know,
And I mean you walk into these houses, generally impoverished
every areas where the living conditions are so horrible that
(14:35):
you know, I've stepped over a body several times, almost
before noticing it, just looking in the environment, thinking, man,
if anyone makes it out of here, they need to
deserve a metal, you know. And so again we go
back to that compassion thing. But compassion and emotions at
a crime scene and coping sort of do clash.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Yeah, like this, this is this next question of mine,
feel free not to answer it. Usually. So you worked
on one hundred and sixty homicides, highly successful at what
you did. You're at the top of your field, knowing
what you know now, would you go back and do
(15:15):
what you did again? Do you think you're a better
person for all of the experience that you've had, or
do you think that it's on balance damaged you more.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
I would say no, I wouldn't go back and do
it again, because that I did my you know, twenty
two years at the front line, twenty three years in
that industry, and twenty five years now still as a
forensic scientist. I feel I can bring all of those
skills to another realm, which is the interpretation and analytical
(15:53):
work that I now do for the New Zealand courts.
So that served me well, and you know, the front
lines is intense and for me, I needed a limited
lifespan there. And again everyone's different, but I would say
this is not a long, long career for me. It
has to change, So I don't think I would go
(16:15):
back and do it again, although I'm in a better
place now than I was when I started, because I've
actually been able to reflect process and have totally different tools.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
So he's grateful you did it, but probably wouldn't want
to do it again.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Yeah, I think younger, more enthusiastic, and other people who
can have their own experience of it should definitely take
up that mental And it's a good thing for a
scientist to say, you know, it's like, you know, I've
done this, I did it well, and now I don't
need to do it forever.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
How do you go when you like so? For example,
my partner works in a completely different industry than me,
and I love that because when I go home, she
doesn't care at all what happened at work. How do
you go when you you know, when you go home
from a harrowing day on the work site, then you
know I did did talk about it when you get
hold do you not talk about it? Or how does
that work?
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Yeah, I definitely talked about it, but I mean, just
to put it in context, my wife is clinical psychologist, okay,
so you know, and she's talking she's worked for corrections,
you know, and and her work stories. You know, I
thought mine were bad, but you know, I mean, but
there was we could only go so far because we
(17:26):
both hold confidential information, you know, and there's there's you know,
there's all sorts of sensitivity there. So yes, and no,
we could talk around it. But you know, I mean
part of my lack of skill back in the day
was actually not talking enough, you know, and just going now,
I'm not going to bring this home. Yeah, I'm stoic,
I'm resilient. I got this. My kids don't need to
know anything, my wife doesn't need to know anything. But
(17:47):
you know, that stuff builds up.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Well in the end, you ended up with PTSD, didn't
you describe it as a slow erosion and PTSD.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Yeah, it was like we're watching a bit of a
train wreck. You know. When I could actually be more
conscious of it, it's like where is that all going?
And what am I doing to the people around me?
You know, became very controlling, irritable, you know, it wasn't
like I was on you know, other people may have
abused substances or whatever it was, but you know, my
avoidance skills and my suppression just felt like the same thing.
(18:16):
You know. It was easier to stay on that then
try and step out of it, because it was it
was such a deep coping mechanism.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
It's a full on job. And I would have thought
that anybody doing what you were doing would have huge
levels of support around them, like people do. They offer
a huge amount of support people doing your kind of work.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Yeah, I mean, there are definitely services there, there's mandatory
and voluntary sort of therapeutic options. It's just that, you know,
when you're under one aspect is the material you're dealing with,
the other aspect is the constant grind of the case workload,
So you can barely take a break just to breathe,
(19:01):
you know. And so you know, my my coping mechanism
was performance and resilience and just punching through. So I
didn't spend myself that time to actually look at those
options properly, you know. And and every again, everyone's different,
but it was that's that's challenging to manage, you know,
And and most industries are just doing their best, but
(19:24):
you know it's kind of like how do you train
for that one? And someone's got to do it too,
you know, and you know, how do you support that?
Speaker 4 (19:32):
Yeah? How many people do that kind of thing in
New Zealand? Because you know, we hear so much about
how underresourced all the various different government functions are. Is
that one of them as well? How many people do
what you did?
Speaker 3 (19:44):
So frontline forensic services across New Zealand, so that would
be two different levels. There are technicians and scientists, approximately
fifty people. So that's that's you know, dedicated crime scene labs.
You've got firearms scenes, and you've got clandestine laboratories, and
you've got a whole bunch of support stuff you know
that vicariously take that stuff as well.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Is it enough? Nah?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
You know, I would say it's you know, you could
it's almost arguably serviceable. But it's like people need a
break just getting you know, and that's true for so
many industries. You know, Yeah, it's just getting by, and
it's just like okay, can I breathe? No, I just
got to carry on. Yeah, So I would say it's
not enough. I mean and It's probably true for all
frontline services, police, ambulance, fire service.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Were you traveling around all so a particular crime occurs
and then you were.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
Based in I was in here in Auckland and.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Then everyone that's part that gets flown to the place
where it is because I mean, there's not that many
homicides and using one of there fifty a year or
maybe yeah, there's there's, there's.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
There isn't that Ye're between fifty and seventy and yeah,
so we did from the basically the Kaimunos National parkish
area north, so sixty to seventy percent of the population yep,
and there were six six or seven scientists servicing that.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Does that e quate for sixty or seventy percent of
the homicides.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Of crime as well? Maybe a little more is there? Yeah?
So you know, so yeah, we would just we'd never fly.
We're just bung whatever we could in the ute and
and drive. So you'd have four or five six hour
road trips.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
Sometimes and then you're stand in like a motel somewhere.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
Like yeah, or you know, if you're lucky, you would
make your own choice. Otherwise the police might put you
up in some lodge or something.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
And get balloted.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
Yeah yeah, yeah, so you know, I've been on police
launchers and stayed in shacks. I've done all sorts of
weird stuff.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Maybe that contributed to the pets.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So you have this harrowing day at work,
he's got to go home and land a bunk next
to Yeah, Jared is snoring next to you.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
Well not only that, but you've been You've been sitting
next to Jared for five hours. Yeah, you know, in
your in your ute, trying to make conversation. And that's
a whole different level of stress. You know, it's like,
what are you talking about?
Speaker 4 (22:03):
Guys?
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Yeah, we got sent a text earlier on because we
do a segment on our show called lame Claims to Fame,
We got sent a text someone who claimed their lame
claim to fame was that they sold the pie that
was found the PI rapple that was found in Mark
Lundy's vehicle, and they sold the pie to Mark Lundy
(22:26):
claim claim to fame. That may have ended up as
the evidence and potentially his shirt or whatever it's jumper
or whatever that.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
Was brain matter? Was it a pie?
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (22:38):
You do you know much about that case?
Speaker 3 (22:41):
A little yeah, yeah. I mean what I know is that,
you know, the big controversy there was novel science. You know,
it's like, you know, just because you can perform an
experiment and establish that something is consistent with something else,
there's no backing to that. You know, you haven't validated
the process. It hasn't been peer reviewed, it's not internationally accepted.
(23:03):
All that sort of stuff comes into place. So and
that's very similar to a lot of the things that
we do at work. It's kind of like, you know,
oh no, my guts, is I reckon? You know, there's
there's there's that sort of stuff that creeps in, But
it's like how do you bring the science back in,
especially when you're like, for me, a lot of the
experimental work I did was smacking you know, mannequins filled
with blood around the head, you know, and seeing what
sort of blood stains emanated from that, and it's like, yeah,
(23:26):
it looks the same as what I saw previously, So
it probably is yeah, yeah, yeah, and you can build
up this so called backstory of expertise. Yeah, but is
it unless you do some real grounded science and experimentation.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
Yeah, And I suppose that that'd always be able to
pick some sort of hole in anything you do. And
are you aware of that while you're while you're doing it,
are you thinking in the back of your mind, well,
they're going to try and pick a hole in this,
or I need to make sure I do this because
of the.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
Yeah, it's impossible to get away from what's going to
trip me up here? Yeah, you know what, what little
niggli thing are they going to focus on? And how
is it all going to come unrid? And you know,
we also go quite conservative with our conclusions, so it's
kind of like could have in my opinion, I can't
exclude the possibility all those fence sitting scientists talk, you
(24:14):
know that that drives law is nuts. Yeah, but we're
trying to protect our integrity and you know.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
Yeah, for sure you don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
I mean what we know.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
No, no, even even DNA DNA analysis, you know, it
feels like it's conclusive. But unless you know the DNA
profile of every single person in the world, you can't
ever say that that DNA profile could not have been
shared by somebody else, you know, So we we we
talk about you know, factors like one hundred thousand, million, million,
(24:43):
million times more likely to be X than X, you know,
and that's like it seem sounds ludicrous, like you know,
you're just saying it's the dude, but he's the guy.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
Yeah, yeah, but you can't because you can't exclude the Yeah.
The other one I know they talked about in recent
trials is the such and such as con stan't worth.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
It really unhelpful. What does that actually mean?
Speaker 2 (25:03):
I think the juries as well. It's a bit like
beyond reasonable doubt. Yeah, very hard thing for the jury
to get there.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
It's it's largely meaningless and it just leaves the sort
of the conclusion up to the jury, you know. And
and the other thing is if it's very different if
you have a like research has shown that the mere
presence of a forensic scientist in court delivering evidence amps
that up, even if that evidence is not material to
the question being asked in trial. You know. So it's
(25:32):
really important that you know, if something's not critical, that
a forensic scientist isn't demonstrating it, because people wake up
when they see the CSI coming. Yeah, you know I've
seen juries like suddenly wake up because I'm talking about
blood or something else. You know, it's like, oh, find.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
Anything just because they're like they're gonna believe, you know,
brings a weight with them.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Rumor Miller the Blood says otherwise. Murder Forensics and Hidden Truths.
It's a book that's in stores today. I think, thank
you so much for your time. It's been absolutely fascinating,
bist of luck. I hope the book goes well for you.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
Thank you so much, guys, I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Jeri and Manaiah catch the radio show from six to
ten weekdays, The Hadaky Breakfast
Daily bespoke content that you won't find on the radio
show The Hurdaki Breakfast podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Ruben Miller joins us on the podcast this morning, Good Rubin,
How are you.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Good, Hey, Jerry, I'm yeah, I'm good. I'm feeling good.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Your book The Blood Says Otherwise Murder, Forensics and Hidden
Truths is in stores today. You spent twenty two years
on the front line of forensics here in New Zealand.
You must have seen some stuff.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah, I saw a bit. Not everything I was prepared for,
but it was it was an adventure. It was certainly exciting.
I got to fulfill lots of those things I'd sort
of laid out for myself and you know, done something
cool with science, certainly something meaningful. And yeah, it really
(00:52):
hit me as well. It was. It was an eye
opening maturing experience.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
I bet it was. When you were into the studio,
what's the first thing you noticed? Like you know, when
you when you've done a job for so long, you
must see the same sorts of things everywhere you go.
What's what's Is there anything in the studio that jumps
out to you?
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Did you spot that blood that's just doing that?
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Well?
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Yeah, the details of everything right in the job. So yeah,
I mean I'm looking at that packet. I'm seeing some
of those oily stains on the inside, wondering what those
might be. You know, that is that yesterday's lunch? Is
it like a week ago? I'm not sure. You've got
an eclectic mix of things right here. Maybe trying to
cover up something else unsavory that's going on.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
It was savory. That was a cheese gone, and that's
a butter that I got the bottom of that one.
There not a body fluid then, Look, I was celebrating
over the top of that bloody good cheese gone from
across the road.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
What are some of the things that you take away
from a twenty two year career and doing this kind
of thing? You know, what's what what stays with you?
Like for example, Jerry, if he talks for longer than
three minutes, he has to stop and throw to a song.
Just an ether day conversation. Okay, that's what he's let's
his hang over.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Okay. Yeah. I think primarily the biggest thing is we're
all people and we all have stories, and we're not
just the worst thing that we've done. So it's the
job weirdly, maybe not weirdly, has given me a whole
ton of compassion for the way that people live and
(02:30):
what they're exposed to and exactly why they might have
done the things they've done.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
Yeah. I guess because when you see this kind of
stuff that you would have been looking at on the news,
you just automatically go evil person did an evil thing.
But I guess are we actually every one of us
a little bit closer to that than you'd think.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Yeah, I have to say I think so. You know,
to brand someone as evil is pretty it's it's easy, right,
it's others them, and it just makes their world not
our world.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
But you know, like I've I've been into scenes that
are absolutely horrific, and especially when I started having kids,
and you know that little bib or or nappy that
you got from the baby factory and then you see
it at a scene and you go, shit, there's this
is this is not that different?
Speaker 4 (03:19):
I've got the same one.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Yeah, I've got the same one. I see that that
that ornament there or like, you know, one of the
worst things I've ever seen is a a certificate for
diligence in maths from a primary school.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
And it's up on the wall and amongst the worst
thing you can imagine, and it's got blood spatter on it,
you know. So these the little oases of of pride,
you know, And just like everyone's everyone wants the best
for those around them, but we're just so limited.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
When you worked on over one hundred and sixty forensic
homicide investigations, one hundred and sixty, do you member details
from you think all of those one hundred and sixty?
Can you carry that with you?
Speaker 3 (04:06):
Well? I couldn't to some degree. I remember intricate details
about you know, things that are more than twenty years old.
And I also have total blanks. So you know, there
are things that you know. Over the last five or
ten years, people have actually said to me, oh, do
you remember that case you worked on? And I said, well,
how did you know that? I didn't disclose anything, and
(04:27):
they said, no, no, I saw you in the paper.
Well you know, and like that that's gone for me,
And then I start researching it's oh yeah, I did
do that, you know. So just there's very very limited
ways of making sense of this stuff as.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Part of that, just because it's your job. It's like
asking someone what they did at work on Tuesday last
week as part of it also that maybe some of
that stuff get blocked out, do you think or no.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
Ah, yeah, absolutely right, Yeah, I mean it's a survival mechanism, right, yeah,
you know, I mean it is a job, as you say,
you know, whether I'm sort of whether you're in accounts
or you know, radio DJs. I mean, thing's become you know,
every day and you don't necessarily want to talk about
them all the time, but you I actively have to
try to keep that away from bringing that home.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
So yeah, absolutely, I have always wanted to know people
at work and your line of work that you worked
in forensics.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
Dreams, dreams, because obviously we are Our dreams are the
input that we put into our brains during the day,
and that's what's working away there.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
What are your dreams?
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Like, my dreams are a lot better now, and they
weren't they pretty for quite a long time. One of
the you know, I mean you can probably imagine what
I dream when I bring my work home, but one
of my recurring dreams is actually getting into the mind
of a perpetrator trying to get away with what they've done,
(05:57):
Like as I reconstruct crime scene so I have to
get into the mind of the killer. So it's very
hard to get out of the mind of the killer,
and that mind is with me at night as well.
And it's bloody stressful trying to get away with a
crime I've had.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
I mean, I have dreams or I'm trying to where
I've woke. I'm not working up, but I'm in the dream.
But I haven't actually murdered the person on the dream.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I don't murder anyone. But you've had something, I've already
done it, and then I've got exactly the same thing.
I've got to try and get away with it. Times
I've buried a body and it's oftentimes outside and it's
in clay and there's terrible floods or rain, and it's away.
It's a horrible dream, and when you wake.
Speaker 4 (06:40):
Up, you're like, oh my god, this is bad.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I'm going to be in prison for the rest of
my life. How am I going to deal with? No,
I didn't do that.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Assion what it takes me a little longer than you
to get out of that motive. I didn't do it,
you know, because you know, especially when I'm on call,
what's the next one? That's going to come along with
whose other Whose head am I going to have to inhabit?
Speaker 4 (07:00):
What are some of the commonalities you've noticed having to
try and recreate these and get into the mindset of
that that might surprise people about how people think in
these situations.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Yeah, that we're pretty ordinary. I mean New Zealand. You know,
it's a tough thing with this job. You know, you
wait for that really elaborate, complex, premeditated crime and that
comes up. Yeah, yeah, that comes along very occasionally, and
then it's like, yes, that's why I'm doing the job,
and the rest are ordinary people reacting to weird circumstances.
So it's emotional, there's addiction, there's you know, gang extortion
(07:33):
stuff going on, and it's a quick hit over the
head of a drunken mate and then it's oh, should
I have to try and cover this up? And you
don't realize how hard it is to cover up a crime. Yeah,
So then there's a quick call to one one one
and say, oh, look, this is what I did, right,
And then we come in as the just in case
and that's that's your eighty percent of crime, right, But
(07:54):
it's the twenty percent of legitimate who done it? Yeah,
that really tests you.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Okay, have there ever been out of those one hundred
and sixty, how many got away with something that you
know happened? Obviously you can't be specific about what that was.
I don't expect that. But what's the percentage you reckon
of people that got away with something?
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I can tell you beyond a percentage, I can tell
you an exact number. Okay, And that's one one out
of the one hundred and sixty, right, okay, And that's
a bona fide unsolved homicide.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Oh right, there was no you couldn't read, there was
no like conclusive.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Well, we did our best where there were many strands,
many leads, many dead ends. But yeah, that's the only
homicide case I've worked on that remains unsolved.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Wow, because I guess nowadays as well, it's getting even
harder and harder to get away with something because of
phone records. You've got something tracking you around the whole time,
knows where you are at all times.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Yeah, oh absolutely, CCTV and cell phone towers, so a
whole ton of cases. Yeah, and you know, and in
forensic science does definitely play a role, but it's part
of a bigger investigation, right, Like I mean, the rhetoric
is that you know DNA will solve you know, and
you know you've got that one DNA hit that's the
(09:16):
case closed. It's way more complex than that, you know, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
Because all that might prove is that you know, someone
may have been there, but they might live in that
house or you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Absolutely, And the more sensitive DNA technology gets, the you've
got that double edged sword, right. So yeah, it's great
we can find DNA profiles that we previously wouldn't have
been able to. But then the explanations for that and
the care that you've got to take around contamination, yeah,
go up exponentially.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
Well off the back of Jerry's Christian how often do
you you know, like you've done the forensic analysis of
the scene of everything, you moralleyst know what's happened here,
but it can't be they can't be convicted for that.
Does that ever happen? You know, whereas in the back
of your mind you know what's happened, but you actually
can't but the literal the law, you can't get them
(10:05):
for it. Does that ever happen?
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Yeah, one hundred percent, it happens quite often actually, and
you just have to go into a mindset that actually,
and it's difficult at times when you see the results
of what people do to each other, but you have
to get into that mindset of it's not important to
me whether they're guilty or innocent. It's whether the the
evidence stacks up and is represented in an honest way,
(10:30):
and that that's critical, you know. So that's what I'm
far more interested in.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
Right, and then at that point you've done your job,
You've presented all the evidence. However that plays out past there.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Yeah, it gets sticky as well, because the endpoint to
my process is presenting in court. So then it's a
whole nother level of trying to interpret and translate scientific
findings to a lay audience a jury, you know, And
I say, how do I come across exactly?
Speaker 4 (10:58):
You know.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
There's something called the CSI fair and that's big.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
The other part about it is, I suppose sometimes you'll
be grilled by defense lawyers. Yeah yeah, and your integrity
gets called into question.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Yeah yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
How do you overcome the feeling of maybe that you're
being wrong? Yeah yeah, yeah in that sense, yeah, I.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Mean, they don't it's hard to prep for you know.
I mean I try to get round and say like
everyone needs a good defense, you know, and my integrity
should be called into question. Sometimes it gets a little
petsy from both sides. But we have this adversarial system
and not always the healthiest, you know, because it really
plays people off against each other. You've got an expert
(11:39):
from the prosecution expert against for the defense, and they
just go at it and it's like, well, who do
you believe? But it is it can be nerve wracking,
and it's like, you know, I've put all this work
in and then I'm trying to the whole case is
trying to be dismantled by one little technicality. It's pretty
hard and you have to stay pretty professional.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
You mentioned the cs What do you remember that. What's
the CSI effect?
Speaker 3 (12:02):
Well, CSI effect like if we're not careful in this environment,
like the way we're talking about, things that can perpetuate
some myths around you know what forensic science can do,
and then the public gets an idea of of what
forensic science can.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
Do and they think they know how it works.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Yeah, and they think they know how it works, and
then they watch CSI and it reinforces that and suddenly,
you know, before you know it, everyone expects that you
can get results in a day and it's conclusive, and
everyone goes home and how high fives because it's a
nice resolution and the reality is pretty far from that.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Do you ever solve crimes walking down hallways?
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Like you know?
Speaker 2 (12:38):
I find on CSI they just talk a lot about
what happened walking down hall always walking talking about very
very I would say, confidential information. Its a lot of
people are walking past you.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Well, these guys are really compromised, right, they're sort of
they're doing sort of twelve people's jobs, you know, they're
they're collecting evidence, they're interviewing suspects and victims. They're they're
completely biasing themselves. So that's one issue. And those halways,
those halways always tend to be quite dimly lit with
like a little pencil torch. And funnily enough, in New Zealand,
maybe it's a Kiwi thing. We got to crime scenes
(13:12):
when it's daytime because our biggest tool is being able
to see. So often they'll close down the scene unless
it's an emergency. I know, we'll see you guys at eight,
and then we've got a whole Day of Light Jeremy Wells.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
And Manaia Stewart. Find them on Instagram at Hrdarki Breakfast.
Jerry and Mania joined the complay the Hardarki Breakfast discussion
group on Facebook for more.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Is it impossible to depersonalize a crime scene? So to
walk into it and not feel that someone's life has
been extinguished in this situation and think about all the
things that happened in their life.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Oh, I would say, well, it's a yes or no answer.
I mean, yes, I was able to do that for
a big chunk of my career, but it came as
a bit of a lost because that's about suppression and
bearing and combat mentalization. Everyone's different, right the way they
react to this stuff. But the honest answer for me, no,
(14:10):
not entirely. And it got harder through my career where
I was paid to reconstruct, right, But I was reconstructing
those last ten minutes of someone's life, and it was
really hard to get away from what happened to them
and how that might have been for them, you know,
And I mean you walk into these houses, generally impoverished
every areas where the living conditions are so horrible that
(14:35):
you know, I've stepped over a body several times, almost
before noticing it, just looking in the environment, thinking, man,
if anyone makes it out of here, they need to
deserve a metal, you know. And so again we go
back to that compassion thing. But compassion and emotions at
a crime scene and coping sort of do clash.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Yeah, like this, this is this next question of mine,
feel free not to answer it. Usually. So you worked
on one hundred and sixty homicides, highly successful at what
you did. You're at the top of your field, knowing
what you know now, would you go back and do
(15:15):
what you did again? Do you think you're a better
person for all of the experience that you've had, or
do you think that it's on balance damaged you more.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
I would say no, I wouldn't go back and do
it again, because that I did my you know, twenty
two years at the front line, twenty three years in
that industry, and twenty five years now still as a
forensic scientist. I feel I can bring all of those
skills to another realm, which is the interpretation and analytical
(15:53):
work that I now do for the New Zealand courts.
So that served me well, and you know, the front
lines is intense and for me, I needed a limited
lifespan there. And again everyone's different, but I would say
this is not a long, long career for me. It
has to change, So I don't think I would go
(16:15):
back and do it again, although I'm in a better
place now than I was when I started, because I've
actually been able to reflect process and have totally different tools.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
So he's grateful you did it, but probably wouldn't want
to do it again.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Yeah, I think younger, more enthusiastic, and other people who
can have their own experience of it should definitely take
up that mental And it's a good thing for a
scientist to say, you know, it's like, you know, I've
done this, I did it well, and now I don't
need to do it forever.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
How do you go when you like so? For example,
my partner works in a completely different industry than me,
and I love that because when I go home, she
doesn't care at all what happened at work. How do
you go when you you know, when you go home
from a harrowing day on the work site, then you
know I did did talk about it when you get
hold do you not talk about it? Or how does
that work?
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Yeah, I definitely talked about it, but I mean, just
to put it in context, my wife is clinical psychologist, okay,
so you know, and she's talking she's worked for corrections,
you know, and and her work stories. You know, I
thought mine were bad, but you know, I mean, but
there was we could only go so far because we
(17:26):
both hold confidential information, you know, and there's there's you know,
there's all sorts of sensitivity there. So yes, and no,
we could talk around it. But you know, I mean
part of my lack of skill back in the day
was actually not talking enough, you know, and just going now,
I'm not going to bring this home. Yeah, I'm stoic,
I'm resilient. I got this. My kids don't need to
know anything, my wife doesn't need to know anything. But
(17:47):
you know, that stuff builds up.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Well in the end, you ended up with PTSD, didn't
you describe it as a slow erosion and PTSD.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Yeah, it was like we're watching a bit of a
train wreck. You know. When I could actually be more
conscious of it, it's like where is that all going?
And what am I doing to the people around me?
You know, became very controlling, irritable, you know, it wasn't
like I was on you know, other people may have
abused substances or whatever it was, but you know, my
avoidance skills and my suppression just felt like the same thing.
(18:16):
You know. It was easier to stay on that then
try and step out of it, because it was it
was such a deep coping mechanism.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
It's a full on job. And I would have thought
that anybody doing what you were doing would have huge
levels of support around them, like people do. They offer
a huge amount of support people doing your kind of work.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Yeah, I mean, there are definitely services there, there's mandatory
and voluntary sort of therapeutic options. It's just that, you know,
when you're under one aspect is the material you're dealing with,
the other aspect is the constant grind of the case workload,
So you can barely take a break just to breathe,
(19:01):
you know. And so you know, my my coping mechanism
was performance and resilience and just punching through. So I
didn't spend myself that time to actually look at those
options properly, you know. And and every again, everyone's different,
but it was that's that's challenging to manage, you know,
And and most industries are just doing their best, but
(19:24):
you know it's kind of like how do you train
for that one? And someone's got to do it too,
you know, and you know, how do you support that?
Speaker 4 (19:32):
Yeah? How many people do that kind of thing in
New Zealand? Because you know, we hear so much about
how underresourced all the various different government functions are. Is
that one of them as well? How many people do
what you did?
Speaker 3 (19:44):
So frontline forensic services across New Zealand, so that would
be two different levels. There are technicians and scientists, approximately
fifty people. So that's that's you know, dedicated crime scene labs.
You've got firearms scenes, and you've got clandestine laboratories, and
you've got a whole bunch of support stuff you know
that vicariously take that stuff as well.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Is it enough? Nah?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
You know, I would say it's you know, you could
it's almost arguably serviceable. But it's like people need a
break just getting you know, and that's true for so
many industries. You know, Yeah, it's just getting by, and
it's just like okay, can I breathe? No, I just
got to carry on. Yeah, So I would say it's
not enough. I mean and It's probably true for all
frontline services, police, ambulance, fire service.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Were you traveling around all so a particular crime occurs
and then you were.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
Based in I was in here in Auckland and.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Then everyone that's part that gets flown to the place
where it is because I mean, there's not that many
homicides and using one of there fifty a year or
maybe yeah, there's there's, there's.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
There isn't that Ye're between fifty and seventy and yeah,
so we did from the basically the Kaimunos National parkish
area north, so sixty to seventy percent of the population yep,
and there were six six or seven scientists servicing that.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Does that e quate for sixty or seventy percent of
the homicides.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Of crime as well? Maybe a little more is there? Yeah?
So you know, so yeah, we would just we'd never fly.
We're just bung whatever we could in the ute and
and drive. So you'd have four or five six hour
road trips.
Speaker 4 (21:22):
Sometimes and then you're stand in like a motel somewhere.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
Like yeah, or you know, if you're lucky, you would
make your own choice. Otherwise the police might put you
up in some lodge or something.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
And get balloted.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
Yeah yeah, yeah, so you know, I've been on police
launchers and stayed in shacks. I've done all sorts of
weird stuff.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Maybe that contributed to the pets.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So you have this harrowing day at work,
he's got to go home and land a bunk next
to Yeah, Jared is snoring next to you.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
Well not only that, but you've been You've been sitting
next to Jared for five hours. Yeah, you know, in
your in your ute, trying to make conversation. And that's
a whole different level of stress. You know, it's like,
what are you talking about?
Speaker 4 (22:03):
Guys?
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Yeah, we got sent a text earlier on because we
do a segment on our show called lame Claims to Fame,
We got sent a text someone who claimed their lame
claim to fame was that they sold the pie that
was found the PI rapple that was found in Mark
Lundy's vehicle, and they sold the pie to Mark Lundy
(22:26):
claim claim to fame. That may have ended up as
the evidence and potentially his shirt or whatever it's jumper
or whatever that.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
Was brain matter? Was it a pie?
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (22:38):
You do you know much about that case?
Speaker 3 (22:41):
A little yeah, yeah. I mean what I know is that,
you know, the big controversy there was novel science. You know,
it's like, you know, just because you can perform an
experiment and establish that something is consistent with something else,
there's no backing to that. You know, you haven't validated
the process. It hasn't been peer reviewed, it's not internationally accepted.
(23:03):
All that sort of stuff comes into place. So and
that's very similar to a lot of the things that
we do at work. It's kind of like, you know,
oh no, my guts, is I reckon? You know, there's
there's there's that sort of stuff that creeps in, But
it's like how do you bring the science back in,
especially when you're like, for me, a lot of the
experimental work I did was smacking you know, mannequins filled
with blood around the head, you know, and seeing what
sort of blood stains emanated from that, and it's like, yeah,
(23:26):
it looks the same as what I saw previously, So
it probably is yeah, yeah, yeah, and you can build
up this so called backstory of expertise. Yeah, but is
it unless you do some real grounded science and experimentation.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
Yeah, And I suppose that that'd always be able to
pick some sort of hole in anything you do. And
are you aware of that while you're while you're doing it,
are you thinking in the back of your mind, well,
they're going to try and pick a hole in this,
or I need to make sure I do this because
of the.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
Yeah, it's impossible to get away from what's going to
trip me up here? Yeah, you know what, what little
niggli thing are they going to focus on? And how
is it all going to come unrid? And you know,
we also go quite conservative with our conclusions, so it's
kind of like could have in my opinion, I can't
exclude the possibility all those fence sitting scientists talk, you
(24:14):
know that that drives law is nuts. Yeah, but we're
trying to protect our integrity and you know.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
Yeah, for sure you don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
I mean what we know.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
No, no, even even DNA DNA analysis, you know, it
feels like it's conclusive. But unless you know the DNA
profile of every single person in the world, you can't
ever say that that DNA profile could not have been
shared by somebody else, you know, So we we we
talk about you know, factors like one hundred thousand, million, million,
(24:43):
million times more likely to be X than X, you know,
and that's like it seem sounds ludicrous, like you know,
you're just saying it's the dude, but he's the guy.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
Yeah, yeah, but you can't because you can't exclude the Yeah.
The other one I know they talked about in recent
trials is the such and such as con stan't worth.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
It really unhelpful. What does that actually mean?
Speaker 2 (25:03):
I think the juries as well. It's a bit like
beyond reasonable doubt. Yeah, very hard thing for the jury
to get there.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
It's it's largely meaningless and it just leaves the sort
of the conclusion up to the jury, you know. And
and the other thing is if it's very different if
you have a like research has shown that the mere
presence of a forensic scientist in court delivering evidence amps
that up, even if that evidence is not material to
the question being asked in trial. You know. So it's
(25:32):
really important that you know, if something's not critical, that
a forensic scientist isn't demonstrating it, because people wake up
when they see the CSI coming. Yeah, you know I've
seen juries like suddenly wake up because I'm talking about
blood or something else. You know, it's like, oh, find.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
Anything just because they're like they're gonna believe, you know,
brings a weight with them.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Rumor Miller the Blood says otherwise. Murder Forensics and Hidden Truths.
It's a book that's in stores today. I think, thank
you so much for your time. It's been absolutely fascinating,
bist of luck. I hope the book goes well for you.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
Thank you so much, guys, I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Jeri and Manaiah catch the radio show from six to
ten weekdays, The Hadaky Breakfast
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!