Fact or edging on Sci-fi?

Discussion in 'Forensic Science' started by Fact_Or_Fiction, Aug 5, 2009.

  1. Fact_Or_Fiction

    Fact_Or_Fiction Civilian

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've always presumed that the techniques shown on the crop of CSI tv series would be very well researched and true to fact.

    However, at times some of the things they do and use seems to border on the edge of sci-fi. Does anyone know if everything shown in the series is 100% in use and relatively reliable for providing evidence?.

    Also, surely the large opaque glass walls that they project computer displays etc. on to are shockingly poor if they do indeed use them. They might look very flash and Star Trek but in every case you'd be better viewing a standard screen as opposed to a semi-opaque one with the office background heavily mixed in visually and people walking about.

    Additionally, some of the audio evidence and databases they solve crimes with seem a little far-fetched at times.

    You know the sort, when they are trying to locate a hostage and are listening to the ransom call, then a CSI says play that back. Lo and behold they will claim to have heard a flea fart and the frequency of the fart means it is of a flea family that only resides in a particular tenement block ;)

    (hope i can say fart on here?, i'm in England....if not i of course meant 'pass wind')
     
  2. Dynamo1

    Dynamo1 Head of the Swing Shift

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    9,792
    Likes Received:
    1
    Over in the Forensic Science section of this board, members have discussed the various technologies used in past episodes. I remember big discussions when the CSIs were playing sounds off the grooves of a ceramic bowl from the insane asylum as if it was a phonograph record.

    The producers have mentioned in the past that much of the equipment we see in the lab was donated or loaned to them and actually works. That does not mean that the labrats were trained on those or know what buttons to push. But sets have come a long way from the early Star Trek days of fake buttons and blinking lights.

    (And yes, fart should not be too offensive, but just remember that some members are only about 13 years old. A moderator will let you know if you cross the line.)

    So, welcome to the nut house. Hope you enjoy it here.
     
  3. Fact_Or_Fiction

    Fact_Or_Fiction Civilian

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the things in CSI that i really wish to know if it's fact or fiction.

    More than once in CSI they have a body on the autopsy table. They then have rising up a 3D hologram which is stunningly intricate in it's detail of veins etc. They are then able to 'delve around' in the internal organs etc moving them aside.

    Holograms themselves are available on a wide scale such as in tourist attractions (museums, science parks). But, similar to my comment on the glass screens they view computers on (not sure at all that it is meant as a viewer efffect), one would see more detail on a standard video monitor than something floating in mid-air.

    I'm presuming the hologram is formed out of a scan of the body as used in hospitals.
     
  4. Fact_Or_Fiction

    Fact_Or_Fiction Civilian

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    I came across the following observation published on the web;

    Apparently one of the problems with shows like CSI is that they give the viewing public an entirely unrealistic view of what is achievable by forensics in the majority of police investigations.

    When that same viewing public become jurors in actual cases, they are apparently reluctant to convict unless they see a CSI style "slam dunk", where multiple pieces of forensic evidence all link the defendant incontrovertably with the crime. In real cases good forensics are hard to come by and are often not as conclusive as you'd hope. However, when jurors are asked to make decisions on evidence that used to be sufficient in previous centuries (ie witness testimony etc) they shy away from giving a guilty verdict.

    Apparently it's serious problem now in America, and is beginning to creep in here in the UK.

    Prosecutors call it the 'CSI Effect'.

    I can see how easily that can happen. Also, if i had a loved one a victim of serious crime i would be wanting to know why they have not used this, that and the other technique and technology to solve the case. Is it only famous and rich people who are allotted all the fancy means at csi's disposal?.
     
  5. Faylinn

    Faylinn Adam Fangirl Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,247
    Likes Received:
    22
    I was going back and forth with whether to keep this thread in GenCSI for discussion or move it, but since it does deal more with the fact/fiction aspect of the forensic techniques themselves, I'll ship this over to the Forensic Science forum. :)
     
  6. Fact_Or_Fiction

    Fact_Or_Fiction Civilian

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL! i was going back and forth deciding whether or not to request for the thread to be moved to the forensic science section. Being a newcomer i had overlooked it when making my initial post.

    However, after adding the 'CSI Effect' observations i decided it would be best in the general section. Guess now i should have started a new thread for that particular aspect :)

    No probs anyway and i look forward to hopefully receiving peoples thoughts on the topics i've mentioned.
     
  7. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    i read about the csi effect too but i suspect that is less down to the techniques available than down to the ability of the public's imagination to believe anything and think it's real! all shows like that have some artistic licence, but somehow people still seem to think that what they see on tv is 100% real. i did jury service a few years ago and tbh it would've been pretty dull if all the evidence was 100% obvious, it would've been too easy! no people, and by extension, no cases, are that simple. they just have to be more so on telly or no one would watch!

    as for the 3d hologram, i think gary sinise mentioned it in an interview (it's on youtube i think) - i can't remember what he said but it was something like it being a hybrid between certain technologies that are available - ie it's not available but something sort of like it is. also anthony zuiker said on one of the special features that a lot of this is stuff that is either already available or in planning/development. as has been said many of the machines they use are real (albeit older models) and many of the techniques are if not real then at least in development and/or possibly real in the near future.

    (found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Lz4emw_Hk - he talks about it starting from about 1.20)

    of course there's artistic licence too, which is probably the more pressing issue in terms of the so called csi effect - that's the stuff like dna coming back within minutes instead of taking several days as it probably would in real life etc. it would be a very dull show if one single dna result had to be waited for over 3 episodes!
     
  8. A. FineLabrats

    A. FineLabrats Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not just days. In real life in a real lab, even one as well-funded and busy as the LV and FBI ones, DNA would take weeks to process. Add to that backlog, and it could take months for these cases to get solved, even relatively minor ones. Also, there is no way EVERY case that came through their lab would have access to the use of a DNA match. It just costs too many resources and money. They would only use DNA on the most high-profile cases, and the ones where DNA is either the most likely to convict or the only evidence there is to convict with. Also, not all DNA tests have a 99% rate of success, some speciments such as a licked envelope only have a 25% chance, while others like nails have 75%, etc.
     
  9. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^ yeah, i'm always impressed (and incredulous!) when they manage to catch someone definitively after finding a tiny corner of a licked stamp or something :lol: - but i don't think there's anything wrong with artisitic licence, it wouldn't be a very interesting show if we had to wait half a season for every result. it's kind of a shame that the real labs don't get some of the budget from the show.
     

Share This Page