-
Asked by reddevil to Jamie, Jodie, Kat, Mark, Niamh on 15 Mar 2011 in Categories: CSI. This question was also asked by silleserena, victoriabush, mimi14, linzikennedyxx, kirstymontgomery.
-
Jamie Pringle answered on 14 Mar 2011:
Hello reddevil and silleserena,
The short answer is: not really! Some field/laboratory techniques they use do work and are used, but usually the time line is usually really compressed – analysis takes far longer than shown!
And some techniques they use arent even invented yet! I had to laugh at the radar episode – the equipment was glowing in the dark and a green body suddenly appeared on the screen, not realistic at all!
On the plus side, it has raised forensics profile!
-
-
Katherine Davies answered on 15 Mar 2011:
Hello
I have not watched a whole CSI episode – I am more of a Bones fan, that’s when I get the time to watch TV (my hard drive is full of things waiting!). In most TV shows, they have to twist the truth to make it good viewing. The basic concepts are usually correct, however the time taken to process evidence and some of the methods used are a little abstract. Its certainly not as glamorous – I have rotten liver all over my gloves and lab coat on a regular basis, which doesn’t smell the best! Also, one person does not do multiple tasks usually. Each person specialises in a particular area, and doesnt usually find out about case information etc, e.g. some one who looks at fibres on clothing, will spend days just doing this, not looking at DNA as well for example.
-
Niamh Nic Daeid answered on 15 Mar 2011:
Hi Reddevil – Not really. The biggest problem with CSI is that it give an unrealistic view of both the speed of how things happen and the certainly of conclusions derived from evidence. For example many forensic scientists are lab based and don’t go to scenes. When scientists or scene examiners do go to scenes they wear protective clothing , not just gloves and it takes a long time to process a scene correctly. In the laboratory it can take days to extract samples and analyse them. the evaluation of the data that you then get from samples has to be considered in the circumstances of the case. for example if you find a suspects fingerprints on a knife, but the suspect is know to have touched the knife before any crime occured then that could explain the fingerprints .
-
Mark Hill answered on 15 Mar 2011:
Hi reddevil,
Although I don’t generally watch it, sometimes things are quite accurate, but, in the main, for the timescale of their examinations and research, definitely no. DNA profiling takes longer to develop than the instant results that they show on TV. Low copy no. (LCN) DNA testing takes even longer, in having to prepare a large enough sample for profiling.
I always question why they are not ‘booted, masked and suited’ at crime scenes, which is a definite ‘no, to preserving evidence. They also walk straight in to a room, up to a body, turn it over, pick up gun cases, all without recording photographically first.
The fundamental approach to a collision or crime scene is an ‘onion skin’ approach, in which, like peeling the layers from an onion, a careful considered and non-destructive examination is made in stages, gradually working in, toward the crime locus. However, I am not saying that CSI and NCIS aren’t good programs – they are very good for developing the interest in forensic science and my world, which has to be a good starting point.If you are thinking of a path in forensic science, then I wish you good luck. I hope that you enjoy it as much as I do.
Mark.
-
Jodie Dunnett answered on 15 Mar 2011:
It depends, a lot of the time, the techniques that are used are accurate, they just speed up how long things take. Sometimes the technology they use is more advanced than we have at the moment but I suppose if everything was done in real-time, the programme would last several days!
Comments