Hi all. I have two questions: (1) any suggestions of episodes that deal heavily with fingerprints? and (2) most importantly, anyone know what sources the writers use when developing the plots and scenes in the lab?
I am specifically interested to comment on the inaccurate depiction of forensic science (stylized and simplified for TV), so I'd love to know whether the writers are consulting accurate sources or not.
Hi hmetter,
xfcanadian is correct, while the show writers are perfectly capable of putting together a CSI script using the basic tools and technologies and techniques used by real crime scene investigators, they do consult 'outside experts' for information on specific topics. I've been one of those consultants for several years now, mostly on wildlife-related evidence.
And to answer your basic question: no, the CSI shows do not accurately depict real-life crime scene investigators or the forensic scientists that analyze their collected evidence. As I've described in other postings at this site, the TV characters are composites of real-life crime scene investigators, forensic scientists and cops/detectives ... which are three separate and distinct law enforcement professions. While I was a sworn officer (deputy sheriff), forensic scientist, and crime scene investigator in my earlier career, I never confronted/interrogated suspects at a scene, and only drew my pistol the (thankfully) few times when I had to control a suspect who showed up at a scene unexpectedly. And while forensic scientists from a crime lab do, on occasion, respond to 'major' crime scenes, most CSI work is performed by technical specialists who do not have scientific degrees and who do not analyze or process the evidence back at the lab.
Do the CSI show writers know they're 'getting it wrong'? Yes, of course, they do. Remember, they are not filming documentaries on real CSI work; their job is to entertain you with fictional stories that are exciting and intriguing. The fact that their composited characters are as fictional as the stories themselves is simply a reality of TV entertainment. I didn’t watch the shows (after the first one) until after I was hired to write novels based on the Las Vegas series, mostly because I found it to be too much work to 'suspend my disbelief' .. even though I've long enjoyed watching William Petersen as an actor, and I now enjoy seeing how the writers continue to expand the depth and complexity of the characters I've gotten to know quite well.
Are the show writers doing something useful? I think so (although many of my fellow forensic scientists and CSIs vehemently disagree) ... at least in the sense that the general public is now very much aware of what CSI can potentially do at a scene. If that makes them more agreeable, as tax-payers, to properly fund professional teams of CSIs and forensic scientists in their local jurisdictions, fine by me!
