Experts Blame Cop Show For Educating Criminals

[WanderAimlessly]

You knew it was only a matter of time before this story would come out:

Experts Blame Cop Show For Educating Criminals
POSTED: 11:32 am CST January 31, 2006

**CLEVELAND – **When Tammy Klein began investigating crime scenes eight years ago, it was virtually unheard of for a killer to use bleach to clean up a bloody mess.

Today, the use of bleach, which destroys DNA, is not unusual in a planned homicide, said the senior criminalist from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Full Story

PF

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Would someone who really wanted to cover a crime need a TV show to learn how? Couldn’t they just review the transcripts of murder trials? All the evidence has to be presented there, doesn’t it?

And really, if someone takes cues from one hour crime shows, that shortcut processes and gloss over the difficulties in interpreting evidence (DNA tests aren’t ready after a cup of coffee, and not all give definitive results when conducted), it strikes this life scientist as odd that they would be seen as learning a whole lot that would thwart forensics.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[wabrams]

Gerry Hunter:

Would someone who really wanted to cover a crime need a TV show to learn how? Couldn’t they just review the transcripts of murder trials? All the evidence has to be presented there, doesn’t it?

Like a criminal is really going to read over several court transcripts. Have you ever had to read those before?
Gerry Hunter:

And really, if someone takes cues from one hour crime shows, that shortcut processes and gloss over the difficulties in interpreting evidence (DNA tests aren’t ready after a cup of coffee, and not all give definitive results when conducted), it strikes this life scientist as odd that they would be seen as learning a whole lot that would thwart forensics.

Blessings,

Gerry

Scientist in what area?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

wabrams:

Like a criminal is really going to read over several court transcripts. Have you ever had to read those before?

Why yes, quite a few.

wabrams:

Scientist in what area?

Population Genetics.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Joe_Kelley]

If a murderer gets convicted after taking all the precautions he learned, can he sue the show for misleading him.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Joe Kelley:

If a murderer gets convicted after taking all the precautions he learned, can he sue the show for misleading him.

Don’t give them any ideas

PF

 

[Toni]

Thanks for posting this. On the NBC thread there are a few that think we waste our time signing petitions to rid the television of garbage.

 

[wabrams]

Gerry Hunter:

Why yes, quite a few.

Then you understand why most criminals wouldn’t read them.
Gerry Hunter:

Population Genetics.

Blessings,

Gerry

It’s not the show as a whole that’s realistic or the time it takes to do lab work, but the forensics of the show is accurate and that is what law enforcement professionals are ticked off about.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

wabrams:

Then you understand why most criminals wouldn’t read them.

“Criminal” does not equate to either stupid or illiterate, only to unwise.

wabrams:

It’s not the show as a whole that’s realistic or the time it takes to do lab work, but the forensics of the show is accurate and that is what law enforcement professionals are ticked off about.

Well, to make their job easy, perhaps we should outlaw the study of chemistry?

Some years ago, a TV show ended with a conversation between a policeman and a defense attorney. They’d caught the bad guy, but it wasn’t the guy the police first thought. The policeman complained about people like the defense attorney making his job hard. The reply, in the drama, was that only in a police state do the police have an easy job. It rings true.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[a_cermak]

I read the linked article and had to laugh though. This genius gets clues about how to cover up his crime, but can’t figure out that a crowbar will not sink in a frozen body of water. Also note, he was convicted of the murders.

Quincy had many of the same traits at its time. Plus there are the real-life shows on CourtTV (Forensic Files, The Investigators,Body of Evidence), A&E (Cold Case Files), and Discovery (The New Detectives, FBI Files).

The ironic thing is that the real life programs are less gross than CSI. On Forensic Files, they’ll have a voice-over stating, “Stomach contents included a wrench and screwdriver”. Whereas on CSI, they’ll actually show the stomach contents on screen. Even though I know it is not real, it’s repulsive. I still watch it though!

 

[didymus]

Gerry Hunter:

Would someone who really wanted to cover a crime need a TV show to learn how? Couldn’t they just review the transcripts of murder trials? All the evidence has to be presented there, doesn’t it?

They could watch the news, which often highlight forensic details of trials, or trials on Court TV.

And really, if someone takes cues from one hour crime shows, that shortcut processes and gloss over the difficulties in interpreting evidence (DNA tests aren’t ready after a cup of coffee, and not all give definitive results when conducted), it strikes this life scientist as odd that they would be seen as learning a whole lot that would thwart forensics.

Blessings,

Gerry

The amin thing I’ve learned from these shows is that you should shut the hell up and demand a lawyer – especially if you’re innocent.

 

[maryfullofgrace]

I think that, if anything, crime shows make those considering a crime realize that the chances of NOT getting caught are very slim.

 

[Morning_Glory]

Wouldn’t this just make it easier to see the differences between self-defense, crimes of passion, and pre-meditated crimes? Easier to mandate sentencing?