Advertise on podcast: Forensic Psychology

How do forensic psychologists assess psychopathic traits when an interview alone is insufficient? Explore the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised, the importance of collateral records, and the difference between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Learn why professional assessment requires much more than recognizing charm or emotional detachment.

What happens when a murder investigation challenges society's assumptions about who is capable of violence? The 1860 Road Hill House murder exposed the complicated relationship between family dynamics, social reputation, and criminal suspicion. Inspector Jonathan Whicher's investigation illustrates how expectations about class, gender, and respectability can influence perceptions of guilt. This episode explores the psychological dimensions of a historic murder investigation without imposing modern diagnoses on its participants.

The disappearance of two royal children in 1483 illustrates the difficulty of evaluating allegations when evidence is incomplete and political interests are powerful. Richard III became the central suspect, but historical accusations were influenced by dynastic conflict and later interpretations. This episode explores confirmation bias, motive attribution, and the dangers of treating suspicion as proof. Discover how a centuries-old mystery can illuminate enduring challenges in forensic reasoning.

Patients thought their fertility doctor was helping them conceive using carefully selected anonymous donors. Years later, some discovered something almost impossible to believe: their doctor himself appeared to be the biological father of their children. The story of Cecil Jacobson remains one of the strangest medical crime cases in American history.

Does being high in psychopathic traits mean someone will become violent or criminal? The relationship is much more complicated than popular culture suggests. This episode examines psychopathy as a constellation of personality traits, the distinction between traits and criminal behavior, and why forensic psychologists must be careful about equating a psychological construct with inevitable violence.

The organized-disorganized typology shaped how generations of investigators and students were trained to read a crime scene — careful planning and control on one side, impulsivity and chaos on the other. This episode traces the model's origins in early FBI behavioral science and examines the research that later complicated its clean categories. We look at why real offenders often resist tidy classification and what that means for the validity of profiling as an investigative tool. It's a critical look at a foundational idea in forensic psychology and how the field has had to evolve past it.

Can a neurodevelopmental disorder influence criminal behavior without eliminating legal responsibility? This episode examines the forensic implications of ADHD, including impaired behavioral inhibition, executive dysfunction, and emotional dysregulation. We explore how forensic psychologists distinguish psychiatric symptoms from intentional misconduct and why ADHD alone rarely establishes a legal defense. The discussion reveals how psychological assessment can inform questions of criminal responsibility, risk, and rehabilitation.

For more than six decades, he was known only as the "Boy in the Box" — one of America's most haunting unidentified murder victims, his battered body found outside Philadelphia in 1957. Despite thousands of leads, generations of detectives working the case couldn't determine who he was, even as DNA technology slowly opened doors investigators in the 1950s could never have imagined. This episode traces that decades-long investigative trail and how forensic genetic genealogy finally broke it open in 2022, giving the boy his name: Joseph Augustus Zarelli. Identifying him solved one mystery — but the detective work on who killed him is still ongoing.

Teresa Ann Houck, 23, left her job at a Baltimore club in October 1986 and was found shot to death in Druid Hill Park hours later, leaving investigators with evidence but no suspect. For nearly 40 years, the case sat unsolved until a routine DNA database search produced the match prosecutors say identified her killer. This episode examines what that breakthrough shows about the staying power of forensic evidence and how long-dormant cases can reopen. We also consider what a decades-long wait means for investigators, for the justice system, and for those left without answers.

The getaway driver may never enter the building, hold a weapon, or physically harm anyone—yet they can play an essential role in a violent crime. Psychologically, their distance from the violence can make participation easier by allowing them to see themselves as an assistant rather than an offender. This episode explores moral disengagement, diffusion of responsibility, group loyalty, and the uncomfortable difference between psychological distance and legal responsibility.

Courts have long allowed detectives to use certain deceptive tactics during interrogations — falsely claiming an accomplice confessed, or that evidence exists when it doesn't — but that doesn't mean anything goes. This episode examines the Supreme Court case Frazier v. Cupp and the voluntariness rule, the legal standard used to separate acceptable psychological pressure from coercion that produces an unreliable confession. We explore how deception tactics interact with suggestibility, stress, and compliance in the interrogation room, and why some forms of pressure can push a confession from strategic to involuntary. It's a close look at where legally sanctioned psychological tactics end and constitutionally protected rights begin.

Can damage to the brain actually change someone’s personality enough to contribute to criminal behavior? From impaired impulse control to aggression and poor judgment, injuries to certain brain regions can dramatically alter how a person behaves. This episode explores what neuroscience can—and cannot—tell forensic psychologists about the connection between brain injury, responsibility, and crime.

When Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian security officer, fell inexplicably ill in London in 2006, doctors initially had no explanation — until forensic testing uncovered polonium-210 in his system. This episode examines how that finding reshaped the investigation, forcing forensic teams to trace radioactive contamination across an entire city while reconstructing the method behind the poisoning. We explore why standard toxicology screening missed the cause entirely, and what the case reveals about the intersection of forensic pathology, covert violence, and investigative persistence. It's a striking example of how physical evidence can expose what was designed to stay hidden.

When 19-year-old Stephen Smith was found dead on a South Carolina road in 2015, investigators initially attributed his death to a vehicle strike — a conclusion that didn't hold up over time. This episode looks at what happened when his body was exhumed eight years later, and what forensic pathologists can and can't still determine after that much time underground. We examine how the second autopsy and surrounding physical evidence forced a re-reading of the case, and what it reveals about the limits and possibilities of forensic science in cold and contested cases. It's a window into how physical evidence continues to shape — and complicate — our understanding of a death long after the fact.

Through the lens of forensic psychology, this case illustrates how pathological jealousy and an obsessive need for control can drive an intimate partner toward violent, calculated homicide. Émile Gourbin demonstrated the traits of an organized offender, weaponizing social manipulation and cognitive bias by tampering with a clock to exploit his friends' alcohol-impaired perception of time. Ultimately, his intellectualized alibi unraveled when confronted with undeniable physical proof, exposing the fatal gap between a killer’s calculated arrogance and the uncontrollable reality of his actions.