3 ms·

Well his sentiment isn't off. Substitute any one of the documentary forensic shows on TV for CSI and you'll see how deep forensic science has become over the la

Well his sentiment isn't off. Substitute any one of the documentary forensic shows on TV for CSI and you'll see how deep forensic science has become over the last 20 years. I agree it's really hard to cheat with the level of skill forensic scientist have achieved. The only issue with this observation is even in simple cases it can take years to get the evidence and science together to convict someone. Those shows make it seem like it's a matter of a days work, but there are years of research and hunting that goes on in order to solve just one crime. He used CSI because forensic science has become linked with the CSI TV show in pop culture's mind for better or worse.

pyre 17y ago
But there's also a lot of bunk in forensic science, like that guy in the Southern USA that was a 'bite mark analysis guy' that was basically making things up as he went along (destroying evidence after examining it because 'I had already made my evaluation' so the opposing side doesn't have a chance to have their experts look at the evidence, etc). It's surprising how long he was able to get away with this stuff and that juries ate it up and believed him. (I'm also severely disappointed in the legal system that he didn't get jail time for destruction of evidence)
- BigZaphod 17y ago
  I, for one, really appreciate your use of the phrase "ate it up" just after talking about him being a bite expert... :P
- pyre 17y ago
  I was bored so I looked up the guy I was talking about: http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/15/a-forensics-charlatan-gets-cau http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/15/a-forensics-charlatan-... edit: This may have a reference to the sandwich being thrown away (based on the google search summary) but it's in PDF and I don't feel like parsing through it to make sure. I'll just leave that as an exercise to the reader. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086763 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086763
- chubbard 17y ago
  Well that's a whole another ball of wax, or the other size of the sword depending on how you look at it. There are a good number of cases that people are convicted on faulty forensic science many of them not nearly as egregious as the one you describe. Most of the time it still comes from detectives gut feeling, not forensics, that turns a witness into a suspect. The forensics don't come into they are trying to build a case against you. Sometimes the forensics comes from the witness cooperating to give DNA, bite marks, etc as you mentioned. People who cooperate fully only to be wrongfully accused. The real problem is proving the forensics are wrong. Combating faulty forensics is a huge task to bear that can take years too. People who have lost 20 years in jail because the forensics were done by unqualified people or simply incorrect. Sometimes I hear the science explained by the shows and I wonder how in the world is it true. Who verified these results? Who defines what is unique and what isn't? Particularly questionable is techniques that prove uniqueness.
pmiller2 17y ago
>... forensic science has become linked with the CSI TV show .... Indeed, this is commonly referred to as the CSI effect: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect ).

pyre 17y ago

But there's also a lot of bunk in forensic science, like that guy in the Southern USA that was a 'bite mark analysis guy' that was basically making things up as he went along (destroying evidence after examining it because 'I had already made my evaluation' so the opposing side doesn't have a chance to have their experts look at the evidence, etc). It's surprising how long he was able to get away with this stuff and that juries ate it up and believed him. (I'm also severely disappointed in the legal system that he didn't get jail time for destruction of evidence)

BigZaphod 17y ago
I, for one, really appreciate your use of the phrase "ate it up" just after talking about him being a bite expert... :P
pyre 17y ago
I was bored so I looked up the guy I was talking about: http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/15/a-forensics-charlatan-gets-cau http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/15/a-forensics-charlatan-... edit: This may have a reference to the sandwich being thrown away (based on the google search summary) but it's in PDF and I don't feel like parsing through it to make sure. I'll just leave that as an exercise to the reader. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086763 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086763
chubbard 17y ago
Well that's a whole another ball of wax, or the other size of the sword depending on how you look at it. There are a good number of cases that people are convicted on faulty forensic science many of them not nearly as egregious as the one you describe. Most of the time it still comes from detectives gut feeling, not forensics, that turns a witness into a suspect. The forensics don't come into they are trying to build a case against you. Sometimes the forensics comes from the witness cooperating to give DNA, bite marks, etc as you mentioned. People who cooperate fully only to be wrongfully accused. The real problem is proving the forensics are wrong. Combating faulty forensics is a huge task to bear that can take years too. People who have lost 20 years in jail because the forensics were done by unqualified people or simply incorrect. Sometimes I hear the science explained by the shows and I wonder how in the world is it true. Who verified these results? Who defines what is unique and what isn't? Particularly questionable is techniques that prove uniqueness.

pmiller2 17y ago

>... forensic science has become linked with the CSI TV show .... Indeed, this is commonly referred to as the CSI effect: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect ).