But I can think of Machismo off the top of my head where they sent the glasses back from Mexico and found out the gender of the person who'd drunk from them.
yeah, but that's a fairly easy, quick test.
Yeah, we're building a race of frog-people. It's a good time
Xander ,'Selfless'
Procedurals 1: Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You.
This thread is for procedural TV, shows where the primary idea is to figure out the case. [NAFDA]
Vortex - Dec 01, 2009 11:26:45 am PST #4340 of 11831
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman
§ ita § - Dec 01, 2009 11:27:47 am PST #4341 of 11831
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Compressed time, compressed roles--all perfectly standard for expediency's sake. Pointing a gun at every guy on the bus? There you're abusing police procedure for dramatic effect. Other shit is carelessness or ignorance.
I like when John Rogers explains some of the wrong stuff in Leverage. Sometimes they're actually right, sometimes it's to make the story go easier, sometimes they were told by a supposed expert that it was right. His last justification was Law:Leverage as Medicine:House which basically meant get on the fun train and off my back.
§ ita § - Dec 01, 2009 11:34:48 am PST #4342 of 11831
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
that's a fairly easy, quick test
But it still runs counter to the showrunner's assertion that they don't do that. They've also run fingerprint comparisons, but I think they usually don't come up with matches.
The odds of finding a match by hand are astronomical
Final matching is done by eye, and it sure used to be done that way.
Tom Scola - Dec 01, 2009 11:36:52 am PST #4343 of 11831
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
he's proud that CM solves crimes without forensics.
I would be much more impressed if criminal profiling weren't, you know, hokum.
§ ita § - Dec 01, 2009 11:44:42 am PST #4344 of 11831
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Shh. The FBI might hear you.
Dana - Dec 01, 2009 11:47:37 am PST #4345 of 11831
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
I would be much more impressed if criminal profiling weren't, you know, hokum.
Are you trying to take away all of my entertainment options? t clings tightly to Wire in the Blood
bon bon - Dec 01, 2009 11:52:00 am PST #4346 of 11831
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
Malcolm Gladwell calls something hokum? Hard for a skeptic to know where to come down on that one.
Ginger - Dec 01, 2009 12:03:11 pm PST #4347 of 11831
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda
Large scale automated fingerprint analysis is less than two decades old and the national system is only 10 years old. Prior to that, the FBI had 200 million plus fingerprint cards on file, all analyzed manually.
Connie Neil - Dec 01, 2009 12:10:44 pm PST #4348 of 11831
brillig
I read a Writer's Guide to Crime Scene Investigation by a woman who used to do all that sort of thing, and she said she was one of the few people who could easily match by eye from a card without lots of magnifying equipment.
Zenkitty - Dec 01, 2009 1:11:02 pm PST #4349 of 11831
Every now and then, I think I might actually be a little odd.
I would be much more impressed if criminal profiling weren't, you know, hokum.
Hee. You've got to give the writers credit for some touch with reality, though; I think there are more CM episodes where the profile is TOTALLY WRONG than ones where they nail it from the beginning. Like that article said, different people may do the same things for very different reasons.
As for profiling and cold reading, I've been convincing people I'm psychic for years. I once guessed a guy's name and "sun sign" having known him for about five minutes. He almost wet his pants. (George, Taurus.)