Nope, I remember that, but this was another episode. It might not have been Abby's computer, but another computer that needed to be stopped for another reason. It was more recent in the show than that vid.
Finding goofs in your tv shows...
- Thread starter propita
- Start date
Nope, I remember that, but this was another episode. It might not have been Abby's computer, but another computer that needed to be stopped for another reason. It was more recent in the show than that vid.
Reminds me of the X-Files ep where some scientists were trying to improve the speed and efficiency of a wind tunnel, while it was running - by typing furiously on a keyboard. I wondered what the hell they were typing. "GO FASTER [RETURN] BE MORE EFFICIENT [RETURN] GO FASTER [RETURN] BE MORE..."?
Yeah, but at least Gibbs as a character was written to be unsavy enough towards technology to think it would work. Abby and McGee in my posted clip should have known better.
Boy, did they ever get the wrong synopsis!
I wonder which movie that actually describes. Sounds like a Lifetime made-for-cable flick.
It was the description for "Saved!" with Mandy Moore.
Juror instructions routinely include words to the effect: this is not a tv show, you will not see a witness suddenly confess to committing the crime, evidence is rarely 100% clear, etc.
I had a criminal court judge as a prof for criminal law/criminal procedure. He ran into jurors who didn't understand that, a lot. Such a gentle man! When he said "hell" in class, I piped up, "you cussed." People said he had done that--no, he hadn't. He handles the whole portion on rape sensitively, too. But he wasn't up on even a square's understanding of basic slang--him trying to understand "he wanted some sumpin' sumpin'" was hilarious.
The one and only time I served on a criminal jury I was frustrated by the way some of my fellow jurors wanted to play amateur detective and "solve" the crime themselves. I had to keep reminding them that we could only deal with the evidence and arguments that had been presented to us, not invent our own theories and explanations . . . .
"Hey, maybe it was case of mistaken identity and the cops nabbed the wrong guy, who just happened to look like the real perp?"
"Um, that's a fascinating theory, but given that neither the defendant or his attorney offered that defense, I don't think we can consider it . . . ."
"Hey, maybe it was case of mistaken identity and the cops nabbed the wrong guy, who just happened to look like the real perp?"
"Um, that's a fascinating theory, but given that neither the defendant or his attorney offered that defense, I don't think we can consider it . . . ."
I served as a Juror, before CSI started. But It shouldn't be that a hard to grasp.
The role of the Jury in the criminal process is to weigh-up the evidence that is provided by the defense and prosecution and render a verdict based on what they have seen and heard in court.
The role of the Jury in the criminal process is to weigh-up the evidence that is provided by the defense and prosecution and render a verdict based on what they have seen and heard in court.
Yeah, but people are stupid and think they're detectives, as Greg Cox said. Or they think things must be proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt" when anyone with brains, imagination, and an understanding of the freakiness of reality can usually come up with a far-fetched possibility raising a shadow of a doubt.
I got kicked off a jury 20 years ago for saying I was concerned about the other jurors. When the judge asked if I thought the other jurors might be stupid, I answered, "For all I know, they could all be smart as Einstein. I don't want to take the chance." Now THAT will get you off a jury panel. Feel free to use it.
Have I mentioned I used to have a HUGE problem with a lack of mental filtering of my thoughts? Now reduced in size. Just a problem.
I got kicked off a jury 20 years ago for saying I was concerned about the other jurors. When the judge asked if I thought the other jurors might be stupid, I answered, "For all I know, they could all be smart as Einstein. I don't want to take the chance." Now THAT will get you off a jury panel. Feel free to use it.
Have I mentioned I used to have a HUGE problem with a lack of mental filtering of my thoughts? Now reduced in size. Just a problem.
Indeed, the concern is that jury members may expect a slam dunk in terms of forensic evidence, as seen on TV.
True story: there was one rather naive panelist on our jury who actually argued that the fact that defendant had a criminal record proved that he was innocent--because, having already been convicted of the same crime, why in heaven's name would he make that mistake again?
I patiently explained to her the concepts of career criminals, recidivism, and self-destructive behavior patterns . . ..
True story: there was one rather naive panelist on our jury who actually argued that the fact that defendant had a criminal record proved that he was innocent--because, having already been convicted of the same crime, why in heaven's name would he make that mistake again?
I patiently explained to her the concepts of career criminals, recidivism, and self-destructive behavior patterns . . ..
Last edited:
Or maybe he thought that this time he wouldn't be caught. Because he learned what he did wrong last time and tried not to make those some errors again.
Or perhaps the defendent was just dumb.
Foresenics is just one piece of evidence, that could prove a person was at a location, it's the other evidence that proves not only were they there but they commited the crime.
Or perhaps the defendent was just dumb.
Foresenics is just one piece of evidence, that could prove a person was at a location, it's the other evidence that proves not only were they there but they commited the crime.
I had a classmate who worked in the public defender's office. She confirmed this was the number one cause of criminals committing crimes and being caught. Seriously, they were idiots. When asked simple questions, like why did you do "x"? "seemed like a good idea." "Why?" "I don't know, it just did." They weren't just avoiding answering, they really didn't think about it, themselves, their actions, others, etc.
When you don't think about anything but "eh, why not?", you don't really deserve much consideration. IMO.
Here's one in the Wonder Years, the show take place from 1968 to 1973. Season 4 (1971-1972) had an episode titled "The Accident", there was a song played by Bob Seger- We've Got Tonight, that song was not released until 1978.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9VZna8YJe0[/yt]
Really don't care the song fits.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9VZna8YJe0[/yt]
Really don't care the song fits.
If I was on a jury I think I'd have trouble avoiding applying my own logic if it was obvious to me the defendant didn't have a good lawyer.
I'm probably too strongly opinionated about the fact of disproportionately qualified representation between the rich and the poor to ever get selected for a jury. And every time they tried to paint a picture of the character of the defendant I'd resist it as slick manipulation.
I'm probably too strongly opinionated about the fact of disproportionately qualified representation between the rich and the poor to ever get selected for a jury. And every time they tried to paint a picture of the character of the defendant I'd resist it as slick manipulation.
During the trial in question, I tried very hard not to hold the defendant's painfully ill-prepared public defender against him . . . but it wasn't easy.
Even still, I didn't think we could consider arguments and defenses (like "mistaken identity") that hadn't been aired in court. Our job was to examine the arguments and testimony placed before us, not to try to do the public defender's job for him.
Getting back to goofs, I still remember the M*A*S*H episode where Radar was shown reading an AVENGERS comic book--despite the fact that THE AVENGERS debuted some ten years after the Korean War!
Last edited:
That wasn't a goof. You just need to post it in the alternate history tv show thread.
