Experts Matter. Find Yours.

4 out of 5 US Troops Surveyed Understand the Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines. Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal? The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.” Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold. We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so. Compelled to disobey U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense. Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.” When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.” Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.” Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey. The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.” One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.” Soldiers, not lawyers But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance. Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law. Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S. “Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.” Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.” Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general. This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law. Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel. This finding was also borne out in our survey. When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points. Drawing the line As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes. The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders. When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order. But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%. While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable. Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one. Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.” Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same. Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly. The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders. Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line. Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article.

Emil Bove’s appeals court nomination echoes earlier controversies, but with a key difference

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. President Donald Trump’s nomination of his former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, has been mired in controversy. On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general. When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.” And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.” A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.” On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote. As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time. Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way. Robert Bork Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb. “Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster. This refers to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 appointment of Bork to the Supreme Court. Reagan called Bork “one of the finest judges in America’s history.” Democrats viewed Bork, a federal appeals court judge, as an ideologically extreme conservative, with their opposition based largely on his extensive scholarly work and opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.” Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination. Ronnie White In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. White was the first Black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led some to believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime. Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.” White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine. Miguel Estrada Republican President George W. Bush nominated Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2001. Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court. However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin. Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired. Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology. According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.” When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.” Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge. Bove stands out As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns. This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservative ideologue. But the main concerns about Bove are related to a belief that he is a Trump loyalist who shows little respect for the rule of law or the judicial branch. This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.

Expert Perspective: Mitigating Bias in AI: Sharing the Burden of Bias When it Counts Most

Whether getting directions from Google Maps, personalized job recommendations from LinkedIn, or nudges from a bank for new products based on our data-rich profiles, we have grown accustomed to having artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our lives. But are AI systems fair? The answer to this question, in short—not completely. Further complicating the matter is the fact that today’s AI systems are far from transparent. Think about it: The uncomfortable truth is that generative AI tools like ChatGPT—based on sophisticated architectures such as deep learning or large language models—are fed vast amounts of training data which then interact in unpredictable ways. And while the principles of how these methods operate are well-understood (at least by those who created them), ChatGPT’s decisions are likened to an airplane’s black box: They are not easy to penetrate. So, how can we determine if “black box AI” is fair? Some dedicated data scientists are working around the clock to tackle this big issue. One of those data scientists is Gareth James, who also serves as the Dean of Goizueta Business School as his day job. In a recent paper titled “A Burden Shared is a Burden Halved: A Fairness-Adjusted Approach to Classification” Dean James—along with coauthors Bradley Rava, Wenguang Sun, and Xin Tong—have proposed a new framework to help ensure AI decision-making is as fair as possible in high-stakes decisions where certain individuals—for example, racial minority groups and other protected groups—may be more prone to AI bias, even without our realizing it. In other words, their new approach to fairness makes adjustments that work out better when some are getting the short shrift of AI. Gareth James became the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School in July 2022. Renowned for his visionary leadership, statistical mastery, and commitment to the future of business education, James brings vast and versatile experience to the role. His collaborative nature and data-driven scholarship offer fresh energy and focus aimed at furthering Goizueta’s mission: to prepare principled leaders to have a positive influence on business and society. Unpacking Bias in High-Stakes Scenarios Dean James and his coauthors set their sights on high-stakes decisions in their work. What counts as high stakes? Examples include hospitals’ medical diagnoses, banks’ credit-worthiness assessments, and state justice systems’ bail and sentencing decisions. On the one hand, these areas are ripe for AI-interventions, with ample data available. On the other hand, biased decision-making here has the potential to negatively impact a person’s life in a significant way. In the case of justice systems, in the United States, there’s a data-driven, decision-support tool known as COMPAS (which stands for Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) in active use. The idea behind COMPAS is to crunch available data (including age, sex, and criminal history) to help determine a criminal-court defendant’s likelihood of committing a crime as they await trial. Supporters of COMPAS note that statistical predictions are helping courts make better decisions about bail than humans did on their own. At the same time, detractors have argued that COMPAS is better at predicting recidivism for some racial groups than for others. And since we can’t control which group we belong to, that bias needs to be corrected. It’s high time for guardrails. A Step Toward Fairer AI Decisions Enter Dean James and colleagues’ algorithm. Designed to make the outputs of AI decisions fairer, even without having to know the AI model’s inner workings, they call it “fairness-adjusted selective inference” (FASI). It works to flag specific decisions that would be better handled by a human being in order to avoid systemic bias. That is to say, if the AI cannot yield an acceptably clear (1/0 or binary) answer, a human review is recommended. To test the results for their “fairness-adjusted selective inference,” the researchers turn to both simulated and real data. For the real data, the COMPAS dataset enabled a look at predicted and actual recidivism rates for two minority groups, as seen in the chart below. In the figures above, the researchers set an “acceptable level of mistakes” – seen as the dotted line – at 0.25 (25%). They then compared “minority group 1” and “minority group 2” results before and after applying their FASI framework. Especially if you were born into “minority group 2,” which graph seems fairer to you? Professional ethicists will note there is a slight dip to overall accuracy, as seen in the green “all groups” category. And yet the treatment between the two groups is fairer. That is why the researchers titled their paper “a burden shared is a burdened halved.” Practical Applications for the Greater Social Good “To be honest, I was surprised by how well our framework worked without sacrificing much overall accuracy,” Dean James notes. By selecting cases where human beings should review a criminal history – or credit history or medical charts – AI discrimination that would have significant quality-of-life consequences can be reduced. Reducing protected groups’ burden of bias is also a matter of following the laws. For example, in the financial industry, the United States’ Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) makes it “illegal for a company to use a biased algorithm that results in credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because a person receives public assistance,” as the Federal Trade Commission explains on its website. If AI-powered programs fail to correct for AI bias, the company utilizing it can run into trouble with the law. In these cases, human reviews are well worth the extra effort for all stakeholders. The paper grew from Dean James’ ongoing work as a data scientist when time allows. “Many of us data scientists are worried about bias in AI and we’re trying to improve the output,” he notes. And as new versions of ChatGPT continue to roll out, “new guardrails are being added – some better than others.” “I’m optimistic about AI,” Dean James says. “And one thing that makes me optimistic is the fact that AI will learn and learn – there’s no going back. In education, we think a lot about formal training and lifelong learning. But then that learning journey has to end,” Dean James notes. “With AI, it never ends.” Gareth James is the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School. If you're looking to connect with him - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

The History of Alcatraz!

Alcatraz Island, once home to America’s most infamous prison, remains a powerful symbol in the nation’s historical, cultural, and political landscape. Originally a military fortification before becoming a federal penitentiary, Alcatraz gained notoriety for housing high-profile criminals like Al Capone and “Machine Gun” Kelly. Yet its legacy extends far beyond crime and punishment—it was also the site of a landmark Indigenous occupation that helped spark a national conversation about Native rights. Today, Alcatraz continues to fascinate as a tourist destination, a case study in penal reform, and a platform for telling underrepresented stories. Journalists looking to explore the island’s rich past and present may consider: The transformation of Alcatraz from military post to maximum-security prison Daily life behind bars and profiles of the prison’s most infamous inmates The 1969–1971 Indigenous occupation and its impact on Native American activism Alcatraz’s role in shaping modern conversations about incarceration and justice reform The cultural legacy of Alcatraz in film, literature, and popular imagination How the National Park Service is preserving and interpreting the island’s layered history Alcatraz offers more than just a tale of escape—it’s a gateway into deeper stories of resistance, rehabilitation, and remembrance. Connect with an expert about Alcatraz: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com

How authorship language helped catch a domestic terrorist – new podcast

In the latest episode of Writing Wrongs, hosts Professor Tim Grant and Dr Nicci MacLeod interview Dr Isobelle Clarke to unravel a case where forensic linguistics helped track down and convict a dangerous individual. Episode three, Imposters Tending to the Wild with Dr Isobelle Clarke, dives into the chilling case of Nikolaos Karvounakis, a self-proclaimed anarchist who planted a viable explosive device in Princes Street Gardens, Edinburgh, in 2018. Karvounakis, a Greek national, evaded capture for years, hiding behind online anonymity and extremist rhetoric. However, forensic linguists stepped in to analyse his anonymous blog posts, revealing patterns in his language that ultimately helped Police Scotland link him to the crime. The case not only demonstrates how linguistic evidence can be a powerful forensic tool but also raises crucial questions about the role of language analysis in modern terrorism investigations. On 11 January 2018, a suspicious cardboard box was discovered in a public seating area in Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens. After a controlled explosion, investigators determined the device could have caused serious harm had it detonated. With no immediate leads, the investigation stalled - until an anonymous blog post surfaced, claiming responsibility for the attack. The post, written in both English and Spanish, was linked to an eco-anarchist group called Individualists Tending to the Wild, a Mexican-based extremist organisation advocating violent action against technological progress. Crucially, the post included an image of the bomb’s interior, a detail only the perpetrator or law enforcement could have known. Police Scotland sought the expertise of Professor Tim Grant, who analysed the text, producing a linguistic profile that suggested the writer was neither a native English nor Spanish speaker - but rather someone influenced by another language entirely. Two years later, police identified Nikolaos Karvounakis as a suspect. Using comparative authorship analysis, Professor Tim Grant compared his online writings - including song lyrics from his rock band - to the manifesto. By dissecting word patterns, grammatical structures and stylistic quirks, he established that Karvounakis was the likely author. This evidence -alongside forensic meteorology, which linked photos of clouds in Karvounakis’ blog posts to the same weather conditions on the day of the crime - was used to secure a warrant and seize computers containing known writings by Karvounakis. To eliminate inevitable bias that would result from having worked the case for more than two years, Professor Grant invited Dr Isabelle Clarke onto the case as an independent forensic linguist. Using a version of the General Imposters Method, a technique similar to a police lineup but for language, Dr Clarke confirmed that the writing style in the blog post was the closest to Karvounakis’ known writings. Police Scotland put the evidence in the case, including the linguistic evidence, to Karvounakis, and secured a guilty plea. In February 2022, Nikolaos Karvounakis was sentenced to over eight years in prison under the UK’s Terrorism Act. Tim Grant, professor of forensic linguistics at Aston University, said: “The case highlights the growing importance of forensic linguistics in solving crimes, particularly in an age where digital anonymity combines with extremist ideologies. “It also highlights the how different types of language analysis can assist as a case moves through different stages of investigation.” Dr Nicci MacLeod, deputy director of the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics, said: “This episode offers listeners a behind-the-scenes look at the forensic methods that expose deception, identify threats and ultimately bring criminals to justice.” Dr Isobelle Clarke, a lecturer in security and protection science at Lancaster University and one of the first graduates from the campus-based MA Forensic Linguistics programme at Aston University, said: “It was great to be back at Aston University talking about the Karvounakis case for the Writing Wrongs podcast. “It’s an interesting case to highlight, as it shows how different types of language analysis can help with police investigations.” Writing Wrongs is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and all major streaming platforms. Listeners are encouraged to subscribe, share and engage with the hosts by submitting their forensic linguistics questions. Whether it’s about this case or broader forensic linguistic techniques, Professor Grant and Dr MacLeod welcome inquiries from listeners.

Best-selling author Kate Summerscale joins Writing Wrongs to explore true crime and justice

The true crime podcast Writing Wrongs continues its exploration of language and justice with a special bonus episode featuring best-selling author and historian Kate Summerscale. Kate is an award-winning historian, journalist and best-selling author known for her meticulous research into historical true crime cases. Her book The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher won the Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction and was adapted into a major ITV drama. Her latest book, The Peep Show: The Murders at 10 Rillington Place, revisits the infamous Christie case, shedding new light on the victims’ lives, the social conditions of post-war Britain and the power of the press in shaping public perceptions of crime. In this episode, hosts Professor Tim Grant and Dr Nicci MacLeod explore a fresh perspective on the Rillington Place murders, the wrongful execution of Timothy Evans and how forensic linguistics has helped uncover the truth in criminal cases. Following on from the first episode of the series, which examined the Timothy Evans case and the origins of forensic linguistics, this conversation with Kate Summerscale provides fresh historical insights into one of Britain’s most infamous miscarriages of justice. The episode revisits the horrifying crimes of John Christie, whose calculated murders led to one of the most infamous miscarriages of justice in British history. The wrongful conviction and execution of Timothy Evans cast a long shadow over the UK’s legal system and played a pivotal role in the eventual abolition of the death penalty. Through expert discussion, the episode examines how Evans’ case became a turning point for criminal justice reform. The conversation also looks at the role of the media in shaping crime narratives. Sensationalist reporting during the Rillington Place murders fuelled public perceptions, sometimes distorting the truth in favour of dramatic storytelling. The episode draws comparisons between 1950s tabloid journalism and today’s true crime media, examining how crime reporting has evolved - and the ethical challenges it still faces. A deeply unsettling aspect of this case is its gendered nature. The majority of John Christie's victims were vulnerable women, many facing financial and social instability. The episode delves into how structural inequalities, from the lack of legal abortion to economic dependence, made women more susceptible to predatory figures like Christie, a pattern that remains relevant in crime analysis today. Finally, the episode scrutinises government complicity in covering up a miscarriage of justice. The Brabin Inquiry, launched in the 1960s, sought to reexamine Evans’ conviction but delivered a highly controversial conclusion, failing to fully exonerate him. The discussion highlights how political interests and legal reputation management influenced the case’s outcome, leading to Evans’ eventual posthumous pardon - but not a full legal exoneration. Tim Grant, professor of forensic linguistics at Aston University, said: “It was wonderful to have Kate on Writing Wrongs. “Her work challenges the traditional true crime narrative, shifting focus from the murderer to the victims and the broader social structures that allow such crimes to happen. “Her insights in this episode provide a fresh and deeply researched perspective on a case that still haunts British legal history.” Writing Wrongs is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and all major streaming platforms. Listeners are encouraged to subscribe, share and engage with the hosts by submitting their forensic linguistics questions. Whether it’s about this case or broader forensic linguistic techniques, Professor Grant and Dr MacLeod welcome inquiries from listeners.

New true crime podcast Writing Wrongs launches with a chilling case of miscarriage of justice

True crime enthusiasts and forensic linguistics fans have a gripping new podcast to add to their playlists. Writing Wrongs, an original podcast from the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics (AIFL) at Aston University, provides a deep dive into how forensic language analysis plays a crucial role in solving crimes and improving the delivery of justice. Hosts Professor Tim Grant and Dr Nicci MacLeod, leading experts in forensic linguistics, explore how police interviews and linguistic evidence played a key role in one of Britain’s most infamous miscarriages of justice. Throughout the series, they’ll explore real-life cases where forensic linguistics has played a pivotal role in solving crimes, joined by expert guests who reveal the fascinating - and sometimes chilling - ways language can expose the truth. The first episode, Timothy Evans: A Case for Forensic Linguistics, launched on 7 March 2025, 75 years after Timothy Evans’ wrongful conviction and subsequent execution (9 March 1950). The Timothy Evans case was instrumental in the UK’s decision to abolish the death penalty, raising critical questions about police interviewing techniques, false confessions and linguistic analysis in legal proceedings. In 1950, Evans was convicted and later hanged for the murder of his baby daughter, Geraldine, while his wife, Beryl Evans, was also presumed to be his victim. However, three years later, his neighbour at 10 Rillington Place, London, John ‘Reg’ Christie, a former police officer, was exposed as a serial killer, responsible for at least eight murders – and almost certainly including Geraldine and Beryl Evans. Despite evidence casting doubt on Evans’ guilt, he was executed before Christie’s crimes came to light. This case was instrumental in the early development of forensic linguistics, as experts later analysed Evans’ police confessions to expose inconsistencies. Tim Grant, professor of forensic linguistics at Aston University, said: “We are delighted to launch Writing Wrongs with this episode focussing on the wrongful conviction and execution of Timothy Evans. This episode clearly shows how language analysis can provide evidence to help resolve one of the most controversial cases in British legal history. “In other episodes we show how contemporary forensic linguists are making contributions to the delivery of justice in cases of murder, rape and terrorism. In each case we discuss with a linguist how they assisted, and demonstrate how providing linguistic evidence to the courts can exonerate or incriminate and change the outcome of cases.” Dr Nicci MacLeod, deputy director of the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics, said: “This is the origin story for forensic linguistics, a phrase first coined by Jan Svartvik in his 1968 publication analysing the Evans statements. “Svartvik was able to show that there were clear differences in the language style of the incriminating sections of Evans’ ‘confession’, and other parts of the statements he gave to police. “One feature Svartvik focused on was the use of the word ‘then’ positioned after the subject of a clause, as in “I then came upstairs”, as opposed to what we might consider the more usual ordering of “then I came upstairs”. This is a feature of ‘policespeak’, and was also identified in the infamous Derek Bentley confession by Malcolm Coulthard some years later.” The first three episodes of the eight-part series of Writing Wrongs are available now on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and all major podcast platforms. They include a bonus episode with the author, Kate Summerscale ('The Suspicions of Mr Whicher' and 'The Queen of Whale Cay'), about her latest book ‘The Peepshow: The Murders at 10 Rillington Place’ and an episode featuring Dr Isobelle Clarke, which shows how a series of forensic authorship analyses assisted in the investigation and conviction of a terrorist who planted a pipe bomb in Edinburgh in 2018. Listeners are encouraged to follow, share and engage with the hosts by submitting their forensic linguistics questions. Whether it’s about the cases covered or broader issues in forensic linguistics, Professor Grant and Dr MacLeod welcome enquiries from listeners. Future episodes will be released on the first Friday of the month with episode four, Foreygensic Lingeyguistics: Cracking the Killer’s Code, dropping on 4 April 2025.

Biden's Acts of Clemency Raise Awareness of the Power and Embolden Those Seeking a Second Chance, Villanova Law Professor Says

Just before the holiday season, as he entered his final month as President of the United States, Joe Biden announced that he would be granting clemency to roughly 1,500 American citizens. The clemency acts, which included sentence commutations for individuals placed on home confinement during the pandemic and pardons for 39 individuals with non-violent offenses, were touted by the administration as the most ever in a single day in modern history. A month later, on January 17, he commuted the sentences of roughly 2,500 individuals convicted of non-violent drug offenses, shattering December's mark and giving him the most pardons and commutations of any president in United States history. The unprecedented size of the actions has been underscored throughout The White House’s press materials and has headlined most subsequent news coverage. But for Anton Robinson, JD, associate professor of law and director of Villanova’s Caritas Clemency Clinic in the Charles Widger School of Law, the importance of the clemency went far beyond the impressive scale. “Acts like these bring much needed awareness to the clemency process, and to the epidemic of excessive sentencing in United States courtrooms,” Professor Robinson said. “At our clinic, we are already having people call to ask about opportunities for pardons and additional support for their cases.” Public perception of presidential acts of clemency can, at times, be marred by partisan divisiveness. To some, these latest acts were overshadowed by President Biden’s earlier pardon of his son, Hunter, and eyes are already on incoming President Trump regarding how he might handle those charged in relation to the January 6 insurrection. Professor Robinson acknowledges that acts like these can cause people to “rightfully question the power that is being used,” but those are the outliers, not the norms, and steer the conversation away from the root purpose of clemency. “People deserve a second chance,” Professor Robinson said. “There’s a tendency for system actors to focus primarily on the crime committed when considering whether a person’s sentence should be cut short. But many are different people today—sometimes decades later—than they were at the time of the crime’s commission. “There is also no shortage of individuals in prison for whom a charge doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, a young person’s involvement in a crime, while sufficient for a legal conviction, might be weighed differently today, given increasing acceptance of scientific research on the portion of the human brain which controls decision-making, impulse control and executive function. Research shows all of that continues to develop well into adulthood.” Determining who fits the criteria for clemency, Professor Robinson says, is not always easy to do. Collecting records of good behavior that illustrate change while in a carceral setting is much more difficult than collecting records of bad behavior. That’s why entities like the Caritas Clemency Clinic, in which Villanova Law students work directly on behalf of such clients under Professor Robinson’s guidance, spend so much time talking to anyone who has had a relationship with the incarcerated person. “What we often find is that despite being incarcerated and having very little given opportunity, these individuals make their own opportunities to build community and rich relationships and try their best to contribute to society in a positive way,” Professor Robinson said. A military veteran who helped church members in poor health perform tasks. A nurse who spearheaded COVID vaccination efforts and natural disaster response. A counselor who helps guide youth away from destructive behavior and involvement with gangs. Those are the types of actions Professor Robinson references, all of which were highlighted specifically in the White House’s fact sheet for President Biden's December acts, just before the words “The United States is a nation of second chances.” “I'm hoping that these large acts of clemency encourage folks to think, ‘Hey, what about my loved one? What about me? I am a completely different person than I was 20 years ago, what can I do to try to secure my freedom and my ability to live the life that I've missed out on?’” Professor Robinson said. “It really is a great opportunity to remind ourselves that people are far better than the worst things that they've ever done, and that we have an opportunity to acknowledge that as a society and to encourage more of this action, both on a federal and state level.”

Harris Accused of Plagiarism

Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has been accused of plagiarizing her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer,” that was released while she was district attorney of San Francisco. Dr. Meena Bose discussed this with FOX news radio affiliates around the country, including WBAP in Dallas, TX; WFRK in Florence, SC; WFLA in Orlando, FL; KFTK in St. Louis, MO; WTVN in Columbus, Oh; and WILS in Lansing, MI. Dr. Bose is professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.

Presidential Race Continues After Trump’s Guilty Verdict

Dr. Meena Bose, professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, was interviewed by Courthouse News about the guilty verdict in former President Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial and how it might impact voters this coming election. Trump is the first U.S. president to be charged with — and now convicted of — a crime “The presidency is the highest office in the land, and there is an expectation that presidents are supposed to represent kind of the best the United States has as far as character, leadership, responsibility,” said Dr. Bose. “And the convicted felon obviously doesn’t meet those expectations.” Dr. Bose added that Trump has proven himself repeatedly to be a “different candidate” from any other who has preceded him, primarily for his ability to evade career-crushing consequences since he first emerged on the presidential ticket in 2016. “Politically, other politicians would feel pressure to step aside,” she said. “But Donald Trump didn’t do so in 2016, he did everything he could to try and stay in office in 2020, and even after January 6 and an unprecedented second impeachment in 2021, ran for reelection and kind of effectively ended the primary contest very early without participating in a single primary debate.” Dr. Meena Bose is Executive Dean of Hofstra University’s Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs. She is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.