Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Jersey 101.5)   Detective: CSI is ruining our jury members because they're asking for crazy technology that doesn't exist   (nj1015.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, CSI, New Jersey  
•       •       •

8335 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2013 at 11:33 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-28 09:42:43 AM  
Next thing you know is that doctors won't be able to tell testicular injury without watching Ow! My Balls first
 
2013-06-28 10:16:57 AM  
Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.
 
2013-06-28 10:23:52 AM  
Then stop picking idiot jurors instead of chasing away anyone with a brain who might actually try to think about the evidence they're seeing.
 
2013-06-28 10:45:44 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

I found a partial print from a bullet fragment and ran it through AFIS and it was a perfect match to our suspect.

/it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?
 
2013-06-28 11:35:49 AM  
Maybe it's time to do away with the whole jury concept and just put a panel of judges in place to evaluate the evidence and arguments.

I've met my peers. I wouldn't trust them to decide on where to go to lunch, much less to determine my guilt or innocence.
 
2013-06-28 11:36:06 AM  

vernonFL: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x825]

I found a partial print from a bullet fragment and ran it through AFIS and it was a perfect match to our suspect.

/it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?


What does Abby have to do with hot goth chicks in science labs?
 
2013-06-28 11:37:43 AM  

Mentat: Then stop picking idiot jurors instead of chasing away anyone with a brain who might actually try to think about the evidence they're seeing.


Exactly. Or flat out ask "do you watch CSI or any crime shows" and dismiss anyone who does.
 
2013-06-28 11:37:45 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it's time to do away with the whole jury concept and just put a panel of judges in place to evaluate the evidence and arguments.

I've met my peers. I wouldn't trust them to decide on where to go to lunch, much less to determine my guilt or innocence.


Where do you want to go?

I'm fine with anything.

How about _______.

No, I don't like that place.
 
2013-06-28 11:38:48 AM  
Well get better at picking jury members. Maybe a question should be "Do you watch CSI?"
 
2013-06-28 11:40:44 AM  
ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!
 
2013-06-28 11:40:54 AM  
"Special lighting - alternate light sources that don't even exist that do all kinds of spinning and colors and things - that doesn't happen."


At least you don't sound crazy.
 
2013-06-28 11:41:00 AM  
"It's all about the patterns. Whether it's a shooting, you can determine that. Whether it's a beating, you can determine that from the blood patterns," he says.

So CSI is fake but Dexter is real. Got it.
 
2013-06-28 11:42:22 AM  

special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!


www.uproxx.com
 
2013-06-28 11:42:35 AM  
You mean you can't enhance the reflection off a bald guy's head and get a plate number?
 
2013-06-28 11:42:56 AM  
Just bring in David Caruso to wrap up every closing argument.

"So, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, I'll just leave it up to your own.....*removes glasses*.....convictions."

"YYEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!"
 
2013-06-28 11:43:11 AM  
"This is the only security footage we got"
i.dailymail.co.uk

"That's ok, let me enhance"

www.abc.net.au

"GOT 'EM!"
 
2013-06-28 11:43:23 AM  

groppet: Well get better at picking jury members. Maybe a question should be "Do you watch CSI?"


This only works if the spoilsport judges actually allow you to use that as a basis for ejecting a juror. You only get so many peremptory challenges.

That, and people will start using it as an excuse to get out of jury duty. You'd have to make them take a pop quiz to prove they actually watch the show.
 
2013-06-28 11:43:42 AM  
Oh, and of course this story comes from the Jersey shore.
 
2013-06-28 11:44:37 AM  
AverageAmericanGuy

Maybe it's time to do away with the whole jury concept and just put a panel of judges in place to evaluate the evidence and arguments.

I've met my peers. I wouldn't trust them to decide on where to go to lunch, much less to determine my guilt or innocence.


Very true. Maybe a session with the Torturebots will get us to the truth.

Torturebot: Asimov who? Let's get started.... Watch this!
i1.ytimg.com

I confess! I confess to everything since the Lindbergh kidnapping!
 
2013-06-28 11:44:38 AM  

Highroller48: .....*removes glasses*.....


Yeah, I know.  He puts them on, not takes them off.  I fail.
 
2013-06-28 11:44:57 AM  

special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!


Ha, this.  I work for a video company and we get semi-regular inquiries by law firms to "enhance" videos.  We can do some things to help, but make something blurry magically clear?  Not going to happen...sorry.
 
2013-06-28 11:45:55 AM  
`Can the perp be identified by a flatus sample he left at the scene? I thought the FBI has a data bank of farts from every person in 'merikuh - like DNA?'
 
2013-06-28 11:46:24 AM  
They'd have it if Torchwood would release it to the public.
 
2013-06-28 11:46:47 AM  
I also wonder how the CSI effect interacts with Melendez-Diaz's requirement that the techie show up in court and offer testimony. 

"Wait, that guy is not a super hot omni-disciplinary super scientist!!  Must be fake!"
 
2013-06-28 11:46:49 AM  

vernonFL: /it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?



Why?  Is there one on NCIS now?
 
2013-06-28 11:46:50 AM  
www.lolwtfcomics.com
 
2013-06-28 11:48:10 AM  
I can make a  GUI interface usingvisual basic totrack the killer's IP address if that will help.
 
2013-06-28 11:48:11 AM  
There are hot goth chicks in the lab, but mine had serious daddy issues. She also said that while the tech exists, one lab doesn't have access to all of it. The rest of the world will send their evidence to the regional office to get the pertinent tests done, if needed. Those things cost money, so if the detectives can get a confession, the tests aren't done. Also, those detectives telling you that they have you're DNA from the crime scene? They are lying to you. That particular ex-gf never watched any of those shows, mostly because they pissed her off. Angry goth sex is fun, but I think she figured out what I was doing rather quickly.
 
2013-06-28 11:51:09 AM  

Mithiwithi: groppet: Well get better at picking jury members. Maybe a question should be "Do you watch CSI?"

This only works if the spoilsport judges actually allow you to use that as a basis for ejecting a juror. You only get so many peremptory challenges.

That, and people will start using it as an excuse to get out of jury duty. You'd have to make them take a pop quiz to prove they actually watch the show.


Getting out of jury duty is easy. Just mention you believe and support jury nullification and the judge will dismiss you.
 
2013-06-28 11:51:41 AM  

Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.


THIS...

This isn't new news, I've been hearing this for at least 5 years now, I don't know why people still seem shocked by this.
 
2013-06-28 11:52:42 AM  
On the upside I suppose it means that jurors are considering evidence more closely and not just taking the hearsay of witnesses or police involved. I'd still rather a guilty man walk because the jury thought more tests should have been done than an innocent man jailed because they took unreliable witnesses at their word.
 
2013-06-28 11:52:43 AM  

Koggie: I can make a  GUI interface usingvisual basic totrack the killer's IP address if that will help.


They're always class c addresses, so that helps.
 
2013-06-28 11:53:11 AM  
I thought they just called psychics like Miss Cleo to solve all the cases.
 
2013-06-28 11:55:43 AM  

Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.


Yes.   I remember hearing about this back as an undergrad almost 8 years ago.   My professor also mentioned how fingerprints are becoming questionable because no one has really tested out the theory that they are unique to you.   In other words, how do we know that no two people have the same fingerprints?
 
2013-06-28 11:55:54 AM  
Probably questioning questionable evidence too.
 
2013-06-28 11:56:03 AM  
looks like DRAGNET got it right!!!

also the writers treat us like we are in the 8th grade and have a.d.d.
it all has to happen in 30 minutes or less
because we can't wait and they don't know how to build suspense
 
2013-06-28 11:56:16 AM  
but but.... television is real! (Hey, we as a society had the chance to address this desire to be stupid plenty of times and decided to let people be stupid... creationism, global warming, environmental damage from drilling and fracking... we choose to be ignorant and to face facts with dogma and lunacy. We got what we deserved! Now, get off my lawn so I can watch my favorite reality show, Criminal Minds!)
 
2013-06-28 11:56:30 AM  

Mentat: Then stop picking idiot jurors instead of chasing away anyone with a brain who might actually try to think about the evidence they're seeing.


Ummmm, they don't want free thinkers.
 
2013-06-28 11:57:59 AM  

Highroller48: Highroller48: .....*removes glasses*.....

Yeah, I know.  He puts them on, not takes them off.  I fail.


Should have left well enough alone. I thought it was funny and wanted to see how many you reeled in.
 
2013-06-28 11:58:43 AM  

vernonFL: I found a partial print from a bullet fragment and ran it through AFIS and it was a perfect match to our suspect.

/it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?


MAI WAIFU
 
2013-06-28 12:00:39 PM  
In my state, the state-run crime lab has been called out for manufacturing any evidence the prosecution wants. Similar allegations have been made for the federal crime lab. As someone who, like clockwork, gets called for district or superior court jury duty every two years I can tell you this - if a prosecutor uses any evidence from these corrupt organizations, I will not only toss it out, but I will zero-out the credibility of the state at that point. The state will need to have some smoking-gun, impossible to manufacture evidence that the defense just can't explain in any way for me to convict. No independent evidence? No conviction. If you want to argue that's not fair to genuine victims of a crime, then you a right. But when the state has no credibility, you cannot convict. And the saddest part? I served a few months ago and not a single case went before the jury - all were plea-bargained. The superior court judge came around and congratulated us all on closing out 19 separate cases (including a second degree murder.) Not a single one of us was called in for a trial.
 
2013-06-28 12:00:52 PM  
I demand hologram ballistics evidence like in "Bones" and whatever CSI has the guy from the Nationwide commercials.

/Also, at least one wisecracking sidekick.
 
2013-06-28 12:01:14 PM  

special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!


Wait, is everyone saying this isn't real as well?

Enhance

ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!
 
2013-06-28 12:02:02 PM  
Kindofa sortofa riggity repeat. Yes we knew this after Casey Anthony.
 
2013-06-28 12:02:43 PM  
Good ol' Joisey. The Florida of the north.
 
2013-06-28 12:03:16 PM  

special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!


"Just print the damned picture already!"


I think NTSF did a pretty good job summarizing this up:

Zoom in on the grainy security on one pixel of a person
Enhance the grainy security picture to the point of seeing his pores
Spin around so you can see his other side that was hidden form the camera
Pan down to his pocket
Look inside his pocket
Take the key inside that pocket and virtually try it on every lock in the city.
 
2013-06-28 12:03:25 PM  
Based on what I've read before, all of the tech they use on the show does technically exist, but in reality the stuff is unimaginably expensive, and a real police department wouldn't have even half of it.

Although I do question the DNA results back in under 5 hours thing on the show.

CSI was awesome when it first started. As far as I could tell they used normal real tech most departments would have, and had separate people doing all the various stuff like in a real crime lab. But then they slowly loaded down the show with super tech, and had the CSI's themselves doing damn near every lab function like a super scientist.

I'm waiting to see how long it is before they have the CSI's take over the medical examiners role as well.
 
2013-06-28 12:05:26 PM  

basemetal: Mentat: Then stop picking idiot jurors instead of chasing away anyone with a brain who might actually try to think about the evidence they're seeing.

Ummmm, they don't want free thinkers.


CSB:

I once got bumped off a Jury because I was employed as tech support supervisor at the time, the guy on trial was accused of computer crimes, (the exact charges weren't told to the jury pool) the defense said my expertise would be biased in favor of the prosecution.

/CSB
 
2013-06-28 12:07:24 PM  

strangeluck: Based on what I've read before, all of the tech they use on the show does technically exist, but in reality the stuff is unimaginably expensive, and a real police department wouldn't have even half of it.

Although I do question the DNA results back in under 5 hours thing on the show.

CSI was awesome when it first started. As far as I could tell they used normal real tech most departments would have, and had separate people doing all the various stuff like in a real crime lab. But then they slowly loaded down the show with super tech, and had the CSI's themselves doing damn near every lab function like a super scientist.

I'm waiting to see how long it is before they have the CSI's take over the medical examiners role as well.



House?
 
2013-06-28 12:08:17 PM  
Officer Michaels: You know, this job though isn't how shows like CSI make it out to be, when I first joined the force, I was under the impression that everything was covered in a fine layer of semen. And that the police had at their disposal a semen database with every bad guy's semen on it. Not true!
Officer Slater: Yup
Officer Michaels: If only there was semen on everything, it would make our jobs easier...
Officer Slater: Hell, yeah!
Officer Michaels: I often go to sleep and dream of waking up in a world where everything is covered in semen.
Officer Slater: I mean, who doesn't? It's like your wish that you could walk out of a room and just know where the semen was. You just know like Sherlock Holmes, if he was in his day, Sherlock Holomes, in his day... And this is a proven historical fact. Sherlock Holmes, when he was alive, knew where semen was.
Officer Michaels: Could smell it out like a rat.
Officer Slater: Smell it out. ANything
Officer Michaels: Like the crime scene today, if the man had ejaculated and then punched you in the face, we'd have a real good shot at catching him...
Officer Slater: No way,
Officer Michaels: Just punched you in the face. No semen.
Officer Slater: Yeah, no semen. And that's the only way you can find DNA by the way, if it's in the jizz.
Officer Michaels: Semen. It's the best DNA, is in the jizz.
Officer Slater: I'm telling you right now, sometimes I just want to make you know, live in a world of semen. That's funny you say that because I feel the same same way...
Officer Michaels: It's true
Officer Slater: I would make semen snowballs...
Officer Michaels: It would just make our lives easier if everything was covered in semen.
Officer Slater: Yeah, no crime.
Officer Michaels: Just semen. fark, that'd be nice.
Officer Slater: I think we've exhausted this point. Sherlock Holmes, in his day, would look at you and say: "Five nights ago, Veronica Shear, USA Up All Night."
Officer Michaels: Four ounces.
Officer Slater: I know that, four ounces into your hand.
Officer Michaels: One time we found semen, one time.
Fogell: I thought you said you never found semen.
Officer Slater: One time we found semen, one time we found semen, we've got really excited, took it back to the lab, turned out it was Michaels' semen.
 
2013-06-28 12:12:52 PM  

weapon13: special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!

Wait, is everyone saying this isn't real as well?

Enhance

ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!


Uncrop.
 
2013-06-28 12:15:57 PM  

Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.


This is a link from NJ 101.5, the radio station that will make you long for the nuanced intellectual discussions
of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
 
2013-06-28 12:16:25 PM  

strangeluck: Based on what I've read before, all of the tech they use on the show does technically exist, but in reality the stuff is unimaginably expensive, and a real police department wouldn't have even half of it.

Although I do question the DNA results back in under 5 hours thing on the show.

CSI was awesome when it first started. As far as I could tell they used normal real tech most departments would have, and had separate people doing all the various stuff like in a real crime lab. But then they slowly loaded down the show with super tech, and had the CSI's themselves doing damn near every lab function like a super scientist.

I'm waiting to see how long it is before they have the CSI's take over the medical examiners role as well.


i.telegraph.co.uk
Over my dead body!
 
2013-06-28 12:16:27 PM  
Maybe if they quit using junk science like bite marks and blood splatter, they'd be more believable.
 
2013-06-28 12:17:38 PM  
I don't know why they do this.  St. Elsewhere didn't use tricorder technology for diagnosing injury and disease, and that was a perfectly entertaining show.  Just montage the fark out of the boring parts, but pop the audience back with a biatchin discovery or enlightenment.  Keep it real or call it sci-fi.
 
2013-06-28 12:18:14 PM  
it is only laborious when you are trying to pin the crime on someone with an alibi.
 
2013-06-28 12:18:34 PM  
You mean there's not a button on a computer that automatically "enhances" low-rez photos and makes them high-rez? Get the fark outta here.
 
2013-06-28 12:19:27 PM  

raerae1980: Aarontology:
Yes.   I remember hearing about this back as an undergrad almost 8 years ago.   My professor also mentioned how fingerprints are becoming questionable because no one has really tested out the theory that they are unique to you.   In other words, how do we know that no two people have the same fingerprints?


The problem with fingerprints is more that analysts go off a partial, smudged print and claim 100% certainty.  And bite marks?  Might as well use horoscopes...
Forensic Tools: what's reliable and what is not
 
2013-06-28 12:20:37 PM  
If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html
 
2013-06-28 12:22:49 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html



DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.
 
2013-06-28 12:23:46 PM  
That technology does not exist because people who create technology care very little about cops.  Plus cops are complete morons when it comes to technology.
 
2013-06-28 12:26:29 PM  

oldfarthenry: `Can the perp be identified by a flatus sample he left at the scene? I thought the FBI has a data bank of farts from every person in 'merikuh - like DNA?'


Activated carbon undies FTW.
 
2013-06-28 12:26:30 PM  

Mambo Bananapatch: strangeluck: Based on what I've read before, all of the tech they use on the show does technically exist, but in reality the stuff is unimaginably expensive, and a real police department wouldn't have even half of it.

Although I do question the DNA results back in under 5 hours thing on the show.

CSI was awesome when it first started. As far as I could tell they used normal real tech most departments would have, and had separate people doing all the various stuff like in a real crime lab. But then they slowly loaded down the show with super tech, and had the CSI's themselves doing damn near every lab function like a super scientist.

I'm waiting to see how long it is before they have the CSI's take over the medical examiners role as well.

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x387]
Over my dead body!


Quincy, FTW!

I attended an autopsy once in the late 1980s, and I kept thinking about the scene where Quincy got out of teaching a two hour class to a bunch of rookie cops by making them all throw up or pass out in 5 minutes.
 
2013-06-28 12:27:00 PM  
No "knock-knock" joke, yet?

/hey, somebody had to do it

//stop looking at me like that
 
2013-06-28 12:27:41 PM  

Koggie: I can make a  GUI interface usingvisual basic totrack the killer's IP address if that will help.


Move over, it'll go faster if I help *frantically types on half of Koggie's keyboard*
 
2013-06-28 12:29:10 PM  

Carth: Mentat: Then stop picking idiot jurors instead of chasing away anyone with a brain who might actually try to think about the evidence they're seeing.

Exactly. Or flat out ask "do you watch CSI or any crime shows" and dismiss anyone who does.


groppet: Well get better at picking jury members. Maybe a question should be "Do you watch CSI?"


And as Carth said, dismiss anyone who does watch those shows.
 
2013-06-28 12:29:15 PM  

Mikey1969: Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.

THIS...

This isn't new news, I've been hearing this for at least 5 years now, I don't know why people still seem shocked by this.


"The NSA is spying on us?!?!"
"Reality shows are scripted?!?!"
"Politicians lie?!?!"
"He isn't a French model?!?!"
 
2013-06-28 12:30:05 PM  

give me doughnuts: I attended an autopsy once in the late 1980s, and I kept thinking about the scene where Quincy got out of teaching a two hour class to a bunch of rookie cops by making them all throw up or pass out in 5 minutes.


That particular scene seemed very realistic.
 
2013-06-28 12:30:50 PM  
People are stupid. This is news?
 
2013-06-28 12:31:17 PM  
Since when can juries ask questions?

I don't remember that part of the trial when I served, unless this can happen in a grand jury.
 
2013-06-28 12:31:22 PM  

2KanZam: vernonFL: /it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?


Why?  Is there one on NCIS now?


Not amused
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-28 12:32:53 PM  
I would like to encourage everyone who owns a business to go buy yourself some 5mp axis cameras. At that point you will actually have forensics level resolution.
 
2013-06-28 12:34:32 PM  
Trance354: There are hot goth chicks in the lab, but mine had serious daddy issues. She also said that while the tech exists, one lab doesn't have access to all of it. The rest of the world will send their evidence to the regional office to get the pertinent tests done, if needed. Those things cost money, so if the detectives can get a confession, the tests aren't done. Also, those detectives telling you that they have you're DNA from the crime scene? They are lying to you. That particular ex-gf never watched any of those shows, mostly because they pissed her off. Angry goth sex is fun, but I think she figured out what I was doing rather quickly.
 
2013-06-28 12:35:39 PM  

vernonFL: I found a partial print from a bullet fragment and ran it through AFIS and it was a perfect match to our suspect.

/it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?


Is that a 12-core monitor?

/ got nuthin'
 
2013-06-28 12:35:43 PM  

Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.


This is at least the third time I've seen it on Fark.
 
2013-06-28 12:38:59 PM  

BafflerMeal: DNA is not 100% either. And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched. The problems are analogous to fingerprints.


BUT, there is one important distinction.  A bad or contaminated DNA sample will not give you a match to the WRONG person.  it will give you a match to NO person.

HIstorical note:  That little piece of information was never shared with the O.J. jury.  I remember seeing some of them on (IIRC) Larry King afterward, and they said that had they known this, they never would have disregarded the DNA evidence to the extent they did.
 
2013-06-28 12:40:54 PM  
It's actually STAR TREK's fault, for popularizing and making semi-mainstream the deus ex machina of using some whiz-bang science to solve plot twists.  Heck, Trek scriptwriters would just say "TECH" on the script, and then Michael Okuda would just make up some shiat for them.
 
2013-06-28 12:42:27 PM  
i183.photobucket.com

Everyone knows that they can't put anything on TV that isn't real.
 
2013-06-28 12:42:53 PM  

Highroller48: BafflerMeal: DNA is not 100% either. And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched. The problems are analogous to fingerprints.

BUT, there is one important distinction.  A bad or contaminated DNA sample will not give you a match to the WRONG person.  it will give you a match to NO person.

HIstorical note:  That little piece of information was never shared with the O.J. jury.  I remember seeing some of them on (IIRC) Larry King afterward, and they said that had they known this, they never would have disregarded the DNA evidence to the extent they did.



That is a good point.
 
2013-06-28 12:43:19 PM  

raerae1980: Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.

Yes.   I remember hearing about this back as an undergrad almost 8 years ago.   My professor also mentioned how fingerprints are becoming questionable because no one has really tested out the theory that they are unique to you.   In other words, how do we know that no two people have the same fingerprints?


I guess they could tell you if two people's names came up on a full print search...
 
2013-06-28 12:44:52 PM  

BafflerMeal: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html


DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.


Fair enough, we are limited by detectable SNiPs, but the ability to do so reliably has always been increasing and allows for investigations to be revisited (Assuming you come from a civilized place without the death penalty).  I don't think it is the same problem as with fingerprints because that is literally, "Hey, this looks like it, what do you think George?"  DNA analysis uses clearly defined and programmed metrics not ACE-V where each letter of the acronym is just another word for look closely.  Also a person analyzing a DNA sample today will get the same result by the same metrics tomorrow.  Whereas a fingerprint examiner can produce variability in their determination depending on how tired they are that day.
 
2013-06-28 12:47:45 PM  
To put this in perspective, by the time you get to considering whether the science in CSI is real or not, you've already failed at distinguishing fantasy from reality.  The very premise of CSI-- that forensic science solves crimes-- is a flight of fancy that almost puts the show in the realm of speculative fiction on its own.

Forensic science is not a primary means of investigation.  The bulk of the work of solving crimes is footwork, e.g. uniformed officers going around asking questions, taking notes, and detectives looking for means, motive, and opportunity.  Forensic science is the confirmation that the process hasn't screwed up somewhere, not the process itself.

//Law and Order, the original one, apparently had it reasonably close to how crime-fighting actually works (in an idealized sense, obviously, and with more grunt work and fewer brilliant scenery-inspired epiphanies).
 
2013-06-28 12:52:12 PM  
I'll get around to that just as soon as prosecutors stop thinking Law&Order court behavior is constitutional.
 
2013-06-28 12:52:14 PM  

Koggie: I can make a  GUI interface using visual basic to track the killer's IP address if that will help.


That's one of my favorites...

Also:

(link goes to site homepage)

nedroid.com
 
2013-06-28 12:57:11 PM  
In the united states, you are not judged by a jury of 12 of your peers. You are judged by 12 people who either don't want to be there because they have better things to do and YOU are the reason their life is being disrupted, or they want to be there because they want to be important in something.

"I can't be judged by my peers on a jury, because I'm smart enough to get out of jury duty."

Sincerely
- Someone who gets called EVERY YEAR for jury duty, then sits in a room for six hours before being released because they didn't need me.
 
2013-06-28 01:00:37 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Law and Order, the original one, apparently had it reasonably close to how crime-fighting actually works


I thought crime-fighting was done by guys in tights. Is that not the case any more?

cultur-ed.edforum.net

2.bp.blogspot.com

omelete.uol.com.br

www.hyperborea.org
 
2013-06-28 01:01:02 PM  

Carth: Mithiwithi: groppet: Well get better at picking jury members. Maybe a question should be "Do you watch CSI?"

This only works if the spoilsport judges actually allow you to use that as a basis for ejecting a juror. You only get so many peremptory challenges.

That, and people will start using it as an excuse to get out of jury duty. You'd have to make them take a pop quiz to prove they actually watch the show.

Getting out of jury duty is easy. Just mention you believe and support jury nullification and the judge will dismiss you.


Wear a shirt with the SCOTUS ruling on jury nullification on it
 
2013-06-28 01:02:37 PM  

Wodan11: It's actually STAR TREK's fault, for popularizing and making semi-mainstream the deus ex machina of using some whiz-bang science to solve plot twists.


Several cold cases were recently solved when the crime lab figured out how to reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish and then light up the cloaked evidence with an inverse tachyon beam after routing the full power of the warp engines through the plasma bypass.
 
2013-06-28 01:03:15 PM  
Where is LE getting this feedback from jurors?  I don't think jurors get to ask for DNA test results during trials.  Are jurors debriefed about their decision-making process routinely, or is this "CSI effect" presumed from random news reports of what a few jurors said  after trials?

It seems likely that LE is projecting defense attorneys' questions onto jurors who vote to acquit.
 
2013-06-28 01:03:54 PM  
I thought they just called psychics like Miss Cleo to solve all the cases.

Just the hard ones.
 
2013-06-28 01:03:56 PM  

Koggie: I can make a  GUI interface usingvisual basic totrack the killer's IP address if that will help.


Would it help if we shared a keyboard?
 
2013-06-28 01:05:23 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it's time to do away with the whole jury concept and just put a panel of judges in place to evaluate the evidence and arguments.

I've met my peers. I wouldn't trust them to decide on where to go to lunch, much less to determine my guilt or innocence.


We tried that.  We fought a war to get away from the country that wanted us to keep trying that.
 
2013-06-28 01:06:12 PM  
Several cold cases were recently solved when the crime lab figured out how to reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish and then light up the cloaked evidence with an inverse tachyon beam after routing the full power of the warp engines through the plasma bypass

Yea but the destroyed the plasma relays in the process.
 
2013-06-28 01:07:16 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: Several cold cases were recently solved when the crime lab figured out how to reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish and then light up the cloaked evidence with an inverse tachyon beam after routing the full power of the warp engines through the plasma bypass.


Sounds like someone needs a refresher course. It's all ball-bearings these days.
 
2013-06-28 01:08:01 PM  

Ambitwistor: [www.lolwtfcomics.com image 366x1500]


My god, how fake that is.

I mean, Caruso and Sinise aren't even on the same damn show.
 
2013-06-28 01:08:30 PM  

Mikey1969: Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.

THIS...

This isn't new news, I've been hearing this for at least 5 years now, I don't know why people still seem shocked by this.


This story gets green lit to fark every quarter it seems.
 
2013-06-28 01:11:39 PM  
I didn't read tfa but perhaps if they didn't eliminate all of the intelligent /educated people during jury selection this wouldn't be a problem.
 
2013-06-28 01:12:17 PM  
Goth chix like it in the butt.
 
2013-06-28 01:14:53 PM  
On those Investigate/Discovery and Bio Channel shows about sensational murders, it usually takes them about 7 years to name a killer.  Long after interviewing 200 suspects with motive and opportunity.

Then a cold-case detective finally discovers that the wife or husband took out a $2 million insurance policy on the spouse, just two weeks before the homicide(s).

/Of course I wouldn't be caught dead watching those shows
 
2013-06-28 01:19:55 PM  
Funny years ago when I was on a Grand Jury that shiate was happening.  Half the dopes had to be reminded that we weren't even trying the got damned case, just saying if case deserved an indictment.

Between that, the horrific nature of all the crap we had to listen to all day, and the woman that kept watching Blue Collar Comics DVDs over and over and over for the whole two week duration of the thing, I wept for humanity rather frequently.
 
2013-06-28 01:22:07 PM  
I covered several trials where the prosecutor asked potential jurors if the watch CSI, and if they did, made sure they understood that criminal investigation doesn't really work that way.
 
2013-06-28 01:22:11 PM  
In Denton county the DA has gotten a life sentence in a "murder" case that had no body, no crime scene, and nothing CSI worthy. And I'm sure I haven't gotten a jury summons in the past 14 years because I personally have a grudge with the DA for not carrying my charges against an attacker because she was female.

That being said, epithelial DNA technique has gotten too sensitive to be trusted. The Amanda Knox case got taken apart because the tech handled something of hers, then the apparent murder weapon. Of course there's going to be epithelial transfer. I'm less inclined to help a little old lady if my epithelial debris left on her shoulder are going to result in talking to the cops.
 
2013-06-28 01:23:06 PM  

Molavian: Koggie: I can make a  GUI interface usingvisual basic totrack the killer's IP address if that will help.

They're always class c addresses, so that helps.


Unless the hacker has been into the hard CIDR.
 
2013-06-28 01:23:11 PM  

Frank and Beans: Goth chix like show no pleasure-related emotion whatsoever about taking it in the butt.


FTFY.
 
2013-06-28 01:25:47 PM  

Mentat: Then stop picking idiot jurors instead of chasing away anyone with a brain who might actually try to think about the evidence they're seeing.


But you can also call into question the evidence that you're not being presented when evaluating whether the state has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Say your undercover cop witnessed 3 guys offering drugs - the swoop-in screwed up and they got away - later you recognized one of the guys.  If all you have is "I recognized the guy" your case is kind of thin. Show me drugs, show me the results of a search warrant - give me something other than "he said, she said" if you want me to deprive someone of his freedom.
 
2013-06-28 01:30:51 PM  

Gunny Walker: They'd have it if Torchwood would release it to the public.


i1353.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-28 01:31:13 PM  
When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.
 
2013-06-28 01:31:58 PM  
Next thing you know people who read sci-fi as kids think we can colonize space like it's a drive-in Wal Mart.
 
2013-06-28 01:38:37 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Next thing you know people who read sci-fi as kids think we can colonize space like it's a drive-in Wal Mart.


Don't worry, we'll always have sanctimonious douchebags that threadshiat anything that has to do with nascent technology so it balances out.  3d print yourself a short pier to take a long walk off of.
 
2013-06-28 01:41:33 PM  

Lerxst2k: Since when can juries ask questions?

I don't remember that part of the trial when I served, unless this can happen in a grand jury.


Juries ask questions of each other in deliberations while they try to reach a consensus. They can also ask that testimony be re-read to them and can question the judge as to points of law relating to the case.
 
2013-06-28 01:42:33 PM  

dj_bigbird: Maybe if they quit using junk science like bite marks and blood splatter, they'd be more believable.


7/10 not bad. Going for the subtle angle helps.
 
2013-06-28 01:45:33 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: BafflerMeal: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html


DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.

Fair enough, we are limited by detectable SNiPs, but the ability to do so reliably has always been increasing and allows for investigations to be revisited (Assuming you come from a civilized place without the death penalty).  I don't think it is the same problem as with fingerprints because that is literally, "Hey, this looks like it, what do you think George?"  DNA analysis uses clearly defined and programmed metrics not ACE-V where each letter of the acronym is just another word for look closely.  Also a person analyzing a DNA sample today will get the same result by the same metrics tomorrow.  Whereas a fingerprint examiner can produce variability in their determination depending on how tired they are that day.


So software doing image matches gets tired?

huh, learn something new every day.
 
2013-06-28 01:45:39 PM  
Recently I had to get fingerprinted for a job, so I went in to where they do that and it turns out I don't have fingerprints. I mean, you can see them, but they don't show up on either the ink style or the computer scanner style. Apparently the ridges are too shallow and they just leave smudges.

I'm totally going into a life of crime. Good luck catching me now, biatches!

(That's how it works, right? No fingerprints, they can't catch me?)
 
2013-06-28 01:45:58 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: Wodan11: It's actually STAR TREK's fault, for popularizing and making semi-mainstream the deus ex machina of using some whiz-bang science to solve plot twists.

Several cold cases were recently solved when the crime lab figured out how to reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish and then light up the cloaked evidence with an inverse tachyon beam after routing the full power of the warp engines through the plasma bypass.


You forgot to explain that using a simple analogy.

"Like putting too much air into a balloon!"
"Of course, it's so simple!!"
 
2013-06-28 01:48:35 PM  
Yeah this is a repeat from like 5-10 years ago.
 
2013-06-28 01:52:29 PM  

Ambitwistor: [www.lolwtfcomics.com image 366x1500]


that was perfect.
 
2013-06-28 01:53:00 PM  

BafflerMeal: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html


DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.


"In 2002, Lydia Fairchild was denied public assistance when DNA evidence showed that she was not related to her children. After hearing of a human chimera in New England, Karen Keegan, it was eventually found that she too was a chimera and thus had two sets of DNA." - Wiki
 
2013-06-28 01:57:00 PM  
As a juror, it's you solemn duty to doubt. Your go-to position should always be, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." (Not "maybe guilty" or "probably guilty".) This means that any doubt at all should be grounds for acquittal. You are the last line of defense the Defendant has. The entire system, from the police, to the CSI, to the DA, to the Judge, are all on the same team. They hang out at the same bars, and work in the same building, and generally see each other every day. The Judge will always give the benefit of the doubt to any of the others. The Defense attorney will try to work the system, but the deck is generally stacked against him as well as his client. And, you can pretty much forget about a fair trial if it's a Public Defender. They always try to get the defendant to plea-bargain, even if they're not guilty.
 
2013-06-28 02:00:17 PM  

mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.


Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.
 
2013-06-28 02:03:26 PM  
I also think you'd see a different attitude about Jury Duty if being "excused" from duty also meant being disqualified from voting.
 
2013-06-28 02:03:34 PM  

redmid17: special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!


I reference this all the time at work on my computer. This made my day.
 
2013-06-28 02:04:32 PM  

new_york_monty: Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.


Again- PROVEN guilty. Not "probably guilty" or "possibly guilty."
 
2013-06-28 02:05:03 PM  
Trance354
Angry goth sex is fun, but I think she figured out what I was doing rather quickly.

If you were too quick and she couldn't tell you were having sex with her, then I can see why she is your Ex GF

\ You are doing it wrong
 
2013-06-28 02:07:41 PM  
blog.bradblanks.com

I'm just gonna set up some sockets for my permitter on the subnets and I'll send it to your screen...
 
2013-06-28 02:11:50 PM  
My favorite CSI quotes:

Head scientist guy "Well, terminal velocity of a human being is 9.8m/s/s"

Junior scientist guy "So, the nail in the tire grounded the vehicle, and the guy inside got electrocuted when lightning struck the car"

Defense atty: "There's no law saying that's illegal."  CSI lady "Doesn't mean that there's one that says it is"

CSI lady (to suspect, a minor) "you killed him, didn't you?"  Defense counsel (to client, the suspect, a minor) "you don't have to answer that, but if you've got a good explanation, I think we'd all like to hear it"

CSI guy with the big hair "so (suspect) must have heard "habeas corpus" and thought they were talking about a body, when actually habeas corpus is just the collection of evidence that makes up a case"
 
2013-06-28 02:11:55 PM  

HAMMERTOE: new_york_monty: Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

Again- PROVEN guilty. Not "probably guilty" or "possibly guilty."


The standard is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, no reasonable member of the community should doubt the verdict. Outliers will always have doubts (some people will object to anything) but those doubts are seen as unreasonable by most people. I'm not arguing that the accused should ever have to prove their innocence--that burden must rest solely on the prosecution (except in an affirmative defense). Regardless, the prosecution is not required to prove guilt beyond any doubt, simply beyond any reasonable doubt. Beyond any doubt is, quite frankly, an unreasonable standard.
 
2013-06-28 02:12:51 PM  

Carousel Beast: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: BafflerMeal: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html


DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.

Fair enough, we are limited by detectable SNiPs, but the ability to do so reliably has always been increasing and allows for investigations to be revisited (Assuming you come from a civilized place without the death penalty).  I don't think it is the same problem as with fingerprints because that is literally, "Hey, this looks like it, what do you think George?"  DNA analysis uses clearly defined and programmed metrics not ACE-V where each letter of the acronym is just another word for look closely.  Also a person analyzing a DNA sample today will get the same result by the same metrics tomorrow.  Whereas a fingerprint examiner can produce variability in their determination depending on how tired they are that day.

So software doing image matches gets tired?

huh, learn something new every day.


No, but the software generates a list based on how many of 20 similar characteristics are present.  Many of these characteristics are not detected by the software itself but inputted by a user.  Then from a list of hundreds, a separate examiner has to use his fallible human sensory system to find a match.  Or did you think that the computer just scans through a massive database and pulls out the one true match?  Or do you believe far fetched scenarios on CSI more than the National Academy of Sciences which criticizes the lack of ANY scientific standards, absolutely zero central oversight with no intention of allowing academic institutions to see if fingerprint analysis is valid, and nonexistent regulation.

Or just ask Brandon Mayfield.  Dumbass.
 
2013-06-28 02:13:18 PM  
But Snowden said they could pull recordings from all the cell phones in the area to play the sound of gunshots and triangulate where the shot came from.
 
2013-06-28 02:14:23 PM  

HAMMERTOE: As a juror, it's you solemn duty to doubt. Your go-to position should always be, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." (Not "maybe guilty" or "probably guilty".) This means that any reasonable doubt at all should be grounds for acquittal. You are the last line of defense the Defendant has. The entire system, from the police, to the CSI, to the DA, to the Judge, are all on the same team. They hang out at the same bars, and work in the same building, and generally see each other every day. The Judge will always give the benefit of the doubt to any of the others. The Defense attorney will try to work the system, but the deck is generally stacked against him as well as his client. And, you can pretty much forget about a fair trial if it's a Public Defender. They always try to get the defendant to plea-bargain, even if they're not guilty.


FTFY.

Defendant: "Your honor, I was with the lizard people on Omicron Persei 8 at the time, and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by Santa Clause to frame me since I beat him at baccarat that one time in college."

You: "Seems legit."
 
2013-06-28 02:15:03 PM  

HAMMERTOE: new_york_monty: Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

Again- PROVEN guilty. Not "probably guilty" or "possibly guilty."


That isn't the standard.  "I have no reasonable doubts of his guilt" is the standard.

You should have been bounced from the jury. You can't even follow simple directions, and want to impose your own standard on America.
 
2013-06-28 02:19:28 PM  

new_york_monty: Beyond any doubt is, quite frankly, an unreasonable standard.


How about, as a minimum standard of "proof", we do with the same level of "proof" that the IRS requires  for a deduction during an audit? What happens to "Beyond any doubt is an unreasonable standard," then?
 
2013-06-28 02:22:59 PM  

the cake is a pie: Defendant: "Your honor, I was with the lizard people on Omicron Persei 8 at the time, and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by Santa Clause to frame me since I beat him at baccarat that one time in college."

You: "Seems legit."


Hardly. But then again, no less "legit" than the bible people are required to swear upon in court.
 
2013-06-28 02:26:59 PM  

HAMMERTOE: new_york_monty: Beyond any doubt is, quite frankly, an unreasonable standard.

How about, as a minimum standard of "proof", we do with the same level of "proof" that the IRS requires  for a deduction during an audit? What happens to "Beyond any doubt is an unreasonable standard," then?


Fortunately, I have not been subjected to an audit, so I am unaware of the IRS standards in that case.

Nonetheless, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is a good one. I think we incarcerate far too many people in this country and need to strike a lot of laws from the books. But we do need to maintain the ability to prosecute dangerous criminals. As a juror, even if there was crystal clear video and forensic evidence of someone's guilt, I would still have some doubts. It would be up to me (and the 11 people with me) to discuss the reasonableness of those doubts. It's an imperfect system, but it's the best we've come up with so far.
 
2013-06-28 02:34:49 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Quantum Apostrophe: Next thing you know people who read sci-fi as kids think we can colonize space like it's a drive-in Wal Mart.

Don't worry, we'll always have sanctimonious douchebags that threadshiat anything that has to do with nascent technology so it balances out.  3d print yourself a short pier to take a long walk off of.


Nascent technology? "3D printing" is over three decades old by now. Yet even to print a short pier, you'd need a 3D printer that doesn't exist. Weird how we can laugh at rubes that watch TV and ask for impossible technology but if we saw it in Star Trek it is holy and must never be questioned.

Or we should totally just call anything remotely related "3D printing" then fantasize that every single capability is in one single device that people will all have at home.
 
2013-06-28 02:34:51 PM  
"They have some pre-conceived notions of what abilities we have. It leads them to ask some questions sometimes of detectives, of our crime scene detectives. 'Did you do this because I saw it on TV,' when that technology doesn't exist."
Welcome to a jury of your moronic peers.


"We just keep asking questions until someone gives up and confesses."
A rough semblance of one of James Garners movie quotes.
 
2013-06-28 02:38:57 PM  

new_york_monty: mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.

Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.


I apologize, I consider "reasonable" to have been an unspoken standard. So I mistyped. I should have posted "ANY reasonable doubt". And I wasn't bounced, I was selected. And as I also pointed out, there were massive heaps of doubt practically smothering this case from start to finish. No one got even close to putting a gun in the hands of the accused. All the witnesses, however, placed a gun firmly in the hands of a man named Kevin (don't remember his last name at this second) aka Big Kev, but after a 10 minute phone call from an NOPD detective, they decided he wasn't a person of interest. Oh, did I mention that this Big Kev was ex-NOPD? Or that they've been unable to track him down since that phone call, even with the FBI and US Marshall's helping?
 
2013-06-28 02:43:17 PM  

Rent Party: [blog.bradblanks.com image 400x300]

I'm just gonna set up some sockets for my permitter on the subnets and I'll send it to your screen...


I hate you so much right now ...

/listening to random inane techno-babble in these shows has given me a permanent nervous tick
 
2013-06-28 02:46:35 PM  

mooseyfate: new_york_monty: mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.

Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

I apologize, I consider "reasonable" to have been an unspoken standard. So I mistyped. I should have posted "ANY reasonable doubt". And I wasn't bounced, I was selected. And as I also pointed out, there were massive heaps of doubt practically smothering this case from start to finish. No one got even close to putting a gun in the hands of the accused. All the witnesses, however, placed a gun firmly in the hands of a man named Kevin (don't remember his last name at this second) aka Big Kev, but after a 10 minute phone call from an NOPD detective, they decided he wasn't a person of interest. Oh, did I mention that this Big Kev was ex-NOPD? Or that they've been unable to track him down since that phone call, even with the FBI and US Marshall's helping?


That's a lot of very reasonable doubt then. Sorry to jump on you about that, but reasonable/any doubt is a pet peeve of mine. I've met too many people who genuinely believe it is beyond any doubt. You seem like exactly the type of person I would want on my jury if I was ever on trial.

/Here's hoping they track down the dirty bastard
 
2013-06-28 02:51:44 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it's time to do away with the whole jury concept and just put a panel of judges in place to evaluate the evidence and arguments.

geektyrant.com
/I knew you'd say that
//I can't be the only one wondering why those crossed red lines would be placed on the helmet so they directly cover the eyes
 
2013-06-28 02:53:00 PM  

Lerxst2k: Since when can juries ask questions?

I don't remember that part of the trial when I served, unless this can happen in a grand jury.


Probably depends on the jurisdiction - the jury I served on got to ask questions in writing, and the judge decided which ones could be asked and presented them herself.  And they really were pretty basic, but key questions of fact - the prosecutors did a terrible job assembling and presenting their case.
 
2013-06-28 02:55:06 PM  
I realize that Hollywood movies aren't necessarily a standard to go by, but I had an epiphany once, while watching "The Fugitive". I realized that I would have voted to convict the poor shmuck, given the evidence, and that this vote would have been in error. So, the standard of what constitutes a "reasonable" doubt, can be very wide.
 
2013-06-28 02:55:47 PM  

brap: Funny years ago when I was on a Grand Jury that shiate was happening.  Half the dopes had to be reminded that we weren't even trying the got damned case, just saying if case deserved an indictment.

Between that, the horrific nature of all the crap we had to listen to all day, and the woman that kept watching Blue Collar Comics DVDs over and over and over for the whole two week duration of the thing, I wept for humanity rather frequently.


During the trial?!
 
2013-06-28 03:08:53 PM  

Marcintosh: "They have some pre-conceived notions of what abilities we have. It leads them to ask some questions sometimes of detectives, of our crime scene detectives. 'Did you do this because I saw it on TV,' when that technology doesn't exist."
Welcome to a jury of your moronic peers.


It's the myth of hypercompetence. People have more contact with movies and video games than reality, so they don't realize how limited reality actually is.
 
2013-06-28 03:09:19 PM  
MythDragon:
//I can't be the only one wondering why those crossed red lines would be placed on the helmet so they directly cover the eyes

Presumably it's a heads up display.
 
2013-06-28 03:36:08 PM  
I have this relevant XKCD on my lab door:
http://xkcd.com/683/

/ there's ALWAYS a relevant XKCD.
 
2013-06-28 03:36:51 PM  

MythDragon: AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it's time to do away with the whole jury concept and just put a panel of judges in place to evaluate the evidence and arguments.
[geektyrant.com image 620x413]
/I knew you'd say that
//I can't be the only one wondering why those crossed red lines would be placed on the helmet so they directly cover the eyes


Because justice is blind even if it isn't a naked chick holding a scale
 
2013-06-28 03:50:45 PM  

Ambitwistor: [www.lolwtfcomics.com image 366x1500]


lol +1
 
2013-06-28 04:08:15 PM  

mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.


Wow, so you are one of the uninformed jurors you so hate since eyewitness testimony is the LEAST reliable testimony there is.
 
2013-06-28 04:17:35 PM  

mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.


Well, good to know that we have jurors who blatently disregard the law and their role.
 
2013-06-28 04:23:07 PM  

meanmutton: mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.

Well, good to know that we have jurors who blatently disregard the law and their role.


^ what he said too, cannot believe I missed that as well.
 
2013-06-28 04:23:23 PM  

Medic Zero: brap: Funny years ago when I was on a Grand Jury that shiate was happening.  Half the dopes had to be reminded that we weren't even trying the got damned case, just saying if case deserved an indictment.

Between that, the horrific nature of all the crap we had to listen to all day, and the woman that kept watching Blue Collar Comics DVDs over and over and over for the whole two week duration of the thing, I wept for humanity rather frequently.

During the trial?!


No, on a DVD player.
 
2013-06-28 04:28:29 PM  

rev. dave: That technology does not exist because people who create technology care very little about cops.  Plus cops are complete morons when it comes to technology.


Nerds vs jocks, to put it simply.
 
2013-06-28 04:43:29 PM  

redmid17: special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!

[www.uproxx.com image 600x335]


As a death investigator, this is my favorite scene. During our morning meetings whenever someone asks me to zoom in a photo you hear several "enhance"s in the room as I click the zoom button.
 
2013-06-28 05:02:10 PM  

vernonFL: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x825]

I found a partial print from a bullet fragment and ran it through AFIS and it was a perfect match to our suspect.

/it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?


as she ages in real life that whole gag for that show gets WAY sadder.
 
2013-06-28 06:48:06 PM  

bibli0phile: mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.

Wow, so you are one of the uninformed jurors you so hate since eyewitness testimony is the LEAST reliable testimony there is.


Eyewitness is absolutely unreliable, but it's also all that's legally required in the state of Lousiana when seeking a life sentence. I also said "lots of eyewitnesses that have no relationship to the victim or the accused. They only had two eyewitnesses, one for the defendant, one for the prosecution, both related, both with too much prior relationships with the accused AND victim. That wasn't enough for me to send two men to prison for life. You also missed my follow up response to New York Monty. I'm sorry I'm not the mouth breather you'd hoped I'd be.
 
2013-06-28 07:13:26 PM  

Buffalo77: Trance354
Angry goth sex is fun, but I think she figured out what I was doing rather quickly.

If you were too quick and she couldn't tell you were having sex with her, then I can see why she is your Ex GF

\ You are doing it wrong


watching NCIS and such pissed her off, but if she was in the mood for sex, it would be her who initiated coitus, as opposed to me all the time, in order to shut off the horrible tv and get her groove on.  I like NCIS and similar shows, so if feeling randy, I'd turn something like that on and wait for her to come "distract" me.  Got to be a game of sorts.

/sometimes I'd just turn the show on because I really do like watching them, but would end up having sex with a wonderful goth chick who knew how to do things which made my toes curl
//go ahead, have your gf call you daddy, see if it doesn't make you feel dirty... ruined it for me
 
2013-06-28 08:04:08 PM  

meanmutton: Well, good to know that we have jurors who blatently disregard the law and their role.

mooseyfate: I apologize, I consider "reasonable" to have been an unspoken standard. So I mistyped. I should have posted "ANY reasonable doubt". And I wasn't bounced, I was selected. And as I also pointed out, there were massive heaps of doubt practically smothering this case from start to finish. No one got even close to putting a gun in the hands of the accused. All the witnesses, however, placed a gun firmly in the hands of a man named Kevin (don't remember his last name at this second) aka Big Kev, but after a 10 minute phone call from an NOPD detective, they decided he wasn't a person of interest. Oh, did I mention that this Big Kev was ex-NOPD? Or that they've been unable to track him down since that phone call, even with the FBI and US Marshall's helping?


Yeah, I really made my own rules that week.  I quietly and impartially observed the trial and the evidence presented to me, then in deliberations talked 3 jurors into changing their verdict because they were basing their verdict of guilt solely on the fact that the two men on trial didn't testify.  I told them, "You literally can't do that.  If that's the ONLY reason you're voting guilty, by virtue of the law you HAVE to vote not guilty."  If I hadn't been there to say those things, those two men might be serving a life sentence right now.  I'm not saying we, as jurors, made the right call.  But we can only work with what we were given, and we were given NOTHING that said those two men pulled a trigger that night, let alone that they shot a man to death, or that they tried to cover it up.  If anything, it looked like the NOPD was protecting one of their own by throwing two neighborhood boys under the bus, but that didn't enter in to why I voted not guilty, because it wasn't relevant.  What was relevant was the evidence, the forensics, the expert witnesses, and the eyewitness testimony.  And none of those pointed towards those two men murdering someone.  Just wasn't there.
 
2013-06-28 08:44:38 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: MythDragon:
//I can't be the only one wondering why those crossed red lines would be placed on the helmet so they directly cover the eyes

Presumably it's a heads up display.


From the outside, they give a great target for a between-the-eyes shot...
 
2013-06-28 08:50:20 PM  
BarkingUnicorn: Where is LE getting this feedback from jurors?  I don't think jurors get to ask for DNA test results during trials.  Are jurors debriefed about their decision-making process routinely, or is this "CSI effect" presumed from random news reports of what a few jurors said  after trials?

Lawyers can and do talk to jurors after the case is over to ask about their discussions and how they reached the verdict.

I was talking to a prosecutor at a party years ago, she was complaining about the CSI effect. She had just lost a case, child sexual abuse that happened seven years prior. The victim testified, there was some other evidence (don't remember exactly). Jury found the guy not guilty. She talked to them afterwards, they said it was because there was no DNA evidence.
 
2013-06-28 10:21:45 PM  
That patriots player got his ass CSI'ed real farkin good. Ive personally got a theory that basically any crime could be solved, it's just a matter of resources.... And not very many people warrant big time resources, sadly.
 
2013-06-29 12:06:57 AM  
tenthmil.com
 
2013-06-29 01:56:38 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Where is LE getting this feedback from jurors?  I don't think jurors get to ask for DNA test results during trials.  Are jurors debriefed about their decision-making process routinely, or is this "CSI effect" presumed from random news reports of what a few jurors said  after trials?

It seems likely that LE is projecting defense attorneys' questions onto jurors who vote to acquit.


That was my very first thought. Glad to see it's covered.

/"Of course we knew he was guilty all along, those jurors must be misled by CSI fantasies to acquit anyone I bring to trial!"
 
Displayed 162 of 162 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report