BTW: Re: CSI: NY

I suppose I expected to like this show, as I am a fan and regular viewer of CSI and CSI: Miami. And I have to admit that Melina Kanakaredes is gorgeous ... though I am a little irked with myself that I have now officially learned her name AND how to spell it (just a little more trivia to cram in my already-chaotic brain ... along with the proper spelling AND punctuation of petechial hemorrhaging, which I like the sound, if not the actuality, of).

(BTW: It is puh-TEE-kee-uhl, best I can figure. And the medical examiner did say it tonight on the season opener. I predict he will say it at least 12 more times this season alone.)

I am intrigued by the field of forensic science. Not as intrigued, of course, as The Lovely, who says that when she retires, she would like to become a crime scene investigator ... if only she could find her glasses ... and her shoes ... etc. ... but intrigued, nonetheless. I have always believe that if I ever committed a crime, I would not get away with it because I would be unable to lie about it; however, even if I could avoid spilling the whole story on my own, I am certain that the physical evidence alone would be enough to convict me.

I mean, I am a messy person; why would my crime scene be any different?

: )

Still, I like all the gadgetry and science and what-not they use on all of the CSI shows, and I have learned a few things about anatomy and physiology. I have also learned that it is a good idea NOT to be eating a late dinner during the show, as I have had to look away, quickly, on many occasions. I especially enjoyed a scene in the new show, tonight, where the investigators used a 2-dimensional object, a photograph, and perspective and geometry to pinpoint a 3-dimensional location. Very cool.

HOWEVER: I have issues with how they obtained the photograph.

First of all, a camera was discovered at the crime scene. A rather expensive-looking camera, though I did not get a look at the brand name. (Oddly enough, when Gary Sinise was processing the body of a victim at the hospital, I noticed he was using an Olympus.) The camera at the crime scene had apparently been tossed there, into a heap of garbage, or else it belonged to one of the other victims. Either way, I found it difficult to believe (yet convenient, plot-wise) that a camera would be disposed of so haphazardly.

Secondly, the CSIs almost immediately OPENED THE CAMERA, in broad daylight ... only to find that part of the film had been torn, apparently when someone attempted to pull it out of the camera. Next thing you know, though, there they were, in a darkroom, developing film which WE ALL KNOW had been exposed to light ... and would have come out in big, bold, BLACK prints. (Trust me, I have ruined puh-LEN-ty of rolls of film this way. Well, at least a couple.)

Add to that the fact that the photos were like a little travelogue of how one of the victims had spent her day, culminating in the aforementioned perspective shot, and it all seemed a bit too much for me to believe.

But then again: What do I know about forensic science?

Just had to get that rant out of my system before I hit the hay.

: )