Death fascinates, and CSI delivers death
up close, obscuring voyeuristic impulses behind a veil
of presumed professionalism. Even the casual observer
of CSI raises an eyebrow when presumed crime-scene
professionals track down suspects without wrinkling
designer suits, deliver autopsy results within minutes
or perform fantastic forensic acrobatics to expedite
the closing of a case.
Without accurate portrayals of crime scene professionals
carrying out their important and often tedious work,
viewers are left with glamorized scenes of death and
decay interrupted only by mounting absurdities.
Laura Sudkamp, director of Kentucky's Forensic Crime
Laboratory in Frankfort, tunes into the CSI shows simply
to stay abreast of the distortions being taken in by
the public.
"I do try to be aware of what TV is saying science
can do," she told me recently.
Which show stands out as the least authentic of the
three?
"NY," she said without hesitation."That
one just kills me. The original's pretty good, Miami
has gotten a little bit worse, but NY, I can't even
watch. Most of the stuff they do isn't real at all."
Beyond propagating glaring
absurdities, the shows spark myriad questions that
Sudkamp is generally forced to answer in the negative: "No
we can't do that."
She mentioned a show where a woman is dropped as a
suspect because the CSI crew determines that she was
under the influence of a date rape drug after analyzing
a mere blood stain.
"That's not going to work," she pointed
out. "Toxicology analysis requires a blood or
urine sample."
Sudkamp seemed most baffled by an early episode of
the original CSI.
"Somebody sneezed on the back window of a car," she
said, and the team responded by "taking nasal
swabs from all their suspects -- really confusing because
you don't need nasal swabs. You need oral swabs to
get DNA."
Apparently, the CSI team picked noses instead of doing
their job.
According to Sudkamp, the most glaring irregularities
have to do with the investigation of crime scenes.
"We tend not to be active in the investigation," she
said.
And no, she said, real forensic specialists would
never talk to a suspect. And no, that is not unique
to Kentucky; it's the industry standard.
In real-life Kentucky, detectives interview suspects,
secure a crime scene and remove evidence for analysis
at one of the state's six labs.
When forensic specialists do work a crime scene, a
rare occurrence, they typically hand evidence off to
another specialist at the lab.
"You may be upset by a scene, or you may be thinking
this is what happened in your mind," Sudkamp explained, "but
your evidence isn't supporting it. So you may turn
and keep trying to get it the way you need it to go
and ignore something. Objectivity is crucial."
Suddenly, my visions of David Caruso slowly raising
his head before swearing he would find the rat who
killed the girl if it was the last thing he ever did
were dashed to pieces on the crime lab floor.
On typical CSI episodes, crime scene detectives not
only secure the scene they also weigh in on the forensic
analysis at the lab, frequently cajoling lab technicians
while waiting impatiently for results that, in reality,
can take days, even months to obtain.
CSI scrambles two schools of thought on crime scene
investigation. The current thinking calls for properly
equipped detectives to handle evidence collection at
crime scenes, as generally done in Kentucky, and hand
off evidence to lab analysts. The competing school
of thought envisions the creation of forensic teams
with exclusive crime scene responsibilities.
Sudkamp conceded that the idea is occasionally considered
for Kentucky.
Would such teams look like CSI units?
Her face lit in amusement up
as she answered: "Probably
not."
Sabrina Walsh of Lexington is project manager for
the Kentucky Violent Death Reporting System. E-mail
her at sabrina.walsh@uky.edu.
[BACK] |
