My husband and I turned on what is now known as television the other night – a show of our “choice” from a limited menu of what is “free” via streaming services that will now charge you another $35 a year or so to not see additional ads.1 But this had really terrible ads, and it was an old series: Forensic Files, kind of a misnomer with regard to what all forensic evidence entails in my opinion. The emphasis on these dubious forms of what now defines forensics to the point of confusion is comparable to automobile technicians being thought of mechanics these days, in a way. Admittedly that’s not quite right, not the most apt comparison. But the gist of this older school media was to catapult awareness of DNA and other forms of microscopic evidence in order to solidify this guarded science as a form of direct evidence in the mind of the public, which it is not. That is somewhat beside the point, but it grates at my soul when I think and read on it, so I wanted to make note.
The case in this particular episode we were halfway paying attention to was heinous and well known at the time, mid 90s. A young woman, Shannon Melendi, was disappeared, raped, and murdered. The case had turned cold, finally solved by the “miracle” of DNA technological advancement. It was easy to feel sorry for the parents of the deceased, whom they interviewed. Funny thing, the audience doesn’t know who exactly interviewed them. Certain highlights of their interviews conducted by persons off screen were voiced over by a beloved narrator to FF’s diehard fans, and yes, they exist. Melendi’s mother remarked toward the end of the episode that she doesn’t even want the perpetrator, one Colvin Hinton, to be executed or to die for his crimes. She wanted him to suffer something much worse than death, but presented as if this desire for prolonged, painful (psychic and/or physical) death locked away forever is virtuous. It reminded me of post-9/11 “discourse” – “but torture doesn’t even work!” in response to batshit warhawk cheerleaders. Work, okay, but for what exactly? So much of the liberal rhetoric ended there, so you didn’t get an explanation. It was just a thing to say to “get” an alleged opponent.
Continue reading →