Longer articles examine disputed evidence, forensic interpretation, and comparisons between criminal cases. These pieces explain the questions raised by the available sources and identify the limits of what can be concluded.
Reading analysis critically
Analysis can help explain a technical dispute, but it does not replace the underlying evidence. Look for attributed factual claims, linked sources, competing interpretations, and an explanation of uncertainty. A similar forensic issue in two cases does not make their facts or outcomes identical.
For our requirements on separating reporting, analysis, and opinion, see Editorial Standards.
Selected features
- Amanda Knox: A Bra Clasp Collected 47 Days Late and the Limits of DNA Certainty
- Charged First, Tested Later? How the Official Story in the Amber Spradlin Case Took Shape Before the Evidence Did
- The McKinney Case: Forensics on Trial
- Secondary DNA Transfer and the McKinney Case: A Forensic Reality Check
- Framed by the Science: How Secondary DNA Transfer Nearly Sent Lukis Anderson to Death Row
- Ray Krone: How Junk Science and Bite-Mark Evidence Led to a Wrongful Death Row Conviction
Have a correction or a relevant public record? Contact the editorial team. You can also browse Cases, Systemic Issues, Aftermath, and Features.