Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watch it every night(2 half hour shows). It is very interesting but I have a couple of doubts in my head about Forensics. One thing that I noticed is that when a person is a possible suspect the forensic scientists try to prove that a person committed the crime and they seem driven to wanting that person to be the crime committer and therefore hoping there forensic investigation comes up with proof. Rather than being purely objective and approaching it as innocent before proof of guilt. Maybe I am wrong about that and it may be true in a few cases only. I don't know.
Another thing that happened that was strange. A women shot her husband up with a horse tranquilizer while he was sleeping. would it be possible for someone to stick a needle in my arm while I am sleeping without my waking up? But that was probably an exception of what seemed to be the rediculous for the most part.
I love watching this program. I think it's the prosecutors whose usually out for blood and has tunnel vision, much more so than the forensic scientist. I've even seen where the scientist is not given any information about the case one way or the other, so his/her findings are completely without prejudice.
I do think that hair samples without roots, teeth/bite marks, and some other junk science would not allow me to convict a person.
The prosceutors in some of these cases, are only out for a conviction rate, and are ruthless. I want DNA evidence if you're going to ask me to send away a person for life.
I watch it every night(2 half hour shows). It is very interesting but I have a couple of doubts in my head about Forensics. One thing that I noticed is that when a person is a possible suspect the forensic scientists try to prove that a person committed the crime and they seem driven to wanting that person to be the crime committer and therefore hoping there forensic investigation comes up with proof. Rather than being purely objective and approaching it as innocent before proof of guilt. Maybe I am wrong about that and it may be true in a few cases only. I don't know.
Another thing that happened that was strange. A women shot her husband up with a horse tranquilizer while he was sleeping. would it be possible for someone to stick a needle in my arm while I am sleeping without my waking up? But that was probably an exception of what seemed to be the rediculous for the most part.
Yes, that does seem to be the case trying to prove guilt. I guess they have to or the person will be innocent according to our laws, but I tend to believe it's usually the other way around especially when the news media gets ahold of the story and twists the non-facts around.
Of all the episodes I've seen, and I've probably seen hundreds, this one was the most unbelievable and amazing. If it had been written as fiction, people would have said it was "not believable."
The coroner on the show the other night said they take all the evidence and process it without making any guilt or innocence judgements then give their results to the prosecutor to do with it as the prosecuting office see's fit.
I love it. But I also like Forensics: You Decide. It shows BOTH sides. The experts from the prosecution and defense each defend their position on the forensics, and they don't always agree.
Like TerraDown said, just because an "expert" says such and such proves this and that, doesn't mean it's true. I'd have a problem sending someone to prison on some of that evidence too.
Of all the episodes I've seen, and I've probably seen hundreds, this one was the most unbelievable and amazing. If it had been written as fiction, people would have said it was "not believable."
I didn't recognize her name, but as soon as I saw her picture on the link provided I knew exactly who she was/the crime attached to her.
I no longer have cable so I am not up-to-date on the new crime show titles, channels, or the crimes they show, but "back in the day" I knew every crime show and crime ever shown on TV. If life had a "do-over" I would work in the field of forensics.
When I see that the I.D. channel is going to be a repeat, again, I'll switch to F.F. only to see another repeat. From 2003!!!
And yep, I'll watch it again! lol
how about the show last night where it was proven that this guy shot is wife in the head and then shot himself 4 times to try and prove it was a robbery gone bad. Of course there was a 2 million dollar life insurance policy on his wife. Almost always when a person kills his spouse there is a life insurance policy on the victim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
