The State of Forensics in the 1800s
Album of Paris crime scenes attributed to Alphonse Bertillon (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Open Access)
If we adhere to the title, there is little to say about forensics in the 1800s. A history of it would be nothing more than an anecdotal list of unrelated instances where an item found at a crime scene possessed a unique character that allowed it to be used as proof of guilt.
If we only pluck out forensics, we are left with an incomplete understanding of it, and of law enforcement as a whole.
What we consider standard in modern investigations—fingerprints, ballistics, blood evidence, toxicology, hair and fiber—were in their infancy. As was the science behind them. They rarely appear in either an investigation or a criminal trial and it is not until the close of the century that we see policies created for the systematic processing of a crime scene.
That does not mean forensics cannot be a part of historical detective fiction—Arthur Conan Doyle proved that. But it isn’t just the final decade of the century where forensics and physical evidence can play a part. The key is understanding what science was available, what law enforcement thought about physical evidence, and what characteristics physical evidence must possess to be of use to your detective.
The 1800s were fertile ground for forensics. By the end of the century, most of the scientific groundwork for modern forensics has been laid. No less significant, was the shift of both law enforcement and the public, away from confession and toward the burden of proof.
Why the 1800s and not before?
The nineteenth is a century of significant change. Society shifts from rural to urban, methods of transportation carry people faster over greater distances (the stranger is everywhere), and a fear of increased crime and revolution takes seed. This insecurity of the upper classes led to calls for organized, state-financed crime prevention (not detection, but prevention).
In the midst of this, there is an explosion of scientific study and discovery, and the creation of the scientific method. Observation and experimentation become more important than theory and presumption. For something to be true, it must be proven true.
This trickles into the legal system. Though physical “persuasion” continues (it is in the middle of the century that the term “third degree” is coined), torture is abandoned. What constitutes proof is changing. Ideas of evidence and proof are solidifying and becoming science-based; the intervention of God has been replaced with the necessity of tangible proof and an accusation ceases to be sufficient proof of guilt.
Though not a driving force in scientific discovery, law enforcement does benefit from it. For example, this is the century when Galenic medicine is finally abandoned for modern, science-based medical practice; illness becomes the result of bacteria and virus rather than an imbalance of the four humors or a miasma carried on the wind. A greater understanding of human biology allows for more accurate causes of death, particularly the distinction between natural and unnatural.
Without the scientific revolution, there would be no forensics. Without the creation of professional police forces there would be no systematic investigations (or arena in which the need for evidence fed the development of forensics). Without changes to society neither forensics nor professional policing would likely exist.
But we’re here to talk about Forensics
As mentioned, forensics makes sporadic appearances throughout the century (and long before 1800), but that is all they are. Finding the earliest use is not the same as finding the point at which it becomes part of policing. Care must be taken not to identify the event, or the individual, as the “Father” of forensics. There are decade-long gaps between “earliest appearance” and onset of use. It is not until the twentieth century that forensics becomes an independent science, and crime scene guidelines appear. (Edmund) Locard’s Exchange Principle does not appear until 1934. (“Any action of an individual, and obviously the violent action constituting a crime, cannot occur without leaving a trace.”)
These dates hold greater significance for fiction authors. These early appearances demonstrate that, even though the systematic collection of evidence did not exist, physical proof could be obtained by observant and innovative individuals.
Forensics, especially in the early part of the century, is not drive by the establishment; it’s driven by individuals. Even if it’s not standard police procedure, your detective or constable, is allowed to use physical/forensic evidence to help catch the criminal.
To give you an idea of what was available, let’s take a brief look at some of the fields of forensics.
Fingerprints
Fingerprints make a late appearance in criminal investigations. The earliest confirmed instance occurred in 1892 in Necochea, Argentina. Francesca Rojas accused her suitor, a gentleman named Velasquez, of murdering her two young children. A bloody fingerprint was found at the scene and Juan Vucetich (who developed the method of classifying fingerprints used by South America) matched it to Rojas’s. When presented with the evidence, she confessed and was convicted.
The first appearance of fingerprints in a trial was in Chicago, Illinois, USA, in 1910 in People v. Jennings; where Thomas Jennings was convicted of the murder of Clarence Hiller.
Despite awareness of fingerprints, and their potential for confirming the identities of convicts, they did not replace Bertillonage until the early twentieth century, and their use at crime scenes was sporadic. Experiments are done to develop latent prints in 1882 (by French legal physician René Forgeot) and later in 1888 (Prussian veterinarian, Wilhelm Eber), its decades before doing so becomes standard procedure.
Ballistics
One of the earliest confirmed instance of ballistics is in 1794 when Edward Culshaw of Lancashire was shot in the head by a burglar. The ball from the pistol was extracted along with the scrap of paper used as wadding in the muzzle. When unfolded, it was identified as a strip torn from a song sheet. When suspect John Toms was apprehended and searched, a ripped song sheet was found in his pocket which fitted perfectly with the piece used to wad the muzzle. Toms was convicted and executed for the murder.
Bloodwork
It was impossible prior to 1862 to test for the presence of blood. A year later, J. Van Deen’s test was improved upon when Christian Schonbein observed that hemoglobin oxidized hydrogen peroxide, causing it to foam.
Linking blood found at a crime scene to either victim or perpetrator came much later. Blood groups were not discovered until 1901 and Karl Landsteiner identified three of the four (A, B, O; AB came in 1902). Even then, the most which could be determined is that blood found was either of the same or different blood group to that of a victim or suspect; it could not definitively identify the person from which it came.
Toxicology
Of all the forensic sciences, toxicology has the most significant presence in the nineteenth century, not simply due to the scientific developments which allowed for the detection of poisons in human tissue, but, to understand how information moved, or didn’t move, from its place of origin to the wider scientific (and policing) community. Most people think James Marsh was the first to develop a test for arsenic. In truth, it was Valentin Rose, a German pharmacologist, who developed a technique in 1806 using nitric acid, potassium carbonate, and lime. The first conviction (of Anna Margaretha Zwanziger) using toxicology to prove poisoning by arsenic occurred in 1809. Marsh’s Test did not appear until 1836.
Hair and Fibers
Hair and fibers did not play a significant role in forensics until the second half of the century. The first forensic report was released in 1861 by Rudolph Virchow who confirmed that strands of hair have identifiable characteristics. Unfortunately, he acknowledge its evidentiary limitations. (Distinguishing between human and animal was not possible until 1901 when Paul Uhlenhuth developed an antigen-antibody precipitin test.)
Forensics in contemporary fiction
When researching how evidence was collected (or destroyed) and used, contemporary detective fiction is invaluable, not only of what could or couldn’t be done, but also of social practice and attitudes. How did police move within society and what did society think of them? There’s a reason there are no stories where the constable is the champion, and it’s not because they were all bumbling and useless. Among other things, it was unseemly for someone of the lower classes to be portrayed as the hero; less so for people of higher standing to cheer for them.
Sometimes, our best source of information is fiction; if you want to learn about a society, read its fiction.
One of the characters in George Payne Rainsford James’ novel, Delware or the Ruined Family, published in 1833, is Principle Officer Mr. Cousins, a Bow Street Runner. Runners were famous investigators, known for their thorough examination of a crime scene and the collection of evidence. The fictional Cousins employs many of the techniques that were standard practice to Principle Officers. James’ novel is significant. Delware, and its hero, can serve as models for an early-nineteenth-century investigation, and for its investigator.
Though somewhat fictionalized, Eugene François Vidocq’s Mémoire, provides a colorful look at criminal investigations in France in the early nineteenth-century. It’s grittier than English detective fiction and its focus is not on the “genteel” classes, but on the criminal underworld of Paris. It provides eye-opening insight into the culture of thieves, as well as techniques (both legal and not) used by police to apprehend criminals. It provides a wealth of information on undercover techniques, including a few points on disguises.
Though contemporary law enforcement (or their fictional counterparts) did not have access to modern forensic science, they did use what was available to them. When discussing forensics, you do an injustice if you do not incorporate the methods of investigation used; methods which became the foundation for investigative procedures. When taken as a whole, the state of forensics in the 1800s, as far as authors are concerned, is rich with possibilities.
Bibliography
Cole, Simon A. Suspect Identities. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2001).
Dauncey, Sarah. “Crime, Forensics, and Modern Science.” in Charles J. Rzepka and Lee Horsley (eds.) A Companion to Crime Fiction. (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 164-174.
Dawson, Kate Winkler. American Sherlock. (New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2020).
Evans, Colin. The Father of Forensics. (New York, NY: Berkley Books, 2006).
Lyle, D. P. More Forensics and Fiction. (Aurora, Illinois: Medallion Press, 2012).
Tucker, Holly. City of Light, City of Poison: Murder, Magic, and the First Police Chief of Paris. (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2017).
Vidocq, Eugene François. Memoirs of Vidocq: The Principal Agent of the French Police. (Philadelphia, PA: George G. Evans, 1859).
Wagner, E. J. The Science of Sherlock Holmes. (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2006).