S04.E25: Forensic Evidence

[Athena]

Quote

Other segments: Trump's tax reform proposal, aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico

Guests: Josh Charles, Shannon Woodward, Josh Lucas, Samira Wiley, Robert John Burke

[Annber03]

He may be the president, but good lord, Trump needs to just stop talking. That's all I have to say about all the crap with him this week. 

As for the forensic evidence segment, this is a perfect example of the biggest reason I'm opposed to the death penalty. Nine people being executed on questionable and iffy evidence is disturbing. 

And Oliver talked about the infamous "CSI effect" with the fictional crime shows, but I also can't help but wonder if true crime shows have aided in people's easy acceptance and open trust of forensic evidence, too. I know a lot of people watch true crime shows, too, and we've heard a whole bunch of real life stories of people being convicted based off forensic evidence. Even shows that try to demonstrate the issues that can come with relying solely on that type of evidence still sometimes inadvertently remind viewers of the power and importance that kind of evidence brings in trials. So I'd be curious to see how much of an impact those kinds of programs have on judges' and juries' decisions, too.

And the news about that one group ending its meetings this year was sadly unsurprising, too. 

I did like the little skit at the end, too :D. Especially the "WTF is wrong with you?" reactions to the cheesy puns. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Annber03

[ganesh]

I know it's more tragic than anything, but the whole clip of "he's in the hospital" was like a bit from Airplane. At one point, I heard someone shout "WHO'S IN THE HOSPITAL"?! And Trump was like, "he can't vote because he's in the hospital." Based on all the clips on the show, I actually don't think Trump is lying as much as he's delusional. 

1 hour ago, Annber03 said:

And the news about that one group ending its meetings this year was sadly unsurprising, too. 

The attorney general is a slime. Of course he terminated the group. 

I usually watch the show while I shave in the morning before work, but the whole bit with the glasses and "dead meat" cracked me up so hard I almost sliced my neck. Then there was a crime sniffing pony and I totally lost it. "Ruff justice". Being able to deliver inane dialogue in such a dramatic serious manner is just amazing to me because I'd be pissing myself. 

[Annber03]

14 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I know it's more tragic than anything, but the whole clip of "he's in the hospital" was like a bit from Airplane. At one point, I heard someone shout "WHO'S IN THE HOSPITAL"?! And Trump was like, "he can't vote because he's in the hospital." 

LOL!

He just kept going. Like if he kept saying it, it would somehow magically become true. Just...wow. *Shakes head*

Quote

Based on all the clips on the show, I actually don't think Trump is lying as much as he's delusional. 

I'm honestly inclined to agree with that assessment at this point. 

Quote

Being able to deliver inane dialogue in such a dramatic serious manner is just amazing to me because I'd be pissing myself. 

Right? It reminded me of that ridiculous movie trailer they did with the wax presidents a while back :D. That was pure gold. I love how creative and silly they get with their skits. 

[peeayebee]

18 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I know it's more tragic than anything, but the whole clip of "he's in the hospital" was like a bit from Airplane. At one point, I heard someone shout "WHO'S IN THE HOSPITAL"?! And Trump was like, "he can't vote because he's in the hospital." Based on all the clips on the show, I actually don't think Trump is lying as much as he's delusional. 

It's gotta be both. I can't believe how many times he said the anonymous guy was in the hospital, plus just ignoring questions from the reporters. What was he thinking? If he really thought that one Rep was in the hospital, why didn't he say his name? If he was lying, how could he think that wouldn't be exposed? Is he that absurdly dedicated to repeating a lie because he thinks people will eventually believe him?

I know about the "CSI Effect," but I didn't know fingerprints were not completely reliable. 

Josh Charles is so great at comedy.

[ganesh]

22 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

Josh Charles is so great at comedy.

I forgot his name. Was he carrying around the sandwich the entire time?

I guess I should say that the president isn't as strategic as people are making him out to be. In that clip, yeah, he looked like he was just yammering on until they got sick of him and dropped it. When he's talking about the tax cuts and says "believe me" I think he thinks people are actually buying that he knows what he's going, and it's patently obvious that isn't the case. I think that's where the delusion comes in. When they showed the clip of him saying "we're doing very well in Puerto Rico", that's delusional. 

[attica]

56 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

Josh Charles is so great at comedy

He's currently playing the therapist Oziel in the new Menendez Murders show, wearing a monumentally bad wig, and I'm not certain he's not playing it for laffs. Could go either way. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

Based on all the clips on the show, I actually don't think Trump is lying as much as he's delusional. 

Well, in this instance, it's probably the case that somebody told Trump the senator was in the hospital - or at least, not in session because of a medical condition, based on which Trump assumed he was in the hospital. That in itself isn't that big of a deal. It's the way he kept repeating the same thing over and over again that made him sound like Rain Man. 

I'm always so impressed with the caliber of actors they manage to get to do all these "bits."

[BabyVegas]

3 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I know about the "CSI Effect," but I didn't know fingerprints were not completely reliable. 

We actually discussed this in my criminal law class last year. Almost no evidence, on its own, is reliable enough to prove that somebody affirmatively did something. What the evidence is much better at is excluding a suspect. I know that it would be ridiculous for all the CSI/Monkey Law and Monkey Order shows to point out every week because IRL those technicians would know that, but those shows definitely don't adequately demonstrate the limits of evidence.

I also love the little skits that this show does. And I love that they get big names to do them. And repeat players, too. I know Josh Lucas was in the Infrastructure bit. I can't remember exactly which episode Josh Charles was in before, but I swear we've seen him in another one of these skits. It brings a lightheartedness to often serious topics. Like everyone else, I'm impressed that they manage to hold it together and not just break into fits of giggles trying to deliver this dialogue.

[Traveller519]

2017 is the year of Samara Wiley and I can't be happier for her! I loved her indignant character, give Josh Charles the what for with all of this. I wish Samara Wiley's voice was my own conscience. 

 

I enjoyed this episode for shedding a light on the other side of forensic evidence. I'd definitely heard of the CSI effect where it was tougher to get convictions without forensic evidence, but I wasn't aware of the "other side of the coin" as it were. It does seem like defense lawyers need to be better equipped at questioning evidence as well and forcing the issue. It's good to want investigators to remain independent and vigilant but your defense attorney is your representation. Having an association of forensic scientists whose sole job is to review evidence of those collecting it could be a place to start. Both technically independent. But if those collecting it inherently "feel" like they're part of the convicting team, having a team that's reviewing them for the other side would seem to be beneficial, and can only improve the science.

[iMonrey]

Oh, and I'd just like to add: John Oliver is way cuter than Steve Mnuchin. I mean, Mnuchin doesn't even have any dimples, and never mind the accent.

Also, John's determination to believe that the Olsen twins are really one person never fails to crack me up.

[ganesh]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

That in itself isn't that big of a deal. It's the way he kept repeating the same thing over and over again that made him sound like Rain Man. 

I keep seeing "Roger, Roger. What's the vector, Victor?" when I think of the hospital clip. It's cracking me up so hard. I totally lose it when the reporter screams at him out of nowhere. 

 

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Well, in this instance, it's probably the case that somebody told Trump the senator was in the hospital - or at least, not in session because of a medical condition, based on which Trump assumed he was in the hospital.

But it's a fundamental disconnect from reality. Even if he assumed the senator was in the hospital, the vote that they were asking about in the clip wasn't being brought to the floor, so it's not like had he been around it would have made a difference. 

I was floored when they were talking about how the fingerprints were nearly the same. I would have thought that "never being to Spain" would be a good enough provable alibi. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by ganesh

[mojoween]

We always watch this at dinner and it was a nice, yet odd, break from the grim news we watched just before.

I wonder if John will mention Vegas next week or if too much time will have passed.

The sentence "there has been a loss of life" should never ever be followed by the word "but."  Fuck's sake.

[paigow]

4 hours ago, BabyVegas said:

I also love the little skits that this show does. And I love that they get big names to do them.

I hope the "Stoplight" cast reunites....

[plurie]

And they didn't even go into the arson "evidence" issue. Texas executed a man based upon already discredited "evidence" of arson (the fire was almost certainly accidental) for a fire that killed his children:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

Trump probably heard on FOX News that a senator was in the hospital. Not that it would have mattered, they didn't have 50 votes even WITH the "missing" senator. Math is not the Trump family's strong suit:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/trump-files-watch-trumps-not-be-able-multiply-17-6/

[Annber03]

I remember that arson story! I saw it on an episode of "Frontline" once. Truly horrible. 

3 hours ago, plurie said:

Not that it would have mattered, they didn't have 50 votes even WITH the "missing" senator. 

Yeah, funny how he didn't have a response for that part of things. Much thanks to the senators who didn't vote for that piece of crap excuse for a bill. 

 

17 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Oh, and I'd just like to add: John Oliver is way cuter than Steve Mnuchin. I mean, Mnuchin doesn't even have any dimples, and never mind the accent.

Also, John's determination to believe that the Olsen twins are really one person never fails to crack me up.

I'll co-sign your comment about Oliver's attractiveness :D.

And for some reason, the whole Olsen twin thing reminds me a bit of Norm MacDonald's "Germans love David Hasselhoff" thing :p. 

[paigow]

The Olsen twins of today are not fame whores like the Kardashian / Jenners....Oliver & the writers should find a more deserving target.

[Gulftastic]

I LOL'd at John's second attempt to push the 'WE GOT HIM!' button, and the tiger coming in to tell him to quit.

[Hanahope]

If we could "get trump" merely from a lie, he would have been gotten before he even took the oath.  But I love John's celebration.  Someday. :)

John's issue with the phrase "beyond a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" is actually a legal requirement, not a scientific requirement.  When in court, experts are required to use that phrase 'beyond a reasonable degree of ____ certainty" in order to have their opinions considered "good enough" to go to a jury.  There's case law on that.  If they don't use that phrase, the expert's testimony is stricken or not allowed and the jury cannot consider the expert's opinion.

But it probably the case that no one ever explains to the jury that the phrase is required for the legal case, and doesn't really mean anything in the scientific (or medical) community.  

I found it interesting that fingerprints could have so much similarity that two people could be identified.  And as for the 'false science' of bite marks, aren't sometimes bodies identified by dental records?  Does this mean that such identification isn't always valid too?

[DEL901]

36 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

I found it interesting that fingerprints could have so much similarity that two people could be identified. 

And as for the 'false science' of bite marks, aren't sometimes bodies identified by dental records?  Does this mean that such identification isn't always valid too?

For the fingerprints, I think they were talking about partial prints, not full prints.

Regarding using teeth to determine identification... that's comparing actual teeth to dental records.  I think that has a high degree of certainty.  Comparing teeth to an impression in skin (which swells and certainly doesn't take perfect impressions) might be able to show someone was missing a tooth or something, but I can't see how it could definitively identify someone.  

[biakbiak]

On Monday, October 02, 2017 at 1:45 PM, ganesh said:

I would have thought that "never being to Spain" would be a good enough provable alibi. 

But he could only prove that he had never been to Spain under his own identity. I am sure if they thought he was involved they assumed he came into the country with fake documents.

[ganesh]

So that's it? They don't do more investigation? The facts of the case didn't add up.

[paigow]

8 hours ago, Hanahope said:

John's issue with the phrase "beyond a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" is actually a legal requirement, not a scientific requirement.  When in court, experts are required to use that phrase 'beyond a reasonable degree of ____ certainty" in order to have their opinions considered "good enough" to go to a jury

[Interior: Generic Law & Monkey Order Courtroom]

M.E. Rogers: The only semen in the victim belonged to the defendant...

Arthur Gold: Are you 100% certain?

Rogers: Nothing is ever 100% certain....but scientifically...

Gold: No more questions...

This was the go-to counter forensic gambit used on "scientifically illiterate" TV juries..... 

[biakbiak]

8 hours ago, ganesh said:

So that's it? They don't do more investigation? The facts of the case didn't add up.

Yes there was more to it. He was a convert to Islam, had an Egyptian wife and had defended one of the Portland Seven, who were accused of trying to join AL Qaeda. His name is Brandon Mayfield if you want to look up more details about the story, his prints were in the FBIs system because he was in the military. 

[purist]

I wonder if @Sarah D. Bunting will mention the Forensic Evidence segment on the Extra Hot Great podcast or The Blotter Presents this week? I'd enjoy hearing her take on it.

[plurie]

18 hours ago, Hanahope said:

 as for the 'false science' of bite marks, aren't sometimes bodies identified by dental records?  Does this mean that such identification isn't always valid too?

The dental records would show where there were fillings, etc., which is way more specific than a bite impression on a bologna sandwich.

[GHScorpiosRule]

On 10/2/2017 at 3:39 PM, BabyVegas said:

I also love the little skits that this show does. And I love that they get big names to do them. And repeat players, too. I know Josh Lucas was in the Infrastructure bit. I can't remember exactly which episode Josh Charles was in before, but I swear we've seen him in another one of these skits. It brings a lightheartedness to often serious topics. Like everyone else, I'm impressed that they manage to hold it together and not just break into fits of giggles trying to deliver this dialogue.

I was HOWLING ??????????during that parody of CSI: Miami. Josh Charles was SO mocking David Caruso! I really need Josh Charles back on my teevee screen. I would so watch a show like this parody.

In all seriousness, though; a lot of the cases that John was talking about where the forensics was wrong, was before DNA. I mean, he cited cases from 1973-to the 90s? Yeah there were a few egregious ones from 2004.

It just smacks of either laziness, incompetence, or not caring or wanting the person they have in custody to BE the guilty one, that they fudge the results.  As a student, I minored in Criminal Justice and one of the classes I took, Criminalistics, we did fingerprinting, how the polygraph works or doesn't, hypnosis (I volunteered for that one and it was spooky how I was able to go back to when I was six-but you have to be willing and not be a skeptic), blood spatter, etc. And I do blame people thinking that computers and the "magic" of how forensics on teevee make it look so EASY and quick. ESPECIALLY since those that are on the various CSIs? are nothing but techs in real life, but on the shows, they interrogate the suspects, investigate the crimes, question witnesses, blah, blah, Hooey!?????

Edited October 5, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[Annber03]

9 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

It just smacks of either laziness, incompetence, or not caring or wanting the person they have in custody to BE the guilty one, that they fudge the results.  

Mmhm. If sheriffs are up for election, or there's a serial killer/child killer roaming around town and the police are feeling especially pressured to solve those cases, or things of that sort, it's so, so easy for them to have tunnel vision and make mistakes as a result. And then of course there's the prejudices against people of different races/economic backgrounds/cultural backgrounds, etc., too. 

Quote

As a student, I minored in Criminal Justice and one of the classes I took, Criminalistics, we did fingerprinting, how the polygraph works or doesn't,

I've always been curious why investigators still bother with polygraphs. From what I understand thanks to all the true crime shows I've watched, the results aren't admissible in court, and sometimes the polygraphs can be off and get things wrong (and there's also the talk about how sociopaths can easily trick and pass polygraphs, too, since they show no emotion), so I wonder why they're even still a thing as a result. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I've always been curious why investigators still bother with polygraphs. From what I understand thanks to all the true crime shows I've watched, the results aren't admissible in court, and sometimes the polygraphs can be off and get things wrong (and there's also the talk about how sociopaths can easily trick and pass polygraphs, too, since they show no emotion), so I wonder why they're even still a thing as a result.

I don’t know. But unlike on television, the tester asks a series of questions to establish a baseline-in case the person is nervous, angry, etc., so those emotions are included as part of the spike.  BUT. The questions are only supposed to be yes or no type questions. I can’t count the number of times I’ve ??? when the suspect gets all emotional and tries to explain his or her answer and the machine spikes or beeps. That’s not how they work.

But yeah, they wouldn’t and don’t work on true sociopaths and people who actually believe what they’re saying is the truth.

[Iguana]

I know there were much more serious topics to cover, but with the sentencing of Anthony Weiner putting him back in the news last week, I was hoping for one last "Carlos Danger Dance" from John.  Ah, well....

[peeayebee]

On 10/2/2017 at 0:39 PM, BabyVegas said:

I can't remember exactly which episode Josh Charles was in before, but I swear we've seen him in another one of these skits.

IMDB lists only this ep for LWT. It does seem like he's been in others. Maybe we're thinking of his Inside Amy Schumer appearances?

 

On 10/2/2017 at 1:44 PM, iMonrey said:

Oh, and I'd just like to add: John Oliver is way cuter than Steve Mnuchin. I mean, Mnuchin doesn't even have any dimples, and never mind the accent.

I admit that when I first saw Mnuchin in WH photos and so on, I thought he was attractive. But up close and with that manner of speaking? Ick. 

[BabyVegas]

2 hours ago, peeayebee said:

IMDB lists only this ep for LWT. It does seem like he's been in others. Maybe we're thinking of his Inside Amy Schumer appearances?

Must be, because I can't find anything ANYWHERE, but I don't watch Inside Amy Schumer. This is gonna bug me.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 03/10/2017 at 1:14 PM, DEL901 said:

For the fingerprints, I think they were talking about partial prints, not full prints.

I remember reading about this once, and from what i can remember complete finger prints (like the kind taken when someone is arrested) can be unique to a person, or close to it. The problem is that at a crime scene you rarely get a complete perfect print. You get partials, and a computer compares them to prints on file. It does that by comparing points that are the same, then a finger print expert is supposed to look at the two prints and make sure they are the same in more that just the points. The problem is that this leads to human error, and when you only have a partial print to begin with the number of points the computer might be able to use might be lower to begin with.