Welcome to the podcast. If you'd like to listen to an ad-free version of this episode and all of our

episodes, then search True Crime Today Premium Plus on Apple Podcasts and press subscribe.

That's our premium channel where all of our ad-free and advanced episodes live, all in one place.

True Crime Today Premium Plus. Search it on Apple Podcasts and press subscribe.

Even try it for three days free.

Sometimes the only witness is the one they silenced.

You're listening to Hidden Killers with Tony Bruske, featuring retired FBI special agent,

Jennifer Coffin Daffer.

When a bullet leaves the chamber, it tells a story.

But what if that story isn't as conclusive as we've been led to believe?

I'm Tony Bruske. And today, we're pulling back the curtain on a type of forensic science that may not be as reliable as courtroom dramas have conditioned us to think.

You know, the kind of science I'm talking about, the kind where a single bullet casing is matched to a specific gun,

and the jury nods along,

convinced that every little mark on that metal casing is as unique as a fingerprint.

But here's the problem.

But if those markings are just vague whispers of truth, instead of ironclad proof?

At the heart of the Richard Allen trial lies a complicated question.

Can tiny extractor and ejector marks on a bullet casing really be trusted to convict a man of murder?

We're not talking about DNA or a smoking gun, but mechanical scratches.

Sometimes scratches not visible into the naked eye, left behind during the process of ejecting

a bullet.

These are the kind of marks that could easily look nearly identical across thousands of

...