Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are a couple of things detectives know that help answer your question. The first is that most innocent victims know their assailants, and the second is that a small percentage of people in a community commit the vast majority of offenses.
Up until the drug wars of the 1980s, with their attendant drive by shootings and all, there was an 85% chance of solving a homicide if you found the victim's address book. The offender was almost always known to the victim, often intimately.
When you had a stone cold 'whodunnit' (which in Baltimore was called a 'red ball'), the chances of solving the crime went down significantly. (Think about Chicago today, or South Central LA back in 1985, with their drug-inspired gang violence. In those cases, the victims don't know who the offender is other than some member of a rival gang.)
The same was true back in the 1800s. Offenders knew their victims and exploited them. When you had a true random act against an unknown, it probably didn't get solved very often. So rule #2 kicks in - go find the people who have already been caught doing sort of thing and see if they will confess to doing this one.
Finally, there is the golden rule: one plus one equals eleven (according to the Israeli security service, Shin Bet). One guy commits the crime and can't keep his mouth shut. He tells somebody his secret. That somebody tells someone else about what the original bad guy did, and so on, and so on - until eleven people know the secret. The cop just has to ask around long enough to find one of those eleven people.
Cops get paid to out-think crooks. Fortunately, the average crook has the IQ of a soapdish, so cops win a lot. I wasn't around in the mid-1800s, but I imagine it was much the same back then.
I read a book on the history of the Pinkerton Agency and the most frequently used, and most frequently successful tactic employed was the infiltration of a Pinkerton agent as a spy on the suspect/suspects. The second most effective crook catcher was someone turning them in in exchange for the reward that the agency was offering.
I was in law enforcement for over forty years (20 in the NYPD, 20 as a chief of police in a Cape Cod town). In the 19th century, in the United States, crime solving was a matter of chance. In NYC the system in place had the police receive "rewards" for recovering stolen property. The police would establish relationships with the professional criminals in the areas of the city they were responsible for and between them earned a good living. Homicides were rarely investigated as there was no reward money forthcoming from solving such a crime.
Municipal law enforcement didn't begin to appreciate the use of forensic science until around the middle of the 20th century.
If you read into the history of law enforcement in this nation it's an intriguing if unsettling story.
I was in law enforcement for over forty years (20 in the NYPD, 20 as a chief of police in a Cape Cod town). In the 19th century, in the United States, crime solving was a matter of chance. In NYC the system in place had the police receive "rewards" for recovering stolen property. The police would establish relationships with the professional criminals in the areas of the city they were responsible for and between them earned a good living. Homicides were rarely investigated as there was no reward money forthcoming from solving such a crime.
Municipal law enforcement didn't begin to appreciate the use of forensic science until around the middle of the 20th century.
If you read into the history of law enforcement in this nation it's an intriguing if unsettling story.
Rich
Sadly yes, modern forensic science was not really begun and taken seriously by both LE and the courts in the USA until around the 1920's. Much of this had to do with the infancy of science as whole itself, plus the massive ignorance that prevailed. Oh and there was another reason. Local medical examiners often were not chosen based upon qualifications, but the job was usually a local patronizing job given out by (often) crooked elected officials.
What changed things? Believe it or not modern forensic science and it's acceptance began in New York City (Brooklyn to be exact) and a case of two elderly persons found dead:
Before all of today's crime solving methods and technology how were crimes like murders and others solved if there were no eye witnesses?
It seems to me that had someone committed a murder in 1850 they could easily get away with it if there was no eye witness. I mean,did they understand and know how to collect finger prints back then? If the murder's blood and other DNA was left at the scene what good could law enforcement make of it back then for solving the murder?
Local LE did what they could, this ranged from some pretty good and through investigations for the period given circumstances, to bungled investigations that even a newly hired rookie cop/detective would never let happen.
There was no such thing as sealing off crime scenes back then, as a result evidence could and often was tampered with, that or it was lost/stolen or whatever. There was also a vast amount of corruption of local and even state police officials. To this were added various prejudices (racial, socio-economic, etc...), that heavily influenced LE investigations and judicial proceedings. It was commonly accepted that white/European women especially of a certain class were not capable of committing certain types of crime.
He came from the Gorbals in Glasgow 1842, Allan Pinkerton immigrated to the Chicago area and opened a cooperage, or barrel-making business. His detective career began just five years later, when he stumbled upon a band of counterfeiters while scrounging for lumber on an island in the Fox River. The Scotsman conducted informal surveillance on the gang, and was hailed as a local hero after he helped police make arrests.
Pinkerton slipped on a Chicago street, and when his chin hit the pavement, his tongue was severely lacerated. A gangrenous infection which then set in proved fatal. At the time of his death, he was working on a system that would centralize all criminal identification records; an idea utilized and maintained in the present day by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Pinkerton was inducted into the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
Last edited by dizzybint; 09-05-2016 at 04:56 AM..
Most people are familiar with the fictional character Sherlock Holmes.
But most people don't know that the author Arthur Conan Doyle, was a very good detective, in real life.
He was a medical Doctor, educated in Scotland. His primary medical teacher was named DR Bell.
Bell had an mazing ability to make medical diagnosis by observation of the patient and their appearance. How they walked, stood, and sat down. How their hands and face were lined or marked. Their smell, their eye condition.......all were a part of his examination, before he ever put a hand on the patient.
Doyle learned from Bell, and in his novels, many of the Holmes observations were based on the way that DR Bell practiced medicine.
In real life, Doyle made a number of contributions to forensic science.
A second British authority on crime and pathology, was Sir Bernard Spillsbury. In the 1920's he began to establish the national crime laboratory. This was a fore runner of the forensic science of today. Spillsbury was a pathologist, with a strong interest in oddities in autopsy. He pioneered the use of scene photography as evidence in court. Microscopic trace evidence was also one of his interests.
The concept of contact, where a person leaves evidence at a crime scene, and also takes away evidence from that scene was first suggested by a French scientist. It still stands today as a basic part of any crime scene procedure.
Most people are familiar with the fictional character Sherlock Holmes.
But most people don't know that the author Arthur Conan Doyle, was a very good detective, in real life.
He was a medical Doctor, educated in Scotland. His primary medical teacher was named DR Bell.
Bell had an mazing ability to make medical diagnosis by observation of the patient and their appearance. How they walked, stood, and sat down. How their hands and face were lined or marked. Their smell, their eye condition.......all were a part of his examination, before he ever put a hand on the patient.
Doyle learned from Bell, and in his novels, many of the Holmes observations were based on the way that DR Bell practiced medicine.
In real life, Doyle made a number of contributions to forensic science.
A second British authority on crime and pathology, was Sir Bernard Spillsbury. In the 1920's he began to establish the national crime laboratory. This was a fore runner of the forensic science of today. Spillsbury was a pathologist, with a strong interest in oddities in autopsy. He pioneered the use of scene photography as evidence in court. Microscopic trace evidence was also one of his interests.
The concept of contact, where a person leaves evidence at a crime scene, and also takes away evidence from that scene was first suggested by a French scientist. It still stands today as a basic part of any crime scene procedure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
