A Nineteenth Century Scene of a
Crime – A Look Back in Time
by Sandra Lee
Crime scene evidence is that which
serves to provide clues about the series of events surrounding the commission
of a crime. While evidence recovered at crime scenes varies in nature, amounts
and probative value, it is all essential to the practice of solving the
mysteries at hand. Time has no bearing on the vitality of crime scene evidence,
and it is that vitality which commands the use of great care during evidence
identification, documentation, collection, analysis and preservation.
During the nineteenth century these
functions were all performed locally, and crime scene evidence consisted of
whatever the responding authorities decided it should.
Great advancements in sciences and
technology during this era granted much efficiency to the processing of crime
scenes and even expanded the scope of acceptable forms of evidence. While
investigators and scientists in some states fully embraced these innovations,
such as the new and evolving arts of fingerprinting and ABO blood-typing,
others presented barriers of prejudice and bias, and continued practicing with
methods “tried and true”.
Investigators and scientists
throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts fell into the latter category, due
in part to the state’s conservative nature. Other contributing factors toward
the resistance of these individuals to be forward-thinking, open-minded and
highly-motivated were found on local levels and included low-paying salaries
and deficiencies in education and training.
All things considered, one might
best define the methods of identifying and collecting crime scene evidence in
Massachusetts cities and towns during the nineteenth century as primitive. The
1892 gruesome crime scene at the Borden home in Fall River might best exemplify
how the application of aged practices might generate unfavorable results.
In the Borden case a skeleton crew
of underpaid, poorly-skilled sleuths failed to immediately secure the scene and
a head-to-toe search of the premises wasn’t conducted for days to follow. This
ineptitude left much room for the contamination, destruction and/or removal of
any evidence not yet collected.
Body temperatures, levels of food
digestion and stages of blood drying and coagulation were used to determine the
times of death of the victims. This data was gathered with the use of nothing
more than human hands and the findings were applied to an ancient suggested set
of standards. Clearly, a clinical thermometer would have provided more accurate
readings of the body temperatures while the knowledge of, or willingness to
recognize new literature available at the time would have altered other
findings. The latest studies showed that each of these postmortem events would
occur on different levels depending upon human individuality and upon
circumstances. Also based on the results of these studies were newly introduced
numbers proven to be the standard.
Performances in the lab at a local
medical school demonstrated an even broader scope of deficiency in crime scene
investigating. Among the evidence ultimately collected were the stomachs of the
victims and a hatchet. The stomach linings were searched for scar tissue caused
by poisoning because the victims were allegedly ill prior to the murders. Because
the hatchet was believed to have caused the fractures in the victims’ skulls,
it was studied for the presence of blood. The single instrument used to perform
these searches, a magnifying glass, detected no scar tissue, nor did it
determine whether a substance found on the hatchet was rust or blood. Some
innovative technological and scientific alternatives might have provided more
certainty about the evidentiary findings. The spectroscope would have offered
significantly more magnification while the introduction of certain metals and
minerals to the stomach contents may have detected the presence of poison.
Similarly, the simple act of infusing water or fire with the matter on the
hatchet would have proven the nature of the substance.
The discounted evidence in the
Borden case arguably contained the most probative value. It consisted of the
prime suspect, Lizzie’s own damning words. Spoken to a rookie investigator who
failed to inform Lizzie of her rights before tuning in, the evidence was deemed
inadmissible by the court based on constitutional grounds. Had a more seasoned,
forward-thinking investigator interviewed Lizzie, she might have been informed
of her rights.
Additionally, the court excluded a
local druggist’s statement that Lizzie attempted to buy poison in his store on
the day before the murders occurred. Lizzie’s counsel argued that the idea of
poisoning was unrelated to the nature of the crimes actually committed. Had the
scientist at the lab possessed the knowledge of and willingness to rely upon
modern techniques, the druggist’s statement may have been utilized, and
Lizzie’s intentions revealed.
Lizzie Borden was acquitted of the
murders of her father and stepmother in June of 1893 after just over an hour of
deliberation by a twelve-man jury.
Lizzie was exonerated of the crimes
based on the evidence both presented and not presented at trial. All evidence
in this case was a product of contemporary practices which consisted of widely
varying and inconsistent crime scene investigation methods. Many believe a lack
of application of common standards based on the best of accepted practices at
the time in the gathering and processing of crime scene evidence may have
contributed to a guilty person getting away with murder.
