Forensic Files

[tommy]

Anyone watch this TV show? I was watching it just now and thought I would post this. This is a great series and is very interesting to know how these people are not able to get away with murders by leaving behind the smallest of clues including a simple hair on a shirt or many other things like that.

The way they find small things and can put together a whole story without ever really knowing what went on is amazing.

This is one of the few shows I can say I truly enjoy watching these days.

[AtomSmasher]

My friends used to watch that show all the time back in college.  They would joke that they liked to watch it so they could learn from other peoples mistakes to make sure they wouldn't get caught.

[tommy]

The show is definitely a good way to learn if you wanted to commit a crime like they show, that's why I sometimes wonder why they would show how they think and go about things when a murder happens and if it's a good idea to be showing people these things.

It's still interesting either way.

[Jdurg]

Here's a sad dose of reality;  That show is so full of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- with regards to the science and everything they do.  I have my B.S. in Forensic Chemistry and it is not as "easy" and "simple" as they make it look.  In reality, the field is fairly straightforward and boring.  It's not a glamorous, dramatic, suspense filled career where each thing you do makes or breaks a case. 

The basics of what they talk about do hold some water, but if a real forensic lab followed the procedures they used nobody would ever be convicted.  The fact of the matter is, you still need to obtain the evidence as quickly as possible and as cleanly as possible.  You can't just go to a crimescene two days later, pick up a Frito that is laying on the ground and suddenly find out how the crime was comitted and by whom. 

The show is good for entertainment, but to say that you're able to learn something from it is like saying that you can be a solid lawyer because you watched the Law and Order series.   

[danny_galaga]

The show is definitely a good way to learn if you wanted to commit a crime like they show, that's why I sometimes wonder why they would show how they think and go about things when a murder happens and if it's a good idea to be showing people these things.

It's still interesting either way.

that would be that there freedom of speech 

for most crimes though, most criminals will never cover all the bases no matter how careful they are. and much crime is not thought out that thoroughly anyway...

[tommy]

Here's a sad dose of reality;  That show is so full of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- with regards to the science and everything they do.  I have my B.S. in Forensic Chemistry and it is not as "easy" and "simple" as they make it look.  In reality, the field is fairly straightforward and boring.  It's not a glamorous, dramatic, suspense filled career where each thing you do makes or breaks a case. 

The basics of what they talk about do hold some water, but if a real forensic lab followed the procedures they used nobody would ever be convicted.  The fact of the matter is, you still need to obtain the evidence as quickly as possible and as cleanly as possible.  You can't just go to a crimescene two days later, pick up a Frito that is laying on the ground and suddenly find out how the crime was comitted and by whom. 

The show is good for entertainment, but to say that you're able to learn something from it is like saying that you can be a solid lawyer because you watched the Law and Order series.   

What's so full of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about about it? They find small traces of evidence and use forensic technology and testing to find the person who left that trace behind, or the person most likely to have left it behind. Getting DNA from family and friends or people the person knows is just another way to test and to find a person who maybe would have committed a crime. I know this process is not done as quick as it seems on the show and many weeks/months/years go by and the show makes this stuff seem more interesting than it really is to the average person, but it still is interesting to me either way.

You can't just disregard what they say just because it's a TV show and say it's all fake when it's not.

[AtomSmasher]

Here's a sad dose of reality;  That show is so full of ---Cleveland steamer--- with regards to the science and everything they do.  I have my B.S. in Forensic Chemistry and it is not as "easy" and "simple" as they make it look.  In reality, the field is fairly straightforward and boring.  It's not a glamorous, dramatic, suspense filled career where each thing you do makes or breaks a case. 

The basics of what they talk about do hold some water, but if a real forensic lab followed the procedures they used nobody would ever be convicted.  The fact of the matter is, you still need to obtain the evidence as quickly as possible and as cleanly as possible.  You can't just go to a crimescene two days later, pick up a Frito that is laying on the ground and suddenly find out how the crime was comitted and by whom. 

The show is good for entertainment, but to say that you're able to learn something from it is like saying that you can be a solid lawyer because you watched the Law and Order series.   

Maybe I'm thinking of a different show, but doesn't Forensic Files show how they actually solved real cases, showing you the thought process and steps taken to solve each of these actual crimes?  It was several years ago when my friends and I would watch it, before fictional shows like C.S.I. came on the air.

[tommy]

Yes, it's based off real cases and they show the real steps involved in solving those cases. They may make it all sound much more interesting and show some dramatizations as how they see the crime happening but it's still all real based stuff.

[billf]

Here's a sad dose of reality;  That show is so full of ---Cleveland steamer--- with regards to the science and everything they do.  I have my B.S. in Forensic Chemistry and it is not as "easy" and "simple" as they make it look.  In reality, the field is fairly straightforward and boring.  It's not a glamorous, dramatic, suspense filled career where each thing you do makes or breaks a case. 

The basics of what they talk about do hold some water, but if a real forensic lab followed the procedures they used nobody would ever be convicted.  The fact of the matter is, you still need to obtain the evidence as quickly as possible and as cleanly as possible.  You can't just go to a crimescene two days later, pick up a Frito that is laying on the ground and suddenly find out how the crime was comitted and by whom. 

The show is good for entertainment, but to say that you're able to learn something from it is like saying that you can be a solid lawyer because you watched the Law and Order series.   

Maybe I'm thinking of a different show, but doesn't Forensic Files show how they actually solved real cases, showing you the thought process and steps taken to solve each of these actual crimes?  It was several years ago when my friends and I would watch it, before fictional shows like C.S.I. came on the air.

From the Forensic Files website:
Forensic FilesŪ is a pioneer in the field of fact-based, high-tech, dramatic storytelling. This series of television programs delves into the world of forensic science, profiling intriguing crimes, accidents, and outbreaks of disease from around the world.

I personally can't stand any of the CSI brand shows.

[AtomSmasher]

I personally can't stand any of the CSI brand shows.

Neither can I.

[Glaine]

There's also this show called Masterminds that talks a lot about how criminals did their crimes. They reenact the stories in this kind of lame, low-production style, but the stories themselves are often very interesting. Quite a few of them get away with their heists for many years, but they usually get caught because too many people were involved.

[ChadTower]

I personally can't stand any of the CSI brand shows.

Neither can I.

Cop shows/hospital shows are t3h suck.  My wife is an ER fanatic.  I can't even watch it.  I find no entertainment value in watching the worst moment of someone's life every thursday night even if it is fiction.  I just don't see how anyone who has ever been through something like that could find it entertaining.

[billf]

I personally can't stand any of the CSI brand shows.

Neither can I.

Cop shows/hospital shows are t3h suck.  My wife is an ER fanatic.  I can't even watch it.  I find no entertainment value in watching the worst moment of someone's life every thursday night even if it is fiction.  I just don't see how anyone who has ever been through something like that could find it entertaining.

My wife and I watched ER for the first two or so seasons it was on - then gave up on it.  We do enjoy watching House currently, which is a medical type show, mainly because Dr. House is a sarcastic, semi-mean spirited character.  I've only seen a few minutes of each of the various CSI programs and I just couldn't stand the overacting and the overly dramatic scenes.

[ChadTower]

I have only seen parts of House but it appears to be more of a mystery/social commentary show from what I've seen.  ER is terrible.  How many times do you really need to watch an old man cry while his wife of 55 years dies?  Or some woman working 3 jobs discovers that the uppers she is taking to get by ended up killing her newborn via breastfeeding?  That's just not fun to watch and they jam it down your throat on the end of a broomstick covered in broken glass.

[billf]

I have only seen parts of House but it appears to be more of a mystery/social commentary show from what I've seen.

Yep, medical mystery mainly.  Social commentary, a little.

[ChadTower]

I hear good things about House but I need another show to watch like I need another 10lbs.   

[Jdurg]

Here's a sad dose of reality;  That show is so full of ---Cleveland steamer--- with regards to the science and everything they do.  I have my B.S. in Forensic Chemistry and it is not as "easy" and "simple" as they make it look.  In reality, the field is fairly straightforward and boring.  It's not a glamorous, dramatic, suspense filled career where each thing you do makes or breaks a case. 

The basics of what they talk about do hold some water, but if a real forensic lab followed the procedures they used nobody would ever be convicted.  The fact of the matter is, you still need to obtain the evidence as quickly as possible and as cleanly as possible.  You can't just go to a crimescene two days later, pick up a Frito that is laying on the ground and suddenly find out how the crime was comitted and by whom. 

The show is good for entertainment, but to say that you're able to learn something from it is like saying that you can be a solid lawyer because you watched the Law and Order series.   

What's so full of ---Cleveland steamer--- about about it? They find small traces of evidence and use forensic technology and testing to find the person who left that trace behind, or the person most likely to have left it behind. Getting DNA from family and friends or people the person knows is just another way to test and to find a person who maybe would have committed a crime. I know this process is not done as quick as it seems on the show and many weeks/months/years go by and the show makes this stuff seem more interesting than it really is to the average person, but it still is interesting to me either way.

You can't just disregard what they say just because it's a TV show and say it's all fake when it's not.

My COMPLETE apologies.  I had Forensic Files confused with the CSI series of shows.  Forensic Files isn't bad at all.  CSI is the utter garbage.  Sorry about that.  I'll stand up and admit I was wrong.

Forensic Files is the good show.  They leave out the boring stuff such as chain of custody for samples, etc. etc. that would bore people to death, but the gist of the show is good.

I just get really pissed when I see CSI on TV because it gives such a false portrayal of forensic chemistry.  Ugggh...

[danny_galaga]

I personally can't stand any of the CSI brand shows.

Neither can I.

Cop shows/hospital shows are t3h suck.  My wife is an ER fanatic.  I can't even watch it.  I find no entertainment value in watching the worst moment of someone's life every thursday night even if it is fiction.  I just don't see how anyone who has ever been through something like that could find it entertaining.

you're not going to tell me you don't like Kojak or Starsky & Hutch are you?

[tommy]

I hate those forensic shows because they convince people that that kind of evidence is rock solid and can't be disputed.

It's impossible to identify anyone from DNA samples... all you can do is eliminate other people.  Same goes for fingerprints.

Bunch of circumstantial BS and I think every forensic department in the country has been in a scandal where they've been caught massaging the evidence.

What the hell are you talking about now? When you have a 1 in a billion chance of another person outside your family having the exact same or even half way close of a DNA sample as you do I think that's as solid as it gets.

Do you know anything about anything?

[ChadTower]

you're not going to tell me you don't like Kojak or Starsky & Hutch are you?

Never seen them.  They were way off the air before I was old enough to watch prime time tv.

[tommy]

It identifies the boyfriend, the stranger, the criminal they have their eyes on as a person who is suspicious of committing a crime. Matching their DNA from the crime scene is absolute and cannot be wrong when it matches up.

They even have databases of DNA profiles to try to match up cases that are unsolved. It identifies plenty.

[tommy]

The boyfriend kills his girlfriend, he leaves his blood behind on a knife that killed the woman. They then ask the guy for a DNA sample after he says there is no chance he killed this woman and his DNA matches perfectly. This is cut and dry, there is no explanation of why this guy would have his blood on the murder weapon other than him being the killer, and no one else could possibly have his DNA profile. End of story.

There are cases when this will not absolutely mean he killed this woman but most likely with all the other facts he did do it.

[tommy]

It's not circumstantial , it's proof of being there when blood was shed when she died. Do you think he was helping her insert a tampon when she accidentally got killed?

[ChadTower]

tommy seems to think you can get a 100% perfect DNA match to a specific individual that cannot match anyone else on the planet.

[tommy]

tommy seems to think you can get a 100% perfect DNA match to a specific individual that cannot match anyone else on the planet.

Do you know how complex DNA is? Do you know how rare it is for two people to anywhere near having the same DNA? Even mother and son are far from exactly matching but you can see similarities.  A complete stranger is so far off the map even you can tell the difference.

When you match up one guys DNA with the same DNA it's unmistakable.

[ChadTower]

Do a little reading on DNA matching technology, then do a little reading on the legal concept of reasonable doubt.

They cannot pull nearly as much of a DNA sequence from most crime scene evidence as you seem to think they can.

[tommy]

They cannot pull nearly as much of a DNA sequence from most crime scene evidence as you seem to think they can.

That depends on the case. Either they have enough DNA to test or they do not, and they tell you when they do not have enough evidence to make the call. I'm talking about cases when they do.

[CCM]

They cannot pull nearly as much of a DNA sequence from most crime scene evidence as you seem to think they can.

That depends on the case. Either they have enough DNA to test or they do not, and they tell you when they do not have enough evidence to make the call. I'm talking about cases when they do.

Not quite...

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/text_pti_dna_matching.htm#pti_accuracy

The Accuracy     
Top^

DNA databases have built a reputation as being a fast and efficient way of solving crimes. The identity of an individual is encoded in a database using a compilation of numbers no longer than four telephone numbers, making it extremely simple to match the numbers from the criminal with the numbers from the crime scene.

DNA matching is however, constantly under question when used as evidence in court, as contamination of a sample is possible, even though strict precautions are put in place to prevent contamination. For example - a stain containing DNA was found at a crime scene in a country that has a population of 10 million people, and the crime scene DNA sample is accurate enough to match 1% of the population. A suspect is arrested and that person's DNA sample matches perfectly with the one found at the crime scene. The prosecutor argues that because only 1% of the population shares the same DNA profile, there is only a 1 in 100 chance that the person is innocent. The defence however, then argues that if 1% of the population share the same DNA, then there could be 99 999 (1% of 10 million minus 1) other individuals who could have possibly been at the scene of the crime. Presuming innocence, the odds of the suspect being guilty are actually 1 in 100 000. This example shows the hazards of relying too much on DNA as evidence.

If there is enough evidence to support the DNA sample, then this amplifies the suspicion of guilt and makes a very persuasive case. However, if the there is little or no evidence to support the DNA sample, then the sample is practically useless.

DNA alone isn't enough to prove anything....

[tommy]

Well that link helps me more than it hurts me. I never said rely on DNA only, but it does show very good proof when a person who said they have nothing to do with a crime and has left his DNA behind in a place that does not seem to be right can prove a lot.

[ChadTower]

They can't say "he left his DNA behind".  They can say "someone with a DNA profile like his left DNA behind".  Look at the numbers.  All it does is prove that someone in a group that also includes the defendant was involved.  A very, very large group that probably includes Jeremy Shockey.

[CCM]

Well that link helps me more than it hurts me. I never said rely on DNA only, but it does show very good proof when a person who said they have nothing to do with a crime and has left his DNA behind in a place that does not seem to be right can prove a lot.

Your logic (or lack thereof) makes my head hurt...   

[CCM]

A very, very large group that probably includes Jeremy Shockey.

 

[tommy]

They can't say "he left his DNA behind".  They can say "someone with a DNA profile like his left DNA behind".  Look at the numbers.  All it does is prove that someone in a group that also includes the defendant was involved.  A very, very large group.

A large group? I heard cases where they said the error was 1 in 3 million of another person having the same DNA.

I can't believe I have to argue such a rare finger pint of a person as DNA is to you guys. It's not like the guy around the block from you will match your DNA. It's like maybe 4 people in the world would show some similarities to your DNA but still never really match.

[ChadTower]

A large group? I heard cases where they said the error was 1 in 3 million of another person having the same DNA.

I can't believe I have to argue such a rare finger pint of a person as DNA is to you guys. It's not like the guy around the block from you will match your DNA. It's like maybe 4 people in the world would show some similarities to your DNA but still never really match.

Do the reading I suggested on just how much of a DNA profile they can pull in most cases.  They aren't usually pulling anything close to that level of a DNA strand.  They're pulling partial strands from old, damaged, or poor type sources in order to eliminate people, not to specifically incriminate an individual.

[tommy]

A large group? I heard cases where they said the error was 1 in 3 million of another person having the same DNA.

I can't believe I have to argue such a rare finger pint of a person as DNA is to you guys. It's not like the guy around the block from you will match your DNA. It's like maybe 4 people in the world would show some similarities to your DNA but still never really match.

Do the reading I suggested on just how much of a DNA profile they can pull IN MOST CASES. 

Your argument is based on times when they cannot get a good DNA sample. This means nothing to me. This is your way out of not agreeing and seeing I'm right.

[CCM]

1 in a billion

1 in 3 million

It's like maybe 4 people in the world 

umm, where exactly are you pulling these numbers from?

[ChadTower]

The Vegas odds on the Giants beating the Pats this weekend.

[Glaine]

And thats when I tampered with the DNA evidence

[ChadTower]

That was awesome.

[Jdurg]

DNA evidence is a really strong piece of evidence if the sample it's obtained from is in good shape.  If there is a puddle of blood at the crime scene, then the dried out, oxidized, exposed to the surface portions of the blood are not the greatest sample.  Bacterial action, basic chemistry, environmental chemicals will degrade it.  However, the inside of a large puddle, or sample that is contained somehow in a cold area will provide a near perfect sample for DNA extraction.

In rape cases, the intravaginal fluids will actually help preserve the semen deposited by the raper so in a rape case the DNA can be a very strong sample.  There is the chance, however, that if the victim was a very sexually active person that there could be many different DNA samples in there.

So as you can see, the time between when the crime was comitted and the evidence sampled is critical.  The more time that passes, the less effective the DNA evidence is.

I worked in a drug-testing lab during college (kind of ironic) and learned all about the process involved in drug-testing.  A similar type of confirmation needs to be done with DNA evidence.  That's why any prosecution who is worth anything will send a sample off to multiple labs in order to get confirmation from two independant labs that the DNA sample is legitimate.

DNA evidence alone is not going to convict someone.  However, DNA evidence can be an EXTREMELY powerful piece of evidence if used in conjunction with other evidence in a trial.  By definition, it is Circumstantial evidence but 99.9% of ALL evidence is circumstantial.  This is thanks to technology which can make videos, audio recordings, and photographs all circumstancial.  In terms of the power of the evidence, DNA samples that are validated by multiple labs and have a high probablity of matching the suspect, is as close to direct evidence as you can get.

It still must be mentioned that in all trials that use DNA evidence, DNA evidence is not the only evidence they use.  I don't know of ANY trials where only one piece of evidence is used.  The sad thing about scientific evidence is that the VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of the general public, the public that sits on the juries, has no idea how it works.  Therefore, the prosecution needs to properly teach them about the evidence and what it means and most prosecuters don't know enough about it.