4,00 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Edizioni Savine
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
In the story of progress, art always precedes science. Mankind meets its problem first by learning from experience. As an understanding of underlying forces becomes necessary, a science is developed. This is the history of every profession. This is the story of the development of police practise.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Ähnliche
MODERN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
BY
HARRY SÒDERMAN, D.Sc.
Head of the Institute of Police Science, School of Law University of Stockholm, Sweden
AND
JOHN J. O’CONNELL
Deputy Chief Inspector, New York City Police Department and Dean of The Police Academy
DRAWINGS BY CHARLES A. HARROLD
G. BELL AND SONS LTD
YORK HOUSE • PORTUGAL STREET • LONDON W.C. 2
INTRODUCTION
In the story of progress, art always precedes science. Mankind meets its problem first by learning from experience. As an understanding of underlying forces becomes necessary, a science is developed. This is the history of every profession. This is the story of the development of police practise.
Experience has been and will continue to be the great teacher of police technique. In dealing with large populations living under every variety of condition, the value of a police officer is conditioned by the extent and character of his experience. Unless the best police experience we now possess is systematized and summarized it will be lost and the succeeding police officers will start without the lessons of their predecessors. Experience is an effective teacher but always a costly teacher. We must be saved from the sad waste of needless experience.
Police practise has long felt the inadequacy of mere experience and is now teaching out for all the help that can be obtained from all the growing sciences. Prevention of crime and the detection and apprehension of criminals are rapidly becoming technical processes.
The authors of this book have rendered police technique two distinct services: they have selected the most vital police experiences and have presented them very effectively; they have summarized the most significant lessons of the physical and biological sciences for police practise. In Modem Criminal Investigation the reader will find a lifetime of police experience and the lessons which the scientist has for the police officer. This is an epoch-making contribution to the art and science of police procedure.
Lewis J. Valentine, "Police Commissioner, May, 1935 City of New York
PREFACE
This work is primarily for policemen, detectives and other peace officers, but also for lawyers and students of criminal investigation. The authors know full well the inevitable shortcomings of such a book. Its creation has been a continual struggle to avoid, on the one hand, the Scylla of telling too little and, on the other, the Charybdis of making too large a book. A further difficulty lay in the fact that some methods of criminals and some methods of detectives cannot be described in a book that is to be placed within reach of the general public.
To some readers it may appear that certain of these pages are more technical and scientific than necessary; experience has convinced the authors, however, that it is increasingly desirable to bring this newer scientific knowledge to the attention of all peace officers.
We wish to tender our grateful acknowledgments to Lewis J. Valentine, Police Commissioner of the City of New York; John J. Seery, Chief Inspector of the New York Police Department; John J. Sullivan, Assistant Chief Inspector commanding the Detective Division, New York Police Department; Inspector Joseph J. Donovan, Commanding Officer of the Statistical and Criminal Identification Bureau of the Police Department of the City of New York and specialists of that command; Captain Edward J. Dillon, Automobile Squad, New York Police Department; Captain William J. Raftis, New York Police Department Pickpocket Squad; Captain Daniel J. Curtayne, Safe and Loft Squad, New York Police Department; Lieutenant Richard Fennelly, Safe and Loft Squad, New York Police Department; Lieutenant William J. McMahon, Police Academy, New York Police Department, for their expert assistance on various chapters of this work; and to Patrolman Charles A. Harrold of the New York Police Department for the drawings.
Acknowledgment for friendly assistance is also given to Major General John F. O’Ryan, former Police Commissioner of the City of New York; Barron Collier, former Special Deputy Commissioner in Charge of Foreign Relations; Mr. Bruce Smith of the Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University; Dr. Edwin Zabriskie, noted psychiatrist and specialist on nervous disorders and Honorary Surgeon of New York City Police Department; Dr. J. Eastman Sheehan, eminent plastic surgeon and Honorary Surgeon of the Police Department of New York; Dr. Bruno de Biasi, Hematologist of Columbus Hospital; Dr. Charles N. Norris, Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York; Dr. Alexander O. Gettler, Toxicologist to the Medical Examiner’s office, City of New York; Dr. Erastus M. Hudson, Expert in Fingerprint Chemistry, Honorary Surgeon, New York City Police Department; Mr. Albert S. Osborn, noted handwriting expert; Thomas F. Brophy, Chief Fire Marshal of the City of New York Fire Department; Dr. William E. Grady, Associate Superintendent of Schools, Board of Education, City of New York; and to others.
Special acknowledgment is given to Professor Paul Klapper, Dean of the School of Education, College of the City of New York, for valuable criticism and help; also to Mr. J. V. Howe, author of The Modern Gunsmith, for expert advice and assistance.
This book has sprung out of the practise of a hard-working police department. It is our sincere hope that it will help to enhance the effectiveness of criminal investigation and also be found useful for reference purposes.
The Authors.
New York City,
May, 1935.
ASPECTS OF DETECTIVE WORK
Natural science began to develop by leaps and bounds in the middle of the nineteenth century. This introduced exactness and widespread knowledge of things. The obscure mysticism which had prevailed concerning everything disappeared as the clear, cold light of science clarified matters, and the change quickly became apparent in criminal investigation. Justice, which had been trying for centuries to solve problems and search for the truth, turned to science. Bertillon, Gross, Galton, Henry, Vucetich, Dennstaedter, Locard, Jeserich, Reiss, Stockis, Heindl, Balthazard, Wentworth, van Ledden Hulse-bosch, de Rechter, Kockel, Tiirkel, Kanger, Minovici, Metzger, Osborn, Mitchell, Bischoff, Lucas, Ribeiro, Schneickert, Schmelck and others built the foundation of police science and used the methods of natural and related sciences as aids in criminal detection.
Modern police science may be said to have three phases. The first phase embraces the identification of living and dead persons. The second embraces the field work carried out by specially trained detectives at the scene of the crime. The third embraces methods used in the police laboratory to examine and analyze clues and traces discovered in the course of the investigation. All these methods will be described in the following chapters.
Modern police science has had a striking influence on detective work, and will surely enhance its effectiveness in due time. There will, however, of course, always exist opportunity for the time-honored methods of practical detective work. Knowledge of the modus operandi of criminals and methods of their apprehension, skill, patience, tact, industry and thoroughness, together with a flair peculiar to the successful detective, will be everlasting primary assets in detective work.
Modern criminal investigation in a broader sense also has several phases. The first is the requirement of a thorough examination and inquiry into the method and technique used by the criminal in his approach to the commission of a crime. So it is absolutely vital that a policeman or detective, in order to investigate a crime, should visit the scene of it. This he must do in order to act intelligently, logically, and to avoid any preconceived notions or theories.
When a building has been entered, the place where the entrance was effected must be determined; likewise the means of entrance used by the criminal. If a jimmy, chisel, key, assistance of an accomplice, or bodily force has been used, this must be noted. The object of the crime must be determined. At or during what time, as exactly stated as possible, did the criminal transaction occur? Was it during some special occasion such as opening or closing time, on a holiday or over the week-end?
The investigating officer should also seek to ascertain if any representation was made by the criminal previous to the crime, or if an inquiry by any individual was made one or more days prior to its actual commission. This would include an approach by a canvasser, pedler, mechanic, bogus inspector, gas man or electrician. In many cases a criminal relies to a great extent on the tale he tells. It invariably indicates the calling or trade to which the criminal has been accustomed. It is likewise important to learn whether any individual has approached the victim or the premises ostensibly to locate a missing friend, to secure employment, to hire a room or apartment on the premises, or to make a purchase; and, if so, was opportunity afforded to make observations which would be helpful in planning the crime committed?
Some criminals work with confederates. It is essential for the investigating detective or police officer to be able to decide whether the crime has been planned by more than one individual. This conclusion can be arrived at after a thorough examination of the approach and the means used to enter and to attack the person or property.
The search for clues should not be confined to the premises alone. The investigating officer should invariably seek for traces of vehicles—motor-power, horse-drawn or otherwise—in the neighborhood of the crime. The marks of vehicles that cannot always be accounted for by the ordinary traffic having business at the scene, if discovered, should be noted as having a possible connection with the crime. Many good cases of detection have been attributed to finding traces that indicated the way in which criminals moved in taking away property or in fleeing after committing a crime.
As criminals are frequently known to commit extraordinary acts not associated with the object of the crime, such as changing clothes on the premises, drinking liquors, smoking cigars or cig-arets, eating food, committing nuisances, poisoning the dog, or preparing a particular get-away, the investigating officer should be careful to note any such peculiarities.
With the criminal’s method and technique fathomed, progress in the premises is to be determined. This can be accomplished by keen observation and examination of the premises and their surroundings. Systematic search should be made for footprints, fingerprints, and any clue that might be of help to track the criminal. It is essential that a complete examination and record be made of the corpus delicti, which is the body of the crime or the subject-matter which has been the particular objective of the criminal. In simple language, corpus delicti means the essential, fundamental fact that a crime has been committed. In homicide cases, corpus delicti means the dead body or remains of the victim.
Important phases of criminal investigation are the techniques used by the policeman or the detective in establishing the fact that the crime reported is bona fide; in apprehending the criminal responsible; in recovering property stolen, if any, and in gathering and collating statements of facts, circumstances and clues necessary for the prosecution of the criminal.
Many a crime is simulated for the purpose of collecting insurance or covering up peculations, and so it is compulsory for the investigating officer to establish its authenticity. When this has been accomplished, clues available generally comprise the method
of operation, the stolen property and the traces left by the criminal on the scene. When a criminal flees after the commission of a crime, his chance of escape will be greatly reduced if an accurate description is secured and immediately broadcast through a general alarm. The matter of descriptions of criminal fugitives is covered in detail in Chapter IV. Description of property sought to be recovered after having been stolen is covered in Chapter XIX. Emphasis must be laid upon the importance of both of these matters in helping in the solution of cases.
Corroboration of the criminal’s identity should be obtained, if possible, from persons other than the victim. This corroboration may be secured from voluntary statements made by witnesses or in reply to questions asked by the investigating officer. When the necessary information has been obtained, pursuit of the criminal should be immediate.
It is well to bear in mind, when taking voluntary statements or questioning witnesses, that the scope of inquiry should cover matters known, seen, heard, tasted, discovered, smelled and felt, and that particular attention should be given to the motives of the criminal, both prior to the commission of the crime and subse-quendy, noting coincidences of presence, absence, and movements, as well as giving attention to the sequence of action of witnesses, and the connective accuracy of their account. Consideration must also be given to the results of their lines of conduct, suspicious discrepancies, omissions, false statements, unnatural reluctance, extreme prejudice, abnormal desire to volunteer evidence, and the general reliability of witnesses. After covering these aspects a definite conclusion can be reached on facts and statements substantiated, qualified or refuted.
QUESTIONS
1. Describe the phases of modern criminal investigation discussed so far.
2. Give four examples of corpus delicti in crimes other than homicide.
3. What do you understand a simulated crime to be? Describe one or more from experiences of yourself or of others.
PSYCHOLOGY IN DETECTIVE SERVICE
A, General Remarks About Questioning
The interrogation should be conducted as soon as possible after the commission of the crime. Each person should be heard individually, and none of the suspects or witnesses should be allowed to hear the questioning of the others. If possible, the principal witnesses, especially the most trustworthy ones, should be heard before the suspect is interrogated—in order that the interrogator be sufficiently informed.
The method of questioning varies widely according to the mentality of the questioned person, his age and race, sex, religious and political views, social status and education. A good interrogator must therefore be highly experienced, with a keen comprehension of the psychology of the questioned person, being able to understand his mentality and behavior from moment to moment. Seriousness, kindness and patience also are necessary. To force a witness to give information or a suspect to admit his guilt by threatening him, frightening him, injuring him, or by giving him false information regarding the state of the investigation, is discreditable, unnecessary and unwise.
The questioning should be fair, legitimate and unprejudiced. All circumstances to the benefit of the suspect and apt to prove his innocence should be carefully investigated. It should never be forgotten that a suspect may be innocent even tho the adverse evidence momentarily seems to be strong and the interrogator is convinced of his guilt. The ability to be impartial and free from prejudice is a signal virtue of the superior interrogator.
Suggestive Questions—The questions should be clear and unambiguous. They should not be so formulated as to lead the
questioned person to answer in a certain direction or suggest the answer to him. Such questions are called “suggestive questions” and should be avoided. For example, if the question is put in this way: “Did the man you met have on a black or a brown hat?” the person is led to think of a hat. The question should be: “What headgear did the man you met have on?”
Such questions as; “It was so that- -- wasn’t it?” should also
be avoided
B. The Denouncer—Who Is He?
The value of the denunciation has at first to be established and the facts or probabilities should be checked. The denunciation may be such that no investigation has to follow; thus it may be due to a monomaniacal idea of the denouncer; he may be insane or a crank. It may also be a mistake, as when, for example, a lost object is still in the possession of the owner without his knowledge.
The denunciation may also be false, as in cases where the denouncer is trying to harm an antagonist or to protect himself or to gain some advantage, as, for example, by simulated thefts, assaults and burglaries. When something of this kind is suspected, the statement of the denouncer must be checked up on the scene, and all persons who may have information to give carefully questioned.
C. The Suspect
Before the suspect is questioned, the preliminary investigation should be finished, i.e., the scene of the crime examined, evidence of a technical nature collected and examined, the residence and office—or workshop—of the suspect searched, and as much information as possible gathered. The interrogator must know all the facts thoroughly and possess the ability to keep them together. The latter is an art which is not acquired at once.
The interrogation should be made in such a manner that the road to admission (confession) is made easier for the suspect.
Such expressions as murder, rape, burglary, etc., should not be used, but more neutral words employed, especially when a young suspect or woman is questioned. People who have already served a penal term as a rule are not so sensitive.
The success of the interrogation often depends on where it takes place. The presence of parents, relatives or friends may prevent the suspect from speaking openly. The same applies if the questioning is conducted in the house, or in the place where the suspect works, or in the presence of employers or co-workers.
If the suspect confesses wholly or partly, or gives important information, the goal of questioning is achieved and the interrogation may then be concentrated on important parts of the events leading to the crime.
If, on the contrary, the suspect pleads innocence, the success of the interrogator depends upon the evidence gathered and the ability of the interrogator to plan and do the questioning. The suspect should never get any information regarding the investigation or the evidence at hand. In many cases he should not even know why he is being questioned. If little evidence is present, the interrogator has to complete the evidence through the suspect.
It would be a fatal error to accuse him. He should be handled as a witness. No shadow of suspicion should be apparent.
The interrogation in such cases is founded on the experience that it is difficult to lie consecutively and logically. The interrogation should not consist only of questions from the interrogator and answers from the suspect. The latter should have an opportunity to give his own account of things. If the interrogator knows that the account is untrue he should not show it. The more the suspect lies the weaker his position becomes later on.
If several persons are suspected of the crime, they should, if possible, be questioned at the same time and in the same manner, but not together. In one case, for instance, a merchant had been robbed and killed. Several years afterwards the police got vague information that a waiter, T—, and his wife were probably the murderers. No motive was given. After a careful investigation, the pair were arrested and questioned along the same lines. To start with, they were compelled to give a thorough account of
their common lives. The investigation brought to light the fact that T— had committed some small thefts. The suspects were next questioned about their economic condition and then about the thefts. Not a word was said about the murder. Several facts of importance bearing on the murder were in this manner unconsciously revealed. Finally there was enough evidence to open a murder trial.1 There is no doubt that if the interrogation from the beginning had been directed towards the murder, the pair would have grown suspicious and never hinted a word which would have served as a guide.
It is a good practical rule that the more meager the evidence the later should it be brought to the knowledge of the suspect. In another case a girl was assaulted, robbed and killed. A young man was arrested on no other suspicion than that he had made several large purchases the same day, altho he was known to be absolutely without funds. When he was first questioned, the murder was not mentioned, but he told about his life, his means of earning a living, and so on. This did not arouse his suspicions, because he was an ex-convict and accustomed to being interrogated. Under this interrogation it was discovered that he was penniless the day the murder was committed.
If the interrogation had sought to establish where he had obtained the money for his purchases, his attention would have been directed to this point, thus putting him on his guard. By the method used he was prevented from answering, for instance, that he had won at cards, or from admitting some burglary to avoid the murder issue.
If a confession is obtained, the details of the crime must still be proven. For example, in burglary, the manner in which the burglar broke into the house and in which he left; what tools he used; in what room the goods were stolen; how stolen objects were kept and where they were hidden; whether he had accomplices or not, and so on. In important crimes, criminals should be taken to the scene of the crime, especially when there is suspicion that guilt will be denied before the courts. Such a recon-
1 Related by Gennat, chief of the homicide squad of the Police Department, Berlin, Germany.
struction is a very effective method of proving the value of a confession. Careful notes about the reconstruction and what the suspect related should be kept.2
D, Methods of Detecting Deception
The Association Method—This is a method proposed to develop association of ideas by the suspect and in this way to get knowledge of that part of his thoughts which he will not divulge. Such association of ideas represents valuable information because it is brought out against the desire of the individual. An old anecdote illustrates this: A young man asked a magician to teach him how to manufacture gold. The old magician told the young man all about the ingredients and invocations, but warned him never to think of a rhinoceros when making gold. The youngster said that he had never thought of such an animal and it would not be difficult for him to avoid thinking about it. Shortly after, however, he came back to the magician and told him that he could not manufacture gold because his mind was constantly on the rhinoceros. Similarly the thoughts of the criminal are circling around the crime. He reacts unconsciously to his secret thoughts when he hears something which is related to the crime.
Wertheimer, Klein, Wendt, Jung, Miinsterburg and other research workers have made extensive researches in the use of the association method for getting confessions from criminals who deny guilt. It has also been used when proving non-participation, or to pick out the guilty among several suspects.3 The practical use of the method is as follows:
One chooses a certain number of words that have relation to the crime and puts them into a long list of irrelevant words. The words that have relation to the crime are called critical words and the others indifferent words. The words are read to the suspect in the order in which they appear on the list, and he answers
2 See also Ernst Fontell, “The Technique of Interrogation," in Handbok i kriminalteknik, by Soderman and Fontell.
3 Gross, Handbuch fur Untersuchungsrichter, Seventh Edition; Freud, "Tatbestandsdiagnostik u. Psychoanalyse" in Arch. fur Krim. Anthrop., 1906; Gorphe, La Critique de Tèmoignage; Miinsterburg, On the Witness Stand.
with synonyms as rapidly as possible, giving the first word that comes to his mind. The answers are noted, as is also the time between questions and answers. The criminal will answer less rapidly to the critical words and still less rapidly to the post-critical words, which follow immediately after the critical words. This is a result of mental strain in trying to find innocent words. The experiment should be made several times in order to find which answers arc altered. As a control for the experiment, nonsuspected individuals should answer to the same words.
The value of the association method has been much discussed. It can only be used in special cases, and will prove of little or no value in dealing with professional criminals, gangsters and racketeers. It is related to other psychotechnical methods, as, for instance, the Pneumograph, the Psychogalvanometer and other apparatus that has been experimentally employed for detecting deception. The so-called Lie Detector, which is an adaptation of the above-mentioned methods, has attracted some attention.4
All these contrivances, however, give uncertain results. Facts brought out therefrom are not yet acceptable in court, even if they at times give some hints to the investigation. This is especially true of the much-written-about “truth serum,” which seems too dangerous in its use and too adventurous in its claims even to merit discussion here.
E. Witnesses
The interrogation of a witness must also be formulated according to his mentality. Even if some witnesses must be handled with sternness, as a rule best results are obtained through kindness and patience. The difficulty lies in determining when a witness hides or gives false information; because witnesses often unconsciously give false information without any interest or desire to mislead the interrogator. Low intelligence, illness, lack of education, etc., may be sufficient causes for a witness, who tries to speak the truth, unconsciously to give false information or to
4 See Inbau, F, E., “Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases"’ in Journ. of Crim, Law and Criminal Vol. XXIV, No. 6, 1934.
recite things known only through hearsay as if they were parts of a personal experience.5
At times a person may be reluctant because he does not like to be involved in a trial He may be a friend of the suspect or have business connections with him. He may be unwilling to go before the court and does not like publicity. He may have economic reasons, such as loss of salary for the time spent in court as a witness. He may dislike the police authorities. He may pity the suspect, or he may avoid speaking because of the annoyance it would cause him later. There may be many other reasons why he declares that he has no knowledge of the matter. Such occasions place great responsibility on the interrogator. He must not only attempt to understand the motive for the reluctance but create a new interest for the witness. Tactfulness, diplomacy and patience will help a good deal in such cases. Generally, very little will be achieved by threats and severity, altho if a real egoistical motive for the reluctance has been established, one should always proceed with sternness and determination. Here, as always when it is suspected that the witness is hiding something or giving false information, the motive for his acts must be established.
Unreliable persons or liars should always be allowed to talk as much as they like. If such a witness is allowed to give his own account of things related to the investigation, he will finally contradict himself and tell the truth. It is very difficult, not to say impossible, to lie consistently.
From shy and nervous persons one is compelled usually to drag information piece by piece. There is uncertainty about such testimony and it is difficult to get any real facts in such cases. The interrogator should be as gentle as possible. The interrogation should be held, if possible, in the milieu or environment of the person and in the form of casual questions and conversation rather than as a formal interrogation; i.e., the detective should act as a casual visitor having a chat about the case.
The garrulous person presents many difficulties. Altho patience may be strained to a high degree, it is necessary to let him give his own account. The interrogator through cautious questions keeps the witness on the right path. The risk of misunderstanding such witnesses is great if they are not allowed to use their own expressions. They are also apt to give exaggerated and false information. Leads and statements in such cases must be well sifted and controlled.
Children are generally good witnesses when handled with care. They are keen observers, especially boys of ten to fifteen years of age on questions regarding phenomena of nature, and girls of twelve to fifteen on personal and intimate occurrences in their environment.
On the other hand, children are very receptive to suggestive questions and sometimes will tell more than they know in order to hold interest. A fatherly and friendly tone is used in order to give them confidence, overcome their self-consciousness, and encourage them to talk. They should be told to tell only about their actual experiences and not what they have heard. Childrep easily confuse their own experiences with those of others. Interrogation of children should not be prolonged.
Persons in the early twenties are not looked upon as good witnesses because they are occupied with themselves and their own affairs and do not care for things which do not pertain to them personally.
In advanced age persons may have keen power of observation of details, especially in regard to things in their own sphere of activity.
In all interrogations of witnesses one should have a certain amount of suspicion, even if the witness seems to be truthful and serious. As a rule he should be allowed to give an account in his own way. When he has finished, through cautious questions, he should be made to relate details which the interrogator desires to know. The real interrogation then should begin. Details of importance should now be examined and eventual contradictions revealed to him if necessary. If memory fails him about the time of an occurrence, one may give him some associated idea, as, for instance, what he did on the day in question. In
order to get precise facts about positions and other statements, the interrogation is simplified if it is made on the scene of the crime.6
F. Criticism of Human Testimony
In the preceding pages we have attempted to give some practical advice as to how to conduct the interrogation of suspects, criminals and witnesses. We have stressed how the interrogator should attempt to adjust himself to the individual in order to obtain the best possible results. By an ideal interrogation the questioner should be able to enter into the process of the criminal action as vividly as possible. There is, however, a link between the actual events and the witness. No matter how well the interrogator adjusts himself to the witness and how precisely he induces the witness to describe his observations, mistakes still can be made. The mistakes made by an experienced interrogator may be comparatively few, but as far as the witness is concerned his path is full of pitfalls. Modern witness psychology has shown that even the most honest and trustworthy witnesses are apt to make grave mistakes in good faith. It is, therefore, necessary that the interrogator have an idea of the weak links in the testimony in order to check up on them, in the event that something appears to be strange or not quite satisfactory.
Unfortunately, modern witness psychology does not yet offer means of directly testing the credibility of testimony. It lacks precision and method, in spite of worth-while attempts on the part of such learned men as Binet, Gross, Stein, Lipmann, Gorphe, Locard, and others. It does not, therefore, lead to definite ways of achieving certainty. At the same time, witness psychology has, through the gathering of many experiences concerning the weaknesses of human testimony, been of invaluable service to criminology. It shows clearly that only evidence of a technical nature has absolute value as proof.
Testimony presents three different aspects. The witness sees the occurrence, fixes it in his memory, and expresses it.
6 There has been a tendency, of recent years, in cases of major crime, to make models of the house concerned or relief maps of the grounds concerned, in order to facilitate the interrogation of witnesses and the work of the court.
In agreement with Locard the testimony may be separated into the following stages: (i) perception; (2) observation; (3) mind fixation of the observed occurrences, in which procedure fantasy, association of ideas and personal judgment participate; (4) expression in oral or written form, where the testimony is transferred from one witness to another, or to the interrogator.
Each of these stages offers innumerable possibilities of distorting testimony. In the following pages we will study these possibilities, following chiefly the ideas of Locard7 and Gorphe,8 who have examined the problem from a thoroughly practical angle.
Fig. 1 Edmond Locard
Perception—This is a stage of testimony which may be verified readily. A witness states, for instance, that a certain occurrence took place in a mill at a certain definite time.
“How do you know the exact time?”
“I heard a clock strike the time.”
An investigation at the scene of the crime shows that the noise coming from the mill completely drowns the sound of the clock, even to a very sensitive ear. The witness then remembers that he heard the clock strike only on leaving the mill.
Lacassagne, the famous French specialist of legal medicine, describes a case of this kind in which a man was accused of a number of sex offenses, Lacassagne proved that from where the accuser said he had witnessed the occurrence, it was impossible even to see the accused man. Many similar cases could be cited.
7 Locard, L'Enquete criminelle et les Mèthodes scientifiques, Paris, 1925. Edmond Locard was born in 1877 in Saint-Chamond, France. A Doctor of Medicine and a Master of Law, since 1910 be has been director of the scientific laboratory of the Police Department of Lyons, France. Locard is vice-president of the International Academy for Criminal Science and chief editor of the Revue Internationale de Crminalistique. He has created and developed numerous methods applied to police science and is regarded as one of the foremost criminologists in the world.
8 Gorphe, La Critique du Tèmoignage, Paris, 1927.
This example shows clearly that one must place oneself in an absolutely identical situation in order to verify the testimony. One must not forget, however, that certain deaf persons, when surrounded by noises, may hear sounds which are not perceptible to them under normal circumstances.
Observation—Bertillon has wisely said, “One can only see what one observes, and one observes only things which are already in the mind.” Unfortunately, there are often many facts which arc important for the investigation, but which were of no interest to the witness at the moment he experienced them. He simply did not pay attention to them, and as a rule does not know them, or at the utmost has only a meager knowledge of them. It is, indeed, very rarely that one realizes, during the time of perception, that he may be compelled to appear as a witness later on. The best witness is not the one who has seen a great deal, but rather the one who has a clear understanding of such facts as may prove to be of value to the investigation.
Feeling is one of the deceptive perceptions. In most persons it is very slightly developed unless controlled by eyesight. This naturally deceptive perception may lead to serious mistakes. If the witness, for instance, contends that he recognized an object in the dark merely by touching it, one must regard his testimony with the greatest suspicion. It is an entirely different matter when the witness is blind, for the touch perception may be so highly developed that his testimony must be regarded as having real value and application.
Olfactory experiences and sense of taste are also unreliable. In poisoning cases, for instance, the witness finds difficulty in determining the various sensations experienced. It is also difficult for him to express himself clearly in definite terminology. The objective sensation of smell or taste is easily replaced by the witness’s conception of the good or bad taste which he experiences, It is well known that taste is individual, and as Locard pointed out, “It depends upon the taste of the individual whether the smell of a rotten pheasant makes him think of corpses and cadavers or places him in a condition of culinary happiness.”
It is possible also to have a sensation of smell without the presence of any smell. Schneickert 9 reported a case in Berlin in 1905. A girl named Lucy Berlin, nine years old, had been murdered and mutilated in a house at No. 130 Ackerstrasse. On the 16th of June some boys, playing on the banks of Lake Plotzensee, found the head and the arms of the child, and on the 17th of June her legs and torso were discovered. On the 16th of June, however, before the discovery of the legs and torso, several persons reported to the police that they had sensed a strong odor of burnt flesh in the vicinity of the scene of the crime, and especially in the neighborhood of Nos. 125-130 Ackerstrasse. The thought prevailed that it must have been the murderer who had been burning the missing parts of the body. Their perception of the smell was, therefore, a mere suggestion, which may have had its origin in the fact that in 1904 a similar murder had been committed and the corpse had been burned.
A like occurrence took place some years ago at a resort in Northern Sweden. A maid had been arrested and accused of having murdered her new-born infant. The accusation was chiefly based on the reports of several neighbors, who on a certain day had detected a horrible odor of burnt flesh coming from the maid’s room. The maid had been thought to be pregnant, but this condition was not noticeable after the day of the supposed crime. An analysis of the contents of the stove could not be made, as it had been cleaned out. Medical investigation, however, proved conclusively that the girl had never been pregnant. The girl herself had not noticed any peculiar odor and could not account for the rumor. Naturally, she was immediately released.
Aural experiences take an intermediary position between the above-described senses and the sense of sight, which is the most objective of all human senses. One must, however, make a careful distinction between mechanical noises and the human voice. The observation of a sound is often unclear and subjective.
• Schneickert, “Massensuggestion" in Arch, f, Krim. Anthrop., XVIII, 1905.
A loud noise may appear to have been produced near by, while a sound transmitted from some distance may appear weak. This difficulty of estimating distance from the site at which the sound is produced is increased considerably if the sound is of a nature unknown to the listener. The direction of the sound is a matter which the witness can never fully determine. The sound which the witness perceives is unconsciously compared to a whole series of memories of sounds previously heard, and he attempts to coordinate them in his mind. Locard tells of a man who one night heard a peculiar sound and in an excellent altho absurd manner expressed this series of confused memories by exclaiming: “That dog is not a frog—-it is a cartwheel!”
A witness is usually asked to recognize the voice of a person, to tell what language was used, to repeat as carefully as possible the exclamations heard, and finally to state at least the general trend of what he has heard. This places the witness at a great disadvantage. In order to recognize the voice, for instance, a highly intricate operation is necessary, including an analysis of the loudness of the voice, its intensity and tone, a comparison between these elements and former sound pictures, and then finally the actual identification. If the person is known to the witness, an identification of the voice is, however, rather certain.
In order to determine the language used in a conversation it is not necessary to possess a thorough knowledge of the language. The knowledge of certain characteristic phrases is sufficient. It is, however, not advisable to accept such perceptions without verification.
When we ask a witness to state the content of a conversation, we are confronted with one of the most dangerous parts of testimony. We do not listen to all sounds which form a spoken sentence, and those which we hear we compare unconsciously with sound pictures which we already possess, or else we undertake the more complicated work of forming visions which correspond to them. When we listen to a conversation, therefore, we are not registering a long series of sounds, but rather are reconstructing the talk from separate aural fragments and filling up the gaps with the aid of our power of combination. When a witness repeats a conversation which has taken place, he does not describe what he has heard, but what he has reconstructed in his own mind If he has had a mistaken conception of the conversation from the very beginning, he reconstructs it accordingly, and his testimony is utterly false.
The theory of fragmentary observations is also applied to observations. The mere survey of an object docs not represent a detailed analysis of the shape and color of it. We observe only a few characteristic points and unconsciously complete the picture. The witness, for instance, who sees a well-known face or a nose of unusual shape, does not hesitate afterwards to fill the gaps as to the identity of the individual. Yet, in spite of all these possibilities of error, visual observation is still looked upon as the most accurate. It has also been the most studied from the viewpoint of witness psychology.
Colors are observed and described in an indefinite manner, and many cases illustrating this fact could be related. In a case, for example, where a man had been assaulted, he had seen his assailant only for a moment in the moonlight. He was under the impression that the man wore a vest and a black hat. It was proved, when the assailant was arrested later, that he had been wearing light blue overalls and a white Panama hat.
Many experiments along these lines have been carried out by research workers. Altho these experiments have generally been made from a purely scientific viewpoint in circumstances having slight relation to reality, some have produced very interesting results. In 1913, Dauber10 showed to 369 school children a picture of a small boy with brown hair, blue trousers, brown coat and brown shoes, and asked them shordy afterwards to describe the colors of the different parts in the picture.
The blue trousers were described:
By the boys:
15 times as blue
20 times as brown 5 times as yellow 4 times as gray
By the girls:
8 times as green 19 times as brown 3 times as yellow 7 times as gray 3 times as red 3 times as black
The brown coat was described:
By the boys:
28 times as blue
18 times as green
13 times as gray
20 times as red
2 times as yellow
By the girls:
21 times as blue 12 times as green
19 times as gray 9 times as red
The brown hair was described:
By the boys:
35 times as black 2 times as light
By the girls:
12 times as black 2 times as light
Eighteen children described the brown shoes as black, and many claimed that the boy in the picture was barefooted.
Such experiments serve to illustrate the many pitfalls met in criminal investigations when a suspect is identified through an untrained witness.
Even trained observers may make mistakes. The authors performed some interesting experiments along these lines. In a training course in Police Science for prosecuting attorneys given by the Swedish Department of the Interior, about seventy of the students, among whom there were many experienced policemen, were submitted to the following experiment: While they
were listening to a lecture, a young lady entered the hall and remained for about five minutes. She then arose and explained that she had come into the wrong room and walked out. The eyes of the men were naturally fixed on the good-looking young lady for five minutes. The next day they were asked to give a description of the lady, and only one of the seventy was able to give an accurate description. Many other such tests made here and abroad could be cited.
In describing the position of persons and objects, errors made by a witness are also very common. The witness may change his position without orienting himself, and when one asks him if an individual was on this or on the other side, or whether a vehicle was traveling to the left or right, he may easily make mistakes and confuse the correct position. Such mistakes are especially common when the witness has no fixed points to use as guides. Locard tells of a case in which a young girl was killed, during a concert, by a man in the audience. He was immediately arrested and he confessed. During the trial six witnesses stated that the young girl and her mother had been sitting in the fourth row. The blood, however, was found in the fifth row. Two witnesses claimed that the murderer had taken his weapon from the left inner pocket of his coat, but the murderer himself —and he surely should have known—said he had had it in the right outside pocket of his coat.
In many visual observations there is some movement of the object or person, and this also is observed only fragmentarily. The total picture of a moving object is composed of a series of pictures of each successive movement. We seldom observe all the movements in the series, but fill the gaps with imagination or reasoning. Hans Gross 11 tells of a case, for instance, where a man was prosecuted because he had struck the head of another person with a glass. The witnesses did not agree as to whether the defendant had thrown the glass at the victim or had used it to strike him. Each one reconstructed the scene according to
11 Hans Gross was bora in 1847 and died in 1915. He was professor of penal law at the University of Graz, Austria. Gross is regarded as one of the founders of police science, and his famous book, Handbuch fur Untersuchungsrichter (Criminal Investigation), is regarded as a classic.
his own idea of the brawl, and his imagination filled the gaps in the memory picture of the movements. This phenomenon may well be explained by describing the successive positions of the glass as A, B, C, D, etc. Each witness had seen only some of the successive movements, thereby forming a picture of the entire occurrence. One, for instance, saw only A, C, D, H, another only C, E, G, I, etc.
Mind Fixation of Observed Occurrences—The memory picture is not subject to many alterations if it can rest in a portion of the mind which is sparingly used. On the contrary, if the memory picture is subject to much thought, and especially if it is expressed in oral or written form, it alters each time, so that it finally will have very little resemblance to the original impression. With time it will alter and gradually become faint even if it remains latent.
Fig. 2 Hans Gross
Expression—This is the part of the testimony which is most important from the viewpoint of the interrogator, and it is generally here that we find many sources of error.
The most common sources of error are inaccuracies of fact, exaggerations, and inaccurate expressions.
The tendency of the witness to relate only what he thinks is important gives rise to many inaccuracies. It would not be so bad if the witness excluded only unimportant details, but he often omits things of value to the investigation.
Exaggerations are, as Locard points out, still more common than understatements. The witness will often multiply numbers and evaluate facts excessively. If he has taken part in a riot he will exaggerate the number of persons present. If he has been assaulted by one or two persons, these will readily become a gang of men; if he has seen an accused person getting drunk, the glasses will become as many botdes; if he knows that a person has a mistress, she will be multiplied into many women. By exaggerating, the witness magnifies not only the value of his observations, but the importance of his own person. Race characteristics and the individuality of the witness here play an important role.
Unanimous Statements—A witness does not generally remain alone from the moment he makes his observations until he is questioned by the interrogator. The longer the period of time elapsing between observation and interrogation, the greater the possibility of his being influenced by others. By discussing the matter with other persons he inevitably enriches his tale with fabrications of his own. If several witnesses of the occurrence are by chance brought together, they may by the exchange of actual and imagined details reconstruct a body of testimony which may be regarded as an average of their collected true and imaginary experiences. The collective testimony concocted by this unconscious and seemingly harmless conspiracy may differ widely from the original experience. The danger of this peculiar state of mind lies in the fact that the unanimous testimony will be looked upon as absolute proof.
When the witness happens to be a member of a group at the time of observation he falls unconsciously under the spell of mass-suggestion (see page 30). In such a case his testimony will probably agree with those of the other members of the crowd. The crowd, says Dupre,12 observes and interprets the occurrences and reacts differently from the individual. Duprè should have added, says Locard, that the witness in the crowd regularly observes, interprets and reacts as the most mentally-inferior member of the crowd.
Related tendencies, which to a certain degree are found in all individuals, even if very different, may give rise to collective mistakes even if the witnesses are independent of one another.
12 Duprè: “Le Tèmoignage: Etude psychologique et medico-lègale,” in Revue des Deux Mondes, 1910.
The value of testimony is then not proportionate to the number of witnesses.
The following illustration will make this point clear.13 Professor X had black hair and Professor Z blond hair. During their absence from class, 153 students, who knew them very well, were asked to record the color of the hair of the two professors. The hair of Professor X was indicated by 125 students as black, by 16 as brown, by 9 as blond, and by 3 as gray. The hair of Professor Z was indicated by 77 students as blond, by 16 as red, by 5 as yellow, by 3 as white, by 2 as gray, by 18 as black, by 21 as brown, by 8 as light brown, and 3 could not recollect the color. The surprizing result of the questionnaire may be explained by the fact that most of the students had black hair, a common characteristic in that part of the country. They had testified as they had been in the habit of perceiving.
The interrogator may especially have to deal with false testimony given unconsciously in the identification of dead bodies as well as of living persons. Mass-suggestion does not sufficiendy explain such phenomena, but a careful analysis of specific cases will show that habit and autosuggestion play a large role.
The Description—One of the most difficult tasks confronting the witness is to describe the fugitive criminal. Mistakes are commonly made. If the witness has seen a person of average height, for instance, accompanied by two or three short ones, the person in question will be described as being tall. Concerning colors, testimony is often very posidve and very false.
Heindl has especially studied some parts of personal description (height, age, color of hair and shape of the face). In two series of tests there were collected 20,000 answers containing 80,000 parts of the description. In the first series an individual was described whom the tested persons viewed for four minutes. In the second series the tested persons described a well-known person who was not present; school children described their teacher, soldiers their officers, etc. The height was generally overestimated by about 5 inches and the age by 8.2 years. The descrip-
13 Arvid Wachtmeister: “Vittnespsykologi,” in Svenska Dagbladet, July 30, 1929.
tion of the shape of the face gave very erroneous results. Men had a better conception of form than women, and children better than adults. The color of the hair was as a rule missed, as 83 per cent of the tested persons erred. Adults had a better conception of the color of the hair than children, and women better than men.
Experiments of this nature may tend to awaken a belief that most descriptions of fugitive criminals are false and misleading. It is, however, a fact that every day persons are arrested by the police with the aid of descriptions given by witnesses. Gorphe says in respect to this, and rightly, that the question is more complicated than the psychologists believe. The psychologists have made up averages of errors occurring in their experiences. An investigator, however, has no great aid, because 20 per cent of the tested persons will err in one case and 40 per cent in another. This does not prove, however, that Mr. Smith is wrong when he says on the witness stand that the burglar had brown hair, a tooth-brush mustache, and wore a gray peak cap. No logician could arrive at such a conclusion from general circumstances in a specific case.
The above-mentioned experiments will, if nothing else, teach the detective or policeman not to accept descriptions without due consideration, especially when the color of the hair, the height of the person, the shape of the face and the wearing apparel are concerned. Much depends on how close the witness was, the light, etc.
Identification of Living Persons Through Witnesses—Mistakes made by confrontations are innumerable. The following circumstances, especially, tend to promote mistakes: similarity to others, bad light, witness excited, witness not sufficiently alert, suggestions, and great lapse of time since day of occurrence.
It is customary in confrontations to have the witness brought into a room where several persons are found lined up with the suspect. The witness is asked to pick out the culprit. Photographs or descriptions of the suspect should naturally not be supplied to the witness.
Some psychologists claim that identification of an individual by witnesses normally gives false or negative results. Such an opinion may be exaggerated, but it is nevertheless true that the individual to be identified should, if possible, be placed in the same circumstances as when seen by the witness, i.e., the same position, the same movements, the same light, etc. The best method is to attempt the identification at the scene of the crime at approximately the hour the crime was committed.
Identification of Dead Bodies—It is not always easy to recognize a dead body, especially if it has been subjected to putrefaction or mutilation. Errors in this respect occur. Hellwig14 reports an interesting case, which shows that even relatives may be mistaken under the most favorable circumstances. A German railroad man named Kirstein quarreled one evening with his wife. The wife left the room. Soon afterwards Kirstein was informed that a woman had thrown herself in the neighboring river and been drowned. He rushed there, certain that his wife had committed suicide, thought he recognized the body with the aid of a lamp, wept and was greatly grieved. His brother and sister, who had accompanied him, confirmed his recognition. The body was carried home and artificial respiration was applied for some time. After the excitement had waned, suddenly Kirstein remembered that his wife had had more money on her and had worn different clothes. He rushed upstairs to see if she had changed her clothing, saying, “I wonder what clothes she had on today?” One can imagine the shock when he heard the voice of his wife answer, “The clothes which I had on today are hanging here.” Kirstein ran down terrified, crying, “Now I believe in God. The ghost of Emma is in the bedroom!” No one dared to enter the room until Mrs. Kirstein herself came out. It became at once apparent that there was not the slightest resemblance between her and the drowned person. The case can only be explained by the supposition that Kirstein had been the victim of powerful autosuggestion. It is peculiar that the husband, who had been at work applying artificial respiration to the dead body, had not
14 Hellwig, “Einige merkwurdige Falle von Irrtum uber die Identitat von Sachen und Penonen" Arch. f. Krim. Anthrop., 1907.
been able to perceive the difference existing between this woman and his wife. His agitation and preoccupation obscured all other observation.
In Chapter IV methods of reconstructing dead bodies arc described. Such methods will without doubt diminish possibilities of mistakes in the identification.
Identification by Photographs—K witness should never be shown a photograph and asked if he recognizes the person. On the contrary, the photograph should be put among several others and the witness asked to pick out the person in question. Such a procedure does not, however, eliminate mistakes, as the witness may previously have seen a picture of the person suspected of being the criminal in newspapers or elsewhere. The identification by photographs involves another danger: if the witness’s mind-picture of the criminal is vague and unclear, he may complete the mental picture erroneously by looking at a photograph of a person having some slight resemblance to the suspect. When this mind-picture becomes fixed, the witness in later confrontations may identify the wrong person from the photograph.
G. Mental Abnormalities
Every good detective should have a general knowledge of mental illnesses and constitutional abnormalities of the mind. In the course of his investigations he will often meet persons whose actions and motives may seem puzzling to him if he is not equipped with some knowledge of psychiatry. He should, in fact, be somewhat familiar with the common mental illnesses and abnormalities to enable him to make a tentative preliminary diagnosis for his own information. This fact has also been recognized by several police and medico-legal institutions in which the subject is taken up not only in theory—in didactic lectures, etc.—but also in practise by giving students the opportunity to make observations in insane asylums and psychopathic wards.
A knowledge of signs and symptoms tending to prove mental illnesses is, of course, necessary. Familiarity with the personality make-up of neurotic persons, of epileptics and hysterics, should be of particular interest to the interrogator, as these conditions often affect suspects as well as witnesses.
An individual who is not insane in the true sense of the word, but who nevertheless shows great divergences in character and emotional reactions from those of a normal person, may be classified as a psychopathological person. The intelligence of such a person is often quite satisfactory and at times highly developed. It exercises, however, entirely too little control over his actions, which, instead, are generally influenced by compulsive emotional reactions or more rarely by previously acquired mental diseases in which delusions play a prominent part. Among these persons we encounter many criminals.
In this group are found sexual perversions, which play a role, directly or indirecdy, in both the planning and the commission of many major crimes. Space forbids us to enter into this question, which, however, deserves a careful study.15
The so-called moral insanities also should be considered here. This term covers a group of abnormal individuals, in which students of psychiatry usually include many criminals; but for practical reasons it is customary to regard these all as one group. To the psychic abnormals belong also persons suffering from feeble-mindedness, pathological liars and swindlers, and highly emotional (explosive) persons.
A general knowledge of all these illnesses and abnormalities will be of enormous aid to the interrogator.16 Here we will only deal, very briefly, with epilepsy and hysteria, which, on account of their frequency and the extreme danger they represent to the interrogation, are especially important.
15 See Kahn’s Psychopathic Personalities, New York, and Healy's Mental Conflicts and Misconduct, Boston, 1928.
16 See William and Mary Healy, Pathological Lying, Accusation and Swindling, Boston, 1926; M. Hamblin Smith, The Psychology of the Criminal; A. G. Rosanoff, Manual of Psychiatry.
Epilepsy—Epilepsy is characterized not merely by attacks of convulsions. Many epileptics are inveterate liars, who readily simulate, and who arc easily irritated.
