Britney quits pop music to become a forensic scientist

She can't act or sing. Remember the movies she was in, I can't remember the name of the movies she was in, they were big flop big times because she can't act. Jessica won't be on it. Britney won't last in forensic scientist.
 
screamingpoet said:
Who would name their kid "Audio Science"? Strange name. I don't understand.

Also, Laetri, I love your avatar. I just finished re-reading "Son of a Witch" the other day. <3
Click to expand...

thank you :D. i got it off some website. Should probably list which but I can't remember or find it again :rolleyes:.

Audio is my cousin's friend.
 
Hottie_Cath said:
well this isn't surprise.. afterall I heard a rumour too that they are bringing in Jessica Simpson as Nick Stoke's love interest on CSI in season 7.. :lol:
Click to expand...

What?! I must say though this something I don't want to happen. Don't care for Jessica Simpson much at all.
 
LMAO
Britney a CSI, I wouldnt want her working on any evidence that she could contaminate.
Once she sees dead bodies she would prob quit LOL, poor woman thinks the job is just like in the movies.
 
Can you imagine the CSI characters reactions to her.
Grissom would go into some kinda early deteriation mode!

Britney probably saw that an ex-stripper was a CSI, and thought "OMG THERE IS STILL HOPE FOR ME!!!"

Honey - There ain't no hope for you!
 
BRITNEY SPEARS IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE A CSI. I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS. NOOOOOOOOOOO.
I think Britney could easily play a copse, just shoot her and we'll be done with it. :lol:
 
Why do I think its an excellent idea. Do any of you have proof that she's a dimwit? Or are you that insecure that you need to take it out on the pop stars?
Sad children... sad sad. *shakes head in disguist*.

Props to the Britster.
 
Roka, she is Britney Spears. She will arrive at the scene wrapped in Seran Wrap and lipsynching to "Corpses are 'Nasty.'"
I hate Britney Spears.
 
I think the main problem Britney would have (or any celebrity) is taking the stand. Don't forget that while having a strong scientific background is important in this line of work, the ability to stand up to tough/adversarial cross-examination is a must. And a celebrity, like Britney, after having lived under the close watch of the news media, has opened themselves up to vicious personal attacks while on the stand.

While it isn't "nice", it's fair game if it relates to the testimony at hand - "So you say my client was impaired driving at a 0.138 blood alcohol concentration. Would that be MORE or LESS impaired than driving with an unrestrained infant on your lap?" And any emotional response to cross-examination only encourages it, and makes sure that attorney will inform friends that you are susceptible to such tactics.
 
Forensics_Guy, you do make a good point there. I have to disagree, however. The purpose of a CSI testifying in a courtroom is to present the evidence collected. It's up to the defense and prosecution to shine their respective lights on said evidence, and the jury to decide who to believe. It's like Grissom says; people lie, the evidence never does. Interpretation is the difference between guilty and innocent in the eyes of the law.
But I still say Britney Spears stick to her lip-synching. A bajillion teenage girls will thank her for it.
 
Crysthala said:
Forensics_Guy, you do make a good point there. I have to disagree, however. The purpose of a CSI testifying in a courtroom is to present the evidence collected. It's up to the defense and prosecution to shine their respective lights on said evidence, and the jury to decide who to believe. It's like Grissom says; people lie, the evidence never does. Interpretation is the difference between guilty and innocent in the eyes of the law.
But I still say Britney Spears stick to her lip-synching. A bajillion teenage girls will thank her for it.
Click to expand...

As I always say, if you can not effectively communicate your scientific opinions on the stand, you might as well have never have performed the analysis in the first place. At least then someone who COULD have effectively explained things to the trier of fact could analyse the evidence.

The purpose of the CSI is _not_ to simply present the evidence collected. In most cases the trier of fact (jury for example) has no idea what the physical evidence implies. It is the main job of the CSI to explain what the physical evidence means. Yes both lawyers need to attack the CSI as they see fit, but someone with a stained reputation is doomed from the get-go.

And while Grissom might have some witty saying, like "people lie, the evidence never does", remember to add that evidence doesn't speak - it's up to the CSI to talk for it in a language that the jury can understand.
 
:lol: Well you can hate her, there's nothing wrong with that crysthala but that doesn't necessarily mean she's as stupid as you think she is just because she's a pop singer! By the way, Jorja Fox is an actress and singer- and no one judged her for taking a forensic role in a show... But I think it's just the fact that she's pop that makes everyone think she's not good enough to do anything that doesn't involve dressing a bit slutty and dancing on stage. We tend to judge people for the wrong reasons sometimes, and whether we like her or not does not determine her intelligence does it?
Then again, it could be worse. It could have been Jessica Simpson and everyone would have started an even bigger thread and heck probably changed talkCSI into talkJessicaSimpson. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top