On the other side, I have a friend who is an Assistant DA and says juries are getting more unrealistic in their expectatons of proof which he theorizes is from watching those shows.
I remember when the Simpsons spoofed DNA testing in the Who Shot Mr. Burns episode. The tech was like, woah, that’ll take weeks. And if I remember correctly, don’t they then bribe him with a carton of smokes? And he says, weeks? I meant minutes.
“If you’ve ever handled a penny, the government’s got your DNA. Why do you think they keep 'em in circulation?”
This sort of thing long predates “CSI” and the like. Police officers have long been prone to plopping their suspicion on someone based on silliness like how they phrased something, or that they didn’t cry hard enough at their husband’s funeral or some such nonsense.
You’re right of course… the Columbo shows had a lot of this. IIRC there was one episode where he figured out the victim didn’t tie his own shoes because everyone who is right-handed ties their shoes like so and like so, whereas the laces on the corpse had them “clearly” tied by someone facing the other direction.
The above, presumably even at the time, was pretty clearly a bit of fertilizer.
But it seems nowadays, maybe just because there’s such a lengthy history of doing this in those sorts of shows… that it’s approaching Austin Powers giving head nods to what every Bond movie “must” have?
I’m convinced that Csi: Miami was actually meant as a parody.
Many of the shows mentioned so far, even the enjoyable ones, have verged on self-parody for ages.
What annoys me no end is that in almost all of those shows (especially Criminal Minds), there are WAAAAAY too many “This time it’s PERSONAL” episodes.
Why does every other serial killer target either a member of the BAU or a close relative? And why do those BAU members get to play such a prominent role in the investigation, when there’s absolutely NO WAY they’d be allowed to do so in real life?
How many cousins or sisters does Shemar Moore have for psychos to kidnap or kill? In real life, an FBI agent would NEVER be allowed to take part in the investigation of a close relative’s disappearance or murder, every ***Criminal Minds ***regular does so.
And wouldn’t you think that, after all the times BAU agents have gotten people killed by taking part in investigations despite being “too close,” the next time it happens, Hotch will STILL decide, “I ought to take you off this case completely, but instead, I’ll let you be lead interrogator… and I’ll let you exchange yourself for a hostage…”
It’s a fairly widespread misconception that the police or parties in a civil case can’t talk to witnesses beforehand. You can generally talk to witnesses all you want, so long as they don’t mind talking to you.
I enjoy a lot of these shows. Especially NCIS.
But I still remember coming into part of one of these shows years ago when I was a newbie (I don’t know which one, but based on the computer simulation they were using, I think it was Bones) where they absolutely STUNNED me with the fake computer wizardry.
They actually back projected the course of a bullet from a dead bank robbers head as it bounced along (their computed image of) the interior of her body armor to figure out where it came from. **Sheer luncay **under the best of circumstances.
But, yeah, I watch 'em and like 'em. Except L&O SUV creeps me out. I watch it occasionally, when I’m doing dishes and can’t find something else, but I just can’t regularly enjoy a show that’s entirely about sex crimes.
My all time favorite is from one of the CSIs. They had footage from a single security camera they were looking at, but the suspect was blocking their view of something. There was no other angle so they faced a bit of a problem. That’s not going to hold the good people at Crime Scene Investigations back, though. No, sir. They then used computer magic to rotate the image so they could see behind the suspect.
ummmm…
You’re overselling it; Columbo points out that most righties tie their shoelaces that way before noting that the victim in fact tied his shoelaces that way; indeed, the victim’s dress shoes are still laced that way. Columbo then notes that those cheap sneakers on the victim’s feet were laced up the opposite way.
Columbo also notes scuff marks on the cleaned-just-after-closing-time gym floor: sneakers wouldn’t make those, but dress shoes would – if, say, he’d been struggling with someone – and I see you have a fresh injury on the inside of your wrist, there, sir.
So, yeah, if the health-club owner laced up his sneakers and hit the gym and died alone during a workout after locking up for the night, none of that makes sense. But if you killed him before changing his clothes and making it look like an accident, it all fits. His widow says you had a motive. You say you have a perfect alibi? I’ll look into that.
My favorite trope is when the guys on NYPD Blue or whatever roll up on a suspect to question the guy.
Cop [showing a picture]: Do you know this guy?
Suspect: Sure. He’s the asshole who stole my girlfriend. Why?
Cop: Well, he’s dead.
Suspect: Good. Guy had it coming.
Cop: Really?
Suspect: Wait. You don’t think I did it?
Hilarity ensues.
I’m sorry, but if a cop shows up to ask me about a dead guy, my story would be a bit different.
Cop [showing a picture]: Do you know this guy?
Me: Sure. He’s the asshole who stole my girlfriend. Why?
Cop: Well, he’s dead.
Me: Did I say asshole? I meant, saint. Loved that guy like a brother. I wasn’t even upset that he was boinking my girlfriend. He’s a great guy like that.
Cop: Oh, well, in that case, you obviously didn’t bludgeon him to death. We’ll keep looking for someone who has a grudge against him.
Are you done questioning me now? Because I’ve got more important things to do than answer cop’s questions about my possible involvement in a murder that I possibly look good for.
::walks away::
I was always amused when the Law and Ordercops would go to question a person of interest at his workplace, and the guy would continue to do his job while answering the questions. Like, say he worked in a warehouse as a box-mover-arounder. As the cop asked his questions, the guy would be picking up boxes, carrying them across the room, and putting them on a shelf or something, all while providing relevant, informative answers in a passable New York accent, and never breaking stride! It’s like “Hey, I’ve got boxes to move around! If you think I have ninety seconds to waste answering questions about a murder in which I’m a suspect, you’ve got another think coming, Jerry Orbach! I’m a busy man here!”
NTSF:SD:SUV:: on Adult Swim.
We all need some luncay in our lives!
Apparently it’s a bit of both.
I never noticed.
When I used to watch CSI (the original), they usually took along a detective with them for their interviews. So they’d be asking all the questions, but there would be an actual detective in the room/standing next to them to make it official. Basically, the CSI could write out a list of questions for the detective to ask, but where would be the fun in that?
What gets me is the recent turn in these where the heroes get kidnapped by the serial killer. That used to be a dramatic point late in the series when the hero was established and they needed to up the drama and recreate tension on an aging show. Now it’s a go-to plot in the first season. “Episode 2: wily agent Wilkins has her second day on the job, when suddenly a serial killer takes her hostage. Will they find her in time?!”
Now that I think about it, the most absurd thing about these shows is that the heroes are always the closest officers when they figure out that Killer X has the victim in a warehouse on Y Street. Like in Criminal Minds, the local police force is usually working double shifts and on high alert because there’s a serial killer, but there is never an officer closer to the killer than the BAU team.
They still do that, and it’s always the same guy.
There’s also the bit where the cops go to question a suspect. Rather than walk up and talk to him in a normal fashion, they call out his name from about 75 feet away. The whole point of this is to give the guy a chance to bolt, so they can have a chase scene.
It’s also interesting that when the cops have to arrest someone who’s in a building, they never station cops at the exits. Efficiency doesn’t make for excitement.
I’ve heard about this. People don’t understand that real-life police can’t do this stuff, so the jury expects to see huge mountains of DNA, ballistics, surveillance, and whatnot. When the real-life evidence turns out to be significantly less impressive, the jury acquits.