NCIS has this major forensic inaccuracy — an expert points it out, details explored

NCIS has been on TV since 2003. That’s over two decades of cases, familiar faces coming and going, and a steady rhythm that kept people tuning in. Week after week, millions watched because the show gave them something steady. A story that starts, moves fast, and ends. But the truth behind it isn’t that neat. Real investigations don’t play out the same way, not with the same timing, not with the same results. And that’s the part that some experts keep pointing out, the part where the show and reality stop matching.

One of the clearest observations comes from Matt Steiner, a forensic expert and NYPD detective. In an interview with Screen Rant, Steiner described how the show blurs the line between detectives and forensic specialists, presenting them as if they were part of the same function. In practice, those roles are very different and rarely overlap in the way NCIS suggests.

---

Matt Steiner’s perspective

Steiner explained that investigations are typically divided into two distinct parts.

“So you have two sides of the investigation. You have the detectives that deal more and they care more about the motive… And then the forensic side is dealing strictly with the evidence, we just care about the evidence.”

According to him, a strong case only emerges when these perspectives are compared. NCIS, however, merges them into a single team, showing agents handling tasks that would normally fall to separate professionals.

---

Reality far from fiction

The expert also commented on how cases are resolved. On NCIS, every episode starts with a crime and ends with a solution. In reality, the process is far more complex.

“No, it isn’t that easy. And conclusions are always at the end of trials, and not everything goes to trial, but just because someone gets arrested for something doesn’t mean that they’re guilty of it.”

Steiner added that forensic investigators usually only work on the crime scene itself, moving on to another case right after. In many situations, the outcome is only known years later when a trial takes place.

---

How NCIS gives a different meaning to the phrase 'evidence doesn’t lie'

Among his comments, Steiner addressed the well-known expression that evidence does not lie.

“That’s why they say ‘the evidence doesn’t lie.’ It’s because it doesn’t, its interpretation could be wrong, but the evidence itself is not going to lie.”

He emphasized that the value of evidence lies in its objectivity. The material collected at a crime scene remains the same, but its interpretation can lead to mistakes. In NCIS, the results are often portrayed as decisive conclusions that immediately point to the guilty party, which is not the case in real investigations.

---

Cases that evolve over time

Steiner also talked about how those first ideas at a crime scene can be off. It might look obvious at the start, everyone thinking it has to be one person, but then the details start shifting. New evidence comes in, and suddenly the whole picture feels different. He said it happens a lot, where investigators believe they’re sure about someone and later find out it points somewhere else completely. That’s why the neat and quick endings on NCIS feel more like TV than the way things really work.

---

The contrast between practice and television

Steiner’s remarks highlight the distance between real work and what is shown on screen. Forensic specialists rarely follow a case from start to finish. Their job is often limited to gathering material at the scene before moving on to another investigation. In contrast, the show depicts its team present at every step of the process, building a continuous narrative that does not happen in actual police work. As noted in the interview, this is part of the storytelling choices that shape the show.

---

A success that does not depend on accuracy

Even with these differences, the show has not lost its appeal. Screen Rant points out that the show’s longevity and the number of spinoffs prove its strong position. The way it combines functions and simplifies investigations has not reduced its popularity. Accuracy is not what drives its success, and the franchise continues to expand after more than two decades on the air.

---

Conclusion

Matt Steiner’s comments help clarify how NCIS diverges from real investigative practice. For him, the roles of detectives and forensic experts remain separate, with each side focusing on a different aspect of the case. Evidence does not provide an automatic conclusion, and trials often happen years after a crime scene is processed. NCIS chooses to condense and dramatize these steps, building a narrative that ensures closure within a single episode. That contrast shows how entertainment and reality diverge when it comes to portraying criminal investigations.