Writing about CSI for a term paper...HELP!

B

busybee418

Civilian
Hi everyone,

My name is Katie. I am writing about CSi for a term paper about the use of DNA in crime themed TV shows. Basically, I have a ton of resources about how the use of DNA technology is beneficial, but I was wondering if any of you knew of an episode of CSI where the DNA was used incorrectly and the results were wrong or led to the wrong accusation of someone....???

If any of you could help me out, I would really appreciate it

Thank you! :)
 
Sure there are many, but now that I can recall, there was CSI "The Strip Strangler" s01e23 where the murderer paid a guy for his semen in a ketchup's bag so the csis traced the DNA to that guy instead to the real murderer.
And on CSI "Bloodlines" s04e23 there was this guy with 2 sets of DNA.
 
Last edited:
as for used incorrectly, i wonder if 'inside the box' would count? catherine used dna from a crime scene to run a paternity test on sam braun, finding out he is her father. the case against sam was thrown out of court because of that. at least i think thats what happened, been a while since i saw that one!
 
In one CSI:Miami episode, we find out that Valera had accidentally put the DNA of a rape victim into CODIS, a criminal database... Not sure if that counts, or helps... Lol
 
The latest last CSI:NY episode, 4x14; Playing With Matches, where a guy in jail smuggles out his blood through a girlfriend so that she can plant it and back up his defence that there's someone else out there with the same DNA so that he becomes innocent. As always, it backfired.

Not sure if that counts or not... :)
 
In Compulsion (Season 5, LV) a character had received a blood transfusion so the DNA came back as someone elses (his sister and the vic in the episode, but still).
Also I don't know if I would categorize this as being used incorrectly but in Boom (Season 1, LV) Nick was accused of a crime because his DNA was at a scene. Identifying the source of the DNA stopped the investigator assigned from pursuing or processing further evidence. So the DNA was done properly and with no error, but it contributed to an erronious conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top