CSI - is it that good in real life?

Watch the CSI shows quite alot and always twondered if it'd be that good in real life… anyone know for sure?

I also watch "The First 48" which is real life investigations and also looks like an interesting job.

Obviously you'd be in white overalls etc but I still think it'd be a pretty good job at times (matching evidence, trails, dna etc) but the gore and smells wouldn't be… anyone do this as a job or know anyone?  My mates son is looking to get into it after uni (he's only 16 at min).

stands for 'Cant Solve It 'dont it?

funnily enough i met a murder detective over the weekend at a mates wedding, and he said it's a mind blowing job, he loves it.


not sure about csi as i don't watch it!

zambeaky said

stands for 'Cant Solve It 'dont it?

Shouldn't you be in bed for work at 6am??… you know you get "grumpy" in the morning… and all the other dwarfs… sneezy, farty, coughy, scratchy, huffy, wiffy  

I take it there's a massive amount of studying… poor Josh will be at uni until he's 30 lol !!

its not about how it all looks on tv im afraid i had to do jury service 6 months ago and i had to do hear alot about it all, and im afraid its not as easy as it is on tv theres a lot of speculation and its not as easy to get dna apparently. when one of them was on the stand the defendandts lawyer ripped him to pieces for not doing certain things and not collecting enough evidence.
   think americas got it alot easier as they have the money, manpower and technology on their side alot more.

just my 2p

you know that stuff they spray to detect blood, its so expensive & harmful to inhale they dont use it over here, if it was as easy as csi we would have no crime and no coppers

CSI is exactly like real life.

Oh and there's a girl that works in my office "temporarily" while she's waiting for a postgrad job in forensics.

Been here a year.

Forensics lab jobs are the most boring jobs in the world, basically you make lots of solutions of samples which have to be anulally weighed to the thousand of a gram, then run them through a machine, the rooms are well lit and you get a computer to enter data, and surf the internet, but you just are always making solotions(disolving things in a solvent), loading them into a machine, and then waiting for the results.
starting salaries are about 15k and if you make maneger  (after a few years)you can expect 30k.  Hardly worth going to uni.
mort of the labs are private companies that the police contract out too, so you don't get any of the benifits civil servants get.
at least you dont have to test wee and poo in water like the envioroment agency geeks.

Spudwok…. are you asking cos you've committed a crime and want to know if you'll get caught like on CSI?  have you left your fur and wokky prints all over the crime scene?

Lessy-Jim said

Spudwok…. are you asking cos you've committed a crime and want to know if you'll get caught like on CSI?  have you left your fur and wokky prints all over the crime scene?

 ops: …. errrrr….. no…… errr…. I was just delivering a parcel… honest officer…. and she had a cat… which will explain away the fur  :twisted: !!

In real life, the end 'result' is only as good as the first officer on the scene and is switched on enough to secure the forensic evidence. If the officer allows the victim/householder/ witnesses etc to tramp all around the crime scene then things get spoilt.

In reality, a uniform cop attends, assesses the incident then calls the mist appropriate department. CSI do attend a log of crimes and DO pick up DNA evidence very easily. But the skill then comes during the interview process of the suspect. The detective doesn't simply walk in and say 'Ha! We've got your DNA so your screwed'. The suspect will come up with all kinds of exceuses - some are great (even with a solicitor) and the detectives have to disprove their account before CPS will authorise a charge.

CCTV is another myth, it's damn hard work wading through hours of footage to follow the suspect around (Ive just completed 3 months of such a task to identify jewellery robbers) the town to find their car/ identity etc. CCTV is as good as it's system so if you have one make sure the lense is clean the time is correct and (if you still use them) the tapes are renewed frequently!!! It's no good blaming the cops if they don't get your car damager charged because the footage didn't show the offender properly!!!

For those who question what I say and don't know me, Ive worked on most crimes from murder, rape, assault, robbery, railway suicides (Ill key you icture that one!!), fatal car accidents, child deaths and probably a host if other incidents that Ive forgotten in the 21 years Ive been doing The Job. It's getting harder in some respects but science is helping in other ways!!

Any questions….????!  :dontknow:

just one.

did you get away with all them?

Isnt it so that in most cases DNA is used to prove someone didnt do it, rather than someone did?

i.e If someones DNA isn't attached to the offending article/place/body then its more likely not them, then if it is and they are the person who did it?

Madferret said

Isnt it so that in most cases DNA is used to prove someone didnt do it, rather than someone did?

i.e If someones DNA isn't attached to the offending article/place/body then its more likely not them, then if it is and they are the person who did it?

The absence of DNA in an investigation doesn't necessarily mean that the suspect isn't the person who committed the crime. Statements paint the picture of witnesses who will attend court and say what they saw. Fingerprints, footwear impressions, CCTV, informants, Crime Stoppers and Modus Operandi of suspects all play their part.

So, say a crowbar had been left outside a broken window following a burgary in the rain for a few days then the likelihood of DNA being harvested would bs slim but if the item was inside the house in the dry and no one else had touched it then there is a possibility of getting a profile - of a mixed profile if a number of people had used it.

Yes but in all likelyhood wouldnt it be easier to say it wasn't someone in that case, rather than who it was? Just curious as to what the process is thats all

I mean probably 9/10 its someone related to the victim with violent crimes I would've thought anyway.

In sexual offences, programme like Crime Watch indicate that the investigators have 'forensic evidence' - that will usually take the form of DNA or fingerprints but the suspect might not be on the national database for DNA or their fingerprints haven't been taken before. So when appeals go out for help, the phrase 'we can easily eliminate people' is used (it doesn't mean they'll shoot you!) meaning a mouth swab would be taken and possible suspects ruled out.

Violent crime is pretty indiscriminate. Look at the amount of punch ups over the week in an average town, there are loads and the 2 sides might not have even seen the before. It's usually a drunken set to and cops get called to restore peace before someone gets really badly hurt - or killed (I worked on a manslaughter in the summer, 1 punch and it was all over for 1 lad. Very sad because he was actually walking away from the bother).

I've got an investigation on at the moment - that's another totally unprovoked assault on a guy minding his own business. Makes me mad, if gangbangers want to knock lumps out of each other - crack on but when a decent working fella is attacked for no reason Ill go all out to find out 'who dunnit'.

Thats sad indeed….

I've only ever got involved in a couple of drunken punchups in my life and neither I caused I never liked the hassle some people cause when drunk and for no reason usually.

I think I'd like to do a job like that but its a bit late for me I'm a sparky =)