I’m still really enjoying the original CSI at the moment – the best of that family of shows, if only for the characters. I was a little disappointed with the rather Americanised Sherlock Holmes story in the most recent Channel 5 episode, but the science remains to the fore, and the shake-up of the characters has created a bit of interest without seriously disrupting the format. Plus, who could turn up the opportunity to boo and hiss whenever Eckley comes on screen. 🙂
Having given it a few weeks to settle in, I’m coming to the conclusion that CSI: NY – although a completely unnecessary spin-off – is a strong runner-up in terms of quality (when it avoids crimes against humanity like pulling the reflection off someone’s eyeball using grainy CCTV footage at fifty yards). Although it lacks the macabre sense of humour of the original show, it has many of the things I love about the original, including gently self-deprecating characters who love science.1
However, the real point of this post is to note that one of the suspects in this week’s CSI:NY had a conviction for something called “Homocide” according to the screen. Which is probably not the crime they had in mind.
1 As opposed to posing scenery-chewing egotists who prefer hugging children and rescuing small furry animals from trees to doing actual forensics.