So What Did Margie Say About.......Elementary: Heroine

 

The 9/19/13 repeat Elementary episode titled "Heroine" begins with Irene Adler (aka Moriarty) stating "as if men had a monopoly on murder".

True enough, when I began my career in the late 70's females were usually only considered as suspect when it involved domestic violence or when their children were killed.  It was usually considered a crime of passion or as a result of a mental illness.  It was not considered that there was planning and thought behind the elimination of life, not by a woman.

As the years went by and women held more positions of authority in society it became true that they may have also become more violent in other aspects of society.  However if you look at statistics of serial killers (people who kill multiple people over a time period); spree killers (people who kill multiple people in a short period of time); and now active shooters and/or work related violence shootings, the perpetrators are for the most part male.

Criminal profilers who develop a potential suspect rely on these trends to develop their profiles.  How long will it be before women break the glass ceiling of criminal violence and therefore make it necessary to reevaluate those profiles?

So What Did Margie Say about CSI...I mean Elementary

The 4/17/13 usual time slot for CSI: Crime Scene Investigation instead aired the repeat "Elementary" episode titled 'The Leviathan'.  Several times during the course of the show they stated 'if you eliminate the impossible what's left, no matter how improbable, is the truth'.

 

This mantra is exactly how many investigations are pursued only under the phrase 'scientific method' instead.

 

Basically, utilizing the scientific method, one reviews the facts and develops a theory or hypothesis.  Then (especially in a scientific field like bloodstain pattern analysis which tends to be more subjective than an instrumental analysis for drugs or DNA or explosives) the scientist endeavors to disprove their theory.

 

It is a process of elimination really.  Eliminating whatever isn't possible leaves only what is possible.  I can't tell you how many times in court while testifying that I have been asked if some other explanation is a possibility.  Having followed the scientific method and attempting to disprove the original theory, I was always able to testify that my experimentation established that several other suggested theories were not a possibility. 

 

Obviously, this is not 100% of the time.  Sometimes you may not be able to distinguish between patterns of expirated (blood being expelled from the body by force due to damage to or blood being present in the lungs or the airways) or impact (liquid blood being sent into flight by compression due to some forcible event) blood.  But then you rely on the other facts of the case.  Such as the injuries suffered by the victim.  That may also help to eliminate some possibilities and narrow down what is 'probable'