- Email: [email protected]
The Future of the Forensic Sciences
J.F.S.S. SOCIETY NEWS
The Future of the Forensic Sciences A. K. MANT Department of Forensic Medicine, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom SE1 9R T (The Fifth James Brierley Firth Memorial lecture presented at: the Autumn Symposium of the Forensic Science Society in the School of Pharmacy, Brunswick Square, London on 6 November 1981)
When your President suggested the title of this lecture I wondered what our first President would have thought, if he were still with us, of the enormous expansion of the forensic science laboratories and of the great technicological advances which have occurred during the fifteen years since his death. I also wondered what would be his thoughts about the future of forensic science. As you know, there have been several editorials and articles in our journal on the subject and they are far from optimistic, especially concerning my own discipline of forensic pathology. T o forecast accurately the future of the forensic sciences in this country is akin to looking into a crystal ball to seek inspiration. I am not presumptuous enough even to attempt this but I will base my forecast upon how I would like to see the science evolve and I will point out certain undesirable features which are creeping into the present expansion of the service. I speak as a pathologist and some of my views will be alien to those held by pure scientists. I n order to dispel doubts about my basic knowledge of the subject I should say a t once that this paper is based upon information gained from visiting forensic science laboratories throughout the world, including Europe, India, North America and the Far East. Some of these laboratories were highly sophisticated and even some of the smaller ones were equipped with apparatus which made me very envious. Some, however, were forty or fifty years out of date. I n one place I visited, the forensic science was carried out in a small room in the police headquarters. The room was so small that only one piece of apparatus could be used a t a time. At the time of my visit two police officers, who had taken over the forensic science, were comparing fibres under a microscope. One was looking down the instrument whilst the other was reading from a book on forensic science to discover what he should look for! Before the Home Office laboratories were started, forensic science, such as it was, was largely conducted by patholoyists. I n fact, in some countries today, forensic pathologists remain virtually in charge of scientific investigation of crime related to offences against the person. The first head of the Hendon Police Laboratory was a pathologist. This as we know was not a satisfactory appointment and, in my opinion quite rightly, was the last such appointment. T o give some examples of the involvement of pathologists in the field of forensic science at the turn of the century, the elder Glaister used to give expert evidence on fingerprints and John Glaister junior wrote a magnificent thesis on the identification of hairs and fibres. Dr. Gerald Roche Lynch, the toxicologist, was a recognised expert on blood stains and, until comparatively recently, the identification of blood stains and the grouping of blood and body fluids was entirely the province of a medically qualified expert. The application of science to the investigation of crime was, like forensic pathology, a late developer in this country. Scientific investigations were carried out mainly on an ad hoc basis by pathologists whose major interest was the examination of
organs for poisons and the examination of tissue fluids and hair. Those of us who have been privileged to hear Cyril Cuthbert speak of his pioneer work in the scientific investigation of crime will recall the opposition to his work from the senior police officers of the day. The introduction of fresh techniques into court were, and still are, invariably met with suspicion and often rigorously opposed by the defence. Even proven methods of identification such as fingerprints have been subject to in-depth cross-examination in the not too distant past. I can well recall some 20 years ago spending the greater part of the day in a n Assize whilst the Superintendent, who was head of the fingerprint department a t the Yard and who, incidentally, had been called back from leave, was examined on each of the sixteen points of comparison between the defendant's thumb print and the almost perfect print he had obligingly left a t the scene of the crime. The application of new and highly sophisticated techniques in the investigation of crime has led to convictions which would not be possible without the scientific evidence and would never have occurred before the days of the modern forensic science laboratory. I n cases investigated by the forensic laboratories the interpretation of the scientific evidence may rest entirely in the hands of the scientific officer who carried out the laboratory examination. However objective his opinion, has he arrived a t the only possible conclusion? Could he have performed further tests which might have influenced his opinion? How can the defence adequately deal with this problem today?. . . . Before the development of modern, highly sophisticated and very expensive apparatus the scientists' methods and conclusions could be examined by independent workers in the same field. Today the position is different as there are very few people with the use of such apparatus who would be prepared to repeat the investigations and, more important, give evidence in court. Scientists not associated with the forensic scene often have an ingrained fear of being made to look foolish under cross-examination. The number of experts who can be called by the defence is therefore becoming less and less. This is unfortunate because, although those of us who collaborate with the forensic science laboratories know how scrupulously fair and unprejudiced are their reports and opinions, this is not a universal view, and there are scientists in every field whose views on the interpretation of scientific data may vary from other practitioners in their discipline. We see this more often in medicine, which >s not a pure science. We must accept this divergence of scientific opinion. When new advances are made or new techniques introduced, it may be a long time before they receive universal approbation. We can all recall avenues of research, which in their early stages appeared to represent an advance in the field of forensic science and which were later found to be unreliable. When the laboratory investigation of drink-driving was in its preliminary stages, the late Mr. Nickolls, one of our past Presidents, who was then head of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory, told me that he really did not want blood samples as urine samples were entirely reliable. I wonder how he would have interpreted a recent death where the blood alcohol and vitreous alcohol levels were negative and the urine alcohol was over 1000mgms.% ! I think that it is essential in the interests of justice that scientific experts are always available to the defence in order to test the probity of the scientific evidence of the prosecution and the credibility of the conclusions drawn from it. When a case comes to court in which the scientific evidence against the accused has been elicited by highly sophisticated techniques, what line is open to the defence? Counsel may probe every step in the scientific examination, hoping that he may turn up a weak link in the evidence. By doing this he may so confuse the jury that they may not appreciate the full significance of the scientific evidence. 'He may attack it by introducing far fetched alternatives, which the scientist
nimself may find difficult to explain in lay language to the jury. The purpose of the court is to ascertain the truth, and this can be made very difficult if the defence is able to introduce some doubt in the prosecution's scientific evidence. This doubt may have little significance upon the results or conclusion of the scientist and yet may sow sufficient confusion in the minds of the jury to obtain an acquittal. One alternative is the Danish system in which the credibility of the scientific evidence may be examined by a council of independent experts before the trial and the conclusions of this council are presented to the court. Their findings may, however, still be questioned by the defence. Another way by which a fair result may be achieved is if the prosecution is given the depositions of the defence experts before the trial. Earlier this year I gave evidence for the defence in a murder trial in the United States. Before appearing in court I had to give my deposition to the prosecuting attorney and his staff and I was questioned about it in depth. I n court my evidence in chief was limited to my deposition. I n my very short cross-examination the District Attorney was most careful to avoid any side of my evidence which could become detrimental to his case if it were pursued in depth. This prevents the surprise introduction of fresh evidence which may confuse the Court, and is merely a n extension of the law on alibis. Home Office laboratories and their staff are paid by the Home Office to assist in the investigation of crime, and on account of this are sometimes thought, not unreasonably, to tailor their reports in favour of the prosecution. How do we get over this problem? I n Belgium all scientific investigations, other than fingerprints, are carried out in independent university laboratories. I a m not advocating this as a solution, but it is highly desirable that independent facilities are always available to the defence for re-examination of exhibits and for a second opinion. There is no reason, other than the cost, why universities should not have forensically orientated scientists in certain departments, who would not only undertake in-depth research in the more academic aspects of forensic science, but also be available to the defence for the purpose of testing the strength of the scientific evidence, in any instance where this forms a part of the prosecution case. The cost of this service would be partly offset by the saving of court time as scientific evidence would, as with medical evidence, be frequently agreed upon by both sides out of court. A system such as this would have certain important advantages. University scientists have virtually complete freedom in offering papers.for publication and these are vetted by the editorial board of the journal approached and are not subject to approval by a government department, however controversial they may be. Moreover, there are no restrictions upon university scientists opposing each other in the courts on vital issues. As you are well aware, pathologists do not always agree with the interpretation of injuries and not infrequently oppose each other. Providing they are objectivt with their evidence neither they nor their departments suffer any loss of reputation or prestige. I see no reason why forensic scientists should not likewise oppose each other, even if both are employed by the State. As I said earlier, scientists have different views on the reliability and interpretation of scientific data: The almost invariable practice of the defence in homicide cases of calling a pathologist to perform a second autopsy and to examine the medical evidence ensures that the highest standard of medical investigation and interpretation of evidence is maintained. There is nothing more sobering than a critical examination of one's work by one's colleagues. Since the start of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory in 1935, with a staff of six, the laboratory has gradually increased. After the war it rose to 12 and now has a staff of over 230 scientists! Regrettably, in spite of this explosion of scientific staff, one appears to wait even longer than ever for reports to be submitted on cases in which one has a professional interest. I n the past pathologists were automatically sent copies of the laboratory reports. Now this
never happens, unless there is a special request through the police officer in charge of the case or through the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. What I miss most of all is the very close liaison which at one time existed between forensic pathologists and the laboratory staff. When I started in forensic pathology after the war I knew every member of the Metropolitan Police laboratory. I knew who would be carrying out each examination and a t anytime could phone through to the laboratory and call round, usually at once, to discuss aspects of the case with the scientist or scientists carrying out the investigations. Today, unless one knows the private number of the person with whom one wishes to communicate a t the laboratory one may fin4 an iron curtain dropped by the liaison officers between oneself and the person one wishes to talk to. The figures for the cases dealt with by the Metropolitan Police Laboratory are familiar to most of you and I only want to mention certain figures for the last 12 years. Between 1968 and 1980 the staff has increased threefold to 2713. During this period the case load has increased nearly 4 times. If we extract the drunken driver cases there is still an increase of over 3 times. The greatest increases are in breaking and entering, up 25 times, and arson and malicious damage, up 8 times. Homicide cases are up nearly 1-$ times. The increase in staff is, therefore, almost keeping up with the rising case load on paper. During the last 12 years, however, more sophisticated laboratory techniques have been developed, but although some of the machinery is time saving, this may be offset by the more detailed examinations which are now undertaken. I find one fresh trend. After the drop of over 60% in court attendances by scientific officers of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory after the 1967 Criminal Justice Act, court attendances stayed a t nearly the same figure for some 10 years, in spite of the annual increase in cases investigated. I n 1980 attendances jumped by 30%. This is a trend that merits careful consideration. Is it developing because defence lawyers are becoming more critical of the methods and opinions of forensic scientists, especially where the case largely hinges upon the scientific evidence? Is it because they cannot obtain an independent opinion because they can call upon no scientists to test the strength of the evidence, and they feel they must do it themselves in cross-examination ? Unfortunately, scientific reports do not describe the methods used. They merely give results. I find it worrying to read that certain exhibits were "examined but were of no evidential value". What were the examinations carried out? and what are the grounds for such a n opinion? If this trend of calling scientists to give evidence in more and more cases continues it will mean that the backlog of work in the laboratories will increase, unless there is a compensatory increase in the number ofscientific officers. O n the positive side, however, it ensures that young scientific officers get needed experience in giving evidence and in dealing with cross-examination when the significance of their evidence is being thoroughly tested. This is, curiously enough, a situation which has developed in some of the United States where it is usually the practice for the medical evidence to be read to the court in homicide cases. I remember one Chief Medical Examiner telling me that he had recently been asking his District Attorney to call his pathologists to give evidence in Court as he had found, to his surprise, that some of them were completing their three years of training without having ever given evidence in court. I have been talking so far about the scientific investigation of crime. What of my own discipline ? How can this be improved and how can better collaboration with the laboratories be obtained? Almost since the turn of the century there have been discussions about the creation of a medico-legal institute in London. I suppose these discussions looked most hopeful in the middle 30's. Nothing has happened. London is one of the very few capital cities in the world which has no medico-legal institute. I should like to see one central institute in London where all the medico-legal autopsies in the Greater London Area are
performed and where all the biological material is examined. This is the situation in New York where there are some 1800 homicides a year and where transportation difficulties match ours. Many states in America are developing forensic departments on the same lines. I n Virginia, for example, I have seen the service expand during the last 20 years from rather primitive beginnings to a fully equipped forensic pathology and forensic science complex, with one major institute in their capital, Richmond, which can deal with all aspects of scientific crime investigation, and three smaller departments, strategicaliy placed in the State, where autopsies and toxicological examinations are carried out in the same building. The close liaison between pathologists and the scientists who examine body fluids is desirable at all times. In some cases, and especially where the results of toxicological analysis need careful interpretation, it is essential. Where such an institute exists formal case conferences between pathologists and scientific staff are of daily occurrence. This is as it should be. The scattering of resources such as we experience here make this form of liaison unrealistic. I n one large police area I cover, should I have a case of shooting, the material relevant to the actual shooting has to go to Nottingham, whereas the other trace evidence and body fluids go to Aldermaston. If there were a central Institute it would, I am sure, lead to more case conferences between the prosecution lawyers and the scientific and medical witnesses where the strength and weakness of the evidence could be discussed in depth. This is an aspect of law enforcement which has frequently been mentioned by Professor Keith Simpson. When I was in the Army I would fly back to this country for conferences on cases at the War Office almost every month. During over thirty years of medico-legal work in this country, since leaving the Army, the number of times I have been called to a pre-trial conference, in cases where I have been appearing for the prosecution, can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. When I am called to advise the defence, however, such pre-trial conferences are by no means unusual. Why shouldn't the prosecution test the strength and weakness of their scientific and medical evidence in the same way that it is tested by the defence? During the last 30 years numerous papers or articles have appeared decrying the state of forensic pathology in this country. No forensic pathological service would exist a t all if it were not for its direct or indirect subsidisation by the Universities and the National Health Service. There are very few young pathologists who wish to enter the discipline full time because of the unsocial hours and the lack of career structure. Many of those who do enter, leave after a short time to join the pathological service of the National Health Service and a few who have received a full training have emigrated to countries where the working conditions, facilities and salaries are more attractive than they are in this country. I n my department at Guy's Hospital we have up to six forensic pathologists in training at any one time. These are all from overseas, some two thirds from the Commonwealth and one third from other countries. The vast majority return to their own countries, where there are well-established forensic pathology services with good career prospects. I have had a few medical students who have done their three months elective period in forensic medicine and, by the time they have finished the period, they are invariably very enthusiastic about a future career in this field. Regrettably, however, when the time comes for them to decide their future, after qualification, they do not enter the discipline on account of the reasons I have already mentioned. The lack of career structure has not prevented certain Universities giving at least strong moral support to forensic pathology. At this moment, for instance, in London University there are four personal Chairs in forensic pathology. Sheffield has built an Institute and given a personal Chair to Alan Usher. Bernard Knight has a personal Chair in Cardiff, and Leeds has maintained a
Chair since the war. I n other Universities, however, support has been declining. The numbers of full time forensic pathologists has gradually been decreasing, and as a result the service is stretched to the limit. The time must eventually arrive, if the situation continues as at present, when it is overstretched and improvisation will become no longer possible and the Government of the day will have to act. Nearly 20 years ago the British Association in Forensic Medicine recommended to the Broderick Committee that there should be a full time, salaried forensic pathology service, with the service based upon the university medical schools and working in close liaison with the forensic science laboratories. This recommendation was not accepted. The Broderick Committee nevertheless felt that there should be an adequate number of forensic pathologists who had undergone training in the existing university departments of forensic medicine. The numbers of specialist forensic pathologists has, however, dropped well below that which the committee felt desirable. Even so, are we using our existing facilities to their best advantage? I n London University the contraction of the Medical Schools' intake of students has led to more pooling of resources in forensic pathology, and this has led to a more efficient use of the facilities available. This is still, however, a very long way from approaching the conception of a Central Institute. There is a further matter which deserves careful consideration, especially with the rapidly increasing crime rate. Several years ago the late Professor Francis Camps advocated universal fingerprinting of the population. Surely this is more applicable today than ever in every field of law enforcement? The majority of forensic pathologists have had to deal with unidentified, decomposed bodies from whom identifiable fingerprints have been obtained. I n some of these cases, in spite of exhaustive and very expensiveenquiries, identification is never established. I n other cases identification may be established after some weeks or months of investigation. I n cases of unlawful killing, identification of the victim frequently results in a n arrest within a short time. And yet, whenever a proposal of universal fingerprinting is put forward, there is a n uproar from certain very vocal sections of the population who talk about the infringement of civil liberties. If it were an infringement it would be a very minor one compared with the many major infringements of liberty we have to accept in a civilised society. Impartial and efficient law enforcement is the backbone of a civilised society. Society, however, seems always reluctant to provide sufficient resources to protect itself, and we are now coming to accept a level of violent crime which would never have been considered possible a quarter of a century ago. Forensic Science is a most important weapon in the investiqation of crime, especially in crimes involving offences against the person. If Forensic Science'is to be fully exploited in the field of law enforcement, it must be able to expand a t a rate which will enable it to more than outstrip the increase in crime rate. There must be more research to allow the faster application of advances in scientific technology to the investigation of crime. All this will cost money but when this increased cost is compared with the increasing cost of crime to the community, it is very little extra to pay for the safeguards it will bring. Perhaps, one day, the politicians will realise the truth of this and give Forensic Science the support it deserves.
The Future of the Forensic Sciences A. K. MANT Department of Forensic Medicine, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom SE1 9R T (The Fifth James Brierley Firth Memorial lecture presented at: the Autumn Symposium of the Forensic Science Society in the School of Pharmacy, Brunswick Square, London on 6 November 1981)
When your President suggested the title of this lecture I wondered what our first President would have thought, if he were still with us, of the enormous expansion of the forensic science laboratories and of the great technicological advances which have occurred during the fifteen years since his death. I also wondered what would be his thoughts about the future of forensic science. As you know, there have been several editorials and articles in our journal on the subject and they are far from optimistic, especially concerning my own discipline of forensic pathology. T o forecast accurately the future of the forensic sciences in this country is akin to looking into a crystal ball to seek inspiration. I am not presumptuous enough even to attempt this but I will base my forecast upon how I would like to see the science evolve and I will point out certain undesirable features which are creeping into the present expansion of the service. I speak as a pathologist and some of my views will be alien to those held by pure scientists. I n order to dispel doubts about my basic knowledge of the subject I should say a t once that this paper is based upon information gained from visiting forensic science laboratories throughout the world, including Europe, India, North America and the Far East. Some of these laboratories were highly sophisticated and even some of the smaller ones were equipped with apparatus which made me very envious. Some, however, were forty or fifty years out of date. I n one place I visited, the forensic science was carried out in a small room in the police headquarters. The room was so small that only one piece of apparatus could be used a t a time. At the time of my visit two police officers, who had taken over the forensic science, were comparing fibres under a microscope. One was looking down the instrument whilst the other was reading from a book on forensic science to discover what he should look for! Before the Home Office laboratories were started, forensic science, such as it was, was largely conducted by patholoyists. I n fact, in some countries today, forensic pathologists remain virtually in charge of scientific investigation of crime related to offences against the person. The first head of the Hendon Police Laboratory was a pathologist. This as we know was not a satisfactory appointment and, in my opinion quite rightly, was the last such appointment. T o give some examples of the involvement of pathologists in the field of forensic science at the turn of the century, the elder Glaister used to give expert evidence on fingerprints and John Glaister junior wrote a magnificent thesis on the identification of hairs and fibres. Dr. Gerald Roche Lynch, the toxicologist, was a recognised expert on blood stains and, until comparatively recently, the identification of blood stains and the grouping of blood and body fluids was entirely the province of a medically qualified expert. The application of science to the investigation of crime was, like forensic pathology, a late developer in this country. Scientific investigations were carried out mainly on an ad hoc basis by pathologists whose major interest was the examination of
organs for poisons and the examination of tissue fluids and hair. Those of us who have been privileged to hear Cyril Cuthbert speak of his pioneer work in the scientific investigation of crime will recall the opposition to his work from the senior police officers of the day. The introduction of fresh techniques into court were, and still are, invariably met with suspicion and often rigorously opposed by the defence. Even proven methods of identification such as fingerprints have been subject to in-depth cross-examination in the not too distant past. I can well recall some 20 years ago spending the greater part of the day in a n Assize whilst the Superintendent, who was head of the fingerprint department a t the Yard and who, incidentally, had been called back from leave, was examined on each of the sixteen points of comparison between the defendant's thumb print and the almost perfect print he had obligingly left a t the scene of the crime. The application of new and highly sophisticated techniques in the investigation of crime has led to convictions which would not be possible without the scientific evidence and would never have occurred before the days of the modern forensic science laboratory. I n cases investigated by the forensic laboratories the interpretation of the scientific evidence may rest entirely in the hands of the scientific officer who carried out the laboratory examination. However objective his opinion, has he arrived a t the only possible conclusion? Could he have performed further tests which might have influenced his opinion? How can the defence adequately deal with this problem today?. . . . Before the development of modern, highly sophisticated and very expensive apparatus the scientists' methods and conclusions could be examined by independent workers in the same field. Today the position is different as there are very few people with the use of such apparatus who would be prepared to repeat the investigations and, more important, give evidence in court. Scientists not associated with the forensic scene often have an ingrained fear of being made to look foolish under cross-examination. The number of experts who can be called by the defence is therefore becoming less and less. This is unfortunate because, although those of us who collaborate with the forensic science laboratories know how scrupulously fair and unprejudiced are their reports and opinions, this is not a universal view, and there are scientists in every field whose views on the interpretation of scientific data may vary from other practitioners in their discipline. We see this more often in medicine, which >s not a pure science. We must accept this divergence of scientific opinion. When new advances are made or new techniques introduced, it may be a long time before they receive universal approbation. We can all recall avenues of research, which in their early stages appeared to represent an advance in the field of forensic science and which were later found to be unreliable. When the laboratory investigation of drink-driving was in its preliminary stages, the late Mr. Nickolls, one of our past Presidents, who was then head of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory, told me that he really did not want blood samples as urine samples were entirely reliable. I wonder how he would have interpreted a recent death where the blood alcohol and vitreous alcohol levels were negative and the urine alcohol was over 1000mgms.% ! I think that it is essential in the interests of justice that scientific experts are always available to the defence in order to test the probity of the scientific evidence of the prosecution and the credibility of the conclusions drawn from it. When a case comes to court in which the scientific evidence against the accused has been elicited by highly sophisticated techniques, what line is open to the defence? Counsel may probe every step in the scientific examination, hoping that he may turn up a weak link in the evidence. By doing this he may so confuse the jury that they may not appreciate the full significance of the scientific evidence. 'He may attack it by introducing far fetched alternatives, which the scientist
nimself may find difficult to explain in lay language to the jury. The purpose of the court is to ascertain the truth, and this can be made very difficult if the defence is able to introduce some doubt in the prosecution's scientific evidence. This doubt may have little significance upon the results or conclusion of the scientist and yet may sow sufficient confusion in the minds of the jury to obtain an acquittal. One alternative is the Danish system in which the credibility of the scientific evidence may be examined by a council of independent experts before the trial and the conclusions of this council are presented to the court. Their findings may, however, still be questioned by the defence. Another way by which a fair result may be achieved is if the prosecution is given the depositions of the defence experts before the trial. Earlier this year I gave evidence for the defence in a murder trial in the United States. Before appearing in court I had to give my deposition to the prosecuting attorney and his staff and I was questioned about it in depth. I n court my evidence in chief was limited to my deposition. I n my very short cross-examination the District Attorney was most careful to avoid any side of my evidence which could become detrimental to his case if it were pursued in depth. This prevents the surprise introduction of fresh evidence which may confuse the Court, and is merely a n extension of the law on alibis. Home Office laboratories and their staff are paid by the Home Office to assist in the investigation of crime, and on account of this are sometimes thought, not unreasonably, to tailor their reports in favour of the prosecution. How do we get over this problem? I n Belgium all scientific investigations, other than fingerprints, are carried out in independent university laboratories. I a m not advocating this as a solution, but it is highly desirable that independent facilities are always available to the defence for re-examination of exhibits and for a second opinion. There is no reason, other than the cost, why universities should not have forensically orientated scientists in certain departments, who would not only undertake in-depth research in the more academic aspects of forensic science, but also be available to the defence for the purpose of testing the strength of the scientific evidence, in any instance where this forms a part of the prosecution case. The cost of this service would be partly offset by the saving of court time as scientific evidence would, as with medical evidence, be frequently agreed upon by both sides out of court. A system such as this would have certain important advantages. University scientists have virtually complete freedom in offering papers.for publication and these are vetted by the editorial board of the journal approached and are not subject to approval by a government department, however controversial they may be. Moreover, there are no restrictions upon university scientists opposing each other in the courts on vital issues. As you are well aware, pathologists do not always agree with the interpretation of injuries and not infrequently oppose each other. Providing they are objectivt with their evidence neither they nor their departments suffer any loss of reputation or prestige. I see no reason why forensic scientists should not likewise oppose each other, even if both are employed by the State. As I said earlier, scientists have different views on the reliability and interpretation of scientific data: The almost invariable practice of the defence in homicide cases of calling a pathologist to perform a second autopsy and to examine the medical evidence ensures that the highest standard of medical investigation and interpretation of evidence is maintained. There is nothing more sobering than a critical examination of one's work by one's colleagues. Since the start of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory in 1935, with a staff of six, the laboratory has gradually increased. After the war it rose to 12 and now has a staff of over 230 scientists! Regrettably, in spite of this explosion of scientific staff, one appears to wait even longer than ever for reports to be submitted on cases in which one has a professional interest. I n the past pathologists were automatically sent copies of the laboratory reports. Now this
never happens, unless there is a special request through the police officer in charge of the case or through the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. What I miss most of all is the very close liaison which at one time existed between forensic pathologists and the laboratory staff. When I started in forensic pathology after the war I knew every member of the Metropolitan Police laboratory. I knew who would be carrying out each examination and a t anytime could phone through to the laboratory and call round, usually at once, to discuss aspects of the case with the scientist or scientists carrying out the investigations. Today, unless one knows the private number of the person with whom one wishes to communicate a t the laboratory one may fin4 an iron curtain dropped by the liaison officers between oneself and the person one wishes to talk to. The figures for the cases dealt with by the Metropolitan Police Laboratory are familiar to most of you and I only want to mention certain figures for the last 12 years. Between 1968 and 1980 the staff has increased threefold to 2713. During this period the case load has increased nearly 4 times. If we extract the drunken driver cases there is still an increase of over 3 times. The greatest increases are in breaking and entering, up 25 times, and arson and malicious damage, up 8 times. Homicide cases are up nearly 1-$ times. The increase in staff is, therefore, almost keeping up with the rising case load on paper. During the last 12 years, however, more sophisticated laboratory techniques have been developed, but although some of the machinery is time saving, this may be offset by the more detailed examinations which are now undertaken. I find one fresh trend. After the drop of over 60% in court attendances by scientific officers of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory after the 1967 Criminal Justice Act, court attendances stayed a t nearly the same figure for some 10 years, in spite of the annual increase in cases investigated. I n 1980 attendances jumped by 30%. This is a trend that merits careful consideration. Is it developing because defence lawyers are becoming more critical of the methods and opinions of forensic scientists, especially where the case largely hinges upon the scientific evidence? Is it because they cannot obtain an independent opinion because they can call upon no scientists to test the strength of the evidence, and they feel they must do it themselves in cross-examination ? Unfortunately, scientific reports do not describe the methods used. They merely give results. I find it worrying to read that certain exhibits were "examined but were of no evidential value". What were the examinations carried out? and what are the grounds for such a n opinion? If this trend of calling scientists to give evidence in more and more cases continues it will mean that the backlog of work in the laboratories will increase, unless there is a compensatory increase in the number ofscientific officers. O n the positive side, however, it ensures that young scientific officers get needed experience in giving evidence and in dealing with cross-examination when the significance of their evidence is being thoroughly tested. This is, curiously enough, a situation which has developed in some of the United States where it is usually the practice for the medical evidence to be read to the court in homicide cases. I remember one Chief Medical Examiner telling me that he had recently been asking his District Attorney to call his pathologists to give evidence in Court as he had found, to his surprise, that some of them were completing their three years of training without having ever given evidence in court. I have been talking so far about the scientific investigation of crime. What of my own discipline ? How can this be improved and how can better collaboration with the laboratories be obtained? Almost since the turn of the century there have been discussions about the creation of a medico-legal institute in London. I suppose these discussions looked most hopeful in the middle 30's. Nothing has happened. London is one of the very few capital cities in the world which has no medico-legal institute. I should like to see one central institute in London where all the medico-legal autopsies in the Greater London Area are
performed and where all the biological material is examined. This is the situation in New York where there are some 1800 homicides a year and where transportation difficulties match ours. Many states in America are developing forensic departments on the same lines. I n Virginia, for example, I have seen the service expand during the last 20 years from rather primitive beginnings to a fully equipped forensic pathology and forensic science complex, with one major institute in their capital, Richmond, which can deal with all aspects of scientific crime investigation, and three smaller departments, strategicaliy placed in the State, where autopsies and toxicological examinations are carried out in the same building. The close liaison between pathologists and the scientists who examine body fluids is desirable at all times. In some cases, and especially where the results of toxicological analysis need careful interpretation, it is essential. Where such an institute exists formal case conferences between pathologists and scientific staff are of daily occurrence. This is as it should be. The scattering of resources such as we experience here make this form of liaison unrealistic. I n one large police area I cover, should I have a case of shooting, the material relevant to the actual shooting has to go to Nottingham, whereas the other trace evidence and body fluids go to Aldermaston. If there were a central Institute it would, I am sure, lead to more case conferences between the prosecution lawyers and the scientific and medical witnesses where the strength and weakness of the evidence could be discussed in depth. This is an aspect of law enforcement which has frequently been mentioned by Professor Keith Simpson. When I was in the Army I would fly back to this country for conferences on cases at the War Office almost every month. During over thirty years of medico-legal work in this country, since leaving the Army, the number of times I have been called to a pre-trial conference, in cases where I have been appearing for the prosecution, can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. When I am called to advise the defence, however, such pre-trial conferences are by no means unusual. Why shouldn't the prosecution test the strength and weakness of their scientific and medical evidence in the same way that it is tested by the defence? During the last 30 years numerous papers or articles have appeared decrying the state of forensic pathology in this country. No forensic pathological service would exist a t all if it were not for its direct or indirect subsidisation by the Universities and the National Health Service. There are very few young pathologists who wish to enter the discipline full time because of the unsocial hours and the lack of career structure. Many of those who do enter, leave after a short time to join the pathological service of the National Health Service and a few who have received a full training have emigrated to countries where the working conditions, facilities and salaries are more attractive than they are in this country. I n my department at Guy's Hospital we have up to six forensic pathologists in training at any one time. These are all from overseas, some two thirds from the Commonwealth and one third from other countries. The vast majority return to their own countries, where there are well-established forensic pathology services with good career prospects. I have had a few medical students who have done their three months elective period in forensic medicine and, by the time they have finished the period, they are invariably very enthusiastic about a future career in this field. Regrettably, however, when the time comes for them to decide their future, after qualification, they do not enter the discipline on account of the reasons I have already mentioned. The lack of career structure has not prevented certain Universities giving at least strong moral support to forensic pathology. At this moment, for instance, in London University there are four personal Chairs in forensic pathology. Sheffield has built an Institute and given a personal Chair to Alan Usher. Bernard Knight has a personal Chair in Cardiff, and Leeds has maintained a
Chair since the war. I n other Universities, however, support has been declining. The numbers of full time forensic pathologists has gradually been decreasing, and as a result the service is stretched to the limit. The time must eventually arrive, if the situation continues as at present, when it is overstretched and improvisation will become no longer possible and the Government of the day will have to act. Nearly 20 years ago the British Association in Forensic Medicine recommended to the Broderick Committee that there should be a full time, salaried forensic pathology service, with the service based upon the university medical schools and working in close liaison with the forensic science laboratories. This recommendation was not accepted. The Broderick Committee nevertheless felt that there should be an adequate number of forensic pathologists who had undergone training in the existing university departments of forensic medicine. The numbers of specialist forensic pathologists has, however, dropped well below that which the committee felt desirable. Even so, are we using our existing facilities to their best advantage? I n London University the contraction of the Medical Schools' intake of students has led to more pooling of resources in forensic pathology, and this has led to a more efficient use of the facilities available. This is still, however, a very long way from approaching the conception of a Central Institute. There is a further matter which deserves careful consideration, especially with the rapidly increasing crime rate. Several years ago the late Professor Francis Camps advocated universal fingerprinting of the population. Surely this is more applicable today than ever in every field of law enforcement? The majority of forensic pathologists have had to deal with unidentified, decomposed bodies from whom identifiable fingerprints have been obtained. I n some of these cases, in spite of exhaustive and very expensiveenquiries, identification is never established. I n other cases identification may be established after some weeks or months of investigation. I n cases of unlawful killing, identification of the victim frequently results in a n arrest within a short time. And yet, whenever a proposal of universal fingerprinting is put forward, there is a n uproar from certain very vocal sections of the population who talk about the infringement of civil liberties. If it were an infringement it would be a very minor one compared with the many major infringements of liberty we have to accept in a civilised society. Impartial and efficient law enforcement is the backbone of a civilised society. Society, however, seems always reluctant to provide sufficient resources to protect itself, and we are now coming to accept a level of violent crime which would never have been considered possible a quarter of a century ago. Forensic Science is a most important weapon in the investiqation of crime, especially in crimes involving offences against the person. If Forensic Science'is to be fully exploited in the field of law enforcement, it must be able to expand a t a rate which will enable it to more than outstrip the increase in crime rate. There must be more research to allow the faster application of advances in scientific technology to the investigation of crime. All this will cost money but when this increased cost is compared with the increasing cost of crime to the community, it is very little extra to pay for the safeguards it will bring. Perhaps, one day, the politicians will realise the truth of this and give Forensic Science the support it deserves.