The period of c1886-c1926 saw great changes in investigative methods and thus lead to huge development in policing and how crime was dealt with. Such changes include the creation of the CID, and have shown to have more significance than others. For example, the introduction of forensic science enabled police to convict criminals in multiple cases, such as George Joseph Smith and Dr Crippen, rather than the use of telegram which only showed major significance in the Crippen case.
A great flaw in 19th century policing regards the very few investigative methods available to detectives at the time. The ripper killings of 1880 illustrate how policing and detective methods were simply insufficient despite the recent set up of the CID in 1878. Firstly, …show more content…
By 1926 the police were able to use the work of forensic experts like Spilsbury to convict criminals. Spilsbury had a huge impact on detective techniques; he, along with many other pathologists, had a carried out investigations which soon proved Crippen guilty and led to his conviction. Spilsbury analysed bodily remains found in the cellar, discovering a scar identical to one Cora had, and this was afterwards used as evidence at Crippen’s trial. These experts also put science to use only to find traces of Hyoscine hydro bromide in body, which was then located to have been previously purchased by Crippen in large amounts. Today there is still a debate as to whether the body really did belong to Cora, despite Crippen being classed as guilty in his trial. This suggests that the forensics used were perhaps inaccurate, this may have been due to the fact that Spilsbury was so highly respected that many people refrained from further testing. Another flaw was the fact that this science was used to convict Crippen but not to catch him - it illustrates how policing still required small …show more content…
His work was continually important in the Chicken Run Murder and the Brides in the Bath Murders; He ensured the death of George joseph smith, proving his guilt using a logical theory of how the murder took place. Spilsbury publically stated his theory that Smith yanked the victims' feet up as they lay in the bath, causing their heads to sink under the water. He continued to prove that this sudden rush of water into their nose and mouth was enough to cause them to lose consciousness and quickly drown. Forensic science was further used to prove Norman Thorne’s guilt in the ‘chicken run murder’ and later on lead to his death. Spilsbury examined the remains of Elsie Cameron and had observed 8 bruises on the head, face arms and legs. All of them had been inflicted shortly before death and one on the temple caused by a crushing blow. Sir Spilsbury also pointed out the absence of signs of asphyxiation and scars around the neck, and this was used as evidence against Norman Thorne’s story of Elsie’s death. The fact that this case was solved almost 20 years later correlates with the very little doubting’s regarding the accuracy of the science used. This illustrates how forensic science did in fact lead policing to develop, as well as detective methods.
Forensic science was a huge breakthrough in dealing with crime; it was not until after its development that policing really improved. It was also
A great flaw in 19th century policing regards the very few investigative methods available to detectives at the time. The ripper killings of 1880 illustrate how policing and detective methods were simply insufficient despite the recent set up of the CID in 1878. Firstly, …show more content…
By 1926 the police were able to use the work of forensic experts like Spilsbury to convict criminals. Spilsbury had a huge impact on detective techniques; he, along with many other pathologists, had a carried out investigations which soon proved Crippen guilty and led to his conviction. Spilsbury analysed bodily remains found in the cellar, discovering a scar identical to one Cora had, and this was afterwards used as evidence at Crippen’s trial. These experts also put science to use only to find traces of Hyoscine hydro bromide in body, which was then located to have been previously purchased by Crippen in large amounts. Today there is still a debate as to whether the body really did belong to Cora, despite Crippen being classed as guilty in his trial. This suggests that the forensics used were perhaps inaccurate, this may have been due to the fact that Spilsbury was so highly respected that many people refrained from further testing. Another flaw was the fact that this science was used to convict Crippen but not to catch him - it illustrates how policing still required small …show more content…
His work was continually important in the Chicken Run Murder and the Brides in the Bath Murders; He ensured the death of George joseph smith, proving his guilt using a logical theory of how the murder took place. Spilsbury publically stated his theory that Smith yanked the victims' feet up as they lay in the bath, causing their heads to sink under the water. He continued to prove that this sudden rush of water into their nose and mouth was enough to cause them to lose consciousness and quickly drown. Forensic science was further used to prove Norman Thorne’s guilt in the ‘chicken run murder’ and later on lead to his death. Spilsbury examined the remains of Elsie Cameron and had observed 8 bruises on the head, face arms and legs. All of them had been inflicted shortly before death and one on the temple caused by a crushing blow. Sir Spilsbury also pointed out the absence of signs of asphyxiation and scars around the neck, and this was used as evidence against Norman Thorne’s story of Elsie’s death. The fact that this case was solved almost 20 years later correlates with the very little doubting’s regarding the accuracy of the science used. This illustrates how forensic science did in fact lead policing to develop, as well as detective methods.
Forensic science was a huge breakthrough in dealing with crime; it was not until after its development that policing really improved. It was also