Sherlock Holmes and the Birth of Criminal Science. Preliminary Considerations

by Sergio Agostinis

The investigations of Sherlock Holmes witness the beginning of a new way of thought concerning criminal investigation being shaped between the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. According to M. Foucault (1989), "tout doit être observé, vu, transmis: organisation d’une police; institution d’un système d’archives (avec fiches individuelles)". And therefore, less schematic (Foucault, 1994): "Un savoir sur les individus qui naît de l’observation des individus, de leur classement, de l’enregistrement et de l’analyse de leurs comportements, de leur comparaison. On voit naître ainsi, à côté de ce savoir technologique, propre à toutes les institutions de séquestration, un savoir d’observation, un savoir en quelque sorte clinique". The knowledge obtained and elaborated is focused on the individual as much as he is an individual, and as such characterizes the origin of human sciences, ranging from the clinical to graphological together with the miscellaneous anthropological disciplines.

For the field of criminalistic, the emphasis on the process of obtaining knowledge, with its renovative examination procedure, regards most of all the verification of the identity of a single individual and individual objects and substances. In particular, personal identification would no longer be based on empirical standards of recognition (testimonials, etc...) but on a precise correspondence between the physical peculiarities of an individual, his natural identity, and his civic identity, or personal anagraphical data. This procedure is dealt with during these same years in two different approaches: anthropometry, which became popular in France, and dactyloscopy, common to English speaking countries.

Fundamental to the French approach is the volume Identification Anthropométrique written by Alphonse Bertillon, a clerk of the police in Paris, which develops "l’idée maîtresse, qui est l’application des procédés de l’anatomie anthropologique aux questions d’identification judiciaire": "Besoin était d’une méthode d’élimination analogue à celle en usage dans les sciences botaniques et zoologiques, c’est-à-dire prenant pour base les éléments caractéristiques de l’individualité, et non l’était civil qui peut avoir été l’objet d’une falsification. Remarquons en passant que l’absence de classification naturelle est un reproche qui s’applique également à tous les systèmes d’identification judiciaire qu’on a cherché depuis à opposer à la photographie. [...] Ainsi la solution du problème de l’identification judiciaire consistait moins dans la recherche de nouveaux éléments caractéristiques de l’individualité que dans la découverte d’un moyen de classification."

Bertillon grounds his ideas in two main assumptions. The first is that the dimensions of the single parts of the skeleton of any individual remain constant between the ages of 20 and 60, and next that each individual is different from any other individual. Dividing the body parts into 5 fundamental areas (head, neck, torso, arms and legs), the identification occurs by confronting each with 11 measurements distributed into 3 categories (body, head, left upper and lower limbs).

The Anglo-Saxon approach resorts to digital imprints, an already well-known phenomenon considered important since ancient times. In order to avoid the possibility of confusing "false forerunners" with "true initiators", a differentiation must be made between the object which is concrete (material object) and the particular aspect considered (formal object), including its relative historic-cultural context. In this way, disregarding the possible mantic, symbolic or ritual traits of primitive and Far Eastern populations and omitting the scientific elements relating to the discovery of their existence and variety (M. Malpighi, 1686), or to their first classification (J.E. Purkinje, 1823), that which specifically concerns the criminalistic sphere, was first emphasized in 1877 by a British official stationed in Bengal, William James Herschel, who recognized the specific characteristics of digital imprints namely, uniqueness, invariability and immutability, which distinguish their consequent importance as instruments of identification. In the meantime, their relevance as an element of proof was being revealed almost simultaneously and in an autonomous way by Henry Faulds (1880), a Scottish doctor working at the Tsukiji hospital in Tokyo. Likewise, Mark Twain’s story, "A Dying Man’s Confession" (1882), illustrated to the United States and described for the first time in literature the determinate importance of fingerprints as an instrument of identification of the author of a crime.

Soon afterwards, Francis Galton, a typical example of a multifaceted and versatile amateur scientist from the 19th century, affronted the problem of the more practical utilization of dactyloscopy together or alternating with anthropometry, which had been underestimated till then, and established the criteria and methodology for classifying and registering a person. One year after the famous "Royas case" of 1892, when digital imprints were used for the first time in court to help convict the perpetrator of two crimes, Mark Twain wrote Pudd’nhead Wilson, the story of a lawyer from Missouri who, thanks to his obsession with collecting and classifying fingerprints of friends and acquaintances, is able to demonstrate the innocence of the accused criminal while revealing the true perpetrator of the crime in a sensational court setting.

Besides the different degree effectiveness and reliability of both identification systems, it is important to recognize their reference to two diverse types of identification. Anthropometry, in spite of its undeniably innovative character, which is due to a rigorous quantitative approach through recourse to the metric system, represents very clearly some essential limits and practical inconveniences. Essentially however, it goes back to the traditional, simple and direct recognition of the identity of an individual already known in the absolute sense, while dactyloscopy, on the other hand, utilizes elementary arithmetic and refers to the notion of identity in a relative sense, therefore returning to the source of the structural elements of individuality. In fact, besides being an instrument of identification, definitely more reliable than anthropometry, it is useful most of all as a criterion of proof, estabilizing a precise correlation between individual elements and a determinate individual. Besides the historic interest for anthropometry, which was practically exhausted immediately upon being introduced, the essential superiority of dactyloscopy is confirmed for other types of imprints, starting from the ballistic, thanks to the immediate application of its principles of examination. (A. Lacassagne, 1889).

In a more general sense, judiciary investigation usually passes from inquisitorial investigation to empirical research. From the simple juxtaposition of the single testimony of fact, which contains an obvious significance in itself, an examination of different elements and material proof then takes place, which contributes to an intimate global meaning, comprehensive only through the reciprocal relationship between the parts. Consequently, the cause of the shifting of testimonial or direct proof to circumstantial or indirect proof is due to the paradigmatic change of the nature of the evidence and not to the presumed inadequacy of the relative knowledge of scientific procedures. This way, as well in the literature "on est passé de l’exposé des faits ou de l’aveu au lent processus de la découverte; du moment du supplice à la phase de l’enquête; de l’affrontement physique avec le pouvoir à la lutte intellectuelle entre le criminel et l’enquêteur." (Foucault, 1975). That designates the birth of the detective story. In other words, a narration can be detected which presents the reconstruction of the exact circumstances of a mysterious criminal event through the methodical research and rational examination of various clues.

Assuming that August Dupin was the first to propose the epistemological problem of how to resolve the enigma presented by a crime, as suggested by A. Gilman Srebnick (1989), until now Sherlock Holmes has represented, for right or for wrong, together with the policeman Jules Maigret, the lawyer Perry Mason and perhaps even the operator Philip Marlowe-one of the three or four protagonists of detective stories who have evolved into prototypes and have entered into the general imagination of most readers. This is probably because their role as a "scientific detective", somewhat threatened by the recent appearance of the pathological anatomist Kay Scarpetta, unites an adequate procedural knowledge, or way of reasoning that the author deliberately changes from the diagnostic field of investigation (essential clues leading to an interpretation, for example certain symptoms indicate a specific illness) to a correspondent declarative knowledge, o bagaglio di nozioni tecnico-scientifiche che il protagonista possiede in conseguenza dei suoi studi. Not mistakenly, Sherlock Holmes’ name is often mentioned along with that of Hans Gross, the father of modern scientific criminal research.

Sherlock Holmes: forerunner or divulgarizer of Hans Gross? When Sherlock Holmes was initially introduced to the literary public, according to the French emulator and criminalist E. Locard (1924), the diverse skills necessary for his investigative activities were to be found disperse in numerous texts, but especially in the well-furnished manual of Hans Gross, Handbuch für Untersuchungsrichter als System der Kriminalistik, which was written a few years earlier. On the contrary, a United States citizen, J. Dickson Carr (1949), voiced a different opinion maintaining that unfortunately there is not yet a real, true manual on this subject; in fact, the fundamental text of Gross was published only in 1891 even though Holmes had already anticipated his own in more than one occasion. In reality, the problem is irrelevant even if the actual publication date of Gross’ work was around 1883. The debate leaves out the true and exclusive interests of Conan Doyle for historic novels which went against his precocious intolerance of an idea born too hastily after reading an article in "Times" magazine that criticized the antiquated methods used by the police and their ignorance towards new progress made in the fields of criminalistic and legal medicine. (G. Orsi, 1987).

The main basic fields of knowledge of Sherlock Holmes, summerized in the first presentation (STUD, I,2 [1881], 1887), are indicated as follows:

"Botany: Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening.

Geology: Practical, but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other.

Chemistry: Profound.

Anatomy: Accurate, but un-systematic.

Sensational Literature: Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century. [...] ‘I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the history of crime, to set them straight. There is a strong family resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can’t unravel the thousand and first.’"

During the course of futher investigations, few other fields of knowledge are revealed which deal with how to solve a case. However, certain categories may be identified which include:

Verification of Personal Identity. It becomes apparent that the two procedures of anthropometry and dactyloscopy are in fact only a marginal aspect of the events; they hardly ever contribute to the final solution.

Anthropometry is indicated explicitly only once and in extremely general terms: "His conversation, I remember, was about the Bertillon system of measurements, and he expressed his enthusiastic admiration of the French savant." (NAVA [1888 or 1889], 1893). Much more interesting is the reference that Sherlock Holmes makes about his own works the first of which, on the differences of human ears" (1886), is composed of two short monographs published in the "Anthropological Journal": "‘There is no part of the body which varies so much as the human ear. Each ear is as a rule quite distinctive, and differs from all other ones.’" (CARD [1887 o 1889], 1893).

The second work, upon the influence of a trade upon the form of the hand (1880), "‘is a curious little work, with lithotypes of the hands of slaters, sailors, cork-cutters, compositors, weavers, and diamond-polishers. That is a matter of great practical interest to the scientific detective-especially in cases of unclaimed bodies, or discovering the antecedents of criminals.’" (SIGN,1 [1887 or 1888], 1890).

According to E. Locard (1924), a similar work was actually commissioned by the prefect of police, Loze, from Bertillon. Two short examples from Holme’s monograph could easily be included in this pamphlet: "‘You have done a great deal of digging, by your callosities.’" (GLOR [1873 or 1874], 1893) and "‘Your right hand is quite a size larger than your left. You have worked with it, and the muscles are more developed.’" (REDH [1887 or 1890], 1891).

Dactyloscopy is completely ignored, except for an evasive response from Holmes: "‘I have heard something of the kind [that no two thumb marks are alike].’" (NORW [1894 or 1895], 1903), along with another short comment: "‘There was evidently some mark, some thumb-print, something which might give a clue to the person’s identity.’" (REDC, 1 [1896 or 1902], 1911). Vice versa, according to E. Locard (1924) and F. Lacassin (1987), there are other cases that could have been easily and elegantly resolved by looking at the fingerprints (for ex. HOUN, 1901; ABBE, 1904; BLAC, 1904; THOR, 1922), just like in the two stories by Mark Twain.

Examination of the Corpse and Inspection of the Setting. This deals with the two cornerstones on which modern scientific investigation depends. Initially, Sherlock Holmes expressed interest only towards the preliminary external inspection of the corpse with the intention of controling the position and the marks found on the body, the presence or absence of cadaveric rigidity and any eventual traces of flora and fauna. He neglects completely the sucessive and determinant phase of internal post-mortem examination, as illustrated in his two following comments:

"‘There was no wound upon the dead man’s person, but the agitated expression upon his face assured me that he had forseen his fate before it came upon him. Men who die from heart disease, or any sudden natural cause, never by any chance exhibit agitation upon their features. Having sniffed the dead man’s lips, I detected a slightly sour smell, and I came to the conclusion that he had had a poison forced upon him. Again, I argued that it had been forced upon him from the hatred and fear expressed upon his face. By the method of exclusion, I had arrived at this result, for no other hypothesis would meet the facts. Do not imagine that it was a very unheard-of-idea. The forcible administration of poisons is by no means a new thing in criminal annals. The cases of Dolsky in Odessa, and of Leturier in Montpellier, will occur at once to any toxicologist.’" (STUD, II, 7).

"‘[The muscles] are in a state of extreme contraction, far exceeding the usual rigor mortis. Coupled with this disortion of the face, this Hippocratic smile, or risus sardonicus, as the old writers called it, what conclusion would it suggest to your mind?’

‘Death from some powerful vegetable alkaloid’, I answered, ‘some strychnine-like substance which would produce tetanus.’

‘That was the idea which occurred to me the instant I saw the drawn muscles of the face. On getting into the room I at once looked for means by which the poison had entered the system. As you saw, I discovered a thorn which had been driven or shot with no great force into the scalp. You observe that the part struck was that which would be turned towards the hole in the ceiling if the man were erect in his chair. Now examine this thorn.’

[...] It was long, sharp, and black, with a glazed look near the point as though some gummy substance had dried upon it. The blunt end had been trimmed and rounded off with a knife.
‘Is that an English thorn?’ he asked.
‘No it certainly is not.’
‘With all these data you should be able to draw some just inference.’" (SIGN, 6).

Brief mention should also be made refering to the use of enlarged photographs when examining a corpse. (LION [1907 or 1909], 1926). One of the rare references, together with the ones that are almost non-existent about observation under a microscope, and those that are nearly always constantly present, the use of the magnifying lens, reflect Holmes’ opinion about these important tools of criminal investigation.

Tracing tracts of people, animals and vehicles. This aspect is already present in many "false forerunners" of the detective story and is one of the main elements demonstrated, together with the examination of stains, dust, and various residuals, during an investigation of Sherlock Holmes. "There is no branch of detective science which is so important and so much neglected as the art of tracing footsteps." (STUD, II, 7).

About this matter there are at least two famous monographs by Holmes. The first is entitled Upon the tracing of footsteps (1897), "with some remarks upon the uses of plaster of Paris as a preserver of impresses." (SIGN, 1). The second is Upon the Distinction between the Ashes of the Various Tobaccos (1870’s): "‘In it I enumerate a hundred and forty forms of cigar, cigarette, and pipe tobacco, with coloured plates illustrating the difference in the ash. It is a point which is continually turning up in criminal trials, and which is sometimes of supreme importance as a clue.’" (STUD, I, 4; SIGN, 1; BOSC).

What is noted next is simply what Conan Doyle referred to in his autobiography (1924) that talks about marks left by a bicycle (PRIO [1901], 1904): "Holmes remarks in his offhand way that by looking at a bicycle track on a damp moor one can say which way it was heading. I had so many remonstrances upon this point, varying from pity to anger, that I took out my bicycle and tried. I had imagined that the observations of the way in which the track of the hind wheel overlaid the track of the front one when the machine was not running dead straight would show the direction. I found that my correspondents were right and I was wrong, for this would be the same whichever way the cycle was moving. On the other hand the real solution was much simpler for an undulating moor the wheels shallow one downhill, so Holmes was justified of his wisdom after all".

Assessment of Graphic Documentation. The examination of manuscripts and typescripts by confrontation and comparison with the aim of establishing the identity or diversity, the authenticity or not, of two written documents to determine their origins (the author or typewriter used) is a common means of discovering even partially or totally altered documentation, be it hand written or typed. Sherlock Holmes does his part when dealing with cryptography, generally relegated to diplomatic and military deciphering of codes and not to criminal investigation, and rarely misses the chance to examine documents and manuscripts, eventually determining both the sex and cultural level of the author. "‘The parcel was directed, then, by a man-the printing is distinctly masculine-of limited education.’" (CARD [1887 or 1889], 1893). "‘And yet the writing is of interest. [...] It is a woman’s. [...] and a woman of rare character [...] who for good or evil has an exceptional nature.’" (NAVA [1888 or 1889], 1893).

Likewise, Holmes can find out much more from a simple fragment of a manuscript, even to the deduction that a certain handwriting was written by two distinct individuals, whom are however related to each other. (REIG [1887], 1893). "‘My dear sir’, cried Holmes, ‘there cannot be the least doubt in the world that it has been written by two persons doing alternate words. When I draw your attention to the strong t’s of at and to and ask you to compare them with the weak ones of quarter and twelve, you will instantly recognize the fact. A very brief analysis of those four words would enable you to say with the utmost confidence that the learn and the maybe are written in the stronger hand, and the what in the weaker. [...] Obviously the business was a bad one, and one of the men who distrusted the other was determined that, whatever was done, each should have an equal hand in it. Now, of the two men it is clear that the one who wrote the at and to was the ringleader. [...] We might deduce it from the mere character of the one hand as compared with the other. But we have more assured reasons than that for supposing it. If you examine this scrap with attention you will come to the conclusion that the man with the stronger hand wrote all his words first, leaving blanks for the other to fill up. These blanks were not always sufficient, and you can see that the second man had a squeeze to fit his quarter in between the at and the to, showing that the latter were already written. The man who wrote all his words first is undoubtedly the man who planned this affair.’"

He then proceeds to determine the age of the two authors. "‘We come now, however, to a point which is of importance. You may not be aware that the deduction of a man’s age from his writing is one which has been brought to considerable accuracy by experts. In normal cases one can place a man in his true decade with tolerable confidence. I say normal cases, because ill-health and physical weakness reproduce the signs of old age, even when the invalid is a youth. In this case, looking at the bold, strong hand of the one, and the rather broken-backed appearance of the other, which still retains its legibility, although the t’s have begun to lose their crossings, we can say that the one was a young man, and the other was advanced in years without being positively decrepit.’"

Even more astounding "‘is a further point, however, which is subtler and of greater interest. There is something in common between these hands. They belong to men who are blood-relatives. It may be most obvious to you in the Greek e’s, but to me there are many small points which indicate the same thing. I have no doubt at all that a family mannerism can be traced in these two specimens of writing. I am only, of course, giving you the leading results now of my examination of the paper. There were twenty-three other deductions which would be of more interest to experts than to you. They all tended to deepen the impression upon my mind that the Cunninghams, father and son, had written this letter.’"

In another occasion (NORW [1894 or 1895], 1903), Holmes is able to deduce that the document was written in a train: "‘The good writing represents stations, the bad writing movement, and the very bad writing passing over points. A scientific expert would pronounce at once that this was drawn up on a suburban line, since nowhere save in the immediate vicinity of a great city could there be so quick a succession of points. Granting that his whole journey was occupied in drawing up the will, then the train was an express, only stopping once between Norwood and London Bridge.’"

Perhaps the most notable examinations are those done on letters that are written on a typewriter (IDEN [1887 or 1889], 1891), which according to L. Deigton (1974) greatly anticipate the publication of the first real investigation on this subject which is curiously unknown to F. Lacassin (1987), who finds that Holmes does not provide an example of the examination of the typescripts.

"‘It is a curious thing’, remarked Holmes, ‘that a typewriter has really quite as much individuality as a man’s handwriting. Unless they are quite new, no two of them write exactly alike. Some letters get more worn than others, and some wear only on one side. Now, you remark in this note of yours, Mr. Windibank, that in every case there is some little slurring over the e, and a slight defect in the tail of the r.’There are fourteen other characteristics, but those are the more obvious. [...] I think of writing another little monograph some of these days on the typewriter and its relation to crime. It is a subject to which I have devoted some little attention. I have here four letters which purport to come from the missing man. They are all typewritten. In each case, not only are the e’s slurred and the r’s tailless, but you will observe, if you care to use my magnifying lens, that the fourteen other characteristics to which I have alluded are there as well.’"

Thanks to the comments made by Pacifico Cristofanelli, professor of Graphology at the University of Urbino and at the LUMSA of Rome, some important considerations can be made.

In the above citations two different approaches to writing are evident, graphological, where peculiarities of handwritting reflect physical and personalities traits, and identificatory, which establishes the original source of the handwritting through the examination and comparison of graphic correspondents, thus leading Holmes to conclude that the same hand wrote the document. What is lacking is the criminological reference, in other words, the capability to extract possible personality aberations or tendencies which may lead to criminal behavior.

In Conan Doyle’s time as today, the individualization of sex and age through the analysis of handwriting is neither automatic nor absolute. The script can offer clues, but not concrete facts, and as such necessitates a critical and contestual evaluation. As shown by the conflicting references regarding masculing and feminine script, the deductions and the argumentation that regard capital letters are not absolute, but the kind of capital letters, their graphodinamic characteristics, can be determinant. Even though similarities may be present in different handwriting, the citation speaks of "other 23 deductions that can be of interest only to experts", they aren’t sufficient evidence to establish the identification of consanguinity.

It is evident that Holmes found something that indicates the fact that the man was on a train between Norwood and London Bridge, probably thanks to the tremor of the handwriting. It is fundamental to determine if these characteristics depend on the hand, the circumstances, or the writing instruments and the kind of paper used.

The criterion of confrontation used to identify characteristics of various typewriters should be considered fully valid. However, it must be noted that to identify the typewriter it is not enough to merely appreciate the particular contrasting elements, but to notice elements which are absent and to give an explanation of any eventual discrepancies.

In conclusion, L. Deigton (1974) was very close to the truth when he observed that the interests and enthusiasm shown for Sherlock Holmes are quite alive today not only for the general reading public but also for policemen, detectives, and scientists all over the world. No balistic investigation, anatomical or pathological knowledge or scientific process, which furnish the background of the plot, can replace "a good dose of common sense" to resolve a crime and on this point both the common policeman and the most astute detective will agree. Belonging entirely to the Ninteenth century, Sherlock Holmes eventually leaves Baker Street for Sussex in the autumn of 1903 with the intention of dedicating himself to apiculture. With his ideas constantly changing, vacillating between fervid intuition and successful theories, yet often lacking dactyloscopic, ballistic and scientific proof, he marked the slow and tormented passage from empirical to scientific criminal investigation.