Before this BBC podcast kicks off, I'd like to tell you about some others you might enjoy.
My name's Will Wilkin and I commission music podcasts for the BBC.
It's a really cool job.
Every day we get to tell the incredible stories behind songs, moments and movements, stories of struggle and success, rises and falls.
The funny, the ridiculous.
And the BBC's position at the heart of British music means we can tell those stories like no one else.
We were, are and always will be right there at the centre of the narrative.
So whether you want an insightful take on music right now or a nostalgic deep dive into some of the most famous and infamous moments in music, check out the music podcasts on BBC Sounds.
Picture the scene.
Plain clothes police swarm over a blood spattered alleyway sealed off with striped tape.
Next, the action moves to a pristine white walled laboratory filled with white coated technicians.
Then it's onto a wood paneled courtroom with the eyes of a jury fixed on a smartly dressed scientific expert.
Of course, this is how we often see the process of forensic science imagined in books and on tv.
It's also depicted as black and white, as right versus wrong, guilty or not guilty.
But as we know, science is more often about shades of grey.
It's about uncertainty and the things we don't know, rather than what we do.
So what happens when these two very different worlds collide?
The world of science and the law?
As my guest today will testify, the reality can be difficult and often fraught.
And in some thankfully rare cases, there can be grave mistakes.