Forensic Science: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- Forensic science used in criminal trials can be surprisingly unscientific. Maybe a new television procedural could help change the public perception.
Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight TH-cam channel for more almost news as it almost happens: / lastweektonight
Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: / lastweektonight
Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: / lastweektonight
Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: www.hbo.com/las...
Man, literally the first thing we were told in our Forensic Biology course this year was "Never say match". Always rule things out, never rule things in, and DEFINITELY never rule things in exclusively and definitively.
Greenstarfanatic as a fellow forensic biologist, we were literally told the same thing (British forensics) you always look for indications where they don’t match, to rule out not in. Exclusion, not inclusion of evidence.
@joshtube9 LOL!
Yeah, but were you told to put your sunglasses on or take them off before dropping your one-liner? That's the important question.
Same here.
Not even the dog is definitely innocent?
Not gonna lie, "Crime Scene Idiot" seems like an entertaining show. I would totally watch that.
Now that you say it, it should totally be a Comedy Central show or a Saturday Night Live Sketch.
Alternate title for Psych
Dude, you can. Just watch an episode of CSI and pause it to laugh whenever bullshit like this is used to move the story forward.
Hope.
Doesn't sound any dumber than all the dumb sh*t these kinds of shows already get away with.
Being falsely convicted has to be one of the most terrifying things that could happen to you.
Being convicted of being a serial killer, put on death row, the the day before your execution you're aquitted.
Then a teibe of hyper-advance apes kidnaps you and sacrifices you the next day. THAT'D be terrifying.
Kafka...
JammastaJ23, ...esque
Right ... Mickey Major
Literally having your own life stolen away from you by some individuals who are just part of some 'SYSTEM'
8:34 as an engineer in training, I can attest to this. 30% of my training has been “other people don’t speak physics, you pretentious nerd, so make sure you science responsibly”
I appreciate that so much. Even as *nerdy/geeky* as I get about art, media, whomever, and whatever I love, I try to keep that in mind, too, about being aware of who our audience is. It's not like they're going to know exactly as much as or the same stuff as you, anyhow.
If John Oliver wrote the names of engineering courses....
Scientists SHOULD learn better communication just as learning rote statistics should NOT be required to be a health educator. We all have our strengths; not all of us have ethics, which I'd hope we've learned matter just as much as ever-changing "facts." -Sincerely, an excellent communicator who would have been a great health educator, but I didn't pass biostats (which never ever was used in my tutoring/ explaining health concepts like sex ed and vaccines to adults who needed the information)...I also accept donations for my student debt, anyone can message me. Improve scientific literacy rather than bombarding the public with rote numbers they won't understand anyway, a common sense approach that's apparently anathema.
Oh and closing bathrooms and water fountains in a pandemic, restricting access to hydration and hygiene, didn't control the airborne virus literally one bit, but because I can't do rote percentages in my head, somehow I'm not qualified to teach health concepts. That sounds legit.
You get the kind of education that you vote for.
I like how you used 'science' as a verb lol. I agree with your point, tho. Sometimes we forget to be sympathetic to others weaknesses, and talking past one another helps no one. Neither does getting bogged down in technical terminology. I think some people have to much pride to ask for clarification or a 'dumbed down' version and therefore the opportunity to learn how something works is lost. You never know how information may help you in the future, something you think may have no utility to you at the moment may end up being useful.
I'm kinda sad CSI: Crime Scene Idiot isn't a real show. Can we make this happen?
I actually enjoyed it too!
oh my god yes
i think it'd be a good educational show.
It would be hilarious. I would watch the shit out of it
I completely agree! I was just thinking that would be a great show!
Not that I wanna make this about capital punishment, but those people who posthumously exonerated at around the 5 minute mark, was pretty much the reason why the UK abolished capital punishment... in the 60's.
Not just that. It is also a moral issue and not the governments job to decide over life/or death.
And especially that last thing confuses me about the usa right wing. They start bitching about government overreach over every little idiotic thing. But giving them the right to kill citizens somehow does not qualify as such.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 They only think government overreach is bad when it goes after upper class people. The government can persecute poor people all it wants and they don't give a fuck.
I find I do NOT support the death penalty based solely on the fact that human error and/or deliberate sabotage of forensic “evidence” has been used to gain convictions. That is absolutely unacceptable!
The list of all episodes of Last Week Tonight is essentially a sad long list of issues that neither Republican politician, nor a single ESTABLISHMENT Democrat will EVER even try to touch.
*Neither Kamala Harris, nor Joe Biden, nor Pete Butigeg, nor Beto O'Rourke WILL EVER DO JACK SHIT about ANY of these hundreds of pressing issues.* In the end making a buck will be more important than a planet to survive on, more important than justice, more important THAN LIFE ITSELF.
@@bobrolander4344 Miss me with that anti-establishment rhetoric. What these issues need is more awareness and education among the general public.
I was swept up in the CSI effect as a teenager, and, being me, I looked into the real-life actual Science behind stuff. It's been a while, but let's see how much nonsense I remember:
1. DNA takes ages and ages and ages to be analyzed. TV shows handwave this because nobody wants to watch a single episode that takes place over weeks or months while some neat biochemistry happens.
(Edit) I have been informed that this is no longer the case, as the technology has progressed considerably. It also depends, to some extent, on the specific test being run.
2. Even if you do get an uncontaminated DNA sample, it's not necessarily a _whole_ sample. The stuff degrades, and what's left over might not necessarily be useful in identifying an individual -- human beings are 99.9% genetically identical, so just because a fragment matches the suspect doesn't mean it's definitely their DNA.
3. Pretty much everything in Dexter is horseshit. It's a cool show, but blood spatter analysis is not and never has been that precise. At all.
(Edit) To clarify, I'm not suggesting that there is no such thing as blood spatter analysis, just that Dexter's presentation of it is really thoroughly dramatized.
4. All that stuff in Bones where they can tell the age, sex, and race of somebody just based on a femur or a skull or whatever? Yeah, there are some statistical probability things happening, but it's nowhere near the "sure thing" they make it out to be.
(Edit) To clarify again: there are ways of determining sex, age, etc. based on bones, but even the stronger indicators are not as 100% certain as these shows present them. The show also takes creative license with the reliability of extrapolating based on statistics.
5. Speaking of race, remember when I said human beings are 99.9% genetically identical? Yeah. Any time someone (whether in a forensic context or not) says that because someone has gene X, that means they _must_ be of a particular race, that's nonsense. The idea that humans have biologically-distinct "races" is complete and utter 100% bass-ackwards bullshit. Some genes are statistically more likely in some areas (we're talking _continents_ and not countries), that's about it.
6. Trace evidence. That's a fun one. It seemed to be one of the more accurate sciencey things from what I could tell, but the idea that they can stick a tiny flake of a mystery substance in a piece of equipment and have a computer tell them _exactly_ what it is? Not really a thing. There are a ton of substances with similar compositions, and their proportions might not be precise enough for a completely 100% certain match. Human interpretation is a big part of it.
7. The equipment for forensic analysis often costs thousands or even millions of dollars, the people who operate that equipment need degrees and years of training, it all has to happen in highly-controlled environments, and all of that adds up to forensic analysis being _ungodly_ expensive. Investigators aren't going to take the time and expense to have something analyzed unless they have a very good reason to think it's relevant.
8. "Enhance the footage" means nothing. That's not a thing. I really can't stress this enough. If a camera is of poor quality, there's no amount of computer enhancement that will make up for that. There are very, very, _very_ few cases in which that is even possible, and the effects are nowhere near as dramatic as they are on TV.
9. Most important: *Human interpretation is a factor at every step of this process.* It's never as objective as it looks. Evidence is only of as much significance as the investigators decide it is, and investigators are just as susceptible to bias as everyone else. Science doesn't convict anyone. People do.
Thank you for including more clarification on this topic. While I am guilty of enjoying an occasional crime drama show here and there, it's really sad that due to the limitations of the science and the biases of individuals, we continue to perpetuate a flawed system that allow innocent people to be jailed.
Crystal Soulslayer blood spatter evidence is actually really precise pal.
yes its nice that someone besides me knows that the whole enhance thing is bullshit.
Actually, the "Enhance that" cliche is now technologically possible. Some software (and hardware found in current gen TVs) can use predictive analysis to extrapolate data and use that to increase the quality of an image when you increase its resolution. However, as this is basically a computer doodling what it expects the final image to be, it's not admissable in court.
However we can take a 1080p image and scale it up to 4k with no apparent quality loss, so we CAN zoom and enhance now. In fact, your TV has probably been doing this for a year and a half or so, wheever you've played a DVD on it which was recorded at a lower resolution than the TV's native res.
I didn’t really read all you had to say, but as for #4, forensic anthropology if definitely a real thing.
I couldn’t imagine being wrongly convicted and sentenced to death while the real murderer was walking around free.
Also, the prosecutors get off scot-free as well.
especially that guy whose own wife was murdered. can you imagine how angry he must have been?? your wife gets murdered, and then YOU get sent to prison instead of her actual killer??
@@aubriem1944 That's the premise of "Law Abiding Citizen" xD
If you're hoping to be a forensic scientist, be aware that you may not always get a conclusive answer. Admitting that you have an inconclusive result, however, is much better than presenting an incorrect result. This is something that's drilled into you in the really good forensic science programs.
@@EvoDevo2004 No, that is bullshit. Science by default can only prove things, but it can prove both that something is like you expect or not like you expect. You can't prove a negative after all.
@@Zwijger that depends on your philosophical definition of science
I would love to be a forensic scientist, but I don't do the brain smarts good.
That's all well and good, but the sad truth is, as soon as you're out of that program, and step into the field, your "bosses" will tell you they need results *now* because, even law enforcement can be pressed for time because they're always convinced that the killer *might* strike again because the perp had no legal consequences for the first murder. But, it's *so rare* where that's actually the case and in most cases, the murder simply happens for one purpose and one purpose only: revenge. After the thirst for revenge is slaked, they might not murder no more or, they killed someone because *someone else* told them to. There is no one motive to a murder like how there's no one motive for a robbery or a theft or becoming a drug dealer. (Rapists are the only exception, but that's not my point) The point is, it may be useless to tell a forensic sciences student at a program (whether good or bad) to take your time when getting results when, on the job, people will tell you to rush it because of the reason mentioned above
Harold Saxon lolol
I was on a jury trial last month and the prosecutor asked one of the witnesses from the crime lab if the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt if it was the defendant and they said they didn't like to use that terminology because it was unscientific and misleading.
The concept of reasonable doubt is pretty bullshit, its kinda of gross how subjective our justice system is even with supposedly hard evidence.
Since I saw 12 angry men, the concept of popular jury freaks me out. this idea that "the people" must be right, I mean, it was based on something good, but in action, it's just a bunch of people who'd rather be somewhere else taking a life-altering decision about other people, without having any idea what is talked about most of the time, guided by professionals who sometimes don't know any better, and are just there to win a case. Truth is rarely the point.
Is the jury system flawed ? Yes, yes it is. But what better system do we have ?
trial by combat duh
Makes sense.
There should be a movie about a lawyer trying to save his innocent client from an a jury that watched too many detective shows. they could call it the CSI effect. starring Idris Elbe as the lawyer.
Oh yeah, I would watch that.
I think it should be a mystery comedy.
@buu678 Are you sure about that casting? Maybe put Elbe in the Judge's chair because there needs to be a strong controlling voice for a conflicted audience. And cast Matthew McConaughey (with a strong accent) as the lawyer. Or you could bring back Neo.
That's not a bad idea but should McConaughey be the defense or the prosecution and who should be the defendant? I prefer Matthew as the prosecution but the other roles are up in the air for me.
You had me at Idris Elba
"That's a bad dog right there, and he's gunna face some ruff justice."
Lady: We're INDOORS, *fuck you.*
That's a great point to make clear to the people who think the percentage of innocent people who go to jail are an acceptable loss because "It's better than letting the guilty walk" or something like, for every innocent person convicted, there's a guilty person going free...
Yeah it was truly heartbreaking to hear that guy spent more than half his life in prison for a crime he didn't commit because a couple of guys needed to find a match even if it was wrong. He'll never get that time back.
Or we could follow the founding fathers lead that said 'it's better to let 12 guilty men go free, than for one innocent man to spend a day in jail.
Anderson Cooper the answer to that question, unfortunately, is “too many people.” You’re right, of course, but the sentiment sadly isn’t universal.
In dubio pro reo
Critics are calling CSI:Crime Scene Idiot, "a reasonable scientific degree of certainty".
And only a 1 in 2 billion chance to dislike the show! Oh...oh wait a second..
TVBalkan12 I'm still waiting for the critically acclaimed "Harding" to come out
Actually it would be a nice plot for sone criminal investigation satire!
Let me correct - a reasonable degree of scientific certainty
Crimes Stupidly Investigated.
John finally convinced me, there is not 2 Olsen twins, there are 1.1 billion!
Looks like I have a better chance of a sexy time threesome with them then!!!
Tab Utu dude. seriously. that was bad
How so Kate? Please expand on your remarks.
Tab Utu you know that it's okay to not type every thought you have, right? Cause if you want a threesome with the olsen twins, I dont wanna know and Im betting half the comment section didnt wanna know
That's an extremely interesting & fascinating point of view Kate. Speaking of the Olsen twins of whom I would like have a threesome with & which the comments section is extremely interested in considering the amount of private messages I've received from men & women alike, have you heard of a movie called Liberal Arts? It has Elizabeth Olsen in it who is also quite hot & who I would like to have a onesome with. I recommend you check it out. You know what is sad Kate? So many women in the world & only one of me. You have yourself a good day.
"Reasonable Degree of Scientific Certainty" is a legal term, not a scientific one. Basically, it means "do you, as a scientist, feel comfortable making this statement?". But regardless, crime shows definitely over simplify/mystify the actual analysis, simply because the actual process (UV Vis, spectroscopy) is too long or boring.
You’re the reason why we need Vaffanculo Day.
@ZionHillCalling I mean, legally speaking, when a term is vague it’s usually vague on purpose. Rigid rules and precise language aren’t always ideal for the reason you said: it’s hard to prove that something is EXACTLY reliable enough, and pretty inconvenient for both sides. But I do agree that when it comes to science the definition of what counts as “reasonable certainty” should be a little clearer.
@@lynxaway To be fair, in science in general they almost never say that anything is absolutely certain. There's always a little bit of wiggle room just in case new information arises, such as something appearing to be an exception to the standard for one reason or another. Such as how Newton's law of gravity falls apart when you look at things at a subatomic level but holds up in pretty much everything else. Like it's pretty hard to be specific about this because ultimately the degree of certainty they can make is limited by their knowledge or lack thereof and even scientists could miss a significant detail (thus why the scientific review process exists despite some conspiracy theorists wanting to tear that apart)
This is all because of the set standard for conviction, beyond reasonable doubt so, the talk about reasonable degree of scientific certainty but without an established standard what does it matter?
Our criminal justice system is far too concerned with making money to be properly concerned with anything else and forensic sciences have been very useful in affording the appearance of certainty.
JJ hhkjhhkkkjj ok JJ ljkkhkhkhjh JJ k JJ hhkjhhkkkjj hi hkjjhkkjkjhkkjhjjhkjkjkhjhkhkhhjkjkkkjhjkjjhjk JJ jhjhjkkkhkjhkhhkhkkhhh JJ JJ hhkjhhkkkjj JJ JJ kbjjhbnmnvbbbkkjkbbbbvbmhbbjvkbjbcbkbcbbbklbknbbkvjbk JJ vv JJ bjvbkbvbbbbkbbbbjbbbkbk JJ bk bj hi JJ b BB bb JJ JJ BB JC bbb JJ bcbvvvb JC jkbkjvkbjvkb JJ kvbbkbkbbkbvjj BB bbkj JC JJ JJ JJ b BB JJ JJ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbkbbj JJ JJ JJ bvbb JJ bbnbvkbbbbbbbbbvbbcb JC JJ cbjcjbvbbbbkbbkbkbk JJ jvbljjbvkvjvbvbb JJ jbkbbbjbcbbkbbbbvbcbbbbkbkbkbccb JJ bbbbjk JJ kjvjvcbbbbvbvvbbbvbbbbbkbjkbckk BB bcvvbkkkbh JJ bbbbbkbkbcvkvj JJc JJ bbvkbbbjcvbkbbkbbbbbvbvjlbjb JJ JJ BB JC bkvjbvhcjkbbjvvvjbkcbbbkbbk JJ vvbvvbbkjkbbbckb JJ bjkbbb JJ JJ bbkvbkbkk JJ b,vcvjjk BB bb bbl jjvvvkbvjbvbbbkjbkvbkjb JJ jcbkvvjbvkbknkkvbbbbb JJ bbjbc JJb JJ JJ bhbbvcjbvbbbkxcvbjckjjvb JJ vbbvkbbkvvbbvbhvbbcbbbkjvkbbbvbjljkbjbbjbkbkbbvhcbkjjcbkbbbvjbbvvhjkbkvbkb BBC JJ JJ vbbbbbk JJ BB bkkkjvvbccvjbckjvbbjbckbbcbbmbbb BB kbvbbbbbbkkkvjjbkvbbbbvhjvjkbvkkvcjbbbkcbkvjbjbkbjbb BB JJ BB JJ bjbkkbvvbbjvbcbcjkbbkbvkhbvvvbbkbbvvjcjkvbljvvbbjvvbvj JJ bkbvbvjvvjlcbkvjvjkvbbj BB vbbkbkbckvvbjkjbjbkkbkcvvkkbb BB bcbvbhbbkbvbbbvh BBC BB clbjvvbbjcbkbvbkbvbvvbbvjkbbblvbkbbhbjbkbkcjbvbjbbkjcvjbvbkvbbkkbvvbkvbkvjkbbkbbvbkkbjbjbbbcbb JJ bjkbvbjbbbbkbjbvkjlkkbbcvbbkbbkkvvvkjbjcvvbbvbbbbkbvk JJ jkvkkb JJ kbjbcjk JJ vbbkk JJ ckbbbjccvbcbbbv BB bhkbkkbvbbbvvb JJ bk BB BB BBC BB bvbbjbkvbbcbvkbjckbvbjjvbbbkbkvjcbjkbbchjjlvbkbvbbkbbvvbkbvljkjkxvllbcbbkcbvkbbcbkbbcbcbvbjbvvvvbvvbbblkvvkbvbbbbbbvjbkb BB bbjblvjjcvbbvvbbbbckvlvbhkbcbbvkbbjkbjjvbjjvvbkbbbvvjkvcbbbvvkbvkbbvjjbbvhcjckjbcvjcbbbjkkjbjljbvbjccvbvbklbcvbvbvvbnkkvvbbjvbjbckbkkbkkbk JC JJ jbvvbvj BB blkbvvccbbjbkbbvbbbcvbvkjkvbcbkbhckjkvbkbjbjbvjbvbbkbbbbbbbvbkbbbjbvljbkbkcbvbbkjbbbbbbjbbjkvbkbvkbkkhbbjbjbjbkvvbkjkkbcjbkbkckxjcbhvkcbbbjkbbbvkvbjvjcbkkbjbbkbbkckbk BB BBC JJ vvvbkbbcxvkbjbbbbvkkcjbbkkjbcvbbbvkkbbbkbjkbjvvbkbbjlkkbjjbbkkvbjkbvbblbbbbvbbbbkbkbkckkkcbkvbkvkvkbbjbkbvbbbbj bk bbjbv JJ jkkbbbbbvcckkjbbkbbjkbb JJ BB bk kvbkblb BBC bvvbvvbkjk JJ bjbbjbvjlbvclbckjkvbjjkvcvbxvkbjbvbvkbkkvkcbvbvvjkvvvb JJ BB bkkbbjkbb BB JJ BBC bvbb BB bvkbbcvvvkcbbkbbbkkbjkcvjbvkkbkbkkbjjvbvbxhvvbkkbkkbbvbbjbkbbbkbjkbcbbhvbjbjkvjkbbkbbkbvkvjbvbcjclljbjkbcbbkbvbvbbjcbjkkbbkvbkvlv jbvvbvj vbbbbkkbbbkjbcbljvbckvkkvbbbbbkbckckbbvbkjvbkknbbj JJ vcbbkbcjb BB JJ JJ jkkvkbjllkjvcbcjbckvbbbbjvb JC bvbblbkbckvkbjjkvbkkvkkkbkbbbjvbbbbvjckbjkbkvbbblvkvbbkjbbkbjvjckbvkccbvjbkvbvbbbkbbcbj JJb kk BB bk kk bcvvkbbkbbvc JJ JJ bvjbkkjbbvbbbcbkcbbkbbbjbvkblkbkbckjvhvbbbvbjbvkkbjlbjlvhckcbkbkjvbvbkbbbkkckvbkbvkjbvvblvl JJ jvjvbvbkbbbkkkckvvbbb JJ bvvckjbbvjl JJ kkbbkbvbbbbbbbckbkbkbkvvjvbcjbvvjbjkbkcjjvvcvkbbbjvkbbbbjkbvbbb🎉🎉🤪😊🤩🤣🥰🤣🤣😅💗💞💞💗😔😌👍💐💜🏵️🌹🏵️😘👍😘😞😲😕❣️🤕😷💩👿😇😲😰😰😳🫤😤🫡😔😔😔🫥🫨😕😳😲😠😱🫥😔🥹🥲🤩🥰😊🏵️😅😘🏵️😅😰😰😲🤨🥱🫡🤗🫥🤪😌🤪🤩😤😇🤣😌😊🌹🌹🫨🌹🥰🤣🤣🥰👍😔😱👍😱😰🤕🤕😌🤩😊🤩🤩😘🤩💩🥲💩😅💩🥲🥹😞😞🥲🤪☺️😊😰😳😞☹️🤨😮😔😔🥱😔😘😚😆😕🏵️🫤😘🌹😇😱🫥😌😇😱🫥🤗🤗☺️😱🫡🫥😚😚🤩😆🥲🥲🥲😌😁😁😤🤪🤪👍😳😔😰🤪🤪🤪😝🤩🤩☺️😚🤣😆😁🥱😅😝🤣🥲🥲😘🥹😘😘😘🫤🤣🥹🥹🌗🌛🌟⛈️🌩️🏞️⛄🏜️🍄🪷🪷🌺👩❤️👩🕺🧑🏫🧑🏫🚣🙆🫰🫵🦵🫦🦿💔🗣️💔💛🔥💤🙀😺😺😺😇😇😰😞😞🫣🤨🫣😠😔😶😌😜😜🤩😊🤣😚🏞️🏞️🫰😁🍄🦵🦾💪🧑🦱🧑🦱🧑🦳🧑🏫🧑🏭🥷🧑🚀🥷🤽🛀🙍🚶🚶🙍🧖🙍🧍🧍🛌🙍👆💅👋🤛💗💗👤💗💗♥️💛💫😇😡😡💪🤩🧑🦱🫰🧖🧑🏭🫰🧑🦳💅🧑🚀🧑🚀🧑🚀🧑🚀😁🧑🚀🏞️😁💅😁🥷🧑🚀🤽🫡😔😔🤣😚🥰😆🤩🥷🦹🥷🧘🙆🫰🫸👋✌️🤛🤲🤲💪👁️💚💫😿😾😺😿😽👾🙉👿🎃👻🤖🥸🤥🥸🥶😖🥶😶😔😶😶😔😶🌫️😊😌🤩☺️🥹🤩🤩😝🧘🧘🫰😔😔😊☺️😝😌😌🤣☺️🥹🥱🫥🥱😝😊😘🥲😍🤩😜🤩🤩😍🤩🤩😂😚😘😿😿😔🤖🤖👾🤖🥸🤖🫣🫣🫥🫥🤣🥰😂😚🤣🥰😅👿😶🌫️😘🥱👿🥶👿🙉🤩😍😁😖😝😝🥸👻🥸😖🥹💛💛💤🕳️💦👾😈🥸🤢😰🤗😌😌😝😅😜😔🤪🥶😂👿🥶🥶😚👿🙉🥱🥱😚🥱🫥🥶😚🥹🥶👿🥱🥱🥹😚🫥😚🥱🥱🥶🥹🫥😂🥹😰😳😌🤣🙀💘💜😠😠🤗😔😝🤩🥹🤩🤩😚🤣😚😈😈😈🤢😖🥱🤢🥱🥱🥱🤢🥸😈😈🤢🤢💛🦸👩❤️👩🧑🏫🧑🎨🧑🌾🤹👆🫵🫰🤘🦿🫀🗣️💔🩷💙💜🩷💝🤒🤢🤕🤢😷🤡🤢😇🤣🥹🤩💛🧑🏫💛🤩🥹😔😍😚🤹😖🤹😖👆👆🫣🫡🫣😈😆😜😵💫😞🫥😚😚🤩🥰😍🥰🫀🥰🗣️😔🗣️🤕😰🔥💫🤒🤢😖😰😯😶😶😔😶🌫️🤣😁😚🫡👆😇👆😇🫡😌🤩🤡😍🥹💫🤹🫥🤹😵💫🫥💫😵💫😵💫🤹💫💫🫥😤🤐😅😆🔥😞🤢🤢🔥🤒🔥😊🥹😅✌️🙌🤲💪💖💜🔥💫👻🤖👾😇🤢😖🫡🤩🥹😁🤹✌️😚✌️😁😤🤹🤹👆🤹🫸✌️👋🫸🤲🫷💔💝😽🎃👻😇😁🤐💗💗💨👿😖😖🥶🥶😖🤣😅👁️🦶🫀♥️👣👀💔🔥🔥🔥🕳️🙈👾👾🙉👾💩👻🎃😠🤗🫥🫡🫡🫡🫥😱😠🤨😠😞🙁🤗😰🤨🤣😅🤐🦶🫀♥️🙉♥️🤨😡😠😡🤨😶🌫️🥴🤪🤣😍😂👿💨🤩🥰👀👀🫡👀🔥🫥💔😚😍🤩🥲🤪🤪😘🎃😅🤐😶🌫️🦶👻👻😱😅😅👻🎃🤪😝☺️😂🤨🥵😰😳😰😳😲😳😞😞🤨🤨🤣🔥🤣🫥🔥😡🤣😠♥️😡👀🥴♥️♥️😡👀😠🫥👀🤣🥴🔥😡🤐👀🤐😡🤩🥰🫀🧠💔🦴👣👤👈👈🫷✌️👉🫰🤞✌️🫵🤟👋🫷🫲🫰🫰👉🫲🫲🫀👀🤨😳😕🥶😷😖😵💫😰😰😲😞🤨🤨😡🫣🫡🫥😔😊🤟✌️🧠🫵🤟✌️✌️🦴🧠🤩🫵✌️✌️✌️🧠✌️🤟🫵👀💔🤩✌️🤩😲🫀😘😆🫡🥲🥶👋😖👋😘🤣🥹🥲😂🤨🫲😡🤨🤟😞😳🫷🫰🫲😳😳🤣🥹🤣🤟🤪😊😚😘🥹🤣🥰✌️🦴😲😔👋😲😲✌️🤩🤩😁🫣😤😞😞😔🤣🤣😚🥲🤪😂😂😂😂😔😔😌😅🫵💔🫡🛌🤛🤛🤛🤛🦿🫦🫦💜😌😅😅🤨🫰👋👋🥰🥵😰😌😘😔😤😁😊😊😁🥹😅🫣😔😤🥹😺😿💫😿😺👾🙈👾🫡🥰🫡🤩🫡🤩😚😖🥱😔🥴😞😡😺😿🙉🎃😈🤡😖🤕🥶😕🫡🤗🫣🤗😌😌🤩😘🤣🤣🥹😘🥹🥹🥵🥹🥵🥵🥵🫰🫰🫰🫰🤨🥵😁😘💫🥹😞👻💩😇😳🤬😶🌫️😌🤪🤕😡😺😺🤡😡🤕🤡🥴😺😖🤡🥱🤡🤛👐👁️🫦💗❣️💗♥️😽😺🙊👾👾😞🙁☹️😞☹️😞☹️🫤🙁🙁☺️😔🤪🤪😝🤪☺️🥰🥰🤪😶😔🤕❣️😖🤡🥴🥱😇😽🤡🥱🥴💩🥴🥹😳🥴😽🤡😅😇😡😺🤛😺😅😅😜🤩😊👐❣️🙁🫤🤪😊🥹🤨🤨😡🤐😵💫😆♥️🤕😔💩🤒🤢🥵🤥😰😰🫤🙁😞☹️😲🤨🫡😌🤣😘👐🤣😘🥲😘😵💫🤒🤐😺🥹😳😖☹️😳😞😞😡🫡🥵😔🤩🤩🥰🤣🤥🤥🤪😆🤥🤥😆🤥🫤🤥🤪😜😌🤪🥲🤣🥰🥲🤩😘💩🤨☹️🤨😘😵💫🤬😤🤗🫣🫣🫡😠😝😁😘🤒😆🥵😞😞😂😵💫🤣🤪😵💫😺🤥🥹🥹🤪🤥🥹☺️☺️🤗🫡🫣😶🌫️🤗🫥🫨🤨😤😠🫥😔😔🤪😔🫥🫣🤨😡😲😵😳😳😳😳🤡🎃😈😽😺🙀🙀💫😿💦🙀😺😺😿🙀🌜😺💫🙊💨😿💦🔥💦💦👾😆🤪😠😳😌🥲😊😡😡💫😵🙀😶🌫️🫣🤨😽🙀😡😡😺🤗🤗😅😆😅😠😳🤒😕🫣🤢🫨🫨😖🤕😇😯🥶😵💫😖😵💫🤢😨🫨😳😲😲😵💫😳🤨🫡😝😌🤪🥴🤩🤩😊🥹🫥🫥🫣🥱🤨🫣😡🫤😡🫤🫤😯🫤😰😰😵💫😲🫤😤😠😡😞🫤🫤😯🫤😵💫🤢😈🥴🥺🩵💫💤💦💫💤💫🙀🙀🙉🩵💓❣️💝👤🗣️💗💟💖❤️🩹♥️❣️💟💜🩷💝💝💟💘🫀👀🫀🗣️👁️🫀👣🫀🤷🧖🚶🧑🦯🏃🤼🤹🚣🧟🤺🚣🧌🦸🦸🤷🤷🙅👈🤞🫲👌☝️👈🤘🫸👋🤛🫲🤘🤟🤘🤲👐💪🦵👄🦶🫦👐💪🦶🦿👅👀🦴💪🦾🦵🦿🤘🫷🤟👋👉🫰🤘🤟🤛👁️😂😆@@KuariThunderclaw
This city is like one big crime sandwich..
..and I'm about to take a bite
Someone was served a sandwich.
Time for us to serve JUSTICE!
*Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
joe mcnoe
Did you ever watch CSI Miami?
joe mcnoe
Whenever the CSI-team investigated the crime scene, Horatio Cane would have a short dialogue with one of his colleagues, discussing how the victim died. Horatio would then end the dialogue by making a pun about the circumstances of the death or a wisecrack, immediately followed by the intro (YEEAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!).
ShadowAka
My uncle who just passed away... admitted to a murder wile he was drunk ... I told my aunt an no one believed me... called the police an described what he told me the name of the park an year that it happened... called me back and said they already had prosecuted somebody for that murder and he receive the death penalty... sickened by this I looked it up and found out he was claiming his innocence till The day the state executed him... The police didn't want anything to do with this story... so if you're ever on a jury think long and hard about the evidence you're being shown....
Chad Knol You fucking snitch.
If that's true, there might be some family of the victim who could benefit from hearing the story.
This sounds fake as hell
The Sunflower Seed Enthusiast what could the person get out of lying, sure it sounds a little rare, but it happens.
Pixel Anarchy Attention and likes on their comment.
I remember that one of my favorite episodes of Law and Order SVU had a case of a rape, but because the prosecutor was so determined to get a maximum sentence, she pressured the forensic scientist to present DNA evidence from the rape kit that was so small there was know way to test it more than once, making it completely unreliable. The guy ended up walking free, the victim no justice, and the lawyer disbarred.
Afterwards I honestly kept thinking "Why don't they have more episodes like this, if not to do with DNA but other forensic science." Ironic, one of the best morally grey stories of that show and all because an actor needed to be written off.
Thommy2n h in HC
Bbjˇl
That is devastating and yet sounds more likely than most things that show presents
Which episode is this because I haven’t been able to find it.
Is that the episode with Jennifer Love Hewitt?
The Innocence Project is a great organization and one we can all support.
Agreed. The man who started The Innocence Project helped get OJ Simpson his acquittal.
Innocent people go to jail. Lawyers get paid. The system keeps rolling on and crushing lives.
Don't know why you'd bring lawyers into it. They get paid either way. I suppose the DA keeps their job or has a higher chance of being promoted for closing a case. Just I think of defense attorneys as well which they benefit from freeing their clients more often. As defense gets paid more, I think of defense when getting paid.
The "system" would be just fine with the defendant found innocent as well. The "system" is not there to crush your life but to protect you.
Prisons* get paid.
epSos.de
You are probably saying this to slack off, aren't you.
ProksenosPapias It's not protecting those convicted wrongly. The justice system is supposed to protect the innocent. I'd say it's destroying their lives and letting the actual perpetrators commit further crimes by letting them get away. "Reasonable doubt" loses all meaning if juries are presented bogus evidence. The only winners are for-profit prisons.
Can we make CSI : Crime scene idiot an actual show pls ?!
I know I'd watch it
Yes PLS
I'll definitely watch it
I'd watch that... Everybody would watch that.
Watch Angie Tribeca
Thank you for talking about this. This is woefully unknown by society.
And the most disgusting part is people will *still* defend the death penalty, even after seeing this.
I will never understand how people's feelings enable them to stay so willfully ignorant.
polymorph ine Because they have yet to see that people are not good all of the time. Once you understand that, really understand that, you can then believe that people would manipulate the evidence to match their aims.
Harrison Ressler I'm not trying to brag, but even I knew of the csi effect & reliability, we touched on it in late high school as part of a bigger different topic, & we don't even have jurors
This CSI: Crime Scene Idiot seems like a fantastic show. Let's make this happen
As a professor of Forensic Evidence, I can say with certainty that this video makes a lot of sense though it does oversimplify a few things. But this is not an academic critique of forensic sciences and my sincere thanks for making this video.
Now when you say certainty, can you confirm that it is to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
On a serious note, does your comment mean that you believe as well that forensic evidence really isn't viable to convict people?
Because they're just materials on the spot. People with more proffession may plant fake evidence to lead the police off i think.
While the show successfully made the case against overstating the evidence a lot of methods provide, I fear this might backfire by completely pushing out methods (i.e. by having them made inadmissable in court) that provide evidence in the Bayesian sense (but not suffiently so on their own). Bite marks, for example, surely are not completely random, so they could very well provide evidence - just not nearly as strong as previously stated and probably not enough to warrant a conviction on their own. In many cases a lot of different clues that all provide above baseline evidence could combine to a legitimately strong case even if every single method is not enough to convict.
RandomWords yeah, I wrote a comment about this.
It's my belief that if we become too stringent on what evidence we use, it will have a negative net outcome to society. It's better to have a pretty good chance of putting away the right guy than not putting anyone at all. Otherwise people might think they can more easily get away with crimes, increasing crime rates, and people will feel less safe with so many open cases.
In cases where there is no direct evidence available and the courts have to rely on circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence plays a huge role. Forensic evidence is a very useful piece of evidence but it is certainly susceptible to abuse, like just about any other thing in this world. But carefully collected and analysed forensic evidence, especially DNA evidence can be the key to solving a crime where there is no direct evidence available.
Not mentioned in this episode:
~ The $2 field drug tests renowned for false positives, that are still admissible in court and still are used to establish _probable cause_
~ The lab that _intentionally_ returned false positives, since the DoJ favors labs that returns results that produce convictions. That lab made _bank_ providing evidence for countless false convictions.
~ The detection dogs that have up to 90%+ false positive rate, which are commonly used to establish probable cause. For some reason after the fifth time the dog _alerted_ but nothing was found, we keep using him.
Our justice system is far, far more interested in securing convictions that seeing justice done. They'd rather let innocents serve time (and the guilty walk) than actually prove guilt. And it's been that way for more than a century.
The 13th amendment outlawed slavery _except as punishment for a crime._ Now, prison workers (at privately owned for-profit prisons) make almost all our military accessories, lots of consumer goods ("made in the USA"), do lots of the meat-packing and livestock slaughtering, and are starting to do farm labor picking crops. What they want is not justice, it's more prisoners.
They did do a whole segment in an earlier episode about the field drug kits. Mindblowing, and of course they're still being used even though many of them are about as reliable as a coin toss.
right
Uriel238
@Uriel238 "They'd rather let innocents serve time (and the guilty walk) than actually prove guilt."
No, they want them all guilty. They get a "tough on crime" moniker that they can use in future politics.
I totally would watch CSI: Crime Scene Idiot. Too many of the current criminal investigation TV shows dramatize and disproportionately distort on what goes in within an investigation.
A modern interpretation of Police Squad.
Would you say your spambot dating site has "a reasonable scientific degree of certainty"?
Looks like it has a "reasonable scientific degree of sexy girls", anyway.
flatebo1 j
Spambot has a reasonable degree of certainty for being reported/blocked/banned...
The fact that man is still able to laugh and have an effective sense of humor after being wrongfully convicted and "serving" almost 30 years in prison is incredible. Massive respect for that.
People would tell him to get over it if he didn't.
Almost as if he's saying, "You could have made it not so easy" He could withstand way more.
I see two possibilities, either he managed to keep his spirit Intact or some part of him went insane while imprisoned and that’s the part of him that’s laughing
Honestly, looking at his face it didn't seem like humor, it looked more like a sad man trying to laugh it away and it wasn't really working. This is also known as hysteria.
10:48 should’ve called it who’s blood is it anyway
Dear HBO. Hire this guy ^
I second the motion.
Honestly didn’t think that this would get that popular thanks lmao
kevinperri93 HBO, give him a medal while you're at it
Rolls off the tongue muuuch more easily.
"How could a dog fire a gun?"
Weeeell, from what I heard, the US tend to have one case a year where a dog accidentally triggers a gun and shoot someone - usually his owner. I guess the only thing who can stop a bad dog with a gun is a good dog with a gun?
ONE good dog with a gun? Try two. No try 1.1 Billion!
A Dog Good Doggy! I hope it's right after the dog has snapped his chain outside and broke into the house and ate a big chicken from the table. I hope the abusive owner was just about to eat the chicken and the dog shot the owner right then.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-dog-fires-gun-royal-canadian-mounted-police-chestermere-alberta-canada-a7975566.html
I love Air Bud 9
Golden retrievers are a *hunting* breed. YEAHHHHHHHH!!!!
Guilty, on the streets... Innocent, on the electric seats.
This is the thing I don't get it... Those cops and prosecutors claim they are trying to make the city safer by convicting a guy with forged evidence... but they are in fact making unsafer, since the real bad guy is out with nobody looking for him.
The cognitive dissonance in law enforcement is amazing.
Mateus Bittencourt they just do it to make us FEEL safer
Ooh Damn someone came to play!
lol drama queen much?
Jane Doe Have you ever seen At The Death House Door?
It only took him 4.5 literal years but he finally managed to land that Last Week Tonight content focusing on what he clearly cares the most about, Air Bud.
😂
"My personal conclusion is, the dog committed the crime"
Phoenix Wright has as much chance to get the correct convictions with spirit mediums and cross-examining a parrot as some of these forensic scientists
That fact that that's true makes me scared.
Adrian Duran i was just waiting for someone to say that
Always works.
At least spirit channeling is verifiably credible in that world.
Spirit mediums and parrot examinations are far more reliable than some forensic science.
Not gonna lie, I'd actually watch an entire season of CSI: Crime Scene Idiot. 😂
notenoughtomes fun not real n no lab rat interrogates suspects like on the show. Crime scene tech, las vegas
Was totally gonna say the same :D
And a movie about Harding? Same
Hell yeah, notenoughtomes, that'd be awesome
notenoughtomes We all would.
Can I say John Oliver is the only person who can inform me on horrible topics but still cause me to laugh.
Can you say that with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
@@con3521 does principle Skinner steam a good ham?
Conrad Favale if anyone ask me to say that phrase in court my autism would take over 😡
@@desertdaisymarie6951 because...why? That seems like a really strange thing to get upset over.
Jim Guy I’m autistic and the phrase is meaningless.. A court is a place to establish guilt beyond ALL reasonable doubt or find not guilty, not rack up points..
Everybody is talking about Crime Scene Idiot, but I really wanna see Monkey Law And Monkey Order!
interesting
seems perfect for a banana republic
This is why there shouldn't be a death penalty. If one person has been wrongfully murdered from the death penalty it's to many
Matt Sanders too*
right, but sitting in prison for 30 years... that's just as bad really
Better that 1000 guilty men go free, than a single innocent man is put to death. - iforgetwhosaidthat
I disagree strongly. First, imprisonment never "fixed" anybody. If anything, it creates more darkness, for which innocent people pay -- both literally and otherwise. Secondly, the moment you go soft there will be real criminals taking advantage of it. Is it not true that there are more real criminals than wrongfully convicted? As long as that ratio is more than 1, we cannot dare loosen the severity.
Rather, enforce death penalties for "negligence of duty" (which have resulted in wrongful execution) as well. In fact, for petty crimes a little corporal punishment in public will "correct" the criminal far more effectively (and cheaply) than ten years inside a "correctional" facility. A misnomer if ever there was one.
The problem is that most people making these decisions have never been directly affected by a single crime ever. If you have looked into the eyes of a real, intentional murderer (I have) -- you WILL think twice before letting that scorpion skitter away to a dark corner.
I feel more responsible participating in, for taxes having paid for, directly for the system and decisions that put the one innocent man to death. The others are individual responsibility.
My god, if they ever made CSI: Crime Scene Idiot, I would watch it.
Isn't there one with Rashida Jones?
#MeToo LOL
My dad actually helped with a case like this Marty Tankleff was convited of murdering his parents when he was 18 and spent 18 years in jail, but then was found innocent, he was actually friends with jim gandolfini.
That final skit at the end was AMAZING. Well fooking done
*"fooking", Lmao*
Love it!
*Take care :)*
It is amazing how John picks the topics and does complete justice to it. Why hasn't been given the Pulitzer Prize already? This is not some angry fan venting. This man deserves the best journalism award America has to offer.
That would probably be an insult to the dude, since he doesn't want this show to be considered journalism.
What's really insulting is the filter bubble most people (not only in the US, but also and especially in Europe) are kinda expected to live in, because apparently so-called self-proclaimed journalists and politicians think the people wouldn't comprehend the full truth (no - no conspiracy, but just the shaping of opinions as politicians see fit). Then again those same idiots up there name the stuff, that's going on, "democracy" - fully knowing, that democracy requires people to be able to form their own opinions about things.
The sad truth is, that shows like this one (I love John Oliver for what he's doing - except for certain episodes such as the one about sexism) actually deliver much better journalism than many, many so-called "news feeds / magazines". And this is what makes journalism in general appear pretty pathetic, which is why I don't like 3 types of people: politicians, journalists and lawyers with "journalists" being the newest addition. Most of them are crap.
I really don't think it's the best journalism. There are much better specials/shows out there regarding journalistic information. Not that the show doesn't have it's moments (he isn't always accurate either) but still, much better ones out there for info.
@@Goldenretriever-k8m I really like his reporting, but he does have writers who contribute heavily... not sure if you can be awarded a Pulitzer for something other people help write.
@@vonsoup6673 Yeah, and its not like he does heavy undercover stuff. HE IS NOT RONAN FARROW lol. For real? Do people even know what a Pulitzer is?
So if I eat a Sub, and get murdered someone who isn't guilty can be accused, even though it's a sandwich completely unrelated to my death. Huh, da mo u no
and the best part of it all: Your murder can live a long and happy life - there is with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty no other potential suspect let alone an actual murderer running free.
sarowie *murderererererer
ur mum'a a sandwich
Leatheryfoot oh noes! torpedoed by a sub!
True, but witnesses are also ridiculously flawed, although there is a strong bias towards them. Changing the phrasing of the question for instance can have a witness insert details of varying accuracy. Oliver should have done a piece how flawed prosecutions are in general, such as ridiculous bail fees, to jury selections etc...
Hair can't "match". It can be microscopically and characteristically similar. But that's it.
It should be noted, that the documentary didn't claim that two people could have fingerprints so similar that they cannot be distinguished by an expert, but rather, two people can have fingerprints so similar that they can both match a latent print. This is a very different claim, since latent prints are often not complete, and only are lifted as partial prints.
liggieep yet they are still used as evidence
Actually not just that, they said it was a partial. Which means the print is not of the whole finger, to begin with, it is only a part of the print. It is like one piece of a 800 or so piece jigsaw puzzle that can fit anywhere. If just by looking at that one piece you are trying to guess the picture of the jigsaw puzzle, you will come up with thousands of options.
I didn't recall if they said partial, but I did mention that. Yes, latent prints are often not complete, and the print that a forensic investigator is able to lift might only end up intact as a partial print. You make a very good point about the jigsaw piece.
my dad cites CSI on a regular basis for why he is suspicious of some of my actions lol. If he thinks I'm being sneaky he always says "don't forget I've been watching csi!!" lol
Jackal Unleashed go on
Jackal Unleashed holy shit!!! How "old" or "young" are you ?
Jackal Unleashed please be aware of generic modification...
Jackal Unleashed Maybe tell him that he's a crazed lunatic?
Jackal Unleashed You are everywhere! I keep seeing you in Reportoftheweek videos, Elvis The Alien videos, Leon Lush videos, I might have seen you in a Sugarpine7 video. My God!!!!
Air Bud 9: F**k the Police, a seriously underrated movie. A public release is needed.
Paw-lice, please. And you call yourself a fan...
Paw-lease bitch!
Come on guys, don't be ruff.
Do you think drafting off John's joke makes you funny, too?
Pathetic
@@DopeyDetector A large fraction of comments on TH-cam are people just quoting things in the video.
They thought dog hair was human hair? That feels like more than just an error of analysis.
ceres090 sometimes they are too eager to close the case
#Racism
All mammals have surprisingly similar DNA. Hell all vertebrates have surprisingly similar DNA. That's why they need to be thorough; it's easier the fuck up than you'd think.
Also kinda feela like an insult
@@INTCUWUSIUA yeah, but hair analysis isn't abaout DNA. It is about the look of the hair, the color, form, thickness, topology etc.
I'm genuinely surprised he didn't talk about how most states don't even use Medical Examiners or Pathologists for these forensic investigations and instead VOTE for random people who have no knowledge of dead bodies and have had no schooling on it.
VertigoCrime - I think that is only in small places, towns and such. Large cities have requirements for MEs. You aren't going to find a butcher or vet as the ME of Chicago or Dallas.
Yeah, my hometown uses the same old dude who's been elected to the position for decades because he runs uncontested. It mostly works out because most people in the county die of 'old age', obvious and documented illness (cancer, cirrhosis), and 'misadventure' (wander off a cliff drunk, die while skiing the backcountry). Whenever there's an equivocal death (which is rarely) he just taps out and we borrow someone legit from a city.
Hate to think what would happen if he didn't raise his hand and ask for help so willingly. Hate to think what would happen if there were ever murders he had to handle. (The last one was in the 70s or 80s; all the equivocal deaths since have been suicides or accidents or previously unknown disorders, etc.)
Wait what the fuck? We can't just vote people for dis shit?
It's unrealistic to expect to do anything other than elect them, smaller towns don't have people with the skill set, and not enough people want to move from the city to a rural location to make less money. That's the way the world works in a capitalist society. (which is part of why I don't believe in capitalism.)
In my home town, Springfield Illinois, after our mayor committed suicide, a temporary mayor was chosen from our city counsel; after much deliberation he selected his wife to be our coroner; that's how it works in smaller cities
I believe the coconut did it. Three hairs have a reasonable scientific degree of certainty
Somebody threw the coconut and then disposed of the evidence. By eating it. It must be the dog.
your mom has a reasonable scientific degree of certainty
I don't know, That bad dog looks guilty to me.
SpiceTrade Magnate: The coconut was carried by a swallow.
And the bite marks on the holy grail match the suspect with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty
This is why you have 2 Emmys. Keep up the fantastic work. Really top notch.
I like to rewatch episodes and know the bologna sandwich ending, yet it still absolutely murders me every single time I see it. I almost choked on my tea just now.
I have a master degree in law. I had forensic science. First episode of CSI: they identify a murderer by reflection in victim's eye from the security camera. This was the last episode I have watched.
Pierre Le Bourreau I also like the misconception that people assume those that study forensics is a fan of CSI. Lol no that's the crappiest representation ever. 🤣
lmaooooo
Pierre Le Bourreau i don't yave a degree in law or science, i msde it through 1/2 an episode before i called bullshit
ENHANCE
i agree. lot of tv shows have episodes that are far fetched. books are way better. I grew up reading Perry Mason. I havent appreciated anything crime related as much as Perry Mason. Pierre, if u havent read the series i highly recommend it
Well, I always figured CSI was pretty authentic, what with the amazing holographic displays they have in their, uh, Science Conference room area.
Their zoom and enhance technology is pretty impressive as well.
You must understand that for a significat part of the population, justice is not about getting the right killer, but about making someone pay. Anyone can do.
And for bigots like Session or Pence (read Jeff Sharlett's «The Family»), if you are poor and miserable, then you deserve punishment, no matter if you're guilty of that crime or not.
As someone who is studying to go into forensic science I applaud you for debunking some of the greatest misconceptions about it. While you can get a good idea about a crime scene it is definitely not perfect. Labs and data bases are nothing like the ones in the shows and evidence that can be used in shows is different than in real world scenarios. And I know a woman who went to trial and was asked the stupid "can you say this with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" and she explained how that was a stupid question to everyone in the courtroom and how they could only say this was their best analysis of the situation, not 100% the answer. Thank you again John Oliver, we really need to inform more people about what forensics can and cannot do to prevent innocent people from having to pay the price of the actions of others.
RhylieFilms we have too much faith in science,law enforcement should learn to go beyond that and apply themselves whenever there is any shadow of doubt
This is why I would love to see a crossover between John and Adam Conover from "Adam ruins Everything". Adam did an episode about this, and this is not the first time they have both done the same subject. Seeing those two ruining various subjects together would be a lot of fun!
Bradley Ogilvie Oh yeah, I watched the fingerprint episode.
You are one sick guy.
... and so am I
Yes yes yes they both need crossover episodes adam conover on last week tonight and john oliver on adam ruins everything
John could rip Adam to shreds. While a great concept there's a lot of problems with the tone of Adam's show that sets it up to make more mistakes, oversimplify, or send the wrong messages than anything this show puts forth.
Bradley Ogilvie This is a complete rip off of a PBS Nova episode! I guess him and Adam watch PBS.
I know it was a joke to prove a point...but I think Crime Scene Idiot is my favorite show now
I would watch it!
I want to watch it! Please make it happen, HBO!
I would definitely watch it!
I was thinking maybe "Crime Scene Imbecile" would be a good name too
"If the glove don't fit you must acquit"
Elexess Ashley Why do I see you everywhere!? Are you a bot? I see you in my twitter feed emails i see you in youtube videos. Everywhere 🤔 or you just watch what I watch?
Krizx600 has she gotten to your dreams if not it’s your only safe space
"if you think my top is cute you cannot execute"
VytenisR1 I'm here if you need to talk.
VytenisR1 Rick and Morty reference? 🤔
The innocence Project is a fantastic organization. The states that wrongfully convicted those people should have to pay them millions of dollars in restitution maybe they’ll think twice about shoddy investigatory work in the future
Dear HBO, please make Crime Scene Idiot happen. Or tell Netflix to make it happen or something.
If they can make a Jaden Smith Anime and a Magic School Bus sequel in cheap Flash, they can do this. Until they cancel it because of budgets.
Yes! I thought I was the only one who thought that!
Also, keep this cast. They are awesome.
*YES, OH PLEEEEEEEEEEASE YES ! ! !*
Well shit I thought you were talking about that boring-ass cat video.
10:48 should be "Whose Blood Is it anyway?"
Were the evidence is made up, and the hemoglobin doesn't matter!
"We're going to move on to the first game, Crime Scenes From a Hat!"
Oh man what a missed opportunity XD
Screenshotting this because this is golden
@SSTEAS Aren't you just the epitome of both "fun" and "funny".
Boo.
Trill (before it was cool): a :the alternation of two musical tones a diatonic second apart - called also shake.
Just an FYI.
ryan82scott didn't even know there was another use of the word trill other then performing music?
What does this new trill mean??
Trillax mate you'll get in one day
Trilly, I hope that day never comes.
To me it's always been a race from Star Trek.
Tripping on little blue & yellow pills
I'm currently living in my car, if not for your show and others this would be hell.
Thanks, dude
So when are we gonna be able to buy that Air Bud poster?
Just take a screenshot, crop it, and take it to CVS. I think poster prints are like $10.
I also think most people undervalue the joy one can derive from the photo kiosks as CVS.
stopthattimerave
I'm in a forensics class, and this is awesome!!!
Awesome to know that you're totally wasting yourtime?
Yo Same!!! Do you study in America or somewhere else in the world?
Your forensics class is a lie. Quit now and save society
@White Void
As John himself said, majority of forensic sciences are completely scientific and proven. But sadly some practices are just plain wrong.
Well, I see some people in this chain completely missed the point of this video.
Currently studying Forensics in college right now, and I REALLY appreciate that John and his team have covered this. While I am proud to say that my professors and classes had already made me aware of all of these issues; the more people realize just how big of a problem "junk" science is in the forensics community, the better.
XD, you are completely right!
I have the definitions right here:
*BASIC: A programming language designed by John G. Kenney and Thomas E. Kurtz on this very day (May 1st) back in 1964.*
*Trill: A playing technique used in music where the player rapidly alternates between two notes.*
Also Trill: a humanoid species native to the planet Trill. (Star Trek) memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Trill
@@Kartissa Good catch! Forgot about that one!
I love john oliver. So much BS in this world, I'm glad he calls it out for all to see!
TheRoshan89 actually he is the BS
Sealing Turtle99 what did he say wrong
Anonymous User well its just that he takes everything trump says out of context to make him look bad
Sealing Turtle99 such as?
Sealing Turtle99 Trump does a good enough job making himself look like a dumbass.
i want to see john oliver on fashion police
WHAT IS WILL GARDNER DOING ON CSI??????
He is recalibrating.
ME TOO
too many bots, when will Google get off their ass and do something about these scam accounts?
report all the fake accounts
He should be in everything.
I was reading that this show was placed in a new category with SNL so one of the other late night shows will win an emmy. This show is in a class of it's own. Oliver should just be granted it with no competition in that new category until we see a reasonable challenger. No one has ever successfully nailed this kind of research and mastery of humor together. One of a kind. Thanx
They should have to send a letter to every juror after retrial or exoneration so they know it was crappy evidence. The more people that know the less likely people will fall for that shi. Too bad so many shows make it seem like forensics are impeccable. And too many Americans believe TV before fact, anyway.
cinnflowergirl as an American i agree 100%.
I often think about moving to a different country. America is just ugh. Even when it comes to getting their health on track they. Believe fitness magazines and tv before actual fact and tried and true methods.
@Sayem
I understand your frustration, think about this every single day.
First,
I just want to try to explain a mental practice that was very difficult for me :
Try to compartmentalize
[] *topics* + trends that upset you from
[] *people* that bring these topics up
+ trigger memories of all that is wrong
with the trend/culture
+ *especially*
if they're not contributing to the problem
=================
While everything you said is (unfortunately) common,
cinnflowergirl's suggestion could hold A LOT of promise in practice.
Remember how many people watch + understand
these John Oliver videos + arguments.
=================
The example comparing the appearance of hair
and explaining to jurors like it was a scientific proven truth
(based on superficial pattern recognition alone)
is just heinous.
Sending these jurors a message
explaining basic *facts* (without superfluous jargon)
would be phenomenal.
Such as explaining how two hairs can look the same,
but if you examine the DNA
you can (actually) safely assume hard evidence
quote:
" _Research has shown that matching hairs using subjective analysis can be highly inaccurate (one FBI study found a 12.5 percent error rate). By comparison, the statistical probability of a false positive using the most advanced DNA testing kits can be as low as one in more than a quadrillion._ "
(Note the important phrase "can be" :
one huge exception being identical twins).
=================
If juries are lied to
(or told that something bogus or *completely*
circumstantial can be relied on to convict)
They could spread that to their friends as a
"fun tidbit I learned on jury duty".
& worse
left uninformed,
misuse that knowledge next jury duty.
Lol #fakeNews I learned in court.
=================
Reforming the law to ban bogus practice is preferable.
#wooTexas
But I'm extremely curious now :
---------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Send out correction letters
to jurors who witnessed
bogus + misleading practices.
(B) Ban fake science from courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
*Which is easier to pass a new law for?*
---------------------------------------------------------------
If (A) is easier to push through,
it would be better than nothing
while waiting on (B).
Sure, the letter should look like this:
Dear Juror,
So you remember that guy you helped sentence to death a couple years ago? Well, it turns out science was wrong, so you killed the wrong man you terrible piece of fucking shit.
Have a good day,
The forensics team
cinnflowergirl Of course they believe TV over fact. They voted for a TV star over a politician. But I don't think that trait is strictly American
Funny, that's kind of what you're doing here. Do you often get your facts from late night 'comedians'?
*I am SOOOO glad that **_SOMEBODY_** is finally making noise about this!*
*I worked for a forensic firm for 5 years between 2004 and 2009, and during that time, ALL of the issues raised here were on full display!&
The most egregious is the use of PAID Forensic Examiners. When an witness expert is being paid by your side, you KNOW that they are going to render an opinion favorable to your side! Take th exact same evidence, the exact sane Examiner, and pay them by the other side, and just like magic, the evidence becomes "consistent with YOUR case!*
*No Kidding"
If you worked in the field the noise was made, The NAS report was issued labs took a hard look at the operations and changed. the P-cast was not scientists looking at the areas like the NAS at all. the P-cast isn't a good report at all.
Is that...Li'l Sebastian at 18:20 ?! Or a cousin of his maybe ? Anyway, I would totally watch that show ! Five star cast for real !
His name is LIL SEBASTIAN YOU philistine!!
My bad ! There, it's been edited. You're feeling better ;-) ?
Sugarhighme Gaming Gone but not forgotten.
Trucs en Série yes actually.
To be honest, me too ;-) !
The worst thing you can hear from a prosecutor is when they drop a case against a innocent and they call it “a horrible day” and that they are starting back at square one. You weren’t starting over you were going in the right direction in the first place. It also comes off that they want a innocent man in prison instead of a case that doesn’t have some in prison.
"scientific certainty"= "I never studied science beyond high school chemistry"
actually its more like “lol what the fuck does science mean?”
To me, it's: "Did I ever set foot in a school, because I completely missed the mark of what the reading, math, history, and science of science is."
Not even statistically significant?
I have a bad feeling that's statistics and not science.
Honestly its just ''im not that familiar with scientific terms''
hefftatious to work in a crime lab you have to have at least a bachelor's degree in forensic science, so, yes, actually, they have.
but...that cute goth girl with pigtails uses her magic forensics computer to solve every mystery instantly...
gusbaker4u hey, don’t forget about the british corpse guy!
That "cute girl" is actually 48 years old... ;)
gusbaker4u ABBY ON NCIS
Chunkboi Now they have Fez from That 70s Show! XD
Claudio Michel I was just about to say that
awesome show John, Keep up the good work, this is what journalism sounds like, not airiing 24/7 news about a bozo in White House.
Actually I appreciate the constant updates on the depravity of our dictator and chief.
Rodney Warren Indeed! Better keep an very good eye on that character.
It was that bozo who hired Jeff Fucking Sessions.
Startup Division bozzo? Excuse me !! That is "The President!"... Show some respect for the office... you must "love" the president...we are his chosen people...
Luminositymusic Is this a joke? Some meme I'm not getting?
I absolutely love when LWT does the end sketches about police or lawyers or any criminal/forensic field, that they use actors who have been pretty big characters in criminal tv shows. Like they keep using SVU cast and its amazing
Everybody knows a Trill is an alien species that joins symbiotically with a sentient parasite. Come on, John!
Thank you!
I'm with you.
It's not a Trill. It's a TRIBBLE. But close.
Kohljakal, the word in the John Oliver video was Trill. Additionally, Trill is an alien species in Star Trek. Tribbles are the small fuzzy things from TOS, Trill are the joined symbiotic species from TNG and DS9, with Jadzia Dax being the most well known.
This comment makes my life!!
Also Joran Dax would make a good suspect on CSI lmao.
I NEED THAT SHOW!!
That was the best ever episode of CSI I have ever watched.period
This reminds me of how much I love 1.100.000.000pac's music
Fuck the paw-lice, omg this is amazing
A&E just finished their documentary on the Scott Peterson case a little over a week ago. That is the perfect example of nearly everything discussed in this video. The prosecution had a personal bias that led to them zeroing in on Scott and ignoring every other possibility or lead. All of their evidence, which wasn't much, was circumstantial at best. Nothing they had proved he did anything. John didn't really discuss the impact the media has on cases, especially high profile ones. The media frenzy convicted Scott early on based on a bunch of bullshit, specifically Nancy Grace. If you haven't watched the documentary, I recommend it.
The Cincinnati Inquirer did a similar podcast about a 1978 murder in Oxford Ohio. The entire investigative team basically decided the boyfriend was guilty from the very beginning and didn't really bother to look into anyone else. And almost everyone who has worked on the case since is still convinced of his guilt. So much cognitive bias it hurts.
As a CSI fan, I approve and applaud this video, so much truth that people need to know about!
Actually the “CSI Effect” is an actual term and it was the first thing I learned in my introduction to forensics classes college
This is why I love this show. Every week presents new and interesting topics.
"we're indoors... fuck you!" lmAO
I was dismissed as a juror die to my medical background for a trial that sent someone to prison for a long time. I hope they got it right.
:(
Steve I present to you Exhibit A, which shows that "I" is right next to "U" on a standard QWERTY keyboard. Thus, I can say with a certain amount of scientific certainty that this was most probably a typo.
Did you miss the bit that this person was dismissed? As in, they didn't have a say in the verdict?
lmao you don't read too well, do you?
steve
Have you met many doctors? None of them can spell. Thats part of becoming a doctor lol.
That trailer should become a new HBO series.
I liked John Oliver sporting bangs in Community
I love this show. I usually laugh at the jokes and enjoy them, but there was something so disturbing, inhumane, and even scary to think of innocent humans with years of their lives taken away. I couldn't laugh this time.
David Baker same
David Baker Yeah. I just watched A&E's documentary on the Scott Peterson case and I was nauseated when the last episode ended. I'm 99.9% sure the media amd the prosecuters put an innocent man in prison. If you haven't watched it, do it. It's really good, but frustrating.
Same here. The justice system in America is driven by so much greed. Trump isn’t really helping either since he’s taking a different approach by not seeing how damaging privatized prisons are. He recently removed an Obama era legislation that went against for-profit, privatized prisons.
David Baker I feel you.
Damn hippie
I already knew most of this thanks to Adam Ruins Everything. We need more shows like that.
Feynstein 100 can't find the link!! 😥
th-cam.com/video/nyDMoGjKvNk/w-d-xo.html
Feynstein 100 Yeah but th show is garbage now,
+Hello There It is?
Feynstein 100 There have been a lot of poorly supported and downright incorrect claims. No joke, they are about to do an episode on why MSG is good for you
Just starting a six week on-line course, "Introduction to Forensic Science" and have linked this very informative video to the course comments. Thank you!
I would love to watch an episode of Monkey Law and Order
Andrew Hong dun dun
Wal-Mart Supercenter; Supermartket section- Produce Section
The detective monkeys surround the scene of the crime; there was a heist 2 hours prior of all the bananas. Also the gang murdered a security guard.
One of the detectives picked up a banana left behind by one of the perps. It has BITE MARKS! They took it back to the lab.
TO BE CONTINUED
Andrew Hong the best joke on this episode 😎
They already have it on T.V it's called "caso cerrado"
I was really disappointed, that they didn't have a monkey from Monkey Law & Monkey Order as expert in CSI:Crime Scene Idiot
Brian-84blizzle Same here, I just absolutely lost my shit in the train, got some weird stares. But at least I wasn't drinking coffee at that moment.
John Oliver's facial expression just makes it even better.
Oh my gosh that is terrifying.
Saving this for when I get wrongly accused of murder.
ArchAngelThomas wrongly?
Easily one of the worst things that can happen to anybody, being wrongly convicted and executed. Everything you have accomplished, cherished and loved in life will be replaced by night terrors, anguish and fear of the unknown. No man-made religion on earth can save you now. To all of those that truly are innocent and currently awaiting death... Iron Maiden - "Hallowed Be Thy Name".