A Quote by David Harewood

I'm a nut for these 'crime reality' shows. Things like 'Forensic Files,' 'Forensic Detectives.' — © David Harewood
I'm a nut for these 'crime reality' shows. Things like 'Forensic Files,' 'Forensic Detectives.'
I will live in TV Land watching 'Columbo.' I also like my 'Forensic Files,' all of that true crime.
In my workshop, I like to have the TV on for background noise, but I only put on shows that you don't really need to watch in serial order; stuff you can glance up every once in a while and still know what's going on; for example, Cops reruns, Jeopardy!, and Forensic Files.
This is really funny, but we did a study of the occupations of female characters on TV, and there are so many female forensic scientists on TV because of all the CSI shows and Bones and whatever. I don't have to lobby anybody to add more female forensic scientists as role models. There's plenty.In real life, the people going into that field now are something like two-thirds women.
'Forensic Files' is big in our house.
I am completely and utterly hooked to all the great shows on A&E and Court TV that are about small town murder. These shows like Forensic Files, City Confidential, I just can't get enough of them. It's always the same sort of deal. You know that they interview the actual people that lived through the experience. I miss Paul Winfield as the host of City Confidential, may he rest in peace.
I definitely love 'Camelot.' It's my favorite show. I'm a big 'True Blood' fan. I love 'American Idol,' and I love my girl J-Lo. The rest are my homework shows: 'Forensic Files,' 'Dr. G. Medical Examiner,' 'The First 48.'
True-crime shows and podcasts aren't the only ones flattening the complexity of forensic science into easy-to-grasp narratives: journalists do so, too. They say DNA or trace evidence 'matches' a suspect, when scientists can't be so definitive.
I remember when I was 12, talking with my friends about what we wanted to do with our lives, astronauts, forensic detectives, all these different jobs. And the only thing I could think was an actor.
I've been on this kick reading about the beginning of forensic science: autopsies, fingerprinting, psychological profiling. I've been reading a lot of books about forensic anthropology.
I went to a mystery writers conference ... and I learned a lot not only from the faculty - and in the faculty we had forensic doctors, detectives, policemen, experts in guns, etc. - but from the questions of the students.
Most crime fiction, no matter how 'hard-boiled' or bloodily forensic, is essentially sentimental, for most crime writers are disappointed romantics.
Ultimately, bridging the practice of forensic science and the public's need for story may be difficult. We crave narrative, order from chaos, a mystery solved, good guys winning out over the bad ones. But science, and forensic science, should be more neutral and, thus, more nuanced.
I think I may be the perfect audience search for Quibi, because I'm a very bite-size kind of person. I can't actually watch long things. The most I can watch is a little episode of 'Forensic Files,' and anything longer than that is too much.
The righting of historic wrongs has chimed with something fundamental in me since I was a young reader. I love the forensic skills, the psychological insights, and the sheer bloody-mindedness of various detectives - professional or accidental - inching toward the truth of a long-buried secret.
In reality, those rare few cases with good forensic evidence are the ones that make it to court.
I'm a curious guy. I can't turn away from an investigative story, when it comes to the forensic analysis. I've done 33 dives, to the titanic wreck site. I've spent over 50 hours piloting robotic vehicles at that wreck trying to piece together what happened during the disaster. How the ship broke up, comparing the historical record with the forensic record. Documentaries are kind of my new life. I love documentary filmmaking.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!