|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 19, 2022 14:58:21 GMT
starting this thread as a catch-all for things from TV procedurals that are not only a potential departure from how investigations actually work, but also may not hold up to the laws of physics.
in the latest episode of CSI, a critical clue in solving a shooting was that empty .22 rimfire casings found at the area where the shooting took place, showed an extra deep indentation from the firing pin. the explanation was that this proved the gun had been fired in an upward trajectory (the mythbusters episode on bullets fired into the air is relevant, here) when it killed a driver some distance away.
the questionable part is that because the breechface locks the shell casing in place, is there really any difference in the depth of impact, whether a gun is fired in an upward or downward trajectory?
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 19, 2022 18:10:35 GMT
starting this thread as a catch-all for things from TV procedurals that are not only a potential departure from how investigations actually work, but also may not hold up to the laws of physics. in the latest episode of CSI, a critical clue in solving a shooting was that empty .22 rimfire casings found at the area where the shooting took place, showed an extra deep indentation from the firing pin. the explanation was that this proved the gun had been fired in an upward trajectory (the mythbusters episode on bullets fired into the air is relevant, here) when it killed a driver some distance away. the questionable part is that because the breechface locks the shell casing in place, is there really any difference in the depth of impact, whether a gun is fired in an upward or downward trajectory? If there is, it would have to be very small. I doubt that it would even be detectable. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 19, 2022 19:51:18 GMT
CSI is infamous among legal circles because it led to many jurors demanding the kind of overly specific and unrealistically solid evidence that always comes up on the shows rather than accepting the fact that in real life the evidence is often more vague.
But yeah. There have been a few episodes that kind of make you ask questions.
For example, one episode involved a traveling "educational" show (don't remember the name) in which narrators work with animatronic dinosaurs. The murder involved a woman shoving her boyfriend off of a scissor lift onto the waiting jaw of the T-Rex animatronic, where he was impaled by the teeth; she wanted to be rid of him so she could be with someone else, but didn't want to actually deal with breaking up with him.
The whole thing implies that the real-life show keeps everything sharp enough and hard enough as to be an impalement risk. But one would think that liability requirements would obligate anything "pointy" to be made of rubberized material.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 20, 2022 2:14:17 GMT
CSI is infamous among legal circles because it led to many jurors demanding the kind of overly specific and unrealistically solid evidence that always comes up on the shows rather than accepting the fact that in real life the evidence is often more vague. But yeah. There have been a few episodes that kind of make you ask questions. For example, one episode involved a traveling "educational" show (don't remember the name) in which narrators work with animatronic dinosaurs. The murder involved a woman shoving her boyfriend off of a scissor lift onto the waiting jaw of the T-Rex animatronic, where he was impaled by the teeth; she wanted to be rid of him so she could be with someone else, but didn't want to actually deal with breaking up with him. The whole thing implies that the real-life show keeps everything sharp enough and hard enough as to be an impalement risk. But one would think that liability requirements would obligate anything "pointy" to be made of rubberized material. heavy things not meant for contact with people may be a bit lacking in force limiting features, and there wouldn't be a reason for having safety teeth. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Oct 25, 2022 16:50:11 GMT
I questioned the same thing TLW when I watched the episode. I've shot many weapons, and I don't buy that there is a noticeably deeper indentation on an upwardly fired bullet vs a straight, or downward one.
Along the same lines, a 'myth' that is propagated on almost every one of these types of shows is an in tact bullet with grooves allowing the team to match it to a specific gun. I particularly like when the bullet has traveled through walls and bones, yet is in perfect condition. On a recent show (I believe it was CSI, but it might have been one of the NCIS) the explanation given was that it was a jacketed bullet. Amazingly, the jacket protected the bulled from deforming on impact, but NOT the lands and grooves from the rifle barrel? Hmm, how's that work?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 25, 2022 17:19:25 GMT
I questioned the same thing TLW when I watched the episode. I've shot many weapons, and I don't buy that there is a noticeably deeper indentation on an upwardly fired bullet vs a straight, or downward one. Along the same lines, a 'myth' that is propagated on almost every one of these types of shows is an in tact bullet with grooves allowing the team to match it to a specific gun. I particularly like when the bullet has traveled through walls and bones, yet is in perfect condition. On a recent show (I believe it was CSI, but it might have been one of the NCIS) the explanation given was that it was a jacketed bullet. Amazingly, the jacket protected the bulled from deforming on impact, but NOT the lands and grooves from the rifle barrel? Hmm, how's that work? as I recall, one of the clips in the intro to the original CSI had them aligning the rifling marks on two un-deformed bullets. but yeah, you're right. even an FMJ bullet will be somewhat deformed on impact. addendum: which, of course, is why forensic bullet traps try to keep the sample bullet completely unmarked - so you will have a surface to compare any undeformed bit of the evidence bullet to. |
|
