CSI finale why didn't they

CSI finale why didn\'t they

have any fans to blow air into the vents leading to the coffin? Like, "look what I brought! A special fan with a gasket that fits these pipes!" Ant-boy is saved.

Not that the rest was any less plausable.

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

I like the CSI series in order of Vegas, Miami, and then New York. I like the graphics (the ants biting his skin was kind of cool!). Their biological graphics are "entertaining" as well...

A mixture of science, research, detective work, mystery, suspense, all that...

I watch the show for "entertainment value" and when I see certain things that one has to question, I chalk it up to "Hollywood" and they want to project certain things/feelings/scenarios...

My wife had a couple questions on the last one and I could only answer her with "Hollywood"! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Of course if they had special fans blowing air into the vents, they would have been more obvious and the bad guy didn't want that.

What a suprise when he "pushed the button", eh?!

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

I liked the finale. It was better than most regular episodes anyway. If you look past all of the hollywood/completely fake forensic work (90%) they do, it's really not that bad of a show. Las Vegas is certainly the best (most people agree), but I really can't stand Miami anymore. I really hate David Caruso...(I pretty much think he's a terrible actor). I think New York is okay, but not near as good as Las Vegas.

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

Ok, I liked the finale too. Getting T.Q. to direct was a great coup for them. Maybe they can get some better directors. The shows are moderately interesting. I try to tape them so I can fast forward through the music video segments. Always about 5 mins worth each show. Then I ff thru the autopsy. Then I ff thru the personal/character segments. Who cares about David Caruso? He's the kiss of death.... And William Peterson, give me a break already. How about Gary Sinese? You couldn't be more wooden if you were a redwood tree-~ Why do I watch? I like the suspense.

What's their success rate anyway? 100%?

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif ......They sure do get very lucky......."Hey look, there just happens to be a fingerprint on the murder weapon..(10 minutes later)....We found the perp through CODUS.....(10 miuntes laterhe's in jail)".......woohoo.

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

[ QUOTE ]
...all of the hollywood/completely fake forensic work (90%) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious why you say that... is it really 90% fake? How do you know that? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

it is 84.8% percent fake im just teaseing lol i dont watch that show..

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

Totally agree with ya on Quentin Tarantino (his "art style" is growing on me), David Caruso (I like some of the "other spice" on Miami), and Gary Sinese! Those two are not why I watch at all. I think they could have cast those roles better!

How about Third Watch? I really liked that show! I don't usually get caught up in "soapy" shows and 3rd Watch did indeed concentrate on a lot of "relationships" - but it was entertaining and emotional at times. (Great music as well!)

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
[ QUOTE ]
...all of the hollywood/completely fake forensic work (90%) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious why you say that... is it really 90% fake? How do you know that? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Oh, that's just my point of view (I'm sorry, I should have said that before and not after). But, I've seen a couple of shows that have obsessed over how fake it is (the forensic part anyway). Ex: They find some form of DNA (any of the many bodily fluids preferebly) and have it analyzed within one day's time when in actuality it would take closer to a year for DNA to be sent out to a lab, processed, returned, and then linked up to whomever it belonged. They also magically find people by their fingerprints in just several minutes when it would normally take weeks (days at the bare minimum). Also, most of the things you see in their Hollywood lab would not be found in a real forensic labratory. In the show, they have a large section of a building devoted to the CSI's with a seemingly endless flow of cash. In reality, forensic labs are often one to two rooms cramped with computers, *some* of the "hollywood" gizmos, and tons of paperwork and data (AKA nothing like what you see in the show). The last thing I will mention is that CSI's don't do as much 'field work' as given credit to them in the show. CSI's don't question people in the (ummm....can't remember the right word) questioning rooms. That is left to the actual detectives/police officers.

Anyway, I don't know the exact statistic, but I'm sure I have to be close. lol. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

I thought that the finale was ok. I like the charactors. And the lights (wasn't that an INOVA X5?) Like greenlight, I tape them and I probably wouldn't watch at all if I had to suffer through the commercials and couldn't back up to replay passages I couldn't hear the first time through.

I find that often the structure of a finale will actually break the whole formula that a successful show is built upon and thus, be dissapointing. While I was a die-hard Star-Trek TNG fan, I found the movies underwhelming for the same reason.

At the end I couldn't figure out why they didn't all blow up much earlier... when they dug up the box with the dog in it... you know, the one they made a point of telling us had traces of Semtex on the bottom?

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

[ QUOTE ]
MaxaBaker said:
Ex: They find some form of DNA (any of the many bodily fluids preferebly) and have it analyzed within one day's time when in actuality it would take closer to a year for DNA to be sent out to a lab, processed, returned, and then linked up to whomever it belonged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually... it only takes about a month... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
They also magically find people by their fingerprints in just several minutes when it would normally take weeks (days at the bare minimum).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually... with the right resources, it really can take only minutes... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Also, most of the things you see in their Hollywood lab would not be found in a real forensic labratory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be surprised... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
In the show, they have a large section of a building devoted to the CSI's with a seemingly endless flow of cash. In reality, forensic labs are often one to two rooms cramped with computers, *some* of the "hollywood" gizmos, and tons of paperwork and data (AKA nothing like what you see in the show).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorta accurate... you'll never find a crime lab cluttered! Even if it is only one to two rooms.

[ QUOTE ]
The last thing I will mention is that CSI's don't do as much 'field work' as given credit to them in the show. CSI's don't question people in the (ummm....can't remember the right word) questioning rooms. That is left to the actual detectives/police officers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually... the majority of CSI's are sworn officers. And they actually do MORE field work than is given credit to them on the show. They really DO question suspects... (ask my husband how many times I've called him while he's doing an interview... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif ).

And yes... in case you wondered... my husband is a CSI... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

Oh, very cool Sasha! I think it would be neat to hear about stuff like that!

About what you have said above, I am merely saying what I have seen on "behind the scenes" shows, news and such. It seems like I have things very wrong, which leads me to believe that I can't trust anything I see or hear on TV. (I knew that the news is biased, but geez....) Thank you for filing me in! (I feel very much like a fool now /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif )

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

[ QUOTE ]
MaxaBaker said:
Ex: They find some form of DNA (any of the many bodily fluids preferebly) and have it analyzed within one day's time when in actuality it would take closer to a year for DNA to be sent out to a lab, processed, returned, and then linked up to whomever it belonged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read a news story from about nine months ago that the Brits and the US have both independantly developed completely different systems that can ID the DNA from just one cell. Both of the tests take just ten minutes. Both of the tests accomplish this in the field. These tests are being used every day in the War on Terror. I don't know what they cost but bear in mind that nine months is a very long time in that kind of business.

It should also be noted that DNA may now be IDed from smudged fingerprints.

The cost of these tests is irrelevent. The first DNA tests used in criminal cases were ~$60,000 each. It all becomes faster and cheaper every day.

The War on Terror guys are totally psyched that within ~2 years they will be able to walk into a flat in Beirut, wave a Tri-corder like device around for a few seconds and ask the occupant, "What was Abdul Blah Blah doing here?" The real kick is that they fully anticipate being able to do this even if Abdul Blah Blah has already been dead for 2-3 years.

These advances in DNA technology will put thousands of drug dealers in jail who have already failed to realize their implications. How many drug dealers have been successful in keeping their DNA off of the packaging of their product? How many have even thought about it? Remember, the packaging lives on long after the drugs are gone. If they view the system the way MaxBaker did ...they may find a new home.

We have already passed the tipping point in DNA technology. From here on in it will be nearly impossible to:
A) keep your DNA a secret, and
B) execute ANY action in the physical world without leaving behind your own traceable DNA signature.

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

I thought the finale was excellent; I really enjoyed it alot and so did my dad, who just started watching the series this past couple of months.

I'm glad the CSI topic showed up, because I've been wondering about the flashlights they use. I know I recognize the SL Scorpion (xenon), a lot, on all three of them, I think, although I can't say for sure about Miami right now, but it's probably used there too. When I first saw it I was a little bit excited, "hey, there's my light". It really is a super bright and well made light. Possibly the biggest bang (brightest) for your buck.

A few seasons back I would see the black guy use a flashlight that looked something like an Ultra Stinger, or Stinger HP, but I never found out for sure and am still curious. Anybody know which it was for sure? I also think I've seen him use an SL (streamlight)TL-1 or TL-2. Sorry, I don't know his name. I watched the show every week for at least 2 1/2 years and until last night I wouldn't have been able to tell you that the antman's name was Stokes (still can't remember his first name).

Now, the burning CSI flashlight question is what the heck has Grisom been carrying this past season? Is that a Wolf Eyes? It look pretty cool, whatever it is. Definitely the most agressive looking light I've seen on the series so far.

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

I believe it's one of these.

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

The CSI shows are entertainment based on some real crimes. The fingerprint technology is fairly accurate. They are using some form of commercial programs that are available out there on the market.

The latent print specialist first must map the questioned print. That is all the little circles that you see on the left screen before they press enter. Depending on the quality of the latent print determines the return time. If the person is in the system (The State System) the return will come back with as little as one match and as many as 20. The latent print specialist (CLPE Certified Latent Print Examiner) will pull the 10 print card(s) and do a comparison. Once the CLPE positively identifies a questioned to a known, the packet is given to a peer to verify/confirm. Then they need to find an address for the subject and hunt him down.

CODIS is a DNA sytem that states are slowly joining into a national data base. In Arizona all prisoners are being swabbed to put in the pool. This takes time and money. DNA can be pulled from latent prints, tools, and anything else that we come into contact with. In Arizona the State CLPE's had to provide DNA samples to check against. The reason is when we gather prints here we have to humidify the prints. Our humidity averages 15 to 19 percent. The prints dry out quickly. We moisten the prints by huffing on the suspect surface. DNA can be transferred by moisture from the breath.

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

The first post (or title) should warn that there are spoilers in the thread. Some of us Tivo everything to watch it days or weeks later.

Thanks for the behind the scenes info, Sasha. I once saw that they tried to keep most everything accurate enough. Yes, they are incredibly lucky.

It made no sense to me that no one was pushing ventilatioin through the pipes, nor that they waited until they hit the coffin to call for the paramedics.

I also thought that they missed tworking he networking issue by quite a bit. It takes a pretty good hacker to hide the source of a network connection that is being instigated at a known point. Not impossible, just improbable that the "rocket scientist" woudl have hacked enough places to hide it for 12 hours.

I had to think about the "anonomizers" used by the perp. That idea sort of fails when you realize that the first relay has to have a list of addresses to forward to. Same for the next in the chain. Homland security would have been able to access those sites in a fairly short time if they were in the US or an ally.

Daniel

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

As a Crime Scene Detective I carry at least five flashlights on my person all the time. On night scenes I'll carry a Ultra Stinger. I carry an X200, ARC L4, C2, U2, and a Photon 2. I use lights day and night. Sometimes you can't get your head to sun adjustment right. A high power light helps out.

Back to the shows...on a small scene it may take us 24 hours to process the scene. Evidence is secured at the scene. That means it is at least 24 hours before it reaches the evidence room. another 24 before it goes to the lab where it gets placed into a hold based on priority.

CSI has to put that process into 10 minutes. Thirty minutes to develop theories, suspects, counter theories. The rest of the show is the arrest.

Even if they took one crime and developed it like the show 24, it would still be too fast. It is good entertainment though.

The down side to the shows are that jury pools expect to see that technology. It does not matter if the officers on viewed a drug transaction, arrested the same guy, they want to see at least latent prints. We lose cases because we don't do scientific exams for every case. We have to manage the resources based on need. Some call this the CSI Syndorome.

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

Pretty good episode. My favorite part was (caution spoiler) when they found him, cut to ad, came back and he was dead in the morgue. It gave itself away when it started becoming cartoonish, but it was a good thrill for the first few seconds.

What I had read about CSI, and it's been somewhat confirmed in here, is that they try to keep it as true to the real science as possible, but since it is TV they have to sex it up (Hence the awesome looking lab and all the Macs) and speed it up.

They have other shows that are more true to the actuall process and speed, nobody watches them. CourtTV anybody?

Re: CSI finale why didn\'t they

[ QUOTE ]
Saaby said:
Pretty good episode. My favorite part was (caution spoiler) when they found him, cut to ad, came back and he was dead in the morgue. It gave itself away when it started becoming cartoonish, but it was a good thrill for the first few seconds.


[/ QUOTE ]

That was a classic Quentin Tarantino move right there /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif