So What Did Margie Say About...CSI: Forget Me Not revisited

The 7/24/13 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode titled "Forget Me Not" had its' first blog entry from the air date of 2/21/13.

 

This time I'd like to talk a little about some evidence that wasn't mentioned directly but was brought to mind during the discussion of evidence in regards to the wine glass in the hotel room.  Of course the obvious and most commonplace evidence is the fingerprint.  But they also noted the presence of lipstick on the glass.

 

If you have ever looked at a lip print you will notice both horizontal and vertical lines within the print.  There have been studies that indicate that these patterns of lines may be as unique as fingerprints.  For some odd reason, which has not been emphasized to my knowledge, the reliance of these line patterns for identification or individualization never really caught on in the forensic world.

 

It reminds me of ear prints.  Back in the day when there was a definite problem with safe crackers the ear print was considered an important piece of evidence.  As it turns out, to hear the tumblers in a locking mechanism, the thief would press his (or her) ear up against the safe.  Several cases have been known to include ear print samplers in order to make an ear print comparison. 

 

I guess as life gets more technical and complicated, so does the accountability of evidence.  It has been literal decades since I have heard any mention of anyone interested in pursuing studies to validate either ear prints or lip prints.

 

One aspect of today's security and identification technology does involve the scanning of the iris of the eye.  This particular facial feature is still as strong as ever in forensics.  I guess that old adage "the eyes have it" is truer than we think.

So What Did Margie Say About...

The 2/20/13 episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation titled " Forget Me Not" highlighted the conflict between emotion and physical evidence.  There is a saying that physical evidence cannot be tainted, it does not lie, it is not prejudice, and it cannot be persuaded.  Only the people who interpret the meaning and importance of this evidence possess these qualities. 

 

At some point in the story line the detective was advised to "not read between the lines" but to rely on the physical evidence.  And boy was there evidence: a fingerprint on a wine glass and hair in the shower drain, not to mention the digital records of the hotel door log and the phone log.  How convenient that potential evidence like fingerprints and blood on the potential murder knife was washed away in the dishwasher and the bedsheets from the hotel room with possible evidence were missing.

 

And then how ironic that the same absence of evidence helped to corroborate the idea that CSI Sidle did not actually assault a potential stalker.  There was no trace or blood on her clothes to indicate that she had participated in any sort of beating.  Imagine that the absence of evidence was actually the evidence necessary to spur on the pursuit of further analysis and digging into the investigation.

 

Thankfully the CSI's followed their hearts and emotions and went the extra mile to search for the truth.

 

It does make one wonder though when does emotion help to encourage further search and testing.  Would they have done more if it hadn't involved a coworker?  I'd like to think that the ultimate effort occurs in every case regardless of budget cuts and deadline pressures.  I guess in reality we should all be thankful for the diligence of true professionals and organizations like "The Innocence Project".