In CSI...

how come whenever the guys enter a crime scene, they NEVER switch on the lights on the location???

I mean, I would understand it if they need to use UV lights for blood but most of the time, I notice I kept saying to myself " Just switch on the damn light in that room!"

Of course , if they did that, i could not admire the M3Ts or M4s they are using in the series...:laughing:

In the episode "Blood Drops" (Season 1, Episode 7), Grissom chastises a rookie policeman on the scene for (almost) turning on the lights. He says that everything in a crime scene must be left exactly the way it was (until everything is documented, supposedly).

They use Streamlight UltraStingers at one point instead of Surefire M4 Devastators, too. I think that's in the second season.

One reason was given in the show (pilot episode): The lights might be booby-trapped.

Other reasons: 1) Light switches are great sources of traces (fingerprints, DNA), which they do not want to disturb.
2) They want to keep the crime scene as it was found.

A personal observation of mine: It's much easier to find unusual traces with a flashlight in the dark as it is with diffuse overhead lighting.

So there are some good real life reasons for their behaviour, besides being just cool.

so THAT explains it.


Thank you.

There was another explanation some time back on the same topic. Something about the possibility of having a detonating device getting hooked up to the switch.

A couple of episodes ago on CSI Miami, I thought they took it a little too far though. It was the middle of the day, sunny, and they begin to walk down the sidewalk turning on their lights. I was cracking up.



What really amazes me about these shows are their willingness (that they pride themselves on) to go a little in depth and accurate with the procedures on examinations most of the time, but then other times be completely way off base; especially with Computer Forensics or even preserving Electronic Crime scenes. I work at my local Police Department as a Computer Forensics Specialist and it just pains me to watch these shows when ever any kind of electronic evidence is introduced or not preserved when on a crime scene. They can walk onto a scene with a dead body and take every precaution possible, but hey.... they see a computer on a desk and they just walk over and start messing around with it. Ouch!

The reason is obvious. If you flip the light switch, there's not as much flashlight fun. I remember after I got my first really nice flashlight, I would leave most of the lights on the house off and just use my flashlight to navigate.

Yeah, obvious. I think the CSI writers must have flashaholic inclinations.

Paul

I'm with you on the electronic crime scene stuff. I'm not in computer forensics, but I know how to leave data undisturbed -- you do a bit for bit copy of the original drive, etc. It's crazy, they just turn on the computer and poke around.

What also drives me nuts is image and sound enhancement...

It's also to direct the viewers eye, and for dramatic effect.

carrot said:

I'm with you on the electronic crime scene stuff. I'm not in computer forensics, but I know how to leave data undisturbed -- you do a bit for bit copy of the original drive, etc. It's crazy, they just turn on the computer and poke around.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is sad. CSI shows aren't the only shows that do this though. You can see this portrayed throughout any kind of law enforcement/forensics type shows. I guess they never bother to use a consultant for this type of forensics.



CSY New York actually did an episode where they did proceed with a forensically sound examination of a hard drive, but how they did it was a way that isn't really used anymore except for verification purposes or for more of a raw look at the data. It was nice to see, but the next episode, they were back to doing it usual incorrect way again.



Numb3rs is another show that appears to actually use a computer forensics consultant every now and then. It isn't like the show is a more accurate portrayal, but they do seem to get information more correct more often.

carrot said:

What also drives me nuts is image and sound enhancement...

Click to expand...

Yeah no doubt! This is extremely annoying. Even to a lot of non-technical observers. There is software that can enhance pretty good, but no where near the clarity that is shown in this show. They can make a video from the worst camera and lowest resolution zoom in and clear up cleaner then any possible recording.

I also like how they have a database on everything in the entire world and how they seem to be connected to every system/network ever.


I know..... why do I even bother to watch? Well, I don't really. Not much as I did. I got too fed up with it. Especially CSI Miami. I cannot believe that show is one the air. Horatio Caine has got to be one of the most annoying characters in TV history. CSI New York.... I like Gary Sinise as an actor. He is the only reason I check that show out. Same goes for William Petersen/Grissom on CSI Vegas. I like his character.

Remember folks...it's a TV show. Not reality.

There may be a more practical reason for the use of flashlights at TV crime scenes.

In a studio, much more time is spent on setting up the lighting, props, and cameras than is spent actually filming a particular scene. Re-lighting a set takes time and manpower, which impacts both the budget and the shooting schedule. It's much simpler to shoot the scene under one lighting specification than to essentially break that scene into two parts (one lit for flashlights, the other with more room-type lighting.)

Remember, nothing (or almost nothing) you see in a staged show is accidental (Janet Jackson anybody?), and the most likely reason for a filming practice is the needs of filming, and not necessarily the needs of the story.