- Email: [email protected]
Heuristic in Crime Investigation
COMMENTARY-CORRESPONDENCE
Heuristic in Crime Investigation From
SS KIND
Sir: Something is happening in the forensic sciences. I do not refer to the current malaise in British government laboratories, or to the questionable steps being taken to correct that malaise. Neither is it the accelerating movement towards independent private practice in forensic science, nor the crucial advance in personal identity studies represented by DNA fingerprinting. It is not even the welcome, if somewhat frenetic, introduction of computers into crime investigation, characterised by the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES). It is much more basic than all that. It is the new willingness to accept reflective thinking as an essential part of the crime investigation process, a realisation that there is something useful to be done in crime investigation between the intuitive methods of the experienced detective on the one hand and the button-pressing technology of hard science on the other. Hints of this approach occur both in the writings of a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Crime) at Scotland Yard [I] and in those of a former editor of this journal [2]. What is lacking is the recognition of a subject (call it "investigation science", provisionally, for lack of a better name), which stands in the same relationship to crime investigation, in all its aspects both practical and scientific, as jurisprudence does to law. It is a scholarly and reflective endeavour, particularly suited to the gifts and experience of those retired detectives and forensic scientists of a contemplative nature. It is, in fact, a branch of heuristic, the study of how to find out. It is the unifying cement of all investigations. During the post-arrest review of the Yorkshire Ripper investigation, a very senior civil servant was heard to say "the police must be made to realise that crime investigation is a high grade intellectual pursuit". He was right, of course, although he might have included forensic scientists in his precept. If there are any readers of this letter who hold similar views, and who believe that a group of like-minded individuals might be able to accomplish more together than separately, they are invited to write to me.
References 1. Powis D. The Signs of Crime-A 1977.
Forensic Science Society 1988
Field Manual for Police. London: McGraw-Hill,
205
2. Kind SS. The Scientific Investigation of Crime. Harrogate: Forensic Science Services Ltd, 1987.
April 1988
Forensic Science Services Ltd Galton House, Beckwith Road, Harrogate, Yorkshire, England H G 2 OBG
Heuristic in Crime Investigation From
SS KIND
Sir: Something is happening in the forensic sciences. I do not refer to the current malaise in British government laboratories, or to the questionable steps being taken to correct that malaise. Neither is it the accelerating movement towards independent private practice in forensic science, nor the crucial advance in personal identity studies represented by DNA fingerprinting. It is not even the welcome, if somewhat frenetic, introduction of computers into crime investigation, characterised by the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES). It is much more basic than all that. It is the new willingness to accept reflective thinking as an essential part of the crime investigation process, a realisation that there is something useful to be done in crime investigation between the intuitive methods of the experienced detective on the one hand and the button-pressing technology of hard science on the other. Hints of this approach occur both in the writings of a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Crime) at Scotland Yard [I] and in those of a former editor of this journal [2]. What is lacking is the recognition of a subject (call it "investigation science", provisionally, for lack of a better name), which stands in the same relationship to crime investigation, in all its aspects both practical and scientific, as jurisprudence does to law. It is a scholarly and reflective endeavour, particularly suited to the gifts and experience of those retired detectives and forensic scientists of a contemplative nature. It is, in fact, a branch of heuristic, the study of how to find out. It is the unifying cement of all investigations. During the post-arrest review of the Yorkshire Ripper investigation, a very senior civil servant was heard to say "the police must be made to realise that crime investigation is a high grade intellectual pursuit". He was right, of course, although he might have included forensic scientists in his precept. If there are any readers of this letter who hold similar views, and who believe that a group of like-minded individuals might be able to accomplish more together than separately, they are invited to write to me.
References 1. Powis D. The Signs of Crime-A 1977.
Forensic Science Society 1988
Field Manual for Police. London: McGraw-Hill,
205
2. Kind SS. The Scientific Investigation of Crime. Harrogate: Forensic Science Services Ltd, 1987.
April 1988
Forensic Science Services Ltd Galton House, Beckwith Road, Harrogate, Yorkshire, England H G 2 OBG