Legal

Okay, I must admit I did not plan on needing to address CSI fans, but looking at references in social media where they allege the SAPS can learn from CSI, I just had to answer such stupid statements.

To start off with, let us firstly do a quick breakdown of a CSI episode.

  • Incident occurs
  • CSI to the scene
  • CSI trample scene with 20 unsupervised individuals walking in many different directions
  • CSI finds some sort of obscure trace evidence
  • Obscure trace evidence is loaded into a fictional magical machine that magically matches it with a flying carpet manufactured in a sweat shop in China
  • The fictional machine also has magical data of all fibres used in all materials on all continents
  • Twenty different suspects are confronted with the finding of the fictional machine and one of them cracks
  • Episode over, case solved

And now back to reality.

  • There are no magical fictional machines
  • CSI’s cannot testify in all fields of forensic science as alleged by the producers of the series
  • There is no magical databank that contains all records of all materials/fibres/ice picks or tampons sold
  • Suspects don’t crack with vague allegations, unless they are complete idiots
  • 90% of the so-called test done on exhibits (as alleged in the series) are fictional in any case and can’t be done

As a matter of fact, I enjoy watching CSI only to imagine how they would fail in presenting their so-called evidence in court. The series is pathetic and only there for dramatic effect.

Let’s get back to one of the points mentioned above. A person involved in the DNA analysis of a biological sample will NOT be involved in the metallurgical fracture analysis. That person (biologist) would also not do an extractive metallurgical analysis of a material sample from a mine. And neither of those (the metallurgist or the biologist) would do a comparative ballistic test, Each of these examples fall in a different field in forensic analysis and is done by an assigned and an appropriately trained analyst.

Added to that, the magical machine can’t testify. The analyst needs to understand the principles behind the functioning of the machine and must be able to verify the tests that were done through real scientific analysis.

For example: I could calculate the speed of a vehicle with the use of a computer program, but how do I verify that the program was correctly written to obtain the correct results for a given situation? That is done by using the scientific principles applying them to the specific equations based on those principles and developing a fully detailed equation that incorporates all the principles so that it can be calculated by using such principles. Then I need to verify whether it is applicable and useful and I also have to determine whether it falls within the scope of the problem where these principles are applicable. After that one needs to determine whether it fits into the scene or circumstances as a whole and whether it makes logical sense. Once I have done all of this, I will be able to testify about it accurately and I will be able to explain each and every step in the analysis if needed.

Which brings us back to the “magical machine”. The courts do not accept magic as scientific principle and the ballistic expert will not be able to explain what the magic drug testing machine did in order to determine that the white powder consisted of the newest designer drug that gives everyone a new soul.

So, if the SAPS screwed up with the protection of exhibits, watching CSI won’t help. Studying the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, however will. All the necessary guidelines are contained in the act and in a number referenced cases in law. The practical implication of evidence being trampled, in the Oscar Pistorius case, just like they do it in CSI, is that one only needs to prove that no damage was done that would have a material influence on the outcome of the trial. Testing in any case can include destructive testing and that only requires complete and detailed record keeping of the process of testing, from unharmed sample to destroyed sample. As long as the SAPS did not add additional cricket bat strikes to the door, or removed some of the evidence, it has no material effect on the findings. It being addressed in evidence is merely a theoretical exercise in an attempt to find a loophole in the evidence, as it may or may not work.

To sum up. Get real! CSI was written by idiots to cater for the gullible masses. Real life is nothing like that. Real life is like the current trial. Evidence is rarely perfect and no single piece of evidence proves a case, but the combination of many, many pieces of evidence goes a long way towards obtaining a reasonably accurate description of events.