J. Forens. Sci. SOC. ( 1977), 16, 197

The Past, Present and Future R81e of the Private Forensic Science Laboratory

JULIUS GRANT 107 Fenchurch Street, London, England, E C 3 M 5JB

An account of private forensic practice from the early days to the present time in which the author is able to draw upon his own wide experience.

( A paper presented at the Society's Spring Symposium entitled " The Historical Development of the Forensic Sciences" held at the West Midlands Police Training Centre on 19th and 20th Adarch 1976.)

The early history of the private forensic science laboratory, in this country at any rate, is largely the history of analytical chemistry in that period. If the fragments of history that have come down to us can be relied upon, Henry I maintained investigators to ensure that the coinage of his time was up to standard. I t is stated that in 1124 he summoned all his money-makers to Winchester at Christmas and cut off their right hands, and also a rather more personal organ, because it was reported that the silver content was low. Scientists of more recent times have been able to analyse the few coins that remain and have found that the silver content is in fact, fully up to standard. Facilities of Legal Aid for the defence did not exist in those days! If another legend is correct, probably the first practising forensic scientist was the official who at some time in the XIVth century was charged with detecting watered beer. His test apparently, was to pour a mug of the questioned beer on a wooden bench on which the suspect, wearing leather trousers, was compelled to sit for a specified period. If he could not get up without taking the bench with him after that period, he was acquitted; however, if he was able to rise, this was evidence of a low solids content and therefore, of watering!

Even the severest critics of today's methods must admit that we have progressed somewhat beyond this stage. It is nevertheless a strange fact that on jumping the centuries, the first private forensic scientist one encounters is the mythical Sherlock Holmes. Even today his activities left such a lasting impression on the minds of readers of his creator, Conan Doyle, that he is often accepted as someone who actually lived. I t is, incidentally, quite interesting to note that Conan Doyle himself gave evidence, at least once, as an expert forensic scientist, in 1906, on soils.

Apart from Sherlock Holmes the principal pioneers in private forensic practice were in the European continental countries. In particular Hans Gross who lived from 1847 to 19 15, was a professor of criminal law at the University of Prague. His book "Criminal Investigation" reached its 5th English edition in 1962, and is still a classic of its kind. Gross was more of a lawyer than a scientist, and it was probably Edmond Locard of the University of Lyon whose major activities spanned the period 1910 to 1950, who first contributed to the development of scientific methods from the point of view of the early forensic scientist. The visit of the Society to Lyon in 1973 left one very conscious of the tradition started by Locard and the way it is being carried on today at Lyon. In Switzerland, in the early 1900's the name of R. A. Reiss is noted in the same connection, although Reiss was primarily an expert on "forensic" photography. Pupils of Locard such as H. Soderman in Sweden, also started forensic labora- tories in their own countries. However, all the continental workers were

associated closely or loosely with the local police forces and therefore were not independent private laboratories in the sense that the term is at prcscnt accepted.

Returning to Great Britain one has, perhaps invidiously, at this stage and for the purpose of this paper, to distinguish between the pathologist and the forensic scientist in the narrower sense of the term; and in this paper I deal only with the latter. This is where one comes to the history of analytical chemistry. From the middle of the XIX century onwards analytical chemistry was practised (as distinct from being taught), a t first in Universitics, and subsequently by individuals who set up their own private laboratories and created the profession of chemistry in its true and original sense. Many of these men were pioneers in analytical methods which subsequently became essential for solving forensic science problems.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the varied interests of those undertaking forensic science services at this time the application of analytical science to crime made little headway at first. I t made its first (if belated) major step forward as a result of the publication in 1820 of a book by Francis Accum entitled "The Adulteration of Food and other Substances"; and also of an anonymous pamphlet entitled "Death and Destruction in the Pot and the Bottle". The former is written in a serious vein; the latter is in conversational style and it is addressed to one John Bull. I t was intended "to excite the ab- horrence and indignation of every honest heart with an expos6 of medical empiricism and imposture, quacks and quackery, regular and irregular, legitimate and illegitimate; and the frauds and malpractices of pawnbrokers and madhouse keepers".

Many of the early processes of analytical chemistry as known today, (or perhaps more accurately until the post-war era), made notable contributions to forensic science even though their use in this way was not their only r61e. The founder of my practice, Otto Hehner, was an early P esident of the Society of Public Analysts, which was founded in 1874; he started his practice in thc City of London in about 1870. Apart from being an authority on food adultera- tion and a pioneer in the analysis of oils, he was quite unique in one respect, namely in being a lawyer; indeed he described himself as a "Chemical Barri- ster", and I have never heard of another before or since. Another giant of those days was Alfred Chaston Chapman for whom I worked from 1922 to 1930. At that time, when arsenical poisoning was more common than it is today, the only analytical method available was the Marsh-Berzelius test. However, at the time this was not always dependable because one could not rely on the zinc to reduce the arsenic quantitatively to arsine. Chapman found that the addition of cadmium sulphate sensitized the zinc, and he evolved a special method of granulating the sensitized zinc thus placing the test on a quantitative and reliable basis. One can multiply these examples of individual contributions to early forensic science technique; I choose those above for mention because they come within my personal association.

My own Doctor's thesis included a new method for the determination of traces of antimony which was an electro-analytical version of the Marsh test and was used for some years until it was superseded by present methods. I worked under Professor H. J. S. Sand, the pioneer of polarographic analysis, a brilliant and kindly man whose contribution to electrochemical analysis has never been fully appreciated owing, I believe, to his self-effacing modesty.

However, despite publicity given in the Lancet by Hassal (in whose laboratory Hehner was trained) and supported even by Punch, it was not until 1861 that an Act for preventing the adulteration of articles of food and drink became law in England. Testing was then carried out on a part-time basis by many pro- fessors in hospitals, in medical schools and ultimately in private laboratories. One of the first public analysts to be appointed was Thomas Fairley selected by the Leeds Sanitary Committee at a salary of &lo0 per annum after an advertised fee of &50 had failed to attract anybody.

Training in those days was also mainly in hospital and technical colleges and universities. The Chemical News of 1874 listed 1 1 such institutes and 9 hospitals, in London alone, where such training could be obtained. However, apprenticeship to private laboratories became common because it provided a more valuable practical training, and the custom persisted to my knowledge until up to the Second World War.

With the advent of the XXth century, methods became more sophisticated, and the supply of laboratory materials and equipment became an important factor in their developments. An interesting example in this connection is that of Adolph Gottleib Gallenkamp who came to England from Germany in 1872 and set up a cigar shop in Finsbury Square, near the City and Guilds Technical College. Many of his customers were from the College and as they had difficulty in obtaining scientific equipment, especially glassware, they persuaded Gallen- kamp to import their requirements from Germany through his German connections. In due course the cigar business was closed down and the laboratory equipment business well-known today was born. One of my first free-lance jobs in the twenties was writing Gallenkamp's electrochemical catalogue since it dealt with a branch of analytical chemistry then in its infancy and little known outside the laboratories of specialist workers. I recall at this time also translating into English the Leitz catalogue of microscopes and receiving in << payment" a fluorescence microscope-one of the first ever made. It was while I was working for Chaston Chapman that blood-grouping originated as a forensic investigation method, and I was sent to take a course on the technique at St. Mary's Hospital, run I believe, by a Dr. Charley.

In the late 1870's, the Inland Revenue Laboratory was constituted at Somerset House by law as the "Court of reference in cases where the certificate of a Public Analyst might be contested". For a number of reasons there was friction between Public Analysts and this Laboratory, and it was not until 1894 when new blood was introduced in the form of Professor E. Thorpe, as Director, that it ceased. The Laboratory then took its place as an official laboratory of high-standing.

The history of the private chemical practices after this stage is really the history of our times. The founding of the Police Forensic Science Laboratories first in Preston, by Firth our first President and subsequently elsewhere, and in particular in the London area, meant that fewer forensic problems were brought by the Police to the private laboratories. At this time Dr. Davidson was in charge of the Hendon Police College, where such forensic science laboratories as existed were installed. I recall during the war years when he was hard pressed, "helping" him on Sunday mornings with post mortems; for me these were unique "tutorials" which I greatly enjoyed (after the first one!). The stage was reached when the private laboratory was used, as at present, only when highly specialized expertise or special circumstances were involved. I continue to exclude of course, ,pathologists, who are in a different category. However, other prosecuting bodies, such as the Post Office and the Government Chemist have developed their own document laboratories which are used for most of their work. Nevertheless, these bodies and the Special Branch of the Army involved in Courts Martial still use private facilities, as of course do also Local Authorities who have their own Public Analvst. some

i ,

full time, and some part-time operating with their own private practices. The advent of Legal Aid created a new demand for the services of the private

forensic science laboratories. Just as public money was available for legal advice and assistance, so the services of the expert witness became necessary to assist the Court to decide, in criminal cases, whether the Prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no doubt that this system has resulted in the acquittal of guilty persons; but it has also safeguarded the innocent against miscarriage ofjustice-and I make the statement in no sense of criticism of the Police or of the Police Forensic Science Laboratories who I have always found very fair and cooperative. However, differences in the interpretation of

results can arise, even if there is no disagreement on experimental facts; and sometimes cases brought by the Prosecution deserve to fail for lack of adequate suitable evidence. In this sense therefore, I feel that the private forensic science laboratory is performing a public service, although it is certainly a less glamorous rBle than that of the witness called by the Prosecution. I t is not for me and this is not the place to comment on a system which, given a clever advocate, must inevitably help the guilty as part of the price to be paid for protecting the innocent. I t is part of our legal system and should be made to work as efficiently and as fairly as possible.

However, whilst the Prosecution has at its disposal the advantages of "scene of crime" investigations, and the finest scientific experience and equipment, possibly, in the world-the independent forensic scientist called by the Defence comes into the picture later in the day, and often has to deal with the scientific problems by less sophisticated methods. Up to now it has been an effort to keep abreast with the Police and Home Office Forensic Science Laboratories in terms of equipment, but inevitably the race is being lost by the private laboratory. The results of analyses or examinations involving such problems as say, the identity of man-made fibres or the chemical composition of minute particles of inorganic materials such as glass, brick or paint pigments, must be accepted by the independent expert because he has no means of making in- dependent tests and assessments unless (as rarely happens) the exhibit is of adequate size. I have in mind in particular techniques such as X-ray diffraction, laser emission spectroscopy and the electron scan methods. If indeed the days of the independent forensic science laboratory are numbered I cannot help feeling special concern that no one appears particularly to worry. Certainly so far as I am aware, nothing is being done about it. This is a point I have en- deavoured to make from time to time before this Society and it is of particular concern to me because I have seen what can happen in countries where no forensic expert is available to the Defence.

In countries which follow the continental code of law this is less of a problem, because the experts are selected by and advise the Judge. In others, however, the case can be heavily loaded against the Defendant in scientific terms, and proper cross-examination of such evidence is impossible without the aid of an expert. I realise that the Society membership is now largely drawn from the Police Forensic Science Laboratories and other Police interests and institutions. Perhaps in spite of this, or indeed because of it, the Forensic Science Society should take the initiative in drawing attention to the situation which will exist when the private forensic science laboratory becomes completely extinct, and to means of meeting it.