0:00

This is the BBC. This

0:03

podcast is supported by advertising outside

0:06

the UK.

0:10

Boost your skin with new HIMSS beauty

0:13

actives. These body lotions combine

0:15

high powered ingredients with signature best

0:17

selling formula and amazing sense to meet

0:19

your unique skin needs. Choose from

0:21

brightening vitamin c, hydrating hyaluronic

0:24

acid, plant based bacookal, an

0:26

anti aging retinal alternative, or

0:28

firming ceramides plus b three,

0:31

all are vegan and cruelty free, and hydrate

0:33

with one hundred percent pure hemp seed oil,

0:35

now available at hemp's dot com,

0:37

Ulta Beauty, and other retailers. Six

0:40

hundred thousand work hours and four

0:42

million dollars safe in one year.

0:44

Fifteen times ROI.

0:46

Sixty percent increased revenue.

0:49

Do all of those results sound impossible Well,

0:51

what if I told you those were results from our

0:53

customers and their common

0:54

denominator? They all achieved their results

0:57

using Monday dot com when all

0:59

of your people and data are connected to one

1:01

work platform. You can achieve more

1:03

than you've ever imagined. Go to

1:05

monday dot com to start your free

1:07

trial.

1:14

BBC sounds, music radio

1:16

podcasts,

1:17

Hello. I'm Robin Inks, and I'm Brink Oakes. And

1:19

when we met, it was murder. Mhmm.

1:22

Because today is our heart to heart special.

1:24

Robbie, he's also a big fan of Columbus by the

1:26

way. And my wife is a big fan of you.

1:34

She's nice. She's annoyed with you in the morning.

1:37

You took me on too many tour dates last year.

1:39

Even she actually wants to be home eventually, and that's

1:41

very rare.

1:43

Thank you, Sameer. Thank you, Kurt. I'd actually make

1:47

it two hundred days. Thanks you. And Brian,

1:50

as you know, is also a big fan of just standing

1:53

on mountaintops wisterly looking

1:55

across peaks towards the star, and occasionally,

1:58

secretly just pushing other mountaineers

2:00

off And

2:01

so we thought we'd combine both

2:04

of our interests and today's show is

2:06

about how to commit the perfect crime.

2:08

And this will lead to infinite monkey

2:10

cluedo, in which Professor Cox

2:12

kills reverend Robin in the observatory

2:15

with a six inch refractor.

2:18

That reference by the way was for the Freudians

2:21

in the audience. Anyway,

2:23

why are you using inches? Brexit? Now

2:29

we should make it clear by the way, at this point that though we

2:31

will be talking about how to commit the perfect murder,

2:33

the BBC takes no responsibility for the length of

2:35

sentence you're given and your prison stay.

2:37

Yeah. In today's show, we're exploring

2:39

forensic science and psychology What

2:41

makes a murderer and is there such a thing

2:43

as the perfect

2:44

crime? To help us find out, we are joined

2:46

by a criminal psychologist, a forensic scientist,

2:49

and someone who is known

2:51

for doing a quite amazing foxtrot

2:54

to kill her

2:55

queen. And they are. I'm

2:57

Dr. Julia Shaw, a criminal psychologist at

2:59

University College London. And

3:02

my favorite fictional detective

3:05

is the detective and blade runner

3:07

who has to investigate not just

3:09

where the replicants are and find them

3:11

and deactivate

3:12

them. But questioning the

3:14

very nature of reality itself and where the

3:16

memories in the replicants even come from.

3:20

Follow that one if you can. So

3:24

I'm I'm Professor Suplark. I'm a forensic

3:26

anthropologist. I'm president at

3:28

St. Jones College in Oxford. And

3:31

my favorite fictional detective probably

3:34

has to be rebus 4 those of you

3:36

who know the the mind of Ian Rankin.

3:39

And I think I I relate to to Rivas

3:41

because he's he's stubborn, he's

3:43

irritating, he's miserable, and he's

3:45

just a damn dural Scott.

3:49

I'm Susan Kalman. I'm a television presenter

3:53

and my favorite fictional detective

3:55

is the greatest fictional detective

3:57

of all time, and I will literally fight in

3:59

the car park, anyone who disagrees. DCI

4:03

Jane Tenison. I

4:06

had a cat fun fact called

4:08

DCI Jane Tinniss. And

4:11

I put so many pictures of that

4:14

cat on social media at one point when

4:16

you googled DCIG A

4:21

picture of my cat came up before

4:23

Helen Miller. I

4:25

also now have a cat called Ruth Peter Ginsburg

4:28

I'm trying to

4:29

think. And this

4:31

is our panel.

4:38

And Susan, thank you very much because you had

4:40

a bit of a a difficult journey down to and you

4:42

and you managed to get here and

4:43

you traveled all the way. Not only if you traveled

4:45

all the way from Glasgow, but you're also

4:48

gonna go back on the train that is the kind of the

4:50

lady vanishes

4:50

mysterious. It's super cheap. Possible murder

4:53

train, isn't it? And the thing that's interest

4:55

saying is a lovely experiences. I'm the

4:57

voice of the sleeper

4:58

train. So I

5:01

hear myself seeing toilet door locked.

5:08

I didn't

5:09

normally do that though when you just go to the toilet

5:11

anytime. Tanisha.

5:13

I do I did it in the the voiceovers

5:16

in a special, someone admired

5:18

deeply Kirsty Works, kind of because Kirsty

5:20

Works has authority and warmth. So

5:23

when I say, welcome to

5:24

Glasgow. I've done it in kind of a

5:26

more artsy walkish way, so people

5:28

believe me. I

5:31

said the thing that Susan was saying is when the

5:33

train was stuck at rugby and

5:35

it was about an hour and a half and people kept coming

5:37

up to you and saying, what going on, Susan,

5:39

because she's on the telly, they presumed

5:42

she'd know. Yes. The press ID

5:44

Travel

5:44

shows, I had a large queue of people

5:47

They were ignoring the Advanti West

5:49

Coast people and instead going because they

5:51

know my name says, like, Susan, to know when the

5:54

next chain's going and I'd go, I don't

5:57

and then they would just stay there and look at

5:59

me. It's

6:02

not because it's because you're the voice of the toilet

6:04

door. Bad shape. It is.

6:06

It is. So if you ever go in the sleep

6:08

routine, you can hear me telling

6:10

you the toilet door is locked or more

6:12

alarmingly, Tyler door is unlocked.

6:16

Do you sometimes do that? If you're on

6:18

the train tonight and you get I some people.

6:26

I'm always joking you're having so it just

6:28

like Jake to happen. I've

6:30

never thought of doing that, but I'd be delighted

6:32

to do that. So

6:35

you're yes. Yeah. I know. But every

6:37

now and again, we she gets the show, but we we

6:39

veer away again very

6:40

quickly. Correct. Is there

6:42

such a thing as the perfect crime or the

6:44

perfect murder?

6:45

Not probably, but we don't know what it is. Because

6:47

if it was perfect, we haven't found it out.

6:50

So it's only the imperfect crimes that

6:52

we do actually detect. Is is

6:55

this such a thing as a as a perfect or

6:57

a good criminal

6:58

then? Is there a particular character type that

7:00

makes sense? Yeah. So I think I'd make a good murderer's

7:03

assistant. So I'd

7:05

I'd like to think I have the problem with actually

7:07

doing the deed and dispatching somebody.

7:10

My husband could probably do it. And

7:12

he certainly threatened to do it to some of our

7:14

daughter's boyfriends. And

7:17

if he had, I would have had no

7:19

trouble dismembering

7:20

them. And getting rid of the pieces.

7:22

So I think we could we could make a perfect

7:24

team. A team, suddenly remember

7:26

we didn't put warning out before that. I'm

7:29

getting to realize we most deaf at least she's

7:31

done. But is it a Julia is is there

7:33

a particular personality type

7:35

that lends itself

7:38

to to to criminality. I

7:40

mean, I would agree with Sue that

7:42

we that the perfect murder

7:44

exists probably, but we haven't discovered it. I

7:47

would also go and do the things that aren't

7:49

statistically likely. Some some detectives

7:51

are likely to look 4 men, for example,

7:53

for a murder. Then they're like, you look in

7:56

vicinity of where you have lived

7:58

or where that person

7:59

lives. So do do it far away from

8:01

home. And ideally do it with a

8:03

weapon that can't be tracked, so definitely don't do it

8:05

with a

8:05

gun. But in terms of the personality profile,

8:09

there's an assumption that being

8:11

psychopathic is going to be good for you,

8:13

which it might be because you're high on callousness

8:15

and low on empathy, which makes it easier to hurt

8:17

people. But most murders

8:19

are committed by people who it's a fight that

8:21

gets out of control. It's more someone who's

8:23

aggressive, hot tempered, and it's not a

8:25

psych It's

8:26

a passion. It's a passion. It's a moment passion.

8:29

Murder is on television so much. And

8:31

more often than not the mergers that we see on television

8:33

in terms of in dramas is incredibly

8:36

well prepared. It's a you know, half the show is

8:38

about someone planning. It is that thing again. If you

8:40

know, someone puts an umbrella under the chimney

8:42

and connects to a record player that's playing the eighteen

8:44

twelve overture and coincides the murder with the

8:46

sound of the cannons, but that must be I mean,

8:48

not just that example. Otherwise, that

8:50

that level of preparation is very

8:52

very

8:53

rare. Most most murders are not anticipated.

8:55

So it is a moment of argument,

8:58

it's alcohol fueled, it's drug fueled, whatever

9:00

it may be. And suddenly your face 4 a situation

9:02

which has gone beyond where you

9:04

ever expected it to go in your left of the body.

9:07

What do you do with it? If I can give you a

9:09

bit of advice, should you ever find yourself

9:11

in that position? Don't don't this

9:13

member. Don't. It's awfully mess

9:15

I

9:15

know. Can I borrow your own pain? Yeah. But

9:17

I just And then then people

9:19

think I'll go and drop the body parts in

9:21

different places. Every time you do that, you've

9:23

gone from one potential crime scene to about

9:26

six. So you're more likely to be

9:27

caught, so don't. Do you know what?

9:30

One of the things I'm really enjoying

9:32

about this conversation already and we're it

9:34

just started as I'm fascinated

9:37

because one day this might come in

9:39

useful. Why

9:41

why? I've never done a show where the audience

9:43

are just going, oh.

9:47

Because think about, I think, is that

9:49

most people have, at some point, even fleetingly

9:51

considered murdering someone. You've considered it.

9:53

You've considered it. You've considered it. You've thought of it. More

9:56

than one Susan. We've

9:59

all yeah. Fleetingly, and most of us

10:02

say that silly, but we have potentially

10:04

thought about it. And I think most

10:06

of the people who think about it

10:09

and, like, the distinguished guest over there have

10:11

absolutely no knowledge apart from what they've

10:13

seen on the Taylor version, which

10:15

would make them believe that they could commit

10:18

the perfect crime because if you've

10:20

watched all of these programs surely you have the

10:22

the background. And 4

10:25

me, Jamie when the people going,

10:27

well, is that not true? I

10:29

categorize my friends. It's

10:31

interesting what you're saying to your boat. You know, your

10:33

husband

10:35

into would they help me if

10:37

I committed a murder?

10:38

I'd help you. Thank

10:40

you. I

10:42

wouldn't. We've

10:42

got the we've got the same name.

10:44

This is strangers on the train. There's

10:48

a sleeper leaving tonight. And if they've

10:49

backed off tickets,

10:51

I just ask, do you also classify your Oxford

10:53

colleagues in such a way? I

10:55

couldn't possibly comment on that. The

10:59

better I think it's I think what what Julius

11:01

said, which is interesting is it's

11:03

about who you are as to whether or not

11:05

people could guess you were the type of person

11:07

you had committed The closest I think you

11:09

can get to a perfect crime or

11:11

murder is that no one would suspect

11:14

you of doing that in

11:16

the first place. And I

11:18

think it's that if you're a naturally

11:21

happy, smiley woman who

11:23

presents travel shows on the

11:24

table. No one would ever

11:27

assist affect me of committing a hit. Oh,

11:29

you've got that so wrong. You

11:31

are the second person that I

11:33

would expect to do a murder.

11:36

The first, that woman called Jane who does all that

11:38

singing on cruises. Right. I reckon

11:41

that's what it is. I

11:42

mean, in a way as long as Jane's the first suspect,

11:44

I'll be okay because I'll have time to get away.

11:47

But But

11:47

the murder the

11:48

murder's just the first bit. It's

11:50

the clear up of the merger that's a really

11:52

interesting bit. I was

11:53

gonna ask you because you said don't. You tell us

11:55

what not to do. Do not dismember the

11:58

body and people. What do you mean? I

12:00

really don't like you saying that because I've never heard

12:02

you because I think of you as being always

12:04

saying lovely things about the wonderful world.

12:06

Suddenly hearing you go, do not dismember

12:08

the body. And also because it does sound

12:11

like it's a public

12:11

information. Like, you've got

12:14

a horrible mix of things going on there.

12:16

I could

12:16

do it on the train. You

12:22

can do it

12:22

on the train until the chain has

12:24

stopped and do not dismembered the party.

12:28

Unfortunately, you do not proceed down

12:30

the toilet. But that's what can

12:32

you do? Yeah.

12:33

There is a bit of real information to the audience

12:35

here. None of you get the eleven fifteen to Glasgow

12:37

does it.

12:37

Right? So

12:41

what what is your advice?

12:44

Don't do it in the first place is the best bit of

12:46

advice. Right. Let's take advice to your people.

12:49

Don't do. But what if I ask accidentally

12:54

accidentally killed somebody, and

12:56

I think it's we should clarify not

12:58

in a public place. Because if it's in a

13:00

public place, then games of Bogue,

13:03

CCTV, it's in a private

13:05

place. Let's get in multiple

13:07

cities. So what private places it. It's it's

13:10

it's it's the sleeper caretaker. No.

13:13

I think it's the toilet. I think the

13:15

the murder is done when the person goes to go. I

13:18

would certainly unlock the

13:19

door, and that's when she does And I know the the

13:21

mirror unlocking the door for double checking.

13:23

Let's see. It's my house. What

13:25

should I do? A notion of done it

13:27

blah blah blah. How do I know

13:30

how do I not get caught?

13:32

Well, you added the second bit there because the first

13:34

thing you should do is, of course,

13:36

phone nine ninety nine. Of course, say, you know,

13:39

I've done something really bad. Yes. But

13:41

if we assume that you've got no conscience

13:46

and you'd like to get away with it,

13:49

really the the most important things are what not to

13:51

do. Don't bury it in

13:53

your garden. Your neighbors will see you. Don't

13:55

put it behind the bath

13:57

panels. It will smell within

13:59

a few days, especially if you've got your central

14:01

heating on. You know, don't know what these days

14:03

too. Yeah.

14:06

You know, you I probably haven't got a suitcase that's

14:09

big enough to get the body into it, but

14:11

you want to get it away from the premises. Okay.

14:13

But then you need to think about where do you go with the premises.

14:16

Your car with with the automatic number plate

14:18

recognition, they're gonna be able to follow wherever your

14:20

car goes. You need to go off road. Most

14:22

bodies are fined within a certain sense of

14:25

a road because they're really heavy,

14:27

unwieldy things to move about.

14:29

It is really difficult to dispose

14:31

of a body. Mercifully, unless

14:33

you've got an incinerator.

14:37

Not a fireplace. No. Oh,

14:39

no. Not enough. Places don't work. Because it

14:42

was a center accident. I think it just

14:44

fell while the farm was there. I think panic

14:46

of prisoners that's next to

14:47

there. But based on your experience in court,

14:49

so those you've described them that

14:52

the mistakes that people make have

14:54

been committed to crime. Is that

14:56

the common outcome that there are basically

14:59

simple mistakes reasonably easy

15:01

to gather the

15:02

evidence. By and large, providing you've

15:04

got the body, and that's the difficult thing.

15:06

So if you know somebody's been murdered, finding

15:08

the body can be the difficult thing. So

15:10

I mean, there's a case in Scotland from the

15:12

1970s. They're still trying to find where

15:14

those bodies are. The individual's now being convicted

15:17

for it, but there's

15:18

nobody. It's really difficult. To get

15:20

conviction in the absence of a body. Could

15:22

you do, I want to ask you thinking about the fact that,

15:24

again, in some of the early work of yours that I read as

15:26

well, we have a desire as

15:28

we, you know, we're all kind of talking. We've all shown

15:30

that we have what you might call a certain amount of

15:32

murder imagination even if we might not commit

15:34

the act. Thomas Seidl ideation, murder

15:36

fantasies. There's research on the

15:39

Thomas Seidl ideation. Right? So that is so

15:41

that idea is First of

15:43

all, I think when we see a lot of the way the

15:45

newspapers deal with people who might might commit

15:47

terrible acts, is there is a desire

15:49

to believe that people who might

15:52

commit a murder, etcetera, they're somehow separate.

15:54

So so we can look on and go, oh, well, they must have

15:57

the evil gene or whatever it might be.

15:59

But

15:59

actually, in terms of what we know about people

16:01

who might commit extreme acts, you know, how

16:04

different are they to every single person sitting

16:06

in this audience apart from him?

16:09

A lot of the work that I do focuses on deconstructing

16:12

that difference between sort of the evil

16:14

people, the evil monsters who do these hainest

16:16

things like murder, and us, the

16:19

good citizens of the world who don't do those kinds

16:21

of things, who would never do those kinds of things.

16:23

And I think that division of good versus evil, which

16:25

we're taught from childhood on, really, which

16:27

I also think we should be deconstructing from childhood

16:30

on. Is hugely problematic because it leads

16:32

to the dehumanization of people who have

16:34

made bad decisions for whatever reason and

16:36

done bad things. I think all of us are capable

16:38

of murder. Given the right or if

16:40

you will wrong circumstances. And

16:42

we've seen it play out here over and over in history.

16:44

Right? You see neighbors turn on each other and more,

16:47

you see people suddenly capable of

16:49

what they think is defending their child, but

16:51

turns out to be murdered because maybe they're suffering

16:53

from a delusion. So there's lots of things

16:55

that people are capable of doing if

16:58

either their reality changes inside

17:00

their minds or their reality changes

17:02

in the physical world around them and that in

17:04

the moment feels like the best thing to

17:06

do, or it's a fight that gets out of

17:08

hand. We assume because the consequences

17:10

are severe, that the reasons and motivation

17:13

for the act must also be extreme. And

17:15

yet, you know, when you look at the reasons, it's a fight

17:17

over two pounds. And that's

17:19

also why all of us are capable of it because it's

17:21

not the separate thing from it's it's

17:23

well within the the normal experiences and

17:25

feelings that humans have.

17:27

Susan, you spent time on

17:29

death row.

17:30

Yes. Am visited. Did

17:32

you elaborate so?

17:35

So a very long time ago,

17:38

I I did a logically. I

17:40

completed it and was a lawyer for a

17:42

while before I give it up to join

17:44

the glamorous world to stand up. And

17:46

I did a course in American

17:49

constitutional law as part of my

17:51

degree. And when a scholarship

17:53

to go and work, at an Apple at center

17:55

in North Carolina, where we were

17:57

trying to get people's sentences committed from

18:00

death to life without parole.

18:02

So at the very least, they weren't going

18:04

to be put to death by the

18:06

state. Now, this was back in

18:08

nineteen ninety six, so forensics,

18:12

were not as advanced. I mean, I didn't have a

18:14

mobile phone while I was at university. So

18:17

the people was encountering are people exactly

18:19

like you've been talking about largely

18:23

where they had encountered a

18:25

situation and had reacted and

18:27

had killed somebody. I

18:30

didn't count a a couple of serial

18:33

killers as we called a woman who

18:36

poisoned as is typical often

18:38

for women, six or seven of our husbands.

18:41

And a a gentleman who and it

18:43

is one of the it's one of these kind of cutest things.

18:45

That's why I love crime and fiction,

18:47

but I I also am aware of the fact that it's not real.

18:49

So I went into death row

18:52

rally prison to meet a gentleman who

18:54

had killed a number of women. And

18:57

he used to go to trailer parks. And if

18:59

the women were blonde, he'd let them live. And

19:01

if they were darker than dark eyed. He'd he'd killed

19:03

them because he was killing his mother to

19:05

a certain extent lots of stuff going on.

19:08

They didn't tell me this before I went in because they

19:10

wanted to see how he would react. To me.

19:14

So but the thing about

19:17

him was you could sit next to

19:19

him on the chain or in the pub there

19:21

there and I I completely agree.

19:23

There are no monsters

19:26

to a certain extent. There there are really

19:28

odd situations where people are

19:30

absolutely horrific. You

19:32

know? But a

19:35

lot of the people we would consider horrific

19:37

lived amongst us for a long time before

19:39

they were caught. And

19:41

so they are

19:44

just like us. And I think that's actually

19:46

one of the things that's most frightening and most

19:48

fascinating is they are

19:50

just like us and you

19:53

cannot tail. We had

19:55

to meet the victims' families as well to understand

19:57

the the damage that had been done But

20:00

these people wear the

20:03

same as me, to a certain extent.

20:05

And so what what what you're saying

20:08

is I completely understand

20:10

it because I probably could have

20:12

been friends 4 some of these

20:13

people. It's interesting, Gilly, that is

20:16

Susan said that that that you

20:18

encounter murderers and they

20:20

are in many ways people like

20:22

us. I

20:23

I'd actually correct that and not just say people like

20:25

us. But they are

20:26

us. Oh, yes. Yes. So what

20:28

what's the what's the role of a of a criminal

20:30

psychology? So so in in court, for example,

20:32

during an

20:33

investigation, What are

20:35

you bringing to that process? So

20:37

there's lots of different sub disciplines

20:39

within criminal psychology. And my

20:42

specialism is in false memory. Some

20:44

memories of things that didn't actually happen.

20:46

And in particular, I look at

20:49

the evidence in front of me as to whether

20:51

an investigation was conducted

20:53

appropriately when it comes to the interview. So

20:56

were the right questions asked during

20:58

a memory that was being recalled? So you've got a witness

21:00

in front of you. Is the detective, the police

21:02

officer, the person is doing the interview. Are they

21:04

asking appropriate questions? Or are

21:06

they leading suggestive and

21:09

problematic questions? Are they feeding the

21:11

witness pieces of evidence 4 example? Are

21:13

they lying to the witness if they go to places like

21:15

the states? There you can just

21:17

make up evidence You can just

21:19

create fake evidence, say, we've got CCTV

21:22

footage of you. We've got your fingerprints at the scene,

21:24

which is luckily not allowed here. But

21:26

there's still things that can happen here which are

21:28

really leading and suggestive. And we know

21:30

can lead people to say things either

21:33

slightly differently than they remember. Or

21:35

can lead them to say things that they don't remember at all.

21:38

And the problem is that 4 people who

21:40

are developing false memories, they

21:42

don't know that it's happening. And so it's

21:44

you start with me, I think I remember that, and the police

21:46

officer says, do you remember white jacket? And you go, oh,

21:48

no. Maybe. Yeah. Maybe. The

21:51

next time you're interviewed, what do you say? There

21:53

was a white jacket. What do you say on the stand?

21:55

I definitely remember the white jacket. Now

21:57

if that's crucial piece of evidence, then then

21:59

that is false memory that that person has,

22:01

and they're recalling it confidently. It's going to be

22:03

believed and potentially going to lead to a wrongful conviction.

22:06

So I look at the process through which

22:08

memories were elicited and I look at

22:10

whether or not that was appropriate or not and whether or

22:12

not the memory could be false.

22:13

It seems quite almost fantastical to

22:16

me that through suggestions, through

22:18

questioning, I could remember

22:21

something and feel I have confident. I remember something

22:23

that I did not remember that had not happened.

22:26

Is that more likely in in stressful

22:28

situation? Or is it actually just that

22:31

anybody is susceptible to that

22:33

process and there are any conditions.

22:35

We're all great at

22:37

fabricating realities. We're very creative

22:40

Our brains are beautiful storytellers.

22:42

They really like consistency. They like

22:44

consistent coherent narratives. And

22:47

so we turn experiences or pieces

22:49

of experiences as we remember them into

22:51

these linear narratives. And what that

22:53

means is that all of our brains can add

22:55

bits that were maybe not sure initially that

22:57

we guessed weak sort of guests at them.

23:00

The guesstimates, the babies. Are

23:02

we filling in the gaps? Filling in the gaps, for

23:04

example. But then there's also so

23:06

my PhD involved or my PhD

23:09

research involved implanting false memories

23:11

into people's minds of committing

23:13

crimes. So I'd convince you

23:16

that you assaulted someone with a weapon. Susan's

23:19

not happy. But if it's okay,

23:21

I'm gonna avoid eye contact really

23:26

genuinely convincing that

23:29

there are cases where someone was convinced

23:31

they had committed a serious

23:33

crime.

23:34

Seventy percent of my the participants in my

23:36

research told me fully confessed

23:39

to crimes that they'd never committed that never happened.

23:41

And other people watched the videos, other participants,

23:44

and they couldn't tell the difference between the same person

23:46

recalling an event that actually

23:47

happened. And this false memory.

23:50

Okay. It was

23:51

relatively Yes. Because you're

23:53

you're a lawyer. I mean, is this a relatively

23:56

modern point of

23:58

view in law because it was not

24:00

available to you when you were practicing in the night

24:02

life.

24:02

I mean, all of this stuff. And I find it it's

24:04

really really interesting because I did

24:06

a forensics course at university, which

24:08

is nothing like what's happening just now.

24:10

And I think when you look at

24:12

the way police interview to people,

24:15

a very famous case in in

24:17

Glasgow called the Bible, John Martin,

24:20

so it continues to be

24:22

quite a notorious case and and the way

24:24

the scene was treated the way the

24:27

victims were treated in terms of the preconceptions

24:30

that the police had. Because I know there's a big thing about

24:32

if the police have a preconcept about the

24:34

victim, and they will often deal

24:36

with it in a different way, often with women

24:38

particularly who are considered, you

24:41

know, to have been going out later or

24:43

whatever. But It it wasn't, and

24:45

I I find it terrifying because memory

24:47

is one of the most terrifying things.

24:50

Your your own mainly.

24:53

I had a vivid dream last night

24:56

of when I was thirteen and in the chorus

24:58

of the pilots of Penzance. I

25:02

don't know if I was. Do

25:04

you know what I mean? But I walk up thinking that

25:07

was great. And I remember what

25:10

are you in the pilot to pin down?

25:12

And the thing is that memories can be so

25:14

vivid. Even if you think of an

25:16

interaction of last time you and I made, Robin,

25:18

we make we may remember it entirely

25:20

differently. And

25:22

I think I can't even remember which car park it was

25:24

now.

25:27

The point is I think that the base

25:29

lawyers also play

25:32

on that. The point of

25:34

all of this fundamentally when I get squatters

25:36

doubts, And that thing you always have to remember

25:38

is, is there a doubt in your mind

25:40

that the person has done what they've done and lawyers

25:43

will either see the

25:45

police did what Julia's talking about

25:48

or say that there's a number of different ways that

25:50

the evidence because the thing is Judy's trust forensics

25:53

almost implicitly in too much. I don't

25:55

know if they they do. So if if you

25:58

were to imagine sitting in a court saying,

26:00

now we're going to hear from a scientist

26:02

There wouldn't be a ripple of excitement in

26:04

the room because I think our scientists,

26:07

white coats, boffens. If

26:08

you say now we're going to hear from the forensic scientist

26:11

everybody sits up and says, oh, this will

26:13

be interesting. And so there's already

26:15

a sort of level of expectation of

26:18

forensic science in that courtroom. And

26:20

you're so right, Susan. It is an arena.

26:22

It's a play, and there are actors. And

26:25

some actors of rules that the others don't

26:27

know about. And so we can only

26:30

ever answer the question we're

26:32

asked. If they don't ask the

26:34

right question, we can't get

26:36

the answer over. And so

26:38

you find the ways to

26:40

make it clear to to your own counsel

26:43

that maybe there's a question they should

26:45

be asking and you hope that they'll

26:47

pick up on it and often they don't because you're going to remember

26:49

our lawyers are not scientifically

26:50

trained. Now there are now there are judges.

26:53

In a in a two, if there is such a thing,

26:55

there probably isn't a typical murder trial, I was

26:57

going to say. But in a in a in a a in a murder trial,

26:59

how much emphasis

27:02

and weight is given to the forensic evidence

27:04

because obviously when this

27:06

system evolved, I don't know how

27:08

many hundreds of years ago, there was

27:11

probably no such thing, I guess, as forensic evidence.

27:13

So now it's getting more and more detailed

27:15

and more and more advanced.

27:17

So so how much weight is placed

27:19

on the forensic evidence now. By

27:21

and large, there's a lot of weight placed on the

27:23

forensic sites, but each and every case is

27:26

very different So if you

27:28

look 4 example at the merger of

27:30

Leerigby, so the Fusselaer who

27:32

was murdered in London, There was so much

27:35

CCTV footage and so many cameras.

27:37

Actually, very little of what happened

27:39

was in doubt because it was all recorded. Whereas

27:42

if you look at something like the murder of

27:44

Jeffrey Howe, which was, again, it was

27:46

a dismemberment why we were involved, then

27:48

the forensic science was absolutely critical

27:51

to the final outcome. So it does depend

27:54

on each and every case. But

27:56

I think there is an awareness or

27:58

a pseudo awareness in the juries

28:00

who

28:00

are, of course, the public, that they

28:02

come to the jury thinking that they are

28:04

forensically aware because they've

28:06

watched silent witness And so

28:08

they know exactly what it is.

28:14

They know exactly that you can get a DNA

28:16

sample in forty minutes because that's the

28:18

length of an episode. The

28:21

answer is that it may take you

28:24

weeks to get it. So often, we're

28:26

the biggest disappointment

28:27

the jury on the planet. You

28:29

know, essentially, you mentioned DNA evidence

28:31

because suppose really naively. You

28:34

would think that now you you would do

28:36

something like that. You'd say here is DNA. It's

28:38

your DNA. You are the murderer.

28:41

And what

28:42

so what what are the subtleties surrounding

28:44

DNA ever do? If

28:45

I'm ever accused of murder, can you do it? Because I was

28:47

the sweetest gentlest accusation. You

28:50

Those those

28:51

maybe people You're the

28:52

fucking. You did it.

28:53

Every single show he makes is just

28:55

building up his alibi. He

28:59

seemed like the sweetest particle

29:01

physicist I ever saw.

29:04

Could you take us a bit through the history of how

29:06

DNA evidence has evolved? And what are the flaws,

29:08

potential flaws? Yeah. So I I'm old enough.

29:11

To have done cases before we

29:13

had DNA coming into the police

29:15

courts. And it was Alec Jeffries

29:17

in in Lester who had his his great

29:20

eureka moment where God bless him.

29:22

He was doing medical genetics experiments,

29:24

and he couldn't get them to work. So he was pulling his

29:27

hair out. He didn't have much, but he he was pulling

29:29

it out and he realized the reason

29:31

he couldn't get it to work as everybody's DNA

29:33

was different. And at that point,

29:36

we just didn't know that. Now that was really

29:38

important because the DNA research had

29:40

all been undertaken through medical genetics.

29:43

So the research was really well funded

29:45

which meant that the research was sound.

29:48

A lot of forensic science is not terribly

29:50

well funded in terms of research,

29:53

so it's a little bit sketchy

29:55

in some places compared to others, but

29:58

the DNA was very well funded. And

30:00

so early on, the police were

30:02

able to say That's a really interesting

30:05

scientific technique. I wonder if we could use

30:07

it. And that's what Forensic Science does

30:09

as a MagPipe steals everybody

30:11

else's science. And then applies

30:13

it because there's no such thing

30:15

as forensic science. There is

30:17

science and when it goes into the courtroom,

30:20

it becomes forensic science. And that's

30:22

the only thing that makes it forensic

30:24

science. So when DNA came

30:26

in, there was a little bit of

30:29

disbelief that this was going to be the

30:31

the great sort of panacea that

30:33

was going to solve everything. But very quickly, we

30:35

realized just how important it became.

30:38

And we're now in a position where

30:40

literally you just need nano,

30:42

nano levels of DNA because

30:45

you can take a single cell and you can

30:47

replicate it and the DNA is there. So

30:49

we have no trouble now finding

30:51

the DNA. What we don't

30:53

understand so much is how it got

30:55

there. So that if

30:58

you are in a bar for argument's

31:00

sake, and it's a loud bar

31:03

and you shout to be heard, So

31:05

literally around you, you're spraying everybody

31:08

with your DNA. It's a lovely thought.

31:11

And you're taking away Susan's

31:13

DNA with

31:14

you. You're welcome. Thank you.

31:18

It's very pretty. Yeah. You're very

31:20

welcome. It's very well behaved

31:22

here today. And you take it away with you,

31:24

you go home and you commit a crime. Susan's

31:27

DNA can now be at that crime

31:29

scene. She's never been at the crime scene, but her

31:31

DNA is there. So the interpretation of

31:34

the DNA is what's important. And we understand

31:37

very little about transfer, so

31:39

how it gets from one person to another. And

31:41

sometimes even beyond a two

31:43

person contact, that's to third

31:45

or a fourth person

31:46

contact. And then how long does

31:48

it persist We don't actually know

31:50

that research. I'm quite I'm quite notorious for

31:52

terrifying crew members

31:55

on the shows I do because the one thing

31:57

that always stuck with me when I did friend

31:59

zix briefly was blue cards, Theodor.

32:02

And I love it. I love it. I love it. I love it.

32:04

Every contact leaves us trace. I love

32:06

it. I think emotionally, it's true as well.

32:08

I take it emotionally. Every contact

32:10

you make with a human being leaves a chase,

32:12

but physically, it's

32:15

always stuck with me. And I always

32:17

say to sound guys and

32:19

sound people because they are,

32:22

sometimes in my bra, And

32:27

whenever if someone's waking me up and I go,

32:29

do you know if something happens to me? Your

32:31

D and E's in my underwear. I

32:37

see what's fine. It's just a it's a a forensic

32:40

principal of every contact leaves a chase.

32:42

And they go,

32:42

uh-huh. Because they

32:44

Literally -- Yep. -- and if I was phoned, if something

32:46

happened to me and I was phoned, And I've

32:49

worked with a lovely guy called Jamie. Suddenly

32:51

yes. But if you swabbed, I

32:54

did a dance at the end of the

32:56

Christmas cruising special and he had to

32:58

put the microphone inside

33:00

my underwear. Right?

33:03

Yes. But he didn't need twos.

33:07

You had to for the lane of the dress.

33:10

What exactly are you recording then? So what's

33:12

your voice? Yes. So I had it

33:15

so the mic didn't show in a low cut dress

33:17

and so it had he had

33:19

to basically gaffer tape this mic into my

33:21

pants. Now at

33:23

that point, if something happens to me, his

33:26

literally, his DNA is is saliva's

33:29

on my

33:29

phone. He

33:31

was just breathing. But

33:34

heavily. The heart.

33:41

Our point square, if something

33:43

had happened to me and you had excellently swabbed

33:45

my clothing, How did

33:48

Jamie's DNA get

33:50

into my bra and my underwear?

33:54

I'm picturing your Apple Watch

33:56

also the your heartbeat goes up up up up.

33:58

So, like, let's see. This is when it began.

34:01

What's meaning when I technical home, I don't

34:03

pants to suck everything in. So I

34:05

was breathing very heavily by sin.

34:09

We're we're we've talked about a DNA

34:11

evidence, so we can in forensic science.

34:13

There's a there's a progression. Technology

34:17

gets better. We are better interpreting the evidence.

34:19

In criminal psychology, where's the cutting

34:21

edge at the moment? And where's that which

34:24

directions is research in that area

34:26

pushing towards?

34:27

So there's some controversial stuff

34:30

happening in neuro science or

34:32

neural law, where

34:34

sort of the intersection of trying to introduce

34:36

brain scans, for example, into legal

34:38

settings. Often met with pushback

34:41

because it's often used for things like

34:43

light detection. Is

34:44

that is that the equivalent of a polygraph which

34:46

you you said this does not work

34:48

at all?

34:48

Big Yeah. It's on

34:50

television, but it's just not

34:51

But if you scan my brain, can you tell if

34:53

I'm lying? No. Not

34:56

well, it

34:56

depends. So I might be able to see

34:58

that you're creating something, that you're fabricating

35:00

something, that your brain is thinking of

35:02

something new, as opposed to something old.

35:05

But it it doesn't tell me any more

35:07

than that. Much like the polygraph can

35:10

tell me that your arousal

35:12

is going up, not in the sexy way. That

35:14

your heart rate is going up, that you're maybe

35:16

perspiring, right, that sort of those kinds

35:18

of things that it's measuring, which are often related

35:20

to how nervous you are, which can be related

35:23

to lying, but isn't necessarily, similarly

35:26

with MRI stuff. But I think the

35:28

most important applications

35:31

of cognitive science much like you were

35:33

saying that you sort of, it's

35:35

all science and the only reason it's forensics

35:37

psychology is because it's applied psychology.

35:40

And so we just also steal from other

35:42

psychological areas. For example,

35:45

I was asked today whether

35:47

there's any research on false memories and

35:49

neurodivergence and whether people who are neurodivergent

35:51

are more likely to be seen as unreliable

35:54

witnesses and whether there's any adjustments

35:56

made for interviewing. So if you are autistic

35:58

4 example, Is there appropriate

36:01

or reasonable adjustments that are made? And how

36:03

you're asked questions in the courtroom? Because

36:05

how you're asked questions might be more likely

36:07

to affect how you present And oh,

36:09

one thing we really love doing is in

36:11

court rooms is judging how people present.

36:15

We get so judgey. We bring all

36:17

our biases with us. And we go,

36:19

oh, I

36:19

don't believe him. Mhmm. And

36:21

it can be based on you don't like how

36:23

he's looking to laugh. You don't like like her

36:25

hat. You don't like whatever it is. And

36:28

we bring those biases in, and so that matters

36:30

hugely. Mhmm. And as far as I know that research

36:32

hasn't been done. And so once it has been done,

36:34

we can bring that in and people like me

36:36

can help train police to better

36:38

interview. We can help in

36:40

court rooms to bring that evidence in and say, hey, actually,

36:42

this

36:42

wasn't

36:43

done appropriately, so this evidence isn't

36:45

as reliable. So there's lots

36:47

of places where we can then take that research and bring

36:49

it in. There's too much thing. When you say that sometimes

36:51

we look at people and we go, oh, they look like they've done it.

36:53

You know, there's that kind of thing. And I do think,

36:55

again, how popular culture very often

36:58

draws very simplistic images of people

37:00

who are villainous or murderers. You know, we still

37:02

have that tradition. If if if someone

37:04

has any kind of facial anomaly or someone

37:06

has some kind of 4, you know, there's

37:08

no as far as I can see, there's no evidence

37:11

to say that that is in any way, or, you know, just

37:13

someone looks a bit lumpy or whatever it might be.

37:16

There are so many ways in which and in fact,

37:18

And that worries me. That worries

37:20

me that sometimes people who are already perhaps

37:22

on the outside are made even further outside

37:25

and we make these snap judgments based on

37:27

popular I

37:27

mean, is that fair to say?

37:29

It's called the devil effect, which is that people

37:31

who look bad are bad. And it's

37:33

that assumption that if you have a disability,

37:35

for example, you look like the villain. Think of stereotypical

37:37

Batman villains. Right? There's there's a

37:39

charity called Not Your Villan, which

37:41

is just saying stop

37:44

casting villains as people with visible

37:46

disabilities. You are stigmatizing further

37:48

a group that is already often stigmatized. Just

37:51

just to finish suits. To get back to Infinite

37:53

Monkey Cluedo. So let's say

37:55

let's say that Professor Cox has indeed

37:59

done with the revved robin

38:01

in the observatory with the six inches refractory.

38:05

How how am I most likely

38:07

to get caught? What

38:10

is that happening? It's in an observatory.

38:12

An observatory. Well, hopefully, they've

38:14

got no CCTV. No.

38:17

Because okay. So unlikely then.

38:19

You're gonna have to get rid of the

38:21

body. getting rid of the body, you're gonna get caught.

38:23

It's

38:23

always

38:23

That's the tricky body.

38:24

Yeah. The most difficult thing. That's the most difficult

38:27

thing. Because there are messy things bodies.

38:29

Once you pierce them with something, whether,

38:32

you know, it's a knife or a tractor, whatever it

38:34

may be. The innards come out,

38:37

and they make a mess, and they get slippery,

38:39

and people get bit put off by

38:42

I'm really full of stuff as well. One

38:45

of those people who's here. In

38:47

the muscular category, absolutely. That's

38:51

the hard thing. It's getting rid of the

38:52

body. Yeah. So

38:53

that's where you're

38:54

going to get caught. And I think you'd said

38:56

actually that there are experts that

38:59

you can employ

39:00

in if you're a kind of if it's a gangland

39:02

kind of the the the people whose job it

39:05

is.

39:05

Yeah. So

39:06

It's a disposal these

39:07

are being

39:08

countering calls? Yes. We had a murder

39:10

case and the body

39:12

parts were found in two different

39:14

counties. And when we

39:16

we came to to look at the body parts,

39:18

we looked at them, my colleague and I said,

39:21

this is someone who knows what they're doing.

39:23

Because when when you go to dismember a body,

39:25

if you don't know what you're doing, you tend to go

39:27

and pick up the knife and you try to cut through something

39:30

and find that bone is really difficult to go

39:32

through. This individual had jointed

39:34

the body. And so

39:36

that's the point to which the police say, what sort

39:38

of people? And you go, well, human

39:40

anatomists, forensic cancer apologists,

39:44

surgeons, vets, you know, those

39:46

sorts of things. And we got all

39:48

the way through to the courtroom and

39:50

the the individual that they had

39:52

charged with the murder was a doorkeeping.

39:54

He's a banker. And all the way through

39:57

his defense was, He's a bouncer.

39:59

I've got no butcher experience. I've got

40:01

none of this. And eventually, at some

40:03

point, through the courtroom procedures, he decided

40:05

he would change his plea to guilty. And

40:07

that was the point at which he turned to his

40:10

his council and said, well, it's not as if I haven't

40:12

done it before. And

40:14

his job was that he had been trained how

40:17

to dismember bodies. So where you

40:19

have drug gangs and if there

40:21

is a a body that they need to get rid of.

40:23

So somebody will will be the murderer. The

40:26

body will then be taken to the back door of the

40:28

night club, and this individual was a cutter.

40:30

His job was to dismember the body.

40:32

And the cutter then would pass the body parts

40:35

to the bumper, and the bumper was employed

40:37

to get rid of the body parts. Now our

40:39

brave chap decided that he would he would cut

40:41

out the bumper because he didn't want

40:43

to spend money on somebody else and he did it himself

40:46

and that was how he got caught. So his

40:48

expertise was brilliant. But

40:50

he chose to take on the expertise of somebody

40:52

else, and that was where he was an amateur and the

40:54

body parts were fine so easily. Alright. So

40:56

I

40:56

should I should have

40:57

guarantee that ruined it. That just

41:00

save couple of quid. Never scramp and

41:02

save on good dumping. No. The

41:07

door is closed and long.

41:14

But now, we also asked our audience

41:16

a question. And today that question was, if you

41:18

could solve one

41:19

crime, what would it be? What have you got,

41:21

Brian? Stopping people wearing sandals

41:23

with socks.

41:27

That was you. What's

41:30

going on with all the astrophysicists

41:32

called Brian who are good at rock music,

41:35

conspiracy It's

41:37

a critical articious one this. I'd like to make

41:39

it clear I did not write this. Jenny

41:43

wrote this. Who abducted Brian

41:45

Cox and replaced him with a younger version

41:47

as there's no way he continued to look

41:49

that young. mean,

41:53

of the delivery he was deliberately done in that

41:55

fashion.

41:55

Oh, I was gonna say he was that? Mhmm. He

41:58

was that. He was that a name. Name

42:01

and phone number. Jetty. The crime

42:03

against fashion that's Robbins Cardigan. Well,

42:06

wearing two very lovely badges today as well.

42:08

Why do I know people like my dear the right people

42:11

like my cardigan? Final

42:13

one is who killed the strawberry. We

42:15

still never know. Thanks to our panel,

42:17

Sue Black Junior Shore, and Susan Calvert.

42:26

Bye. There we go. That's how to commit

42:28

the perfect crime. And next week, we're

42:30

joined by Sally Gunnel to learn how

42:32

to run

42:33

fast. So we've got everything covered.

42:36

And in the final episode, Joe Brown will be joining

42:38

us to show us how to hide a file in a victorious

42:41

fund.

42:58

Until now nice again.

43:00

Nature Nature

43:01

Bank. Bye bye. Hello,

43:03

and welcome to Nature Bank. I'm Becky Ripley.

43:05

I'm Emily Knight, and in this series from BBC

43:08

Radio four. We look to the natural world

43:10

to answer some of life's big

43:12

questions. Like how can a

43:14

brainless slime mold help us solve

43:16

complex mapping problems? And

43:18

what can an octopus teach us about the relationship

43:20

between mind and

43:22

body? It really stretches your

43:25

understand learning of consciousness. With

43:27

the help of evolutionary

43:28

biologists, I'm actually always

43:30

very comfortable comparing us to

43:32

other species.

43:34

Philosophers you never really know what it could

43:36

be like to be another creature.

43:38

And spongeologists, is that your job

43:40

title? Are you a