Daily Press Writer
MONTROSE - The CBS network and millions of viewers call it "entertainment" and its success has spawned a legion of copycat shows.
|
Advertisement |
"It's an asset and a pariah," said Kevin Humphreys, agent in charge of CBI's Montrose Regional Forensic Laboratory.
On one hand, the show has raised the general public's awareness of the crime lab's importance, and the words associated with its procedures - for example, "trace evidence" - have gained common currency.
"The positive portion of it is people's interest and understanding of the positive role we play in public safety in the investigation of crimes," Humphreys said.
"I do think it has helped increase the awareness of the need of funding, at least for DNA analysis," said Janel, the CBI's DNA specialist. (At the request of Humphreys, the last names of Janel and her fellow scientists, Jon and Sam, were withheld for security purposes).
Janel said CSI lead actor William Peterson, who plays Gil Grissom on the show, had testified before Congress to drive home the need for funding.
"It's sad to say we're (field in general) getting increased funding because of an actor testifying for us, but I think that's one thing that has helped a little bit," she said.
The drawbacks?
"It's television," said Humphreys. "It's drama. They cannot factually demonstrate in 45 minutes of sound bites what it takes to actually investigate, develop evidence, analyze evidence."
For example, on CSI, DNA results are spewed from a gas chromatic mass spectrometer, a machine that actual crime labs don't use for DNA - and within moments of submission. Reality is markedly different.
"There's the underlying factual principles of it, but they have to dramatize it and they have to get three investigations done in an hour. That's just not the way it is," Humphreys said.
Credible basis, inaccurate portrayals
All the inaccuracies make real-life crime scene investigators, well, nuts.
"I try to watch it, then I get mad," said Sam, a firearms expert.
Jon, who processes fingerprint evidence, said he doesn't even bother.
Despite its factual basis, Janel said the show does things much too quickly and cleanly, while Sam said CSI's fictional agents simply performed their tasks improperly to begin with. Janel added that the show's technical adviser, an acquaintance of hers, is sometimes disregarded when she points out mistakes.
"I guess a way to look at it is, they have to make it interesting to keep people's attention. If they don't solve the crimes quick, people lose interest and they lose the ratings," Jon said.
On CSI, the agents are often seen going to the crime scene, processing it (in heels and leather pants, Janel pointed out), analyzing the evidence, interviewing suspects and making the arrest.
"We don't do all aspects of it," Janel said. "That's one of the biggest fallacies of the show."
"There is no such position," Sam said, adding that agents have their hands full with their given specialties as it is.
Jon is consistently amazed by the magic CSI's equipment does - for example, a fingerprint that automatically links to a photo of the suspect and provides his address.
"When I get a match in (the fingerprint database), all I know is it's a match. I don't know where they live; I don't know what their race is; I don't know if they're male or female."
Reality, backlog and juries
More than aggravating real crime scene investigators, CSI and similar crime dramas leave the public, and at times law enforcement investigators, with unrealistic expectations.
It can vary from the turnaround time between the receipt of evidence and its processing, all the way up to the jury box.
"A lot of investigators think, 'This can happen today. Why is it taking six months to get information on my case back?'" Humphreys said.
CBI forensic specialists have more than one task at a time. "If all I was doing was a DNA analysis (for example), yes, you can submit it to me on a Monday and I can have a technically reviewed report by 10 days," he said. "The reality is, I still go to court, I still go to crime scenes. We're lucky for an analyst to accomplish six to eight (DNA) cases in a month."
The Montrose lab is able to turn out approximately 15 cases per month. Submissions of evidence for analysis, meanwhile, are between 20 to 40 per month.
"It keeps backing up. That's the reality. The reality isn't that the lab people are strictly in here eight hours a day five days a week working on the bench. They do have crime scenes, court, training and other functions."
Juries, swayed by the special effects and scripts of television, have in some instances come to expect more evidence than is really necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is a phenomenon that has actually come to be known as "the CSI effect" in law enforcement parlance.
"They expect us to have absolutely everything when it comes to a case because CSI does," said Jon. "That's not always true."
Nor can real crime scene investigators always find a single piece of evidence that ties the whole case neatly together.
Yet, juries expect it.
"You'll actually hear from lawyers, 'I want to wow with CSI,'" Janel said. "That does affect what we do and how we do things."
A lab agent's role, however, is to answer questions via scientific methods. Answering the questions doesn't always require all of the tests juries have come to expect, nor does Humphreys necessarily authorize his team to conduct exhaustive tests.
Instead, he asks what the submitting agency is trying to answer via scientific method and determines the best course to discovering that answer.
"The resources beg us to answer: when is the investigative question answered? That's our role as forensic scientists, to answer investigative questions via scientific methods."
Contact Katharhynn Heidelberg via e-mail at katharhynnh@montrosepress.com
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!