There are three types of evidence admissible in a court of law: 1) Physical - (footprint, blood stain, spent bullet casings) 2) testimonial (under oath) - (witness on the stand. In civil law: deposition testimony, discovery responses.) 3) documentary - (letters, photos, video footage, birth certificate). All evidence can be direct or circumstantial - it is circumstantial if we use it to draw inferences. Example: the footprints suggest the killer wears size 10 shoes. It is an inference because we do not know for a fact that these footprints are the killers. Also, maybe the killer wears size 8 but wore larger shoes to frame someone else. Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness' personal knowledge, acquired by that witness' senses - what they saw, heard, smelled, felt, tasted. If Mary testifies she saw Sam shoot the gun at the deceased and the deceased was shot and fell down, that is direct evidence. // If Mary saw Sam go in the house, heard the gunshot and saw Sam leave - the direct evidence is only what she saw and heard.. She has no direct evidence that Sam shot the deceased. Mary may infer that is what happened based on the circumstances. Presenting Mary's testimony as evidence Sam shot the deceased in that case is circumstantial, not direct.//Hearsay can be thought of as second hand evidence. If Mary tells Jane what she saw, anything Jane tells us about the crime is hearsay. Hearsay can be about any type of evidence - someone read the letter and the letter was burned, The person tells us what the letter said - that is hearsay.// there are many rules about when a court will allow hearsay testimony or exclude it.//The deceased's body is direct evidence. The medical examiner's report is documentary evidence. The medical examiner on the stand telling us what he saw when he did the autopsy is testimonial evidence. Cops get witness statements - these are not made under oath. The notes the cop makes about the witness statements are documentary evidence.
What a lovely lady! She is so right about physical vs. circumstantial evidence in terms of usefulness as a storyteller. Circumstantial evidence allows for narrative wiggle room, and uncovering that evidence is so much more compelling because it involves fraught interviews, and so much of it can be explained away. As a storyteller, you need that uncertainty. It keeps the audience guessing and involved, whereas DNA closes narrative doors.
I remember all the hoops the police had to run through in "The Wire" had to jump through and notice that our local law enforcement seems to heavily rely on digital monitoring and tracking to help them locate suspects. I listen to the police scanner all the time and I regularly hear our local sheriff's office following suspects, getting phone ping reports from the 911 Dispatchers, and getting reports about what Facebook messages the suspect is sending and receiving in real-time. A couple of weeks ago, a guy they were seeking for a probation violation had jumped and run, and they relayed the directions he was giving someone over Facebook Messenger to someone he was getting a ride from. They waited until the person arrived before they arrested them both. This would make a crime story sort of boring because there is almost no drama because you know the perp cannot get away unless they completely ditch their electronic devices.
1. The “Columbo-style” of evidential proof of guilt is the most entertaining for me. 2. Through clever manipulation of seemingly unimportant circumstantial evidence & the killer’s hubris, making the killer admit to something that inescapably connects him/her to the crime. 3. “The Inadvertent Confession”. 4. When it comes to solving the crime, I guess I prefer human ingenuity over technical advantage. 5. Which I take is Jennifer’s point about not using DNA evidence in story construction.
I'm currently working on a crime comedy mini-series and just happened to find your (the Jennifer Dornbush interview) videos tonight! How helpful! I loved what you said about digital evidence and technology. I was actually thinking about that a couple weeks ago when I was watching the National Treasure TV show on Disney+. I was a kid when the first National Treasure movie came out and I loved it, so I was interested to see what the TV show would be like. Aside from having an overall different "feel," one big difference I noticed was the technology (since tech has, obviously, changed a lot since 2004). There is a scene in the TV show in which two of the characters need to figure out which way is north, so one of them pulls out a phone and opens a compass app: problem solved. But I remembered a scene in the first National Treasure movie where the heroes figure out a clue using a hundred dollar bill, a water bottle, and their own knowledge of American history. Now, it's not a direct comparison, those two scenes are very different, but it made me realize how hard it is/must be to write crime/mystery set in the modern day. There's nothing wrong with writing technology use in a realistic way (it's true, we do use our phones for everything these days), but how do we do it without making the story boring or the mystery too easy to solve? Watching characters use creativity, knowledge, intuition, and collaboration to solve a mystery still seems to be more interesting than watching characters google things, snap a dozen pictures on their phone, or use GPS. (Of course, there is still technology used in the National Treasure movies, and if I'd been born a decade or two earlier, I might've thought they relied too much on technology in those, as well :) some things are relative.) Thanks for your videos, Film Courage! They're so helpful and informative. And calming!
Very good tips for crime writers. Would love to hear more experts on mystery/crime genre. Perhaps even a side-by-side between cozy and hard-boiled mysteries. Thanks, Film Courage!
I just watched this entire video and I still have NO IDEA what the 6 basic types of evidence are that we are supposed to know, but I'm guessing they are possibly: 1. physical 2. circumstantial 3. direct 4. hearsay 5. digital forensics 6. cell phone location. Whatever they actually were, this video should probably have a different title.
My brother-in-law is a lawyer and he HATED the show Bones, because of how awful the legal aspects were. If Zack had been declared "non compos mentis" by the very prosecutor who had called him as an expert witness, every one of those cases would have been overturned. Also the American version of Broadchurch was Gracepoint
Physical evidence can be both direct and circumstantial, but in my experience as a trial attorney, it is most often circumstantial. Physical evidence can be both direct and circumstantial. Your blood at a crime scene is direct evidence you were at the crime scene, and it's also circumstantial evidence you may have committed the crime.
The most interesting thing about small-town settings I feel, is the secret that everyone knows except the new folks or the investigator. These types of stories where the outsider has to unravel the whole thing are truly gripping. I recently read a story like that from British author Caroline Mitchell. You just don't know what twists and turns will come the outsider's way, who's in on it and why.
It’s always great to hear from Jennifer. She has clear and concise advice to share. In regards to a movie featuring a digital theme, check out “Talhotblond”, an internet love triangle thriller. Mesmerizing!
Good interview with good information. When writing crime fiction a good rule to follow is TV and movies get it wrong. As an arson investigator one of the first things I learned was to know the answers to the questions before I ask them. I can ask 10 different people to describe the person they saw running from the house with the gas can and you will get 10 different descriptions. I'm working on a cold case that involves the Mafia, drugs, money, arson and murder in a small town of 12K. An arson murder scene is twice as hard to process than a murder scene. my lab work can take 30-60 days up to a year to get back. When writing fiction you can fudge this time line.
I don't know, Bones seemed to really struggle to make things hinge on the one thing they were working on, and force them into a more active role in investigations. Like you watch it and think, ...ok why didn't they just pull camera footage, or run a plate, or canvas more witnesses. It wasn't the worst show. But I have an issue with shows that try to make a show of being smart, but the writers don't seem to have the knowledge to make it blosom in that way.
1. I totally agree with your comment! 👍 2. I was Juror #3 in a theatrical performance run of 12 Angry Men many years ago. 3. The play script & screenplay are similar, but not identical. 4. Henry Fonda was so impressed with the play script, he purchased the copyright to adapt it for the movie. 5. Truly one of the finest thought-provoking crimes stories of all time. 6. Can anyone watch 12 Angry Men for the first time and not come away somehow changed?
![Forensic Speak: How To Write Realistic Crime Dramas -Jennifer Dornbush [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Swu6xmBJjHM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Forensic Speak: How To Write Realistic Crime Dramas -Jennifer Dornbush [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/tr.png)
There are three types of evidence admissible in a court of law: 1) Physical - (footprint, blood stain, spent bullet casings) 2) testimonial (under oath) - (witness on the stand. In civil law: deposition testimony, discovery responses.) 3) documentary - (letters, photos, video footage, birth certificate). All evidence can be direct or circumstantial - it is circumstantial if we use it to draw inferences. Example: the footprints suggest the killer wears size 10 shoes. It is an inference because we do not know for a fact that these footprints are the killers. Also, maybe the killer wears size 8 but wore larger shoes to frame someone else. Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness' personal knowledge, acquired by that witness' senses - what they saw, heard, smelled, felt, tasted. If Mary testifies she saw Sam shoot the gun at the deceased and the deceased was shot and fell down, that is direct evidence. // If Mary saw Sam go in the house, heard the gunshot and saw Sam leave - the direct evidence is only what she saw and heard.. She has no direct evidence that Sam shot the deceased. Mary may infer that is what happened based on the circumstances. Presenting Mary's testimony as evidence Sam shot the deceased in that case is circumstantial, not direct.//Hearsay can be thought of as second hand evidence. If Mary tells Jane what she saw, anything Jane tells us about the crime is hearsay. Hearsay can be about any type of evidence - someone read the letter and the letter was burned, The person tells us what the letter said - that is hearsay.// there are many rules about when a court will allow hearsay testimony or exclude it.//The deceased's body is direct evidence. The medical examiner's report is documentary evidence. The medical examiner on the stand telling us what he saw when he did the autopsy is testimonial evidence. Cops get witness statements - these are not made under oath. The notes the cop makes about the witness statements are documentary evidence.
What a lovely lady! She is so right about physical vs. circumstantial evidence in terms of usefulness as a storyteller. Circumstantial evidence allows for narrative wiggle room, and uncovering that evidence is so much more compelling because it involves fraught interviews, and so much of it can be explained away. As a storyteller, you need that uncertainty. It keeps the audience guessing and involved, whereas DNA closes narrative doors.
I remember all the hoops the police had to run through in "The Wire" had to jump through and notice that our local law enforcement seems to heavily rely on digital monitoring and tracking to help them locate suspects. I listen to the police scanner all the time and I regularly hear our local sheriff's office following suspects, getting phone ping reports from the 911 Dispatchers, and getting reports about what Facebook messages the suspect is sending and receiving in real-time. A couple of weeks ago, a guy they were seeking for a probation violation had jumped and run, and they relayed the directions he was giving someone over Facebook Messenger to someone he was getting a ride from. They waited until the person arrived before they arrested them both. This would make a crime story sort of boring because there is almost no drama because you know the perp cannot get away unless they completely ditch their electronic devices.
1. The “Columbo-style” of evidential proof of guilt is the most entertaining for me.
2. Through clever manipulation of seemingly unimportant circumstantial evidence & the killer’s hubris, making the killer admit to something that inescapably connects him/her to the crime.
3. “The Inadvertent Confession”.
4. When it comes to solving the crime, I guess I prefer human ingenuity over technical advantage.
5. Which I take is Jennifer’s point about not using DNA evidence in story construction.
I'm currently working on a crime comedy mini-series and just happened to find your (the Jennifer Dornbush interview) videos tonight! How helpful!
I loved what you said about digital evidence and technology. I was actually thinking about that a couple weeks ago when I was watching the National Treasure TV show on Disney+. I was a kid when the first National Treasure movie came out and I loved it, so I was interested to see what the TV show would be like. Aside from having an overall different "feel," one big difference I noticed was the technology (since tech has, obviously, changed a lot since 2004). There is a scene in the TV show in which two of the characters need to figure out which way is north, so one of them pulls out a phone and opens a compass app: problem solved. But I remembered a scene in the first National Treasure movie where the heroes figure out a clue using a hundred dollar bill, a water bottle, and their own knowledge of American history. Now, it's not a direct comparison, those two scenes are very different, but it made me realize how hard it is/must be to write crime/mystery set in the modern day. There's nothing wrong with writing technology use in a realistic way (it's true, we do use our phones for everything these days), but how do we do it without making the story boring or the mystery too easy to solve? Watching characters use creativity, knowledge, intuition, and collaboration to solve a mystery still seems to be more interesting than watching characters google things, snap a dozen pictures on their phone, or use GPS.
(Of course, there is still technology used in the National Treasure movies, and if I'd been born a decade or two earlier, I might've thought they relied too much on technology in those, as well :) some things are relative.)
Thanks for your videos, Film Courage! They're so helpful and informative. And calming!
What do you think? Please post a comment below.
You guys are amazing
DNA might not be that interesting as a story element. But fake DNA is.
Very good tips for crime writers. Would love to hear more experts on mystery/crime genre. Perhaps even a side-by-side between cozy and hard-boiled mysteries. Thanks, Film Courage!
Loved it! Summed up many parts of the crime genre.
As a professional crime scene investigator, and an amateur screenwriter, this interview is so on point 🙏🙏🙏
I am writing a crime drama myself, so this information is of a great value for me. Subscribe to stay tuned!
Just don't do what longmire did. This is a very small town... where everyone must die every couple of months. lol
I just watched this entire video and I still have NO IDEA what the 6 basic types of evidence are that we are supposed to know, but I'm guessing they are possibly: 1. physical 2. circumstantial 3. direct 4. hearsay 5. digital forensics 6. cell phone location. Whatever they actually were, this video should probably have a different title.
My brother-in-law is a lawyer and he HATED the show Bones, because of how awful the legal aspects were. If Zack had been declared "non compos mentis" by the very prosecutor who had called him as an expert witness, every one of those cases would have been overturned. Also the American version of Broadchurch was Gracepoint
Physical evidence can be both direct and circumstantial, but in my experience as a trial attorney, it is most often circumstantial. Physical evidence can be both direct and circumstantial. Your blood at a crime scene is direct evidence you were at the crime scene, and it's also circumstantial evidence you may have committed the crime.
The most interesting thing about small-town settings I feel, is the secret that everyone knows except the new folks or the investigator. These types of stories where the outsider has to unravel the whole thing are truly gripping. I recently read a story like that from British author Caroline Mitchell. You just don't know what twists and turns will come the outsider's way, who's in on it and why.
It’s always great to hear from Jennifer. She has clear and concise advice to share.
In regards to a movie featuring a digital theme, check out “Talhotblond”, an internet love triangle thriller. Mesmerizing!
Good interview with good information. When writing crime fiction a good rule to follow is TV and movies get it wrong. As an arson investigator one of the first things I learned was to know the answers to the questions before I ask them. I can ask 10 different people to describe the person they saw running from the house with the gas can and you will get 10 different descriptions. I'm working on a cold case that involves the Mafia, drugs, money, arson and murder in a small town of 12K. An arson murder scene is twice as hard to process than a murder scene. my lab work can take 30-60 days up to a year to get back. When writing fiction you can fudge this time line.
I'm thinking about making 2 crime-related shows.
I don't know, Bones seemed to really struggle to make things hinge on the one thing they were working on, and force them into a more active role in investigations.
Like you watch it and think, ...ok why didn't they just pull camera footage, or run a plate, or canvas more witnesses.
It wasn't the worst show. But I have an issue with shows that try to make a show of being smart, but the writers don't seem to have the knowledge to make it blosom in that way.
Kind of the perfect video for me to watch right now
As a forensic practitioner, and a screenwriter, I concur 😄
12 Angry men - is a great example to watch. (must watch)
1. I totally agree with your comment! 👍
2. I was Juror #3 in a theatrical performance run of 12 Angry Men many years ago.
3. The play script & screenplay are similar, but not identical.
4. Henry Fonda was so impressed with the play script, he purchased the copyright to adapt it for the movie.
5. Truly one of the finest thought-provoking crimes stories of all time.
6. Can anyone watch 12 Angry Men for the first time and not come away somehow changed?
I remember the flight and escape
These Rock!
British crime drama is superior. The best. Vera. Lewis. Barnaby
Corruption in small towns is easy