#Garbage Forensic Anim.
15 messages in this thread
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.
Alec,
I totally agree. Did they quote any evidence establishing the order in
which the victims were attacked/killed?
Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
<< 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
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.
<< 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
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
>> 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.
David,
<< You probably ought to . . . have them set the record straight >>
I'm working on it.
Thanks,
Alec Jason
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
Brian,
>> C/NET at their internet address?
According to the show, richard@cnet.com should get you to the show's host.
John
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
<< It damages the credibility of you real pros . . . >>
Yeah, Ted. It sure does.
Thanks,
Alec Jason
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
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