CompuServe Thread

#Garbage Forensic Anim.

15 messages in this thread
#164825From: alec jasonApr 14, 1995 7:43 PM
This is a statment which I distributed to several media and professional groups: As a professional forensic crime scene reconstructionist and forensic animator I want to comment on the Simpson/Goldman homicide animation produced by the TV show C/Net and the engineering firm Failure Analysis, Inc and recently shown on several TV shows: This animation is an embarrassment to the forensic animation profession and is an irresponsible use of computer technology. It is an example of High-Tech Garbage In = High -Tech Garbage Out. Although the C/Net and Failure Analysis claim that the actions depicted represent a scientific analysis of the physical evidence, the physical evidence does not support their ridiculous, fantasy-based animation. Such details as where the assailant was located before the attack, the location and orientation of the victims, whether or not a victim was knocked-out, whether the assailant "tortured" the victims by holding them or the assertion that "it is clear that the assailant was talking to the victims" before inflicting the fatal wounds is complete and utter speculation and conjecture by the producers. C/Net and Failure Analysis' disregard for accuracy and sloppiness is further evidenced by the inclusion of several factual errors of known details such as the final position of Nicole Simpson s body and the front gate. It is one thing for the someone to produce an animation which shows what "might" or "could" have happened as a demonstration of how technology can be utilized but it is quite another for a TV show and an engineering firm to claim that their animation represents a scientific solution to the incident. What is most objectionable is that a firm with Failure Analysis' engineering credentials is attempting to pass off an elaborate bit of self-promotion as a fact-based, authoritative work. The use of such new technology as capturing data from human actors and then transferring their movements to computer generated human forms in no way detracts from the inherent fraudulent nature of the C/NET-Failure Analysis animation. While impressive high-tech computers may accurately reproduce the movements of an actor, those "accurate" movements are simply those of an actor — not of the assailant (actor-in = actor-out.) While proclaiming themselves to be high-tech computer experts, the C/Net producers have clearly demonstrated either conscious dishonesty and/or amazing lack of knowledge by being part of such shoddy, deceitful work. C/Net and Failure Analysis are examples of how high-technology can be used for very low purposes. Alexander Jason Crime Scene Reconstructionist / Forensic Animator Member: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Association of Crime Scene Reconstruction; Qualified Expert Witness in Crime Scene Reconstruction and Forensic Animation; CBS News Crime Scene Reconstruction Consultant; creator of first 3D computer animation used in a U.S. criminal trial.
#164826From: CSA/CAApr 14, 1995 8:14 PM
Alec, I totally agree. Did they quote any evidence establishing the order in which the victims were attacked/killed? Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
#164861From: alec jasonApr 15, 1995 2:42 AM
<< Did they quote any evidence establishing the order in which the victims were attacked/killed? >> Kevin, There is some physical evidence which supports the theory that Goldman was attacked after Nicole Simpson: Goldman's shoe soles had Nicole's blood tissue in them indicating that she was attacked before him. The problem with the bogus Failure Analysis animation is that it included some reasonable conclusions along with its fantasy elements. Alec Jason
#165169From: CSA/CAApr 17, 1995 1:50 PM
Alec, Thanks, that was a point I had missed. Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
#164835From: rick lapidusApr 14, 1995 9:22 PM
Alec, What took you so long! I've been waiting for some serious dialogue on this case. Putting "An OJ type figure" sculking in the court yard puts a powerful image in the mind of the viewer that this was a premeditated crime. Must be something in the California water. Get serious guys. If you're going to do litigation work, don't advertise fantasy in the media for business. You're kidding yourselves into thinking that some attorney isn't going to be smart enough to review your work & detect the "F____". Do it right. Richard Lapidus Video Production Marketing Inc.
#164862From: alec jasonApr 15, 1995 2:42 AM
<< What took you so long? >> Well, I've been out of town for a week and I'm involved in legal action against the "C/NET" show which included a misleading interview with me along with their fraudulent Simpson Homicide animation. The "C/NET" people are real slimeballs: A new hybrid: TV's Techno-National Inquirer. Alec Jason
#164929From: rick lapidusApr 15, 1995 3:08 PM
Alec: OH ____! I'd like to contact you off forum & kick around a few ideas "Professionally". I had suggested a national organization, but most of the respondants were merely interested in certification. Very few people are interested in a true professional association with the obligatory standards. Rick Lapidus
#165126From: David J. MarksApr 17, 1995 8:54 AM
>> I'm involved in legal action against the "C/NET" show which included a >> misleading interview with me… It's a shame such nonsense takes place, but I'm sure this won't be the last time. Technology is making it easier and easier to distort the truth. BTW, did you see any of the follow-ups to the C-Net segment? In particular, there was some coverage on one tabloid show (Hard Copy, Extra, Current Affair, or one of the others – I don't remember which) that showed your Mitchell Bros. animation and (I think) credited it to the same group. You probably ought to check through some tapes of those shows as well, and have them set the record straight.
#165229From: alec jasonApr 17, 1995 6:12 PM
David, << You probably ought to . . . have them set the record straight >> I'm working on it. Thanks, Alec Jason
#164878From: Brian S. SchmittApr 15, 1995 9:05 AM
Alec, Have you voiced your opinions to C/NET at their internet address? If you happen to know their address could you give it to me as I would like to voice my opinion as well. Brian Schmitt
#164922From: John SchmidtApr 15, 1995 2:16 PM
Brian, >> C/NET at their internet address? According to the show, richard@cnet.com should get you to the show's host. John
#164915From: Ted BoardmanApr 15, 1995 1:23 PM
Alex The real shame here is that 10's of thousands of people saw the show and have been suckered by the new media (sensational shows). It damages the credibility of you real pros and the retraction, if given, will be seen only by a few. Good luck TedB -Ted Boardman !^NavFont01F0007MGHHGCD2E7C
#165231From: alec jasonApr 17, 1995 6:12 PM
<< It damages the credibility of you real pros . . . >> Yeah, Ted. It sure does. Thanks, Alec Jason
#164988From: Andrew ReeseApr 15, 1995 10:21 PM
Hi Alec — Long time, no see. Staying active, I see!!! Are you doing an animation for the Simpson defense team or the media? I heard something to that effect through the grapevine, but it could have been just a rumor. I think the Failure Analysis situation appears to be one where _engineers_ seemed to interpret _medical_ evidence, and then presented this interpretation in the form of a forensic animation sequence. I never heard any names mentioned for the medical or crime reconstruction expert(s) who may have interpreted the autopsy report and physical evidence to suggest the scenario depicted in the FA sequence. That's really the weak link, of course. The use of motion capture by Failure Analysis was good to make the models' movements more natural, but, of course, it _didn't_ make those movements more accurate, just smoother. Richard Hart mislead the viewers when he suggested that motion capture made it more accurate. As you and I have discussed many times, a forensic animation sequence is no better than the expertise upon which it's based, and we know nothing of any expertise upon which the Failure Analysis animation is based. By the way, when did you appear on C/Net? I must have missed that show. Cheers! Keep in touch… andy
#165072From: rick lapidusApr 16, 1995 9:41 PM
Alec, Had a chance to take a second look at the c/net program. Did they copy that segment from the 3d studio promo tape you did a few years back? Un believable. You could see yourself showing up anywhere without your permission. Rick