Nancy Drew Secret In The Old Attic Analysis

In 2006, over 100 million people in the United States tuned in to watch either CSI or any if the other forensic and criminal investigation related television show each week (CJSG). Since then, the number of viewers has increased rapidly, as well as the amount of television shows with the same type of theme. As a result of the increase of these television programs, researchers are discovering a new phenomenon called the ‘CSI Effect’ that seems to be fueling an interest in forensic science and criminal investigations nationwide. This effect is actually the ability of criminal justice themed television shows to influence and increase victims’, jurors’ and criminals’ ideas about forensics, DNA testing and methods, and criminal investigations

The popular television show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigations has been on the air for 12 years, and it has brought forth the behind-the-scenes actions of criminal investigations, even if its portrayals are not always scientifically accurate. This has caused an interest in the forensic sciences that has led most people to a skewed view of how a criminal investigation actually works. The reality of a criminal investigation is that it is generally more tedious and difficult than the theory of criminal investigation would have you believe. By examining the forensic and investigative procedures of the case of Pamela Foddrill, it is apparent that the theory of criminal investigation was not representative of the procedures concerning examination

The Meaning Of The Title “Our Secret”, A Chapter From “A Chorus Of Stones” by Susan Griffin

Nearly anyone you ask would be familiar with the television show CSI. The crime lab is colorful and high-tech with all of the fun toys and machines that analysts use to test the ever abundant amount of forensic evidence from every crime scene. It makes for an exciting drama that you cannot help but get immersed in—it also gives us a false illusion, however, creating what has been dubbed as the “CSI effect” (Baskin, 2011). This effect describes the idea that crime shows such as CSI generate unreal expectations, making viewers believe that forensic evidence should be existent in all criminal trials, therefore affecting their overall perspective on a case (Baskin, 2011). But in reality, forensic labs are not that glamorous. In fact, the

A particular question that is seldom pondered over and yet is capable of carrying so many doubts within it: who are we? Who are we as a society who can do the things we do? Who are we who can suffer from them? Award winning poet and essayist Susan Griffin confronts these distinct questions in her work titled, “Our Secret”. Griffin believes that a basic understanding of the things that play a part in the growth of an individual is essential to understanding who we are. The way a child is raised dictates how that child is going to become later on in life. One of the distinct highlights of Griffin’s essay was her use of describing the progress of the V1 rockets in World War II. Griffin studies the aspects of human nature by using these missile developments as a metaphor to symbolize the raising of children and the factors that can influence a growing individual. One of the prime figures that Griffin uses pertaining to these growing individuals was Heinrich Himmler, leader of the Nazi secret police. Griffin uses Himmler as an example to demonstrate how big of a role a parental figure can play in the development of a person.

In Susan Griffin’s work titled “Our Secret”, she discusses the relationship between the present-day and the earlier life of different people. She also compares the private and public lives of other people. Her piece is set during World War Two in the 1940s. Throughout the entire piece, Griffin compares the lives of people evolved in World War Two, people who were affected by the war, and her own life. She shows how even though they lived separate lives, they are still closely related.

The CSI Effect is the residue of television sitcom perform by a professional actor who is re-enacting the method of a crime when an investigator, forensic tech and other attempting to tackle a crime by using cutting edge technologies that do not exist. Notwithstanding, the issue with the CSI Effect is that it is fiction. It is impossible to locate the criminal, have a court day and be sentenced to jail by a judge in one day. Presently, the general society is required for the law authorization to give them the same outcome as the CSI impact to solve crime in their community. Many citizens believe that the police department has all those high tech gadgets that are displayed on the popular TV sitcom CSI, yet in actuality, that is not the case

Not all primetime crime shows are created equal; some bend forensic realities at different degrees than others depending on sub-genre. According to Hon

The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) gave their full attention on solving this case. The FBI stated that this was one of the largest and most complex cases they had ever undertaken.

Have you ever watched a crime scene drama on television and now believe you are a forensic science expert? This is what you call the “Crime Scene Investigation Effect (CSI)”. It came into light in the early 2000’s. In 2008, Monica Robbers, an American criminologist, defined the CSI Effect as, “the phenomenon in which jurors hold unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence and investigation techniques, and have an increased interest in the discipline of forensic science”. (Economist 2010) Millions are watching these CSI drama TV shows. In 2012-13, NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service, was named the most popular watched television program in America, bringing in more viewers than Sunday Night Football according to Mancini, author of The "CSI Effect" In an Actual Juror Sample: Why Crime Show Genre May Matter.

What were the Findings: The findings are still inconclusive, meaning the kidnapper/murderer is still unknown to this

Once the public believed that Frank was the killer, there was no turning back. The police and court had to make sure the evidence lined up to prove him guilty in order to prevent public uproar. For example, bloody fingerprints were found on the victim's jacket, but there is no indication that they were ever analyzed. Also, a trail in the dirt along which police believed Phagan had been dragged was trampled and no footprints were ever identified. The police feared that if this evidence did not line up against Frank, it would have caused a public uprising. Another suspect, Jim Conley (see p. ) never had his shirt tested for blood because he said he had been drunk and away from the factory the day that Mary was killed.

Theorist Surette (1998), looks at ‘the law of opposites’, this is the opposite view of the official statistics. It shows that: Property crime is underrepresented, fictional police officers catch the criminal and fictional sex crimes are committed by strangers rather than acquaintances. Looking at the theory we can relate to popular TV Shows such as Dexter (2013), in which portrays the police officers as incompetent. This glamourizes the crime as criminals begin to believe they are able to get away with the deviance / criminal act.

In this video Correspondent LOWELL BERGMAN questions the scientific validity of forensic science. He also expresses that it is not as simple as it appears on television shows. Detective. Joanna Grivetti who is a crime scene investigator in Richmond, California explains that the real life CSI is getting dirty, smelling things you don’t want to smell, seeing things you don’t want to see and dealing with blood in order to collect evidence that may seem small at the time, but will ultimately (possibly) be a big deal in solving the case.

There has been a lot of research intending to fully discover the extent of the CSI effect television that has found its impact to be negative. Of the multitudes of negative impacts of the CSI effects, among the most prevalent are the unrealistic expectations that viewers have of DNA and other types of forensic evidence in the courtroom. In Ley, Jankowski, and Brewer’s study, they analyzed a large sample of CSI episodes for their content relating to forensic science. The study found that that in 94% of all episodes in the sample the detectives used DNA evidence to solve cases. Also, in 88% of all cases shown, the