Just a quick post this week with photos and memories from Saturday’s IDCon, a convention for fans of Investigation Discovery network shows like Homicide Hunter and Scene of the Crime. It was great to be in a room with hundreds of other people who cop to loving true-crime programs.
Attendees expressed themselves at the entrance to IDCon in the Altman Building in Chelsea.A fan from Canada with her dog, Lady. Caution to Americans thinking of moving there: She said that a lot of true-crime shows don’t make it to Canadian TV until long after they air in the U.S.A booth at the show tested powers of observation by having IDCon visitors peer through a slot with this picture inside, then take a written quiz with five questions. Average score: 40 percent. The only person who got 100 percent: a retired police officer.A panel of journalists who cover true crime for People magazine discussed the upcoming series “People Magazine Investigates: Cults.” Elaine Aradillas (far right), who reported on the Cleveland horror house — where Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight were held captive — said she gained exclusive access to the demolition of the residence by befriending a woman who lived across the street from kidnapper Ariel Castro.Friendly true-crime fans Rob Savacool and Lauren (didn’t get her last name) came from New Jersey to attend — and Lauren won a walk-on role on Homicide Hunter!
That’s all for this week. Until next time, cheers. — RR
I finally gave up watching this irritating channel. I got sick and tired of stories about cheer leaders drowning in lakes, swamps, etc. I got tired the steady diet of nothing but constant reruns, many of which have been seen a million times on other channels over the last ten-twenty years. I got sick of ridiculous programs with incoherent women constantly shrieking and screaming. I got sick of stupid shows with actors breaking character to smirk at the camera, and even dumber shows where the narrator is the deceased. But the most offensive bad habit that drove me off was their sleazy programming: three-four minutes of a story, then five-eight minutes of rip-off commercials for pure junk, weight loss frauds, overpriced ladies’ make-up, trash, crap, expensive household gadgets made in China, and other flotsam. If the producers of this baloney really want to project the serious image they’re hoping for, they need to treat their subjects like a documentary, rather than a quasi-comedy tabloid.
I’ve been binge-watching Forensic Files on Netflix lately and discovered your site while looking for follow-up info on some of the cases. It’s a great resource; thanks for what you’re doing.
Forensic Files is an interesting show and a great starting point to learn about forensic science and some really twisty cases. You just have to be careful because it features a lot of techniques and scientists who have been thoroughly discredited.
For example, bite mark analysis is a shoddy “science” that has actually led to many wrongful convictions. Dr. Lowell Levine, who has been featured on FF many times, is a controversial figure whose work has been criticized, including his role in the Harward case.
Bullet lead comparison, another technique that shows up frequently on FF, also has been so widely discredited that several years ago, the FBI stopped offering it altogether. It too had resulted or contributed to some wrongful convictions.
Hair and fiber comparisons, tire track and shoe print comparisons, even blood spatter analysis have all played prominent roles in FF episodes – and have all proven problematic in homicide cases. In fact, in 2009, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report that was heavily critical of most forensic “science” with the exception of DNA.
The problem generally is that there is little actual research and scientific foundation to many common forensic techniques. Science is supposed to be objective, but forensic science is often subjective – leaving plenty of room for misinterpretation of the results. Although FF likes to show clips of various forensic scientists saying “the forensics don’t lie,” the truth is, it might not lie, but it can still be full of doo-doo.
Also, since FF does not take a skeptical approach to these cases, they sometimes interview questionable “experts.” For example, Duane Deaver, who was featured heavily in the Michael Peterson ‘A Novel Idea’ episode as an “expert” in blood spatter analysis later turned out to have very little actual training, to have screwed up or falsified results in many cases, and to have been fired by the SBI.
One thing that has struck me odd as I’ve been watching these episodes is how often in the interviews the forensics experts talk about aspects of the case far outside their fields. Geologists commenting about blood spatter. Blood spatter guys talking about suspect interviews. Crime scene techs talking about the legal nuances. For viewers, that should always be a huge red flag that you might not be getting factual information.
Because of all this, I’d strongly recommend that people who see a case on FF that interests them should get on Google afterward to get the rest of the story (which is my your site is so great). In fairness, this is probably the case not just for Forensic Files, but for any true crime show.
By the way, I’m not a defense attorney and not related to any of the people convicted in cases from FF episodes (although one of the homicide detectives featured on an ep is a family member). I worked as a crime reporter for many years which is why I’m kind of familiar with these things.
One last note about FF, as well as other true crime shows and fictional crime shows: Finding forensic evidence at homicide scenes and solving cases with that evidence is the exception, rather than the rule. Most homicides are cleared by regular police grunt work – canvassing witnesses, tracking down leads, rounding up the usual suspects.
For good or bad, because of all these shows, jurors have come to expect a pile of forensics in every murder case. They’re reluctant to convict without the science. Prosecutors call it the “CSI effect.” It makes them and the investigators work harder to build better cases, but it also sometimes results in clearly guilty suspects walking.
Anyway, don’t know if any of that is helpful or even interesting, but there ya go. Thanks again for what you do. I’ll be counting on you as I keep going through these episodes.
My observations are the same. I’m sure you remember the lady with the cadaver dog that always found dead body parts at precisely the right moment, only to discover later she had been robbing gravesites and hypothecating her cases for years. I don’t know about Florida, but the FF feed we get in Phoenix is all reruns that are anywhere from ten to twenty years old.
I don’t know if this show is even still in production. Occasionally, they update the conclusion, but that is rare. Another practice I find questionable is showing “actual police crime scene photos” of some other crime, and not the crime under discussion. One example is an ep reviewing a 1957 murder shows a police photo of a gun barrel taken two years after the crime, but it is clearly dated 1979.
I,too, look up interesting cases on the Internet to see what the outcomes were, and often find major details that were loft out of the FF review. Example, the case of Phil Rouse, the Kentucky vintage car collector who was poisoned by his partner. The perp went to prison, but what FF leaves off is that he died in prison not long after, and Phil died a short time later, the result of the poisoning attempts.
To their credit, FF has redone select episodes to reflect corrections or updates, but this is rare. Final analysis, take ALL television shows with a grain of skepticism.
Tony, thanks for your thoughts — I think you’re the first commenter with a crime-reporting background.
Glad to hear you’re skeptical about bite wound evidence. It always seemed hard to believe that the crude, blurred marks of a bite wound could be positively matched to someone’s teeth.
Interesting to know about juries expecting tons of forensic evidence. To me, a lot of the most compelling evidence has nothing to do with forensics. Investigators paid so much attention to the forensics of Vicki Gillette’s smothering via a plastic bag — when the big flashing arrow was the fact that her husband had sent out invitations to his upcoming wedding to his girlfriend before Vicki was dead.
I’m also a little uncomfortable with some of the statements that leap to conclusions — “The presence of his dog’s hair on the car seat prove he was inside the vehicle.” Any stranger who sits anywhere I’ve sat in public could pick up dog hairs transferred from my clothes, kill someone in a car, and leave my dog’s hairs on the seat.
I never noticed that some of the experts who appear on camera go outside their areas of specialization — but now I’ll watch for it. What gets me suspicious is any expert who seems to like hearing himself or herself talk.
Despite all that, I think that Forensic Files is the most tasteful, least sensationalized true-crime series on network or basic-cable TV. Thanks again for writing — please keep watching and reading!
I finally gave up watching this irritating channel. I got sick and tired of stories about cheer leaders drowning in lakes, swamps, etc. I got tired the steady diet of nothing but constant reruns, many of which have been seen a million times on other channels over the last ten-twenty years. I got sick of ridiculous programs with incoherent women constantly shrieking and screaming. I got sick of stupid shows with actors breaking character to smirk at the camera, and even dumber shows where the narrator is the deceased. But the most offensive bad habit that drove me off was their sleazy programming: three-four minutes of a story, then five-eight minutes of rip-off commercials for pure junk, weight loss frauds, overpriced ladies’ make-up, trash, crap, expensive household gadgets made in China, and other flotsam. If the producers of this baloney really want to project the serious image they’re hoping for, they need to treat their subjects like a documentary, rather than a quasi-comedy tabloid.
Sounds like the convention was a lot of fun! I love all the Kenda comments on the graffiti wall.
Hey RR,
I’ve been binge-watching Forensic Files on Netflix lately and discovered your site while looking for follow-up info on some of the cases. It’s a great resource; thanks for what you’re doing.
Forensic Files is an interesting show and a great starting point to learn about forensic science and some really twisty cases. You just have to be careful because it features a lot of techniques and scientists who have been thoroughly discredited.
For example, bite mark analysis is a shoddy “science” that has actually led to many wrongful convictions. Dr. Lowell Levine, who has been featured on FF many times, is a controversial figure whose work has been criticized, including his role in the Harward case.
Bullet lead comparison, another technique that shows up frequently on FF, also has been so widely discredited that several years ago, the FBI stopped offering it altogether. It too had resulted or contributed to some wrongful convictions.
Hair and fiber comparisons, tire track and shoe print comparisons, even blood spatter analysis have all played prominent roles in FF episodes – and have all proven problematic in homicide cases. In fact, in 2009, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report that was heavily critical of most forensic “science” with the exception of DNA.
The problem generally is that there is little actual research and scientific foundation to many common forensic techniques. Science is supposed to be objective, but forensic science is often subjective – leaving plenty of room for misinterpretation of the results. Although FF likes to show clips of various forensic scientists saying “the forensics don’t lie,” the truth is, it might not lie, but it can still be full of doo-doo.
Also, since FF does not take a skeptical approach to these cases, they sometimes interview questionable “experts.” For example, Duane Deaver, who was featured heavily in the Michael Peterson ‘A Novel Idea’ episode as an “expert” in blood spatter analysis later turned out to have very little actual training, to have screwed up or falsified results in many cases, and to have been fired by the SBI.
One thing that has struck me odd as I’ve been watching these episodes is how often in the interviews the forensics experts talk about aspects of the case far outside their fields. Geologists commenting about blood spatter. Blood spatter guys talking about suspect interviews. Crime scene techs talking about the legal nuances. For viewers, that should always be a huge red flag that you might not be getting factual information.
Because of all this, I’d strongly recommend that people who see a case on FF that interests them should get on Google afterward to get the rest of the story (which is my your site is so great). In fairness, this is probably the case not just for Forensic Files, but for any true crime show.
By the way, I’m not a defense attorney and not related to any of the people convicted in cases from FF episodes (although one of the homicide detectives featured on an ep is a family member). I worked as a crime reporter for many years which is why I’m kind of familiar with these things.
One last note about FF, as well as other true crime shows and fictional crime shows: Finding forensic evidence at homicide scenes and solving cases with that evidence is the exception, rather than the rule. Most homicides are cleared by regular police grunt work – canvassing witnesses, tracking down leads, rounding up the usual suspects.
For good or bad, because of all these shows, jurors have come to expect a pile of forensics in every murder case. They’re reluctant to convict without the science. Prosecutors call it the “CSI effect.” It makes them and the investigators work harder to build better cases, but it also sometimes results in clearly guilty suspects walking.
Anyway, don’t know if any of that is helpful or even interesting, but there ya go. Thanks again for what you do. I’ll be counting on you as I keep going through these episodes.
Tony, thank you for your compelling commentary.
My observations are the same. I’m sure you remember the lady with the cadaver dog that always found dead body parts at precisely the right moment, only to discover later she had been robbing gravesites and hypothecating her cases for years. I don’t know about Florida, but the FF feed we get in Phoenix is all reruns that are anywhere from ten to twenty years old.
I don’t know if this show is even still in production. Occasionally, they update the conclusion, but that is rare. Another practice I find questionable is showing “actual police crime scene photos” of some other crime, and not the crime under discussion. One example is an ep reviewing a 1957 murder shows a police photo of a gun barrel taken two years after the crime, but it is clearly dated 1979.
I,too, look up interesting cases on the Internet to see what the outcomes were, and often find major details that were loft out of the FF review. Example, the case of Phil Rouse, the Kentucky vintage car collector who was poisoned by his partner. The perp went to prison, but what FF leaves off is that he died in prison not long after, and Phil died a short time later, the result of the poisoning attempts.
To their credit, FF has redone select episodes to reflect corrections or updates, but this is rare. Final analysis, take ALL television shows with a grain of skepticism.
Tony, thanks for your thoughts — I think you’re the first commenter with a crime-reporting background.
Glad to hear you’re skeptical about bite wound evidence. It always seemed hard to believe that the crude, blurred marks of a bite wound could be positively matched to someone’s teeth.
Interesting to know about juries expecting tons of forensic evidence. To me, a lot of the most compelling evidence has nothing to do with forensics. Investigators paid so much attention to the forensics of Vicki Gillette’s smothering via a plastic bag — when the big flashing arrow was the fact that her husband had sent out invitations to his upcoming wedding to his girlfriend before Vicki was dead.
I’m also a little uncomfortable with some of the statements that leap to conclusions — “The presence of his dog’s hair on the car seat prove he was inside the vehicle.” Any stranger who sits anywhere I’ve sat in public could pick up dog hairs transferred from my clothes, kill someone in a car, and leave my dog’s hairs on the seat.
I never noticed that some of the experts who appear on camera go outside their areas of specialization — but now I’ll watch for it. What gets me suspicious is any expert who seems to like hearing himself or herself talk.
Despite all that, I think that Forensic Files is the most tasteful, least sensationalized true-crime series on network or basic-cable TV. Thanks again for writing — please keep watching and reading!