Article: The CSI Effect: The truth about forensic science
Author: Jeffrey Toobin
Presentation Leader: Ri
Summary:
The article covers several points about investigative forensic science exploring its factual sides with the comparison to its fictional representation. The article tries to reference one of the then most popular CBS television series named “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” [2], and 2 of its spinoffs “CSI: Miami” [3] and “CSI: New York” [4]. While doing so, the author describes how the real-life crime investigations are much more tedious and fallible in contrast to its fictional representations. The article starts with giving a real-life criminologist Lisa Faber’s statement in the courtroom where after analyzing hundreds of hair and fibers she could come to the conclusion that the evidence might have originated from the source.
The author points out this cautious description in conclusion compared to the much more confident assertion shown in the fictional TV shows. Additionally, the author mentions how the general public nowadays believe that science can, with definite certainty, identify the criminal based on the limited amount of evidence.
The author then focused on the analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, handwriting, firearm and tool marks, and voices, as well as of hair and fibers – which are popular forensic-science tests depicted on “CSI”. Many of these forensic techniques are outdated and somewhat obsolete in present courts. Some of these techniques also show errors in their follow-up examinations as well.
The author tries to find the origin of these forensic techniques in the early 19th century and its successful usage in the early 20th century. The author mentions an incident where a New York doctor, Calvin Goddard, analyzed bullets to successfully identify which submachine guns they were fired from. This might be revolutionary at that time, however, the techniques remain quite the same to this date without much improvement.
The author explores more on Lisa Faber’s journey at how she first came to choosing forensic investigation as a profession. The article also describes briefly the process of analyzing hair in the criminal cases. For DNA testing with hair, the author found out, hairs whose roots are intact only have nuclear DNA, which is unique to each person. However, the hairs collected from the crime scenes often lack hair roots, to begin with. The author then learns from Lisa Faber the complicated and tedious process hair analysis – starting from hair color to its chemical composition.
The author then briefly describes the 2 types of DNA testing – nuclear DNA and mitochondrial (mt) DNA. Although mtDNA testing is more frequent and can eliminate many suspects after testing, it is greatly prone to errors. The author explores the perception of different professional experts about the use of mtDNA and its fallibility. It divides the experts into 2 groups where one group believes in the credibility of using mtDNA to further establishing findings from generic hair analysis and another group believes it should be excluded because of its flaws.
Later in the article, the author describes the recent steps taken by Faber in her lab combining traditional and modern technology for hair and fiber analysis. It is called Biotracks – a burglary program – which analyzes tissue, hair, fiber samples dropped at the crime scene by the criminal while using rubber gloves, wiping tissue, soda bottle, etc.
On the final note, the author hinted how the fictional TV representation makes the forensic profession popular and quite hipster in the eyes of public, despite having a somewhat stretching representation from the real-life scenarios.
Reflection:
I found the article to have an interesting way of exploring the forensic investigation while establishing a sense of dissimilarity with its fictional representations. As the television series like CSI, tend to serve the purpose of entertainment, they often seem to build their fictional world based on some real-life existence. One of the topics that are strongly existent in the fictions is that they need to have a definite finding at the end of the show. This leads them to force feed some conclusions which might not be used with such confidence in the real-life.
Additionally, in the real-life, the process of investigation can be a long, complicated, and monotonous process. Contrast to this, the fiction episodes are usually less than one hour long. Hence, many of the criminologists in the fictions possess much higher confidence in the accuracy of their findings. As described in the article – an air of glamour, an aura of infallibility. This is done mostly to make the show more interesting and entertaining to the audience. The shows, after all, are meant to serve as an entertainment, not documentary.
It was very interesting for me to learn the intrinsic details of the investigative process and the margin of error for them. I was unaware of how much effort and time are spent in collecting suitable evidence, analyzing them, and trying to come to a conclusion keeping potential errors in mind. I was really intrigued to find out that even at times follow up examinations might come to the same false conclusion. Also, the incident of the convicted suspect, Jimmy Ray Bromgard, in the rape case of an eight-year-old, where he was later found innocent. The initial trial had the manager of the Montana state crime lab, Arnold Melnikoff, testify stating that the odds against the suspect were one in ten thousand. However, the later DNA testing proved that the initial conclusion was wrong. It made me realize how difficult it is to come to a definitive conclusion in the forensic medicine sector. It also justifies how Lisa Faber phrased her conclusion in a very carefully picked words in the earlier part of the article.
The thing that intrigues me further is that the public misbelief about the accuracy of the scientific findings. I was also intrigued by the impression the jury had over Faber’s fiber analysis, as the article states “The prosecutors liked the idea of fibre evidence… it was more ‘CSI’-esque.” It raises the question in my mind whether we are mixing up real-life facts with fictional enticements. Like Michael J. Saks states, “It’s the individualization fallacy, and it’s not real science. It’s faith-based science.”
Questions:
- Is fictionalizing investigative forensic science exoterically a good approach?
- Many experts hold different opinions when it comes to mtDNA as a subsequent test to hair analysis. What are your thoughts on using mtDNA (which has a higher error rate) in the court?
- Do you think making the general public aware of the potential error rate in forensic science might actually decrease the credibility of the whole sector?
- With the relevance of this class, can the crowd be trusted in crime investigations given that even the experts are at times fallible?
References:
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/05/07/the-csi-effect
The CSI Effect: The truth about forensic science by Jeffrey Toobin
[2] http://www.cbs.com/shows/csi/
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
[3] http://www.cbs.com/shows/csi-miami/
[4] http://www.cbs.com/shows/csi-ny/
