Sherlockian Theories
Sherlockian Theories is an article written by John Wesley Anderson published in the A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (Vol. 4, 1993).
This professional paper argues that Sherlock Holmes's investigative methods anticipate modern forensic science, particularly bloodstain pattern analysis, and extracts practical "Sherlockian theories" applicable to criminal investigation. Presented to forensic professionals, it uses close readings of the Holmes stories to advocate disciplined observation, objective reasoning, and evidentiary rigor in contemporary criminalistics.
Sherlockian Theories
He examined with his glass the word upon the wall, going over every letter of it with the most minute exactness. D. H. Friston's illustration of the first published investigation by the greatest detective who never lived. Holmes investigates the Lauriston Gardens Mystery in A Study in Scarlet. (Beeton's Christmas Annual, 1887).
'Lessons from the Greatest Detective who Never Lived'
Preface
This paper was submitted to the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts for presentation and publication purposes, at the 1991 Joint Conference in Montreal, Canada, 26 September 1991, with the Canadian Society of Forensic Science and the Society of Forensic Toxicologists, Inc. It was the intent of the author that those in attendance at the conference, as well as those who shall later read this work, recognise that the overall goal of this effort was to enhance the investigative skill and ability of the criminalist. This was to be accomplished through an examination of the writings of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his creation, Mr Sherlock Holmes, the first private consulting detective. The author has suggested that Mr Sherlock Holmes (and, by inference, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) deserves recognition as a first class criminalist, forensic toxicologist and, perhaps, the 'first documented fictitious bloodstain pattern analyst'.
It was suggested that these 'Sherlockian Theories' may actually lay the foundation upon which any professional quality criminal scientific investigation, and in some cases forensic identification, should be built. This paper attempts to describe how the application of these theories may assist in the investigative process and perhaps prevent mistakes from being made by the modern day criminalist while conducting a forensic identification or criminal investigation, particularly in the interpretation of bloodstain pattern evidence.
The author has attempted to reintroduce, more than a hundred years after his debut, Mr Sherlock Holmes as the greatest detective who never lived. Sherlock Holmes, a fictitious character, was created in the marvellous imagination of an incredibly gifted world-class writer, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Although Sherlock Holmes never actually lived, Conan Doyle was very much alive and obviously quite aware of the criminal investigative process. Conan Doyle, throughout his writings, applied a 'scientific application' to his various criminal investigations.
In fact, in the opinion of the author, Conan Doyle is very much deserving of recognition as having made a very significant contribution to the criminal investigative and forensic science communities. Many of the criminal investigative techniques described in the writing of Conan Doyle, including techniques applicable to bloodstain pattern interpretation, had not been effectively documented or utilised for their investigative application prior to the writings of Conan Doyle. The extent to which many of these theories may have been in existence, and which should be credited to Conan Doyle as an original thought, may never be known. However, it is certain that the documentation, at least, did not exist prior to appearing in the writings of Conan Doyle.
It was, and is, the sincere hope of this author to have left with each conference attendee, and subsequent reader of this paper, a burning desire to further advance his or her own knowledge from the investigative lessons taught in the fifty-six short stories and four novels of Mr Sherlock Holmes and John H. Watson, M.D.. A wealth of investigative information useful to the criminalist and forensic expert, not to mention untold hours of pleasure and enjoyment, await the reader in his or her own individual search for the 'Sherlockian Theories' which will prove of value in their future investigative endeavours.
If we could examine all the books ever written throughout the history of the world, we would find only one which has been more widely read, and translated into more languages, than the stories of Sherlock Holmes: the Bible. Unfortunately, those of us who have selected criminal investigation and forensic sciences as our profession have rarely taken the opportunity to read any of the writings involving this most famous of detectives, Sherlock Holmes. We have mistakenly believed that this fictitious character has little to offer the modern day criminalist or forensic scientist. Nothing could be further from the truth!
This article is intended to serve the reader in an informative, useful and yet brief manner. Therefore the author has selected an outline format consisting of four sections. Section I contains a brief introduction to the author. Section II provides an introduction to the writing style of Conan Doyle, including an excerpt from Conan Doyle's first chapter of the first story of Sherlock Holmes. In this chapter the world is introduced to Mr Sherlock Holmes for the first time, as seen through the eyes of Dr John Watson. Section III provides a specific reference to bloodstain pattern interpretation. Section IV provides a collection of several 'Sherlockian Theories' selected particularly for the benefit of the bloodstain pattern analyst and forensic scientist. The paper will, I hope, create the beginning of a meaningful partnership between the criminalist, the forensic examiner, two doctors and their friend, the Greatest Detective Who Never Lived.
I: Introduction
The author, John Wesley Anderson, is a Sergeant with the Police Department in Colorado Springs, Colorado. His nearly two decades of policing experience has presented him assignments in nearly every phase of law enforcement including the Uniform Patrol Bureau, the Detective Bureau and the Administration Bureau. While assigned to the Criminal Investigations Division for over six years, he served in the Homicide Division where he accumulated a 96% clearance rate of those homicide investigations where he was assigned as the lead detective. Sergeant Anderson was also assigned to the Department's Training Academy as a full-time staff instructor, specialising in the instruction of criminal investigations, particularly violent major criminal investigations at both the local and state level.
Sergeant Anderson has been court qualified as an expert in blood stain pattern interpretation at several murder trials and has also previously been declared an expert in criminal investigations. He possesses a large collection of writings pertaining to Sherlock Holmes and, with the help of many Holmes enthusiasts, has for several years been involved in a serious study of the writing of Conan Doyle. The purpose of this search was to identify criminal investigative lessons taught by Sherlock Holmes, or more specifically Conan Doyle, which should prove useful for modern day criminalists conducting forensic identifications and scientific investiga- tions.
II: Historical Perspective
The author and creator of Sherlock Holmes was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a medical doctor. Fortunately for us, Conan Doyle was much more successful as a writer than as a medical doctor. In an attempt to earn additional income to supplement his practice, he began writing short stories, many of which were published in The Strand Magazine. One of his earlier stories involved a character, Mr Sherlock Holmes, the first private consulting detective, who displayed incredible investigative powers of observation and deduction. A medical professor of Conan Doyle's, Dr Joseph Bell, has been credited with instructing him in developing the faculty of deduction to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of patients.
Dr John Watson was first introduced to Mr Sherlock Holmes in Conan Doyle's first story about the detective, A Study in Scarlet, which was first published in Beeton's Christmas Annual in 1887. Dr. Watson, looking for someone with whom to share a room, is brought to a laboratory where we get our first glimpse of Sherlock Holmes 'bent over a distant table'. Holmes's first words were:
- 'I've found it! I've found it! ... I have found a re-agent which is precipitated by haemoglobin, and by nothing else... Why, man, it is the most practical medico-legal discovery for years... it gives us an infallible test for blood stains.'
When the Sherlock Holmes stories appeared in The Strand, the magazine enhanced its readership to become the most successful magazine in the world at the time. Conan Doyle's writing skill was such that, even today, the reader is provided with an opportunity to enter Holmes's dark and mist-covered world, hear the striking of a match, smell the tobacco burning in his clay pipe, and live the excitement of the chase.
Holmes was someone his fans could relate to: they would share in his victories, admire his deductive abilities and overlook his personal weaknesses. He was a crime fighter, good against evil, someone his readers could believe in, out there in the dark of night, in the London fog, seeking out those who would break the law. Sherlock Holmes possessed exceptional knowledge of chemicals, and was no doubt a talented forensic serologist. As Conan Doyle involves us in the moment, we can feel the emotions of his characters as we read further in the first chapter of the first story:
- 'Come over here now!' He seized me by the coat-sleeve in his eagerness, and drew me over to the table at which he had been working. 'Let us have some fresh blood,' he said, digging a long bodkin into his finger, and drawing off the resulting drop of blood in a chemical pipette. 'Now, I add this small quantity of blood to a litre of water. You perceive that the resulting mixture has the appearance of pure water. The proportion of blood cannot be more than one in a million. I have no doubt, however, that we shall be able to obtain the characteristic reaction.' As he spoke, he threw into the vessel a few white crystals, and then added some drops of a transparent fluid. In an instant the contents assumed a dull mahogany colour, and a brownish dust was precipitated to the bottom of the glass jar.
- 'Ha! Ha!' he cried, clapping his hands, and looking as delighted as a child with a new toy. 'What do you think of that?'
- 'It seems to be a very delicate test,' I remarked.
- 'Beautiful! beautiful! The old guaiacum test was very clumsy and uncertain. So is the microscopic examination for blood corpuscles. The latter is valueless if the stains are a few hours old. Now, this appears to act as well whether the blood is old or new. Had this test been invented, there are hundreds of men now walking the earth who would long ago have paid the penalty of their crimes.'
- 'Indeed!' I murmured.
- 'Criminal cases are continually hinging upon that one point. A man is suspected of a crime months perhaps after it has been committed. His linen or clothes are examined and brownish stains discovered upon them. Are they blood stains, or mud stains, or rust stains, or fruit stains, or what are they? That is a question which has puzzled many an expert...'
III. Bloodstain Pattern Interpretation
Throughout the Sherlock Holmes series one finds multiple references to bloodstains. But to offer Sherlock Holmes as the first 'documented' bloodstain pattern analyst would require proof.
Conan Doyle was certainly more than a casual observer of the patterns left by bloodstains and no doubt saw investigative value in the analysis of the particular bloodstain patterns. This is evident from the beginning of this remarkable series. Even from the first novel at the first crime scene in Lauriston Gardens, we find significant details relative to the study of bloodstain pattern interpretation, and perhaps our first opportunity to learn from Dr Conan Doyle by enhancing our professional vocabulary:
- Sherlock Holmes approached the body, and, kneeling down, examined it intently. 'You are sure that there is no wound?' he asked, pointing to the numerous gouts and splashes of blood which lay all round.
Your reaction may be the same as mine the first time I saw these unusual words used to describe bloodstain evidence; 'gouts and splashes'. Did Conan Doyle really intend to use these terms? If so, how did he intend for them to be interpreted? Let us stop here for a moment and consult Webster's New World Dictionary to define these terms and determine if they have any relevance to the study of bloodstain evidence:
- Gout: a drop, attributed to a discharge of drops of humors.
But what is meant by humors?
- Humor: any fluid or juice of an animal or plant, esp., any of the four fluids (cardinal humors) formerly responsible for one's health and disposition; blood, phlegm, choler (yellow bile), or melancholy (black bile).
Now we may translate for our purposes, a 'gout' as a 'drop attributed to a discharge of blood'. How many different ways have we attempted to describe a drop, or drip, or drip pattern, or spatter, or should we say a 'gout' of 'humor'?
And what did he mean by 'splashes of blood which lay all around"? According to Webster's:
- Splashes: to scatter and fall in drops.
Interesting...
- 'Positive!' cried both Detectives.
- 'Then, of course, this blood belongs to a second individual presumably the murderer, if murder has been committed. Finally, he sniffed the dead man's lips, and then glanced at the soles of his patent leather boots.
Holmes then makes an investigation of the room, and makes a discovery on one of the walls:
- Across this bare space there was scrawled in blood-red letters a single word—
- RACHE
- 'What do you think of that?' cried the detective, with the air of a showman exhibiting his show. "This was overlooked because it was in the darkest corner of the room, and no one thought of looking there. The murderer has written it with his or her own blood. See this smear where it has trickled down the wall! That disposes of the idea of suicide anyhow. Why was that corner chosen to write it on? I will tell you. See that candle on the mantelpiece. It was lit at the time, and if it was lit this corner would be the brightest instead of the darkest portion of the wall... it bears every mark of having been written by the other participant in last night's mystery. I have not had time to examine the room yet, but with your permission I shall do so now.'
- As he spoke, he whipped a tape measure and a large round magnifying glass from his pocket. With these two implements he trotted noiselessly about the room, sometimes stopping, occasionally kneeling, and once lying flat upon his face. ... For twenty minutes or more he continued his researches, measuring with the most exact care the distance between marks which were entirely invisible to me, and occasionally applying his tape to the walls in an equally incomprehensible manner. In one place he gathered up very carefully a little pile of grey dust from the floor, and packed it away in an envelope. Finally he examined with his glass the word upon the wall, going over every letter of it with the most minute exactness.
- '.... I'll tell you one thing which may help you in the case,' he continued, turning to the two detectives. "There has been a murder done, and the murderer was a man. He was more than six feet high, was in the prime of life, had small feet for his height, wore coarse, square-toed boots, and smoked a Trichinopoly cigar. He came here with his victim in a four-wheeled cab, which was drawn by a horse with three old shoes and one new one on his off fore-leg. In all probability the murderer had a florid face, and the fingernails of his right hand were remarkably long. These are only a few indications, but they may assist you... One other thing, Lestrade,' he added, turning round at the door: "Rache" is the German for "revenge"; so don't lose your time by looking for Miss Rachel.'
IV: Sherlockian Theories
These investigative theories have been brought to light from Sherlock Holmes's Causes Célèbres, selected specifically for the bloodstain pattern analysts, although they have importance to criminal investigations, forensic identification, and perhaps to life in general. If Sherlock Holmes, or Conan Doyle, were with us today, what would they say about this attempt to gather investigative lessons from the adventures? In 'The Reigate Squire' I believe we find the answer:
- It has always been my habit to hide none of my methods, either from my friend Watson or from anyone who might take an intelligent interest in them.
What I suggest is that we take an intelligent interest in these methods, or theories. Where would we best begin? From what place would we start our endeavour to learn from the master? Is it possible to determine which theory Sherlock Holmes would have us acquire first? Perhaps. In 'The Adventure of Black Peter' we find this quote:
- One should always look for a possible alternative and provide against it. It is the first rule of criminal investigation.
This struck me as quite odd. Of all the investigative lessons why should he identify this as the first? The more I studied this quote, the more apparent the answer became. Let us take, for example, a homicide investigation. Say we have a rather straight-forward case, a domestic 'smoking gun'. The husband is at the house, holding the weapon, waiting for the officers at the front door; the wife is found shot dead in the bedroom. The couple has a history of domestic squabbles; probable cause exists; an arrest is made. We determine what we believe to be the most logical explanation of the manner in which the crime was committed, and follow this theory throughout the investigation.
Do we ever stop and evaluate a possible alternative? Rarely would we provide' or prove against it'. What are the possible theories of defence to murder? (Self defence, defence of others?). Do we approach the case and from the beginning try to select an alternative theory and prove against it? If we don't, who would? Good defence attorneys, that's who! Defence attorneys may select a possible alternative and suggest it to the jury. They do not have to prove this possible alternative theory, they may simply suggest an alternative might have occurred. If we have not, or cannot provide evidence against the alternative theory, the jury can often do little but acquit.
And who is to blame for this injustice? The defence attorney for using this tactic against us? No, he is simply doing what he is supposed to do in providing a proper defence for his client. Perhaps we should blame the judge for allowing this to occur, or perhaps the 'system'? Sure! Let's blame the system. Right...? Wrong! It's time, I feel, that we accept the responsibility and blame when something goes wrong in the 'system' that we could have corrected.
In the case of determining a possible alternative to a murder charge, have we examined all the possible options? Could the death have been committed by a third party? Have we successfully provided against the theory of an alibi? If not, just who is at fault when we are not successful in the subsequent criminal prosecution? But why has Sherlock claimed this to be the first rule in criminal investigation', especially when we see an alternative theory being brought out much later at trial?
I offer two possibilities. The first is that if we wait to explore a possible alternative at trial, by then it is often too late to prove against. The second, and perhaps the most important reason why this should be 'the first rule of criminal investigation', is that if we are successful in our attempt to provide against an alternative, then our case is based upon an objective evaluation of the truth and the facts in the case. However, consider for a moment that we are unable to provide against an alternative, as in the example of a murder being committed by a third party. Perhaps if we don't examine the alternative from the onset of the investigation, then we commit a double travesty. For in this situation, not only could we have arrested an innocent person, but we may also have allowed a guilty person to continue to remain free to repeat his crime. How many times has this mistake been made?
How would Sherlock Holmes have us begin an investigation? What is his advice? In 'The Cardboard Box' we find our answer:
- We approach the case with an absolutely blank mind, which is always an advantage.
Often we find the forensic expert, the reconstructionist, brought into the case much later in the investigation. Frequently, his/her examination is based upon information or documentation from others having first hand knowledge of the crime scene and the evidence. This is especially true if someone is brought in to rebut the first opinion based on the first examination. In A Study in Scarlet we find Holmes appreciative of the opportunity to examine the evidence and crime scene in person:
- 'There is nothing like first-hand evidence.
Do we always take advantage of the opportunity to view the crime scene or evidence in person, or to revisit the scene as our investigation advances, or do we take a shorter course and rely on memory or someone else's documentation to prove out our analysis? As our investigation advances do we always have our emotions in check, or do our feelings occasionally enter the investigation, particularly in a child abuse, rape, or murder investigation? Our emotions, although they tend to serve as an exceptionally powerful motivator, may hamper a complete and comprehensive scientific investigation, or forensic identification possibility. In The Sign of the Four we find Holmes whispering this warning in our ear:
- Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science, and should be treated in the same cold and unemotional manner.
This next quote may perhaps carry the most valuable message for investigators:
- It is a capital mistake to theorise before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement.
In A Study in Scarlet this important recommendation is offered by the master. Criminalists are frequently far too eager to offer a re-creation of criminal events based upon the information and evidence at hand. Often we seek recognition for being quick-thinking and astute in our investigative abilities by quickly coming to a conclusion based upon the initial information as it is made available. This tactic does much to enhance our ego, but little to advance the investigation. In The Problem of Thor Bridge Holmes offers this simple, yet profound, consolation:
- I can discover facts, Watson, but I cannot change them.
One of the best definitions I have ever heard, regarding a criminal investigation, is that the investigative process is simply 'a search for the truth'. We will not always like the truth once it is found, but, if it is the truth, then that is what we are seeking regardless of the outcome.
In A Study in Scarlet we find Holmes defining genius as 'an infinite capacity for taking pains', which he acknowledges as having an application to detective work. Often we identify the more successful criminalists as those who seem to pay exceptional attention to detail. This is a desirable trait, according to Holmes, and worthy of development. In an effort to further develop our knowledge, we often find the opportunity to share cases in which we have been involved. The practice of sharing knowledge gained through our cases is worthwhile in order to enhance our profession. At the presentation in Montreal, this author made a case presentation of a rather bizarre suicide accomplished through a self-evisceration (referred to as the 'Seiger Mobile Homes Case'). As this case was presented for the educational benefit of those in attendance, and not simply to serve as a 'war-story', what would Holmes say about this practice? In The Valley of Fear we find his answer:
- Surely our profession ... would be a drab and sordid one if we did not sometimes set the scene so as to glorify our results. The blunt accusation, the brutal tap upon the shoulder — what can one make of such a denouement? But the quick inference, the subtle trap, the clever forecast of coming events, the triumphant vindication of bold theories — are these not the pride and the justification of our life's work?
This particular case presentation was selected for having been a rather remarkable illustration of the degree of pain individuals are capable of inflicting upon themselves. It also serves to demonstrate the lesson of the next quote taken from 'The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire':
- 'One forms provisional theories and waits for time or fuller knowledge to explode them. A bad habit.
Frequently, we see less experienced criminalists come quickly to a conclusion. This is perhaps done in an attempt to gain confidence, or acceptance, by demonstrating their investigative or forensic abilities. However, we see the master has identified this as a 'bad habit'. His message is again repeated with more of an explanation in 'The Abbey Grange':
- If I had not taken things for granted, if I had examined everything with the care which I would have shown had we approached the case de novo and had no cut-and-dried story to warp my mind, would I not then have found something more definite to go upon?
In one of my favourite stories, 'A Scandal in Bohemia', Holmes's superior intellectual abilities are surpassed, again by a woman, in an exceptional story that is not criminal in nature, and provides us with this jewel:
- It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist the facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit the facts.
The first case presentation, being a rather unusual suicide, was also selected to emphasise our next investigative lesson extracted from The Sign of the Four.
- It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Of the more interesting murder investigations in which I have participated, the most stimulating were certainly those in which I had the most to gain. Murder is always an interesting and rewarding crime to work. However, more satisfaction is to be gained from those cases where you must apply yourself at the highest level, and fight for every small clue, than those which are handed to you. I find a certain amount of motivation in this acknowledgement:
- There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you.
This is taken from perhaps one of the greatest of Conan Doyle's works, The Hound of the Baskervilles. Perhaps the greatest quote never said, from the greatest detective who never lived, was 'Elementary, my dear Watson.' Holmes, on occasion, refers to Dr. Watson as 'my dear Watson'. In 'The Crooked Man' he describes a deduction as being 'elementary'. However, never were the two spoken at the same time. The phrase which may have led to this mis-statement was probably:
- Elementary. It is one of those instances when the reasoner can produce an effect which seems remarkable to his neighbour, because the latter has missed the one little point which is the basis of the deduction.
This phrase accurately describes the abilities of the scientific criminalist. However, once these 'little points' are identified, are they effectively utilised for 'the basis of deduction? 'The Naval Treaty' finds Holmes highlighting this particular problem:
- The authorities are excellent at amassing facts, though they do not always use them to advantage.
What would Holmes have us do to expand our abilities? How would he describe those qualities necessary to develop one's investigative traits? In The Sign of the Four, he give us his answer:
- There are three characteristics of the ideal detective, observation, deduction, and knowledge.
These three characteristics, once defined, are worthy of developing to the highest level. Holmes describes observation as more than simply 'seeing'. He once asked Watson how many steps there were leading up to their room. Watson stated that he did not know. Holmes proclaimed that what separated the two of them was that they each walked up the steps many times, but while Watson saw the steps, Holmes 'observed' them and therefore knew how many there were.
Holmes is probably most remembered for his deductive abilities, many of which were due to his advanced knowledge in particular fields, including soil comparisons, tobacco ashes, and chemistry, all of which he found invaluable to his investigative resources. Holmes never acknowledged himself as the ideal detective'. In fact, he often found fault with himself and tried to learn from any mistake he made. In 'The Abbey Grange' we find a particular self criticism, worthy of acknowledgement by any forensic scientist or advanced criminalist:
- Perhaps when a man has special knowledge and special powers like my own it rather encourages him to seek a complex explanation when a simpler one is at hand.
Described in the words of Sherlock Holmes, found in 'The Problem of Thor Bridge', perhaps the intent of this article is most accurately summarised as follows:
- The faculty of deduction is certainly contagious, Watson.
The author has attempted to instil the desire in criminalists to further develop their 'faculty of deduction.' Did Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle) believe he had something of value to contribute to the criminalist? No doubt he did, as we find in one of his later stories, 'The Abbey Grange':
- I propose to devote my declining years to the composition of a textbook which shall focus the whole art of detection into one volume.
What a valuable and timeless investigative textbook this would have made. What a shame it was not written... or was it? The complete works of Sherlock Holmes, written by Conan Doyle, are now available as a reference work. The investigative lessons are not listed or described. They are skillfully intermingled within the dark mysteries and rich characters that are sure to entertain you in your search. I encourage you to pick up a Sherlock Holmes story and share one of his adventures.
In closing, I wish to offer one final quote, from perhaps my favourite story, 'The Yellow Face':
- If it should ever strike you that I am getting a little overconfident in my powers, or giving less pains to a case than it deserves, kindly whisper "Norbury" in my ear, and I shall be infinitely obliged to you.
This word 'Norbury', the name of a town in England where the story of 'The Yellow Face' unfolds, I offer as a 'watch-word' to the forensic community. For 'If it should ever strike you that I am getting a little overconfident in my powers, or giving less pains to a case than it deserves, kindly whisper 'Norbury' in my ear, and I shall be infinitely obliged to you.'
- Article courtesy Christopher Roden, founder of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (1989-2003).
