Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

House or CSI???

CSI. A doctor like House wouldve been fired long time ago. Hes a malpractice lawsuit waiting to happen.

CSI is apparently very unrealistic according to a lot of Forensic guys in reality...

Yep. What police department always gets the bad guy 45 minutes after the crime was commited??

Well obviously...

Realistically speaking CSI is.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yep. What police department always gets the bad guy 45 minutes after the crime was commited??

The show is not real time like 24. The crimes are solved over a period of time, days mostly.

Yeah, I have no idea what he is talking about.

Unless in real life they have teleporters.

CSI is fake. I dont think forensic experts go out of their way to catch criminals. They just do the work and let the police detectives do their own thing.

House, I don't really know.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Yeah, I have no idea what he is talking about.

Unless in real life they have teleporters.

CSI is fake. I dont think forensic experts go out of their way to catch criminals. They just do the work and let the police detectives do their own thing.

House, I don't really know.

I dont have a problem with a doctor being as smart as House. I have a problem believing that a doctor with his methods wouldnt get his ass fired on the spot.

I would also assume that.

But the show references that he does get sued alot and he doesnt necessarily do anything bad. He usually saves everybody, and if they die, it was unavoidable. He's just a dick.

I dont know anything about diagnostic medicine to know if its true or not. Supposedly House is based on real cases. I think out of both of them House is alot more true to what might happen than CSI will ever be.

That is what is suppose to happen in real life, they deal with the scene and evidence then give it all to the Detectives to carry on, and the Detectives are the only ones that actually talk to the suspects from there on apparently.

All I know is that If I was a criminal, CSI would be my favorite show. It shows all the things avoid and do if u dont wanna get caught.

Originally posted by MildPossession
That is what is suppose to happen in real life, they deal with the scene and evidence then give it all to the Detectives to carry on, and the Detectives are the only ones that actually talk to the suspects from there on apparently.

Yeah, there is a show called The First 45 and its about how homicide detectives have roughly 45 hours to catch the suspect and if it goes beyond that its very unlikely that they will.

It follows the detectives and mostly all the episodes they catch the criminals, or find out about them by witnesses. Barely any of them involve any sort of hard physical evidence feature in CSI. Maybe something to do with prints but nothing like CSI.

In CSI, they have guns. Forensic experts might have guns, but never use them. Also, they dont talk to suspects, or go the houses to catch them. They stick around a crime scene for days, and then stick in the lab for days also.

CSI is good for one show, but after that its done, and shit. Law And Order is more real than CSI.

I watch CSI for enterntainment value(and because Katherine is hot!). I guess if I was a real CSI I probably would hate the show.

Other than a few medical terms, there is nothing similar to House and how an actual MD practices medicine. I've watched that show a few times with my Uncle, whom is an MD. There were times where my Uncle said that Houses' patients would have been dead from how he treated their illness, lol

and it is FICTION, so let's not nitpick, and enjoy it because it's an entertaining and well made show.

The actress who plays Catherine Willows is apparently leaving at the end of her contract this year. She doesn't want to carry on the role after her contract runs out. Shame, that will be my second favourite character gone now, after Sara.

House is awesome. Who cares if it's realistic?

Originally posted by BackFire
House is awesome. Who cares if it's realistic?

you're right, you watch the show for the characters, not to learn medicine huh? well...,except my DR. He is pathetically inept and touches me in naughty places

Get me a doctor, I heard the accent Hugh Laurie uses in house.

I'd say it sounds like they're both pretty unreal in their own ways....

I suppose they are both pretty high end shows. Not necessarily realistic, but possible. Like, if you happen to have people that have average IQs of 200 and a budget that could have finance World War 2 on both sides with a little spare cash.

i work in the field of forensics and can testify as to what a total steaming pile of nonsense CSI is

for a start...in the UK at least in large forensic labs...the scenes of crime personnel only collect the evidence and submit it to the labs...it is the job of the forensic scientist to analyse and interpret that evidence...the difference if that the lab workers tend to be educated to masters or PhD level in chemistry of biology but the scenes of crime officers are taken mostly from police backgrounds or other professions with useful skills such as professional photographers

neither make any assumptions about what happened at a scene...its not even about catching someone...its about collecting and analysing the evidence then performing statistical tests on the results to see if it supports or refutes the chances that person A is likely to have done specific acts in the crime scene

forensic work makes no assumptions to guilt or innocence because it deals only with the forensic evidence and doesn't take into account other evidence such as witness testimonies

i'll give an example

if a person breaks into a window then there has been research done as to how much glass would be caught in their clothes...there is also been lots of research on how likely sample of glass from those clothes would match a sample of glass from the window it's supposedly from

the forensic scientist tests both by various means (bayes theorum statistics is the emerging primary method) and gives a log scale potential ranging from 1,000,000 100,000, 10,000, 1000, 100, 10 0 and then the opposite in the negative side...range from 1,000,000 being extremely strong support that person A was near the window when it was broken...through strong, moderately strong, moderate, etc....0 being no evidence either way...and then the negatives showing support that the person was not there when the window was broken

not easy to get your head around but for court purposes it works well as its a method that judge, jury, lawyers etc can all work toward a standard

working in the forensics field though, there is such a thing we call "the CSI effect" whereby jurys put huge emphasis on forensic evidence because they think CSI and thus forensics is infallible...it's far from it

What's your exact job? My friends just started work in Forensics, she's so happy.

Scenes of crime workers have to have at least GCSEs to work in the job and then trained on the job, last time I looked it up for when I was looking for crime photography work.


Might be a steaming pile of nonsense, but it is still a well made entertaining series to watch that's a HOUR long each episode.

Originally posted by MildPossession
What's your exact job? My friends just started work in Forensics, she's so happy.

Scenes of crime workers have to have at least GCSEs to work in the job and then trained on the job, last time I looked it up for when I was looking for crime photography work.


Might be a steaming pile of nonsense, but it is still a well made entertaining series to watch that's a HOUR long each episode.



i'm currently a questioned document examiner but i also work as a part of a small private fire investigation team but that's about to come to an end as the fire services are about to employ their own in-house fire investigators...those 2 aspects are my "specialties" along with fingerprints

yeah GCSE or highers minimum but most of it is on job training...the problem being that getting the job in the 1st place has very little to do with grades and alot more to do with practical skills that transfer to the job...like photography as i mentioned

not sure if there is much call for specifically crime scene photographers though as it's usually incorporated into the remit of a scenes of crime officer (the UK title of a crime scene investigator)

perhaps in the bigger forces such as the MET maybe they have more specific roles

personally i'm hoping to join the forensic science service or the home office development branch and research and implement new standards such as optical coherence tomography and multispectral imaging analysis

i find the field work boring and this puts me in a minority as most of my university contemporaries prefer the scenes of crime work although the competition is much higher for those positions thanks to the likes of CSI making them popular