Forensics in TV:
How accurately are forensic Anthropologists
portrayed in modern television?
by
Vinukh Kalansuriya
Orange Coast College
2017
Abstract
This study examines how effectively forensic anthropology has been portrayed in modern-day television and cinema. A random number of episodes from a select few seasons of a popular television show that has a heavy use of forensic anthropology were compared to actual forensic scenarios and evidence. The show tested was Bones (2005-2017). I predicted that the actual forensic evidence would not support that of the show as the show’s main focus is to entertain their viewers.
Forensics in TV: How accurately are
Forensic anthropologists portrayed in modern television?
Many people have questioned the authenticity of modern day television. Especially if it misleads the general public into believing certain aspects of a specific subject which is untrue. Aspiring young scientists would get the wrong idea of a certain occupation by the somewhat questionable portrayals presented on television. Many scientists have been rattled up by the level of inaccuracy of certain programs. This paper aims to provide the scientific inaccuracies and accuracies of a generally well-received television show in the scientific community. Do the producers butcher the science to a point of fallacy? Or do they portray this forensic anthropologist in an acceptable manner?
Forensic anthropology is the application of physical anthropology to legal cases and usually focuses on the human skeleton. This is applied to the various subfields of anthropology including archaeology and biological anthropology. A forensic anthropologist can analyze various unidentified remains and his/her main job is assisting in solving crimes. A forensic anthropologist can usually determine the age, sex, and several other features of the remains. As well as estimating how long a certain corpse may have been decomposing. Many of the techniques to excavation and reconstruction in physical or biological anthropology can be applied to forensic anthropology as well. A forensic anthropologist can reconstruct the skull of a murder victim the same way a physical anthropologist would reconstruct an australopithecine skull. Forensic anthropologists mainly work with decomposed bodies, bone piles, mummies etc. They focus on various human skeletal traits in order to provide a positive identification of a given specimen.
Modern day television has amassed a rather large portion of the population with shows that feature forensic anthropology. They use the thrill of comedy, crime, and drama to attract viewers. One show that has gained a rather large following of fans is ‘Bones,’ which follows the life of a forensic anthropologist, Dr. Temperance “Bones” Brennan (portrayed by Emily Deschanel), who focuses on an FBI case file brought to her each episode. The shows Dexter, CSI, and NCIS were also taken into consideration. These shows however focused more on forensic science rather than forensic anthropology. These were also rated to have less scientific accuracy when it came to their portrayals.
One show that has been heavily looked into has been ‘CSI – Crime Scene Investigation.’ This show has been studied extensively to test the accuracy of the portrayals of forensic anthropologists. It was observed that just one case of CSI would amass around $100,000. “Nobody has that kind of budget” stated Denise Ens, a professor of anthropology who is taking her Ph.D. at the University of Alberta. However, these shows have peaked interests in the younger demographic and we have seen a growth in the desire for students to pick subjects such as these to pursue as careers due to the fact that they have been portrayed so fruitfully in television (Howard J., 2011). These sorts of shows have shown the world a change of culture over the years as well. This being evident when comparing today’s TV crime dramas with crime novels of the past. (Schroth R. A., 2004)
There has been much debate over the accuracy of the methodologies used by the writers and producers of these types of shows in portraying their respective scientific positions. Each show has varying levels of accuracy in their portrayals. The show ‘Bones’ seems to be one that has tried to remain scientifically accurate and the reason for this seems to be that the show is based on the life and novels of real-life forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs, who is one of the main producers of this show. Over the 12 seasons of production of this show, the actors and producers seem to have captured all of the aspects of forensic anthropology. The level of accuracy of these sections is what will be tested in this paper.
Method
Participants
The sole participant of this study was the experimenter as it was an observational study. I watched and summarized a few episodes from a select few seasons of ‘Bones’ and compared the forensic methodologies used in that to what real-life forensic anthropologists use in day to day life.
Materials
6 episodes were picked at random from all of the seasons. The episodes that had no forensic anthropological content were excluded if they were picked.
Procedure
The portions of each episode that contains the actual forensic anthropological study were taken and compared to that of actual research. The episodes selected were;
o Season 8, Episode 11 – The Archaeologist in the Cocoon.
o Season 9, Episode 14 – The Master in the Slop.
o Season 8, Episode 24 – The Secret in the Siege.
o Season 7, Episode 1 – The Memories in the Shallow Grave.
o Season 6, Episode 6 – The Shallow in the Deep.
o Season 9, Episode 8 – The Dude in the Dam.
Season 8, Episode 11 – The Archaeologist in the Cocoon
Summary – In this episode, an archaeologist is found murdered and his lab holds ancient remains of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. When taking both a forensic and archeological standpoint, this episode seems to lack authenticity. The show’s interpretation of paleoanthropological remains seems to make no sense. A few reasons for this would be the fact that it is not possible to determine sex and ancestry with just a prominent brow ridge and slanted forehead. Another issue arises when the subject of the hybrid between the homo sapiens and the Neanderthals were being discussed. This seems to be both a loophole in the writing as well as the science. The fact that the protagonist was baffled by this does not seem to make any sense. (Jones, D., 2007) Another unprofessional instance was when the main character, the forensic anthropologist, stuck her tongue on the bone. Which seems to be a gross mistreatment of the remains. Another inaccuracy would have been the fact that, in this episode, the actors continuously referred to Homo sapiens as “Homo sapien,” which could be considered a basic but major scientific flaw. The taphonomy of this case also seems to be flawed as it does not seem likely that a young interbred child would just simply lie near her parents until it died. It is also not possible to determine the sex of an individual if that individual is a sub-adult. There is no way that they could have accurately determine the sex of the 3-year-old child that was shown in this episode unless they used DNA testing, which was not the method used by the actors. (Galdames, I. S., Matamala, D. Z., & Smith, R. L., 2009). There is also no evidence that the social structure of this Neanderthal-Homo sapiens were monogamous, as implied by this episode. There however is evidence to show that Neanderthals may have abided in small clans banded together by their male kin, which makes it rather unlikely that they were residing in a contemporary idea of a nuclear family. (Paleoanthropology: Neanderthal family tree. 2010) There is also no reason to believe that Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans had problems being a reproductive pair. As there is the existence of genetic material in modern human populations, it seems that it was not uncommon for these two species to interbreed. (DNA evidence for early ‘mystery’ humans, 2012) However we do see one observation that does have a substantial amount of scientific backing and that is the use of frontal sinuses in identifying the remains. (Ribeiro, F. A., 2000)
Season 9, Episode 14 – The Master in the Slop
Summary – This episode shows the team discovering a body of a renowned chess master amidst pig slop. The science of this episode seems to be reasonable on the surface, it suffers from being just a bit too precise. One thing that is not seen at the scenes is walking around in the scene as it could damage the remains as well as possibly harm whoever is investigating it. Another flaw in the portrayal was that the determination of sex, age and ancestry seemed to be much easier than it actually is. Although it is possible to determine sex using the greater sciatic notch method (Doshi, B. D., Joshi, H. G., & Mehta, C. D., 2011) and estimate the age using the auricular surface (Godde, K., 2017) it seems impossible to estimate to such a narrow an age range. The fact that they determined that spatulate incisors meant the individual was Caucasian seems unlikely. The coracoacromial ligament was also mentioned when examining a foot X-ray which doesn’t seem to make any biological sense as that ligament is located in the shoulder region. (See Figure 1).
Figure 1 – The coracoacromial ligament
Season 8, Episode 24 – The Secret in the Siege
Summary – This episode follows a string of murders linked to one of the show’s main characters. One major flaw seen in this episode was the fact that they did not corroborate the ID of the victim to dental records, fingerprints, DNA, etc. This episode saw the sex being identified using the gonial angle, the age using dental wear and ancestry using palate shape. The use of the gonial angle to determine the sex seems fallible as only assists with orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery and cannot solely determine the sex of a corpse. (Zangouei-Booshehri, M., Aghili, H., Abasi, M., & Ezoddini-Ardakani, F., 2012). The biggest fallacy seemed to be the fact that the ‘Harris lines’ were used to determine the chronology of an injury. In reality, Harris lines are radiopaque lines that indicate growth arrest, therefore making it impossible to determine the chronology of an injury using this. This method can, however, be used if the victim was still young and the bones were still growing. In this episode the victims were in their 50s, making it impossible to determine the chronology of the injury using this method. (Nowak, O., & Piontek, J., 2002)
Season 7, Episode 1 – The memories in the shallow grave
Summary – This episode also showcases the work of the team when a corpse is found in a national park. This episode, unlike the previous ones, displays a commendable effort in making the forensics as accurate as possible. The age and sex determination were reasonable and the time of death too was figured out using entomology. The use of scientific terms such as ‘chorionic gonadotropin’ also seems justifiable in the context of this episode.
Season 6, Episode 6 – The shallow in the deep
Summary – This episode shows the surfacing of a 150-year-old slave ship, the Amalia Rose. This episode seems to be somewhat balanced when it comes to the accuracy of the science. One of the character’s guesses of age based on the lipping of the symphyseal rim and a degree of suture closure is reasonable. The age regression techniques were used well too and the facial reconstructions seem infallible. However, it does seem unlikely that a pisiform was recovered from a slave ship that was that old. (See Figure 2) The fact that the forensic anthropologist was able to conclude that a person was manacled due to the fact that his/her pisiform had abrasions on it is just not possible.
Figure 2 – A fractured pisiform
There is one major logical loophole in this case and that is the fact that a slave ship had gone unnoticed for nearly two decades’ so close to the D.C. coast.
Season 9, Episode 8 – The Dude in the Dam
Summary – This episode sees the team investigating a man whose main source of income is donating sperm. This episode also seems to be seemingly accurate with a few anomalies here and there. The fact that dental wear was used to estimate age-at-death is rather negligent when compared to what the real-life results would yield. The reason for this being the fact that people living in the 21st century have such diverse levels of diets and therefore it does not seem logical to use this method for this purpose. This method could rather be used to determine the age of a corpse. (Družijanić, A., & Vodanović, M., 2014) The use of the term ‘Caucasoid’ is rather uncommon amongst forensic anthropologists in the modern day. It is also unclear how frequent Darwin’s tubercle is in the general population. The most recent study showed the presence of 10% of Darwin’s tubercle. This study was conducted on a Spanish population. (Ruiz, A., 1986) The usage of two different genetically-linked traits and dental records to identify the victim, in this case, is a well-interpreted action of the actual science. A histological examination of the femur could also tell the team approximately when the victim started and stopped using testosterone as well. It was surprising that the histology wasn’t mentioned. (Doumouchtsis, K. K. et al, 2008)
Results
Episodes that had no forensic anthropological data were excluded when randomly selecting the episodes. Taking a more general look at the show, on more than one occasion the forensic anthropologist determines the race of the victim using just one element of the skull. “The projection of the nasal bones suggests Caucasian,” was one line directly quoted from the show. Assumptions such as this could not be made by even the best in the field. Also, the fact that the character is able to provide a victim’s age and sex amongst other details while the remains are still partially buried and the anthropologist is still out in the field is rather unlikely as these types of observations need some time to be confirmed. In most cases, the terminology used is also accurate although there are a few mispronunciations and oversights as well.
One main thing that is not understood by most of the public is that it is not common in real life for cases to always be solved. The show also showcases technology that is not available for modern-day forensic anthropologists. That’s not to say such equipment does not exist, it’s just that regular forensic anthropologists don’t work with that. Something that can be observed is that the earlier seasons see more focus on preserving the science rather than the newer seasons.
However, it is not all negatives for the show, the methodologies used by the actors when conducting anything anthropology-related seems to largely be accurate. The show’s analysis of trauma has an overall positive look at it.
The results of this experiment show us that more often than not, television shows would rather distort the science for drama than preserve it. These findings are not uncommon or unheard of. The question of how ethical this arises when television networks decide to air shows like this. The main reason for this being the fact that shows such as Bones have an audience that is international. Children and adults could change their opinions on certain decisions from what shows like this portray. Therefore, it seems rather unethical that the science of these shows are tainted as it basically is lying to the viewers about the ease of whatever occupation that specific show is portraying, in this case, that would be of forensic anthropology.
A study concerning the ‘CSI’ effect could be greatly applied here. The study looked at how the show CSI influenced lay jurors when they considered forensic evidence. The study found that jurors had unrealistic expectations on forensics based on of the fictional idealization of forensic evidence that had been portrayed through the many TV crime shows. The ethical issues were taken into consideration as well. (See Table 1) The study also checked which characters were used as role models by these forensic science students. (See Table 2) There have however been mixed reactions to the CSI effect from popular media. Also, most of the CSI effect’s influence has been in criminal cases.
Table 1
Table 2
As can be seen above, the main character in Bones, the forensic anthropologist received the second highest rating, which shows us that shows such as this are in fact affecting how the youth perceive different sciences. We can also see how the main character from the show Bones compares to similar roles portrayed in other television shows.
There are some advantages as well as disadvantages to having shows like this. One of the main advantages is the fact that it interests the youth in what otherwise would be considered a “boring” subject. The interest in forensic anthropology has peaked since the show ‘Bones’ was aired. (See Table 2) However, as the science is tainted when it comes to shows like this, the youth are misled into believing something that is untrue.
In conclusion, the results of this study show us that the forensic anthropology in modern television shows, Bones, in particular, fail to remain accurate when compared to actual forensic evidence. However, in this show, the methodologies remain true and are informative to the general public and viewers of the show. These shows have a large reach when it comes to their audience and therefore has a serious influence on their viewers. Future research on this topic could have varying results as with a change in time, the human culture would change as well. This would in change television as well. Also, with advancement in forensic anthropological research, the methodologies used in this show could become more relevant or more outdated.