BRIT.J. CRIMINOL VOL 38 NO.

1 WINTER 1998

TRUE CRIME STORIES

Scientific Methods of Criminal Investigation, Criminology

and Historiography

CLAIRE VALIER*

How can we catch the criminal? The history of criminology has had little to say about the place of
scientific methods ofcriminal investigation in the discipline ofcriminology and in the redistribution
of the power to punish that took place with the withdrawal of public execution. Thinking about
this omission can act as a critical and reflexive exercise: why have we made a riddle of criminality ?
Perhaps it is exactly the contours of this problem that mean that we consistently fail to catch the
criminal. Perhaps there was never any mystery to be solved.

How should we write the history of a discipline which now presents itself as a
constellation of sociological and psychological approaches taking for their object crime
and the criminal, but once identified itself as a science? The acknowledgement of the
rhetorical power during the nineteenth century of scientific metaphors and allusions,
and a loose reference to the nefarious effects of a faith in positivism, is insufficient.
Looking at the problem from the other direction, beyond antiquarian accounts of
quackery and all its eccentricities, beyond also the denunciation of 'pseudo-sciences'
and a whole host of other charlatans, what else can be said? Perhaps a start can be made
by confronting this discipline with a part of its past about which it has been quiet. This
may be pursued under the rubrics of three questions: why has the history of criminology
marginalized the history of scientific techniques in the pursuit of the criminal? What
style of reasoning did these techniques employ? How are we to destabilize the
disciplinary history of scientific methods in the search for the criminal?
This paper may be usefully framed with the outlines of a mystery. The third edition
of the Handbuchfiir Untersuchungsrichter published by Hans Gross in 1899 presented the
following cipher:

* Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. 1 would like to thank the following for their recognition and financial
assistance: the President and Fellows of Queens' College, Cambridge for the election to a Munro Studentship, the Economic and
Social Research Council for the award of a research studentship. The author thanks the following for their interest and advice:
Professor Anthony Bottoms, FBA, Dr Michael Clark; Dr Catherine Crawford; Dr Vic Gatrell; Dr Lorainc Gelsthorpe; Professor
Robert Reiner, Dr David Thomas, QC This paper is for my friend Cuillaume Mftayer.

88
 CLAIRE VAUER

This cipher is heavily implicated in the enquiry conducted by this paper, and the
approach taken in decoding it will be of the utmost significance.

Scientific Methods of Criminal Investigation and the History of Criminobgy

It is to be noted that studies analysing the history of scientific practices of criminal
investigation have not come from the history of criminology. Recent contributions to
the field have come from the genres of social history (Kaluszynski 1987; Darmon 1989),
the history of photography (Ph61ine 1985; Tagg 1988), the history of science (Panchasi
1996), and the history of the body (Sekula 1986). The history of criminology has offered
only a r£sum£ of the discoveries of a few 'pioneers' (Mannheim 1960; Stead 1977) and
the documenting of the identification methods of the fin de siecle (Radzinowicz and
Hood 1986; Hebenton and Thomas 1993). With regard to the latter, first, the history
of criminology has analysed neither the details of the scientific bases of the techniques
nor how they actually worked. Secondly, identification methods have been subsumed
within the narrative of the 'taming' of the habitual criminal. The concern about
recidivism was of importance to the development of identification methods, but is not
the whole story. Finally, there are important differences between criminal investigation
('who was the author of this crime?' 'how can we find him or her?' 'how can we
demonstrate in court that this suspect was the author of this crime?') and methods for
the identification of habitual criminals ('does this criminal before me have prior
sentences?').
What is to be made of the paucity of attention given to scientific methods of criminal
investigation within the history of criminology? It can be explained by three
historiographical characteristics of histories of criminology: first, the charting of the
ways in which a conception of criminal behaviour constituted criminology; secondly, a
preoccupation with the prison; and finally, an interest in charting the demarcation of
a professional discipline of criminology from the 1880s. Each of these features is
conceptually linked. Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir (1975) demonstrated how the
prison of the nineteenth century operated as a laboratory from which emerged the
figure of a new species, the delinquent or homo criminalis, bearer of physical and/or
psychological stigmata that could be read as the indications of a propensity to commit
crime. From thence also came the swarm of extra-judicial experts who claimed the
authority to diagnose such signs and formulate treatment regimes, advise governments
on the administration of a penalty which should adapt itself to their findings. From the
outset and to this day the momentum of these features has been guaranteed by their
failure. As such they exist in a concomitant relationship with their inverse. The
concentration on a conception of criminal behaviour has as its counterparts the interest
in social milieu and also an interest not in the offender but in the offence itself. The
converse of a professional discipline of criminology is the multiplicity of'lay' discourses
about crime and criminals. The counterpart of the preoccupation with the prison is to
address social control outside its walls and this includes all manner of policing,
including criminal investigation.
First then, the history of criminology would like to take as the foundation of this
discipline the introduction of a conception of criminal behaviour. This 'conception of
89
 TRUE CRIME STORIES

criminal behaviour' refers to the host of demonstrations of the existence of a criminality

predisposing an individual to commit offences and simultaneously explaining the
recalcitrance of his recidivism (see, for example, Garland 1994). The interest here has
been in propensities, penchants, dispositions and constitutions. The essays in
intellectual history by Piers Beirne (1993) have, however, demonstrated that a rigid
division between classical and positive schools in this respect is untenable. Additionally,
the interest in tracing the new scientific interest in the conception of criminal behaviour
should have had no need to exclude consideration of the use of scientific methods of
criminal investigation. The practice of these methods, and the many handbooks, theses,
tracts and casenotes that elaborated their use, yield up a whole range of information
about the criminal that could be used to impute to him certain traits. The development
of scientific methods of criminal identification was particularly ambiguous in this
respect. The study of the tattoo as a means of criminal identification offered indications
of social position from Tardieu's investigations at the mid-century (Tardieu 1855) at
the same time as Lacassagne's publications in the 1880s. Data from the Bertillon system
of identification was used to attest to the existence of a criminal type (McCorn 1896).
The morphology and anomalies of the ear were described both as a means of individual
identification and as a potential indicator of degeneracy and criminal type (Lannois
(1887) collates and comments on this work).
The history of criminology has described the consolidation of a professional discipline
of criminology from the 1880s. First, if a professional discipline of criminology is to be
recognized, the story of a multiplicity of 'lay' discourses about crime and criminals also
requires analysis. The popular conception of a criminologist as some species of'scientific
detective' is of significance here. Additionally, examination of the documents from which
the formation of a professional discipline of criminology in the fin de siecle period has
been constructed provides no reason to have marginalized the history of scientific
methods of criminal investigation from this tale. The identification of criminology with
an institutional locus has produced discussion of the foundation of chairs and
departments in the universities, the establishment of specialist reviews, and the gathering
of international meetings. The confrontations between the Lyonnaise school and the
Scuola Positiva at the criminal anthropology congresses of the 1880s and 1890s have
become a tale often told. The presence from the outset of an interest in judicial
anthropometry and the problem of the identification of the criminal may also be noted.
Records show that on 20 November 1885 Alphonse Bertillon, head of the Service
D'ldentitie" Judiciaire of the Paris police gave an address to the first congress about his
system of judicial anthropometry. Following this address, the first person to comment
was Cesare Lombroso, praising Bertillon for having demonstrated what he designated
as one of the practical sides of anthropology, with his system of'everyday usefulness'.
The next person to speak was Alexandre Lacassagne, the medico-legist around whose
work the Lyon school developed, and famous for his Pasteurian analogy of society as the
culture from which the germs of criminality sprang, which expressed his concept of social
milieu (see Kaluszynski 1988). Lacassagne recounted the effectiveness of Bertillon's
system in discovering the judicial antecedents of a 'skilful crook' in Lyon.1 Papers on

1
From ihc Lyonnaise school sec also Pernot (1885), who used Benillon's identification of ihe tramp 'Buisson' aj the criminal
Bosconi to prove the effectiveness of the Bertillon system.

90
 CLAIRE VALIER

this subject of identification were given at subsequent congresses (Anfosso and Romiti
1890; Cantilo 1890; De Ryckere 1893; Anfosso 1897) and the third congress passed a
resolution to see anthropometric signalment adopted in every country. Similarly,
Bertillon gave a paper to the first penitentiary congress. The first volume of the Archives
d'anthropologie criminelle et des sciences pinole carried an article by Bertillon, who was on
the committee of associates of thisjournal of which Lacassagne was one of the founders.
The journal Scuola Positiva published articles on criminal identification, for example
Ottolenghi's 1905 paper on a 'biographical chart*. The history of criminology may by
now present Cesare Lombroso as an intellectual inheritor rather than a pioneer, for
example referring to the work of Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828), and has recognized
the place of 'practitioners' such as prison doctors in the prehistory of criminology.
However, there is still a sense in which these have been presented as prefiguring the
development of an academic discipline which is their success and culmination, and the
history of criminology as emanating from, and acting upon, a wider range of practices
still remains to be written.
Criminologists are by now familiar with the idea of the nineteenth century prison as
a 'surface of emergence' for their discipline. The operation of the prison as a locus from
which knowledge about the nature of criminals, and the methods for their treatment,
emerged has led the history of criminology to privilege penitentiary science as the most
important condition of existence of criminology. However, SurveiUer et punir is not a
genealogy of criminology. We need to look beyond the prison to address not only the
proceedings of the courtroom and the extra-judicial aspects of the individualization of
the sentence, but also the investigations prior to that point.
Contemporary with the birth of the prison there occurred the 'reform' of the police,
to which the use of scientific methods of criminal investigation was significant, and both
changes were part of a redistribution of the overall punitive apparatus. This was not
lost on eighteenth-century commentators. From the mid-eighteenth century the great
penal reformers also criticized existing methods for apprehending criminals and
considered the place of detection in deterrence. Cesare Beccaria's Dei delitti e dellepene
of 1764 not only condemned capital punishment, but also the system of rewards for
the apprehension of criminals, the latter being one proof of the weakness of a
government. Beccaria also pointed out that for the purposes of deterrence, if the
severity of punishments were to be decreased, the certainty of detection must be
correspondingly increased. The latter was seen as the index of a superior efficiency
(not to punish more, but to punish better). In 1789, Jeremy Bentham's/ln Introduction
To The Principles Of Morals And Legislation addressed the psychology of motivation as
subordinated to the 'two sovereign masters', pain and pleasure. Bentham considered
that an individual's perception of the likelihood of their having committed an
obnoxious act being detected by another person was essential to the action of this
restraining motive upon them. The Fieldings had started the collection of information
about criminals intended to supply clues for their detection from the mid-eighteenth
century. Despite their activities, in 1796 Patrick Colquhoun stated in his A Treatise On
The Police Of The Metropolis:
As the laws now stand, no energy enters into the system of detection, so as to give vigour and effect
to that branch of police which relates to the apprehension of persons charged with offences . . .
(Colquhoun 1796: 22)

91
 TRUE CRIME STORIES

In Surveilltr et punir, Foucault saw generalized policing, or surveillance, as the

concomitant of the invention of delinquency, which led him to suggest that we should
perhaps speak of an ensemble police-prison-delinquency. Criminal investigation, the
detection of the unknown authors of crimes which had already been committed, is not
identical with the pre-emptive surveillance of suspect populations discussed by Foucault
(1975). What place did criminal investigation occupy? Did it promise the possibility of
a seamless surveillance? This may provide a partial answer, but if criminal investigation
is to be wholly integrated into the police-prison-delinquency ensemble, there is a
surplus consideration. Criminal investigation has had only a very superficial interest in
the aetiological question of what caused an individual to commit a crime. The interest
extended only as far as would be useful to the apprehension of the culpable party.
Perhaps the counterpart to a diffused criminality is the attempt to fix, locate and control
it, first within the body and secondly within distinct spaces such as rookeries, slums, and
neighbourhoods. Methods for the identification of the criminal can be seen to have had
a complex relationship to criminological theories.2 The observation and analysis of
characteristics of the material conditions of the scene of the crime that reached a new
intensity with the use of scientific methods from the nineteenth century can be seen as
part of a new control of spaces.

The Style of Reasoning of Scientific Methods of Criminal Investigation

What kind of more refined practices of investigation were introduced with the new
scientific methods? What style of reasoning did they employ? Published work that has
addressed the identification of the criminal has accepted the 'conjectural model'
described by Carlo Ginzburg (1980) as the basis of the methodologies of the new
scientific approaches of the late nineteenth century.3 This 'conjectural model' involved
the use of evidence that would be imperceptible to most people, adducing information
from sources that to all but the expert appeared inconsequential. According to
Ginzburg, during the decade 1870-80 a presumptive model emerged which operated
on the basis of the denial that reality was opaque and used the clue or the symptom as
a privileged zone by means of which the expert could gain access to a deeper reality.
This method could be traced back to a medical semiotics that used the detailed
observation of superficial symptoms to diagnose diseases inaccessible to direct study,
and hence back to Hippocratic medicine. For Ginzburg the disciplines that he identified
as following a conjectural model were qualitative, and demonstrated an interest in the
individual, as opposed to a paradigm based on Galilean physics and hence requiring
quantification. Ginzburg traced the roots of the conjectural model to the practices of
divination and the tracking of animals, as both involved the minute analysis of details

1
I am currently preparing a paper on the identification of the criminal based on research conducted in the Archives de la
Perfccture de Police de Paris and the Fonds Lacassagne in Lyon. My work in progress consists of a paper on psychoanalysis and
crime 1906-39.
3
Ginzburg's paper has appeared in several English translations, for example it forms the core of his Clues, Myths and the Historical
Method (1989). Ginzburg is known to historians mainly for hisThe Quest and Warms,firstPublished in 1976. Work in the history of
scientific methods of criminal investigation that has accepted Ginzburg's conjectural model includes Kahxszynski (1987) and
Panchasi (1996). Forrester (1996) thinks around this debate in his paper on die genealogy of the case.

92
 CLAIRE VAUER

for the purpose of elucidating the vestiges of events beyond the direct perception of
the observer. This formed part of Ginzburg's project to undo the opposition between
'rationalism' and 'irrationalism'. As such, Ginzburg's genealogy of a conjectural model
has been used to question the objectivity of new scientific methods of identification.
Roxanne Panchasi's 1996 paper on the development of expertise in writing, or
graphology, uses Ginzburg's conjectural model to destabilise Michon's development of
graphology as a scientific discipline. Michon's 1880 m£moire sought to restate the
infallibility of his scientific methods in graphology in the light of several cases in which
his expertise had been slighted in a judicial setting, for example his assertion that a
contested will was a forgery. In this publication Michon opposed his graphology to 'the
old conjectural practice of the ancient expert opinions' (1880: 15):
Graphology clearly rejects conjecture. If it does not find by means of graphic anatomy some tangible
overwhelming proof of the truth or falsehood of a writing it says straight out: I lack proof, I pronounce
no decision. (1880: 13-14)4

Certainly, as Panchasi noted, Michon sought to distance himself from his earlier
collaboration with Desbarolles. The frontispiece of their book of 1872, Les mystfrres de
l'ecriture, depicted an expert in consultation with a woman, and a phrenological head
was clearly represented in the background of the scene. As such Michon turned to the
indisputable objectivity of 'the graphic law' which he asserted left nothing to chance.
Seeing graphology as resting on a conjectural model means that Michon's opposition
of scientific method and incompetence, of truth and fraud, can be dissolved.
While admitting the applicability of Ginzburg's model to some identification
techniques, the conjectural model cannot be accepted as a general model able to explain
either the methodology of all identification techniques or the broader range of scientific
methods of criminal investigation. Ginzburg renders the clue and the symptom
analogous as routes to the access of a deeper reality. However, in criminal investigation
the clue was always read very superficially. Additionally, quantification has played an
important part in the methodologies of scientific methods of criminal investigation.
Finally, the privileging of the decade 1870-80 for the emergence of Ginzburg's model
may be challenged. Within criminology, in the criminal anthropology of the late
nineteenth century it could be said that the symptom was used to access the deeper
reality of criminality. Those interested in the aetiology of criminal behaviour sometimes
used the techniques of criminal identification methods as these suggested enhanced
exactness. Additionally, those who refined techniques of criminal identification also
had an anthropological interest. In legal psychology an interest in the study of the
psychology of the criminal can also be discerned. However, in other areas of the
scientific methods of criminal investigation, for example the analysis of poisons, blood,
dust, an interest in obtaining access to an anterior and deeper reality is not a concern.
It could be said that these methods of criminal investigation developed an almost banal
administrative relationship based on the differentiation of the constituent substances
of materials.
To commence with a challenge to Ginzburg's chronology. Welsh (1992) charted how
circumstantial evidence rose to become the most favoured form of proof from the

4
All traiulaiionj are ihe author's own.

93
 TRUE CRIME STORIES

second half of the eighteenth century, indicating here the significance of the growth of
probabilistic thinking that has been explored in the work of Ian Hacking (1975, 1990).
By 1838 Wills was able to conclude that in practice circumstantial evidence was often
superior as a mode of proof to the average strength of 'direct evidence'.5 It may be
noted in passing that the acknowledged precedent for the use of science in an English
court is the Folkes v. Chadd case of 1782 in which a civil engineer addressed the question
of why Wells harbour had silted up. 6 This case also involved the presentation of
handwriting evidence. From physics, a case was cited by Foder£ (1813) of a nocturnal
murder in which the witnesses claimed to have recognized the culprit from the flash of
a pistol shot. The physical sciences class of the Institute was consulted, which made
experiments and answered that this was not possible. In the field of ballistics, from 1835
Henry Goddard began to make comparisons between bullet striations and the rifling
in gun barrels. Boutigny published a paper in 1834 on the question of determining the
time when a weapon had been discharged. A policeman and an expert gunsmith had
differed in their opinion, so Boutigny was consulted. His experiments examined the
colouring of the discharge deposited on the battery and detected the presence of iron
oxide (Boutigny 1834).
Toxicology was launched as a science with the use of chemistry from the early
nineteenth century. The first volume of the Journal de chimie mtdicale, de pharmacie et de
toxicologie, carried a report by Orfila in 1825 of his actions in a criminal investigation
of a case of poisoning. Similarly, in its early issues the Archives d'hygiene publique et de
•midecme Ugale published numerous reports of consultations in cases of suspected
poisoning, with Orfila and Barruel as frequent authors. In this journal, the chemical
analysis of foodstuffs with respect to poisoning provided one link between die new
scientific methods and public hygiene, with papers and reports regularly appearing on
the subjects of adulterated and fabricated foodstuffs and accidental poisoning. In
Britain, in 1829, Addison and Morgan published the first book in English on die action
of poisons on the human body, and in 1836 James Marsh demonstrated his test for the
detection of arsenic in humans. If famous cases are to be referred to, die Mercier case
of 1839 and the Lafarge trial of 1840 can be cited, in which Orfila acted as expert, giving
testimony as to the presence of arsenic in the body of the deceased.
The methods of chemistry were also applied to the question of whether a sample of
blood was of human or animal origin. The first volume of die Archives d'hygi&ne publique
et de midecine Ugale carried a paper on this question (Barruel 1829; see Chevallier and
Barruel 1834 for a report of experiments to resolve this question during the course of
a criminal investigation). Other materials were also subjected to chemical analysis to
establish their identity for the purposes of criminal investigations, notably stains
suspected to be those of semen (Chevallier 1834; see Bayard 1839 for a detailed
microscopic analysis of suspected semen stains in the context of enquiries related to
sexual offences). CKemical analysiswas also used to examine writing suspected of having
been forged or odierwise tampered widi (Chevallier 1826; Barruel and Chevallier
1834). This latter activity hence predated considerably Michon's recasting of
graphology as a scientific discipline.

5
Locard (1920) points out that 'preuvc par Ics indices' was the French equivalent of 'circumstantial evidence'.
"Folka v. Chadd 1782 (3 Doug. KB 1782: 157-61 English Reports).

94
 CUMRE VAL1ER

The increased use of circumstantial evidence involved a whole critique of the value
of the mbnoire visueUe as practised by witnesses, defendants, policemen, and examining
magistrates. This involved both the adoption of scientific methods of observation,
recording and analysis, and also the subjection of the psychological processes of
perception, forgetting, recall, and the interrogation of witnesses and the accused, to a
sustained analysis. The adoption of scientific methods was then first made on the basis
of the human inadequacies of the mhnoire visuelle. One group of such methods was that
used for the identification of the criminal. These methods were intended to replace
practices such as the weekly visits of detectives to prisons in order to both memorize
the faces of inmates and also to point out any recidivists that they recognized. Charles
Dickens provided a sketch of this procedure in his tales of Mr Pickwick, with the latter
undergoing a scrutiny by the turnkeys on his admittance to the Fleet as a debtor. In
Dickens's story, published in 1836-37, this ceremonial was termed 'sitting for your
portrait' (Dickens 1975: 660-62). The Belper committee report of 1901 found no
reason to discontinue such visits of detectives to British prisons but they were finally
ceased in 1903.
The methods of the judicial photography of criminals intervened to aid the memory
and later to submit the image of the criminal and his body to the precision of
measurements. The old descriptive methods of signalment were considered as too
imprecise and too subjective, typically employing such vague terms as 'oval face, big
nose'. These were to be replaced by the objectivity and reliability of standardized
procedures, and all based on the belief in the infallibility of a realist paradigm which
has been discussed by Christian Phe"line (1985) and Alan Sekula (1986).7
An instance of the operation of such strategies may be observed in Bertillon's activities
following the bombing attacks in Paris of 20 February 1891. Two bombs were placed
at Parisian residences, and simultaneously a letter was delivered to two commissioners
of police announcing that on their receipt their author, 'Rabardy', would commit
suicide. One of these devices killed a woman. The cadaver of an unknown was
subsequently discovered in the peristyle of La Madeleine, the cause of death being the
explosion of a device identical in construction to those placed at the two residences.
Bertillon was called in as expert and found himself faced with the problem of the
post-mortem identity of a mutilated cadaver. Police searches had revealed that the
name 'Rabardy' was an alias, but the cadaver was before long suspected to be that of a
militant anarchist named Pauwels. The question then arose as to whether the surviving
occupants of the residences atwhich the bombs were placed could recognize the cadaver
as Pauwels either from memory or from comparison with judicial photographs of
Pauwels while living. This presented difficulties for the witnesses. First, they had only
seen the suspect briefly during the mundane operation of the letting of a room, and in
poor lighting. Secondly, the mutilated state of the cadaver made its identification with
the living subject complicated. However Bertillon was able by means of his photograph
of Pauwels to remain unshaken in his conviction of the identity of the false 'Rabardy'
with the Belgian anarchist Pauwels (Bertillon 1894).

7
The photography of other populations also took place from the mid-nineteenth century, notably that of asylum inmates (see
Didi-Huberman 1982).

95
 TRUE CRJME STORIES

The photography of the scene of the crime was similarly developed as a check on the
prejudices and distortions exercised by the mimoire visuelle. Niceforo marked out the
practices of'scientific criminal investigation' from the 'deluge' of words resorted to for
a description of the scene of the crime in an 1847 murder case (Niceforo, 1907: 2). The
lens of the camera embraced all in its field of view, missing no detail that might be
passed over by the human eye. It also provided a faithful record of a crime scene whose
condition would deteriorate with the presence of investigators and with the passage of
time to make observations at a later date unreliable.
The use ofjudicial photography is not a phenomenon dating from the fin de siecle.
First, the idea predated the technology. In 1819 a certain Huvet, employed as a clerk
in the office of prisons, proposed to the Prefect of Police of Paris the establishment of
a 'gallery of portraits of the subversive elements of society', obtained with the aid of a
'physniotrace'. This apparatus would record the projection given by the outline of the
shadow made by the body on a surface when it was placed between the surface and a
luminous point (Liaisons 1979: 5). Secondly, there was not a delay of 40 years from the
introduction of the first reliable photographic process to its application for judicial
purposes. Following Louis Daguerre's publication of the daguerreotype process in 1839
the Paris police were using photographs of criminals from at least 1841, and a case
involving the use of judicial photography was reported in Lausanne in 1854 (Pheline
1985). By this year the governor of Bristol gaol, Anthony Gardiner, was circulating
photographs of his prisoners to every prison in the country to see if any apparently
first-time offenders were actually recidivists (Gernsheim 1965: 514—15). In this same
year of 1854 another Lacan, the editor of the photographic review La Lumiire, discussed
the suggestion of an inspector of prisons that the photographic index of inmates
established at a prison in Alsace be generalized throughout France. Importantly, he
proposed the addition of a 'graphometric' index (Lacan 1854). In the following issue
of this review an engineer named Eugene Beau suggested modifications to this system
including the introduction of metric measurement: a scale to enable the calculation of
bodily dimensions should be placed in the frame (Phe"line 1985).
These new methods did not go unopposed. First, there are several records of
criminals refusing to be photographed. Griffiths (1894) tells the tale of an unknown
tramp, who threw himself on the ground to avoid the accusing eye of the camera, was
subsequently photographed without his knowledge, and recognized to be one 'Red
Rufus', who had committed a murder (Griffiths 1894: 170-85). There are photographs
which show the criminal struggling while being held by guards or police (Luke 1980:
125). At the third international congress of criminal anthropology in 1893, De Ryckere
reported the penalties existing in France and Switzerland for those who refused to be
measured according to the Bertillon system. This was a consideration addressed by
Bertillon from the time of his first publication:
We don't have to examine the question of up to what point a society has the right to measure a
defendant against his will. Let's say however that the measurements of our system can if need be, be
taken by force with a sufficient approximation. (Bertillon 1890: n. 28)

In 1885 a Home Office prison rule made the refusal to be photographed a breach of
prison discipline to be punished. Judicial photography and anthropometric measure-
ments evoked questions of civil liberties. They also offended bourgeois sentiments of
propriety and respectability. In 1897 Paul Aubry criticized press reports of the shame
96
 CLAIRE VALIER

of measurement, referring to what he saw as the ridiculous prejudice which consisted

in seeing ignominy in measurement. Certainly the celebration of the Bertillon system
at the Exposition of 1900 (see Rey and Feron 1900) also had its detractors. The press
reported the case of an unfortunate whose mugshot was recognized among Bertillon's
rogue's gallery, having been arrested for begging several years earlier. The publication
of Bertillon measurements and photographs was (unsuccessfully) used as the basis for
a libel action at the turn of the century in the United States of America (reported by
Anonymous 1903).
The development of new scientific methods of identification sought to replace the
dissimulation and error of witnesses. Testimony remained central to die judicial process
and retained an important role in the investigative process, so it became important to
make an appreciation of its value and features. With the development of legal
psychology, these variations of perception, memory, and recall were to be made part of
a discipline that sought to submit them to rigorous experimentation and analysis to elicit
their value for the deposition of evidence. The deformation of the actual events that had
taken place down a chain of witnesses, the subjective character of perception, the foibles
of memory, the difficulties of recall, and the most effective techniques of interrogation
were studied. Investigation of the testimonial process by means of experimental
psychology could demonstrate how to correct the systematic deformations. A specialist
journal on the psychology of testimony, the Beitrage zur Psychologie der Aussage, was
introduced in 1903 under the direction of Stern (in 1908 this changed its name to
Zeitschrififiirangewandte Psychologie). Hugo Miinsterberg (1909), who had been a pupil
of Wundt in Leipzig in the 1880s, presented numerous descriptions of his experiments
with students of the Harvard psychology course and applied them to legal psychology.
The idea that a large number of judicial errors were due to false or erroneous testimonies
became propagated (see for example Lailler and Vovoven 1897) and experiments also
demonstrated that error in testimony was the rule rather than the exception.
E. M. Forster's/4 Passage To India (1924) used the ambiguity of whether details had been
remembered or imagined as the crux of the courtroom scene of his novel.
In The Psychopathology Of Everyday Life (1901) Sigmund Freud analysed actions that
had previously been seen as due to chance and argued that in fact they were strictly
determined. His psychic determinism led him to posit purposeless actions as
symptomatic of complexes. If by the 1970s criminalistics was being defined as the
identification and evaluation of 'material' or 'physical' evidence, at the turn of the
century it still included psychology. The use of psychoanalysis was explored by
criminalists at the turn of the century. In The Psychopathology Of Everyday Life, first
published in 1901, Freud referred to Hans Gross's experiments with what Freud termed
'a technique for the diagnosis of facts'(Freud 1938: 191-2,n.l).In 1906, Jung published
Die Psychobgische Diagnose des Tatbestandes on the subject of the use of association
experiments in criminal interrogation. Freud's 1906 paper, 'Psychoanalysis And The
Ascertaining Of Truth In Courts Of Law' was first published in a journal edited by Hans

8
Hans Gross (1847-1915) wa» an Austrian, who occupied the positions of Examining Justice, Public Prosecutor, Professor in
Criminal Law and Justice Administration, and chairman ofa Senate of the Appellation Court in Grar during his career. Cross saw
die criminal case as a scientific probleim to be solved, and insisted that the preliminary investigation was more important than the
trial. Gross's son, Otto, was a psychoanalyst. See Crassberger 1960, for further biographical information about Gross, and
Radzinowkz 1961, ch 2, for an assessment of his significance to Austrian criminology.

97
 TRUE CRIME STORIES

Gross (Archiv fur Kriminalanthropologie undKrimmalistik).8 This paper was first presented
in a seminar to law students (Jones 1967: 379; Freud 1956). Freud referred to the work
of Wertheimer and Klein, two pupils of Gross in Prague who were the first to experiment
with word association as a method of investigation by which the accused or the witness
would be led to betray himself. Freud wanted to differentiate between his clinical work
with the hysteric and the work of the investigator with the criminal, and his paper
warned against the drawing of simple analogies between the two. According to Freud,
both the criminal and the hysteric had something to hide, the difference being that
whereas the criminal knew this and intentionally concealed the information from the
investigator, the hysteric was unaware of the hidden material. The hysteric was plagued
by repressed psychic material as the criminal was by a guilty conscience. However, the
hysteric, desiring a cure for various unpleasant symptoms, would co-operate with the
process of uncovering hidden complexes and the criminal would not co-operate. For
the hysteric, resistance to bringing complexes into consciousness was located at the
boundary between the unconscious whereas for the criminal resistance wholly
originated within conscious life. This latter consideration meant that complexes in the
criminal might not be betrayed by the same signs as the unconscious resistance of the
hysteric.
Hans Gross taught a course on legal psychology in Graz from 1894. In his Kriminal
Psychologie (1897) Gross discussed the operations of sensory perception in their
influences on the administration of the law, and also what he termed 'phenomenology,'
or the study of appearances. This field of investigation was directed at ' . . . the
systematic co-ordination of those outer symptoms occasioned by inner processes, and
conversely, the inference from the symptoms to them' (Gross 1918: 41). Gross defined
his phenomenology as 'the semiotic of normal psychology', differentiating it in this
respect from the 'psychopathic semiotic' of the Scuola Positiva. He drew attention to
the significance of, for example, reflex movements, laughter, and the making of such
observations as how a man wore his hat, writing that: 'Every mental event must have its
corresponding physical event in some form, and is therefore capable of being sensed,
or known to be indicated by some trace' (Gross 1918: 42). Such observations would have
corroborative value when a large number of them were brought together and analogies
were drawn. Gross stressed the importance of unconscious operations in establishing
what was significant concerning the individual. He advised his criminalist reader to
study the literature of memory, especially with regard to the forgetting of pain and fear,
and also the literature on language, whereby the criminalist could learn how to discern
the significance of definitive images from apparently worthless statements.
Ginzburg (1980) explained that the new conjectural model was based on a medical
semiotics. The new scientific methods of criminal investigation applied the natural,
physical and mathematical sciences to the resolution of both old and new sets of
questions. S£v. Causs^'s 1854 paper provides an example here, which used the
methods of geometry to discern whether footprints left on the scene of a crime could
be identified with those of the suspect. The paper began by posing its problem in this
way:
The practice of medical jurisprudence raises, from time to time, new and interesting questions, of
which the solution is sometimes difficult, and puts the expert in an awkward position. One does not
find then, neither in die authors nor in die scientific documents, any fact which can serve as a guide.

98
 CLAIRE VALIER

The specialist called upon in these casesfindshimself obliged to assess all by himself and to create
a modus faciendi, which extricates him from the predicament in which circumstances have placed
him.
After citing several cases of the 1840s involving the measurement of footprints left on
the scene of the crime, Causse' elaborated his method and concluded with regard to the
study of prints: . . . it can reveal a striking identity, as a result of mathematical
demonstration, between the incriminating prints and those formed by the feet of the
accused' (1854: 179-80).
To the extent that Ginzburg's conjectural model identified itself with qualitative
methods and in opposition to quantification, its general application to the new scientific
methods used in criminal investigation may be challenged. Ginzburg did not apply his
model to all of the new methods. However, he did specify the Bertillon system of
identification.9
In 1860 Stevens, director of Louvain Prison, called attention to Quetelet's theories
and suggested the measurement of all adult criminals for the purposes of identification.
Bertillon's first publication on judicial anthropometry dated from 1881, and
commenced by reviewing the signaletic value of the various bodily characteristics
hitherto used in signalment, with the following as its touchstone:
. . . this dual consideration: fixity in the denomination of the characteristic in the same individual
and variability from one individual to another. (Bertillon 1890: 15)

Bertillon then presented tables and barcharts summarizing figures resulting from an
ensemble of over 10,000 observations or measurements that he made in 1880. In this
way he found that the colour of the hair was only a signaletic characteristic in the case
of blond or red hair. Bertillon sought to locate his 'invention' within the critique of the
mhnoire visuelle, with the replacement of 'the old eccentric signalment' (de Laveleye
1907). In his address to the first international congress of criminal anthropology at
Rome in 1885 Bertillon announced: T o make these expressions more precise, it is
necessary to replace the qualifications: medium, small, big, oval, large, etc., with
numbers', and claimed with regard to his system: 'A man characterised in this way by
measurements is mathematically identified' (Bertillon 1886). Bertillon pointed out that
his methods were based on Quetelet's binomial curve and also identified his activities
with those of Paul Broca, who had steered anthropology in a medical direction which
made use of quantification with his statistical craniology.
Likewise for Bertillon's development of the metric photography of the scene of the
crime. As the Intransigiant pointed out in 1909, ordinary photography did not respect
perspective and deformed objects placed before the camera. The Echo de Paris posed
the problem in this way:
Dimensions, distances, used to be evaluated with difficulty from a photograph. How to transform a
perspective view into a geometric plan from which one can determine mathematically—and
practically without calculation—the dimensions of objects and their distance? (Echo de Paris 1903)

' For a contemporary description of how the Betnillion system worked, see Anonymous 1890.

99
 TRUE CRIME STORIES

The press reported that Bertillon had solved these problems with his imposition of a
standard scale of reduction and introduction of a metric scale into the frame of the
photograph.
This is not to deny all significance of Ginzburg's conjectural model in this area. Its
application to Bertillon's portrait parl6 method of identification is cogent. This involved
a methodical description by observation alone—no instruments were used. A special
vocabulary noted the signalment in response to questions formulated as rubrics on a
printed formulaire. Only extreme characteristics were written on the fiche. Forrester
(1996) has demonstrated that the genealogy of the case is useful to the history of
psychoanalysis. It is also useful to some aspects of the history of criminology, and
particularly to the understanding of the use of psychotherapeutic methods in the
treatment of the criminal. However, the history of scientific methods of criminal
investigation cannot be fitted into this schema unproblematically.

The Genealogical Method, Criminology, and Scientific Methods of Criminal Investigation

This paper has sought to demonstrate that the history of scientific methods in criminal
investigation is of considerable significance to the history of criminology, not least in
emancipating the latter from its preoccupation with the prison. It also aims to show
that the genealogical method substantially questions the disciplinary histories of both
criminology and the practice of scientific methods of criminal investigation.10 With
regard to the latter we are thinking of the celebration of the evolution of methods to
elicit the macabre evidence of 'Us traces revelatrices', 'these mute witnesses'. There has
been much brief summary of This progressive substitution of the evidence of facts for
human evidence . . . ' (Sanni£ 1954)." The rhetoric of the detective novel is often not
far from these accounts: 'A simple thread left by the culprit can become Ariadne's
thread' (Locard 1920: 157). Here mythology, narrative and criminal investigation are
ambiguously overdetermined in the noun 'fiT (thread).
Ginzburg's genealogy of a conjectural model means that we can question the
objectivity of such new methods. Certainly we cannot accept without scrutiny Edmond
Locard's assertion that: T h e laboratory has become the ante-chamber of the court'
(1920: 25). While questioning the applicability of Ginzburg's model in various respects,
questions of a genealogical kind have nevertheless been posed in this paper. It is still
possible to speak of 'ignoble origins'. Genealogy follows the main line of descent but
also considers its connections with other branches and asks the question: 'why was this

10
The following quotation from a chapter on the historiography of psychiatry elaborates several of the most important ftmajoni
of disciplinary histories: 'Disciplinary histories socialize scientific initiates into their endeavour by establishing a line of intellectual
filiation between the great minds of the past and contemporary workers. With newly acquired bodies of knowledge, they may argue
for the epistemotogical integrity, and therefore identiGc credentials, of a discipline by tracing a suitable line of evolution. They
may also assist in sharpening contested interdisciplinary or intradisciplinary boundaries. Furthermore, in periods of paradigmatic
conflict, science historic*, by memorializing the proper lineage of figures, texts, and ideas, serve to legitimate particular theories
and methodologies and to delegitimate others . . . [they also] present a favorable image of the Held not only internally but to the
educated public, the media, and institutional sources of financial support' (Micale and Porter 1994' 26). See also Graham, Lepenies
and Weingart 1983: xv—xx, and Lenoir 1993).
11
For short "Whig' histories of the development of idenufic methods in criminal investigation, see for example Hoover 1929;
Simpson 1966 and Kind 1991.

100
 CliUREVALIER

path taken rather than that?' Questions of this kind that have been asked in this paper
are: 'why has the history of criminology marginalized the history of scientific methods
in criminal investigation?' and 'how has it happened that the analysis of physical
evidence has received more official support and more interest from criminalists than
the analysis of psychological clues?' Here the 'false trail' of the use of psychology in
criminal investigation was followed. Following up all the connected trails reveals the
contingency of the past of both criminology and the practices that Hans Gross came to
call 'criminalistics'. However, there is something else of importance as concerns
genealogy, something is yet missing.
So finally a return to the cipher with which this paper commenced. The 1907
translation of Gross's manual described it as an 'impudent' message left by criminals,
and the 1934 edition as 'impertinent' (Gross 1907: 335, 1934: 229). The significance
of this insubordination and of its place in a practitioners' manual intended to subject
such argot to the decoding of the expert criminalist should not be overlooked. Forged
writing, secret inks, the decipherment of cryptograms, the reading of tattoos . . . The
numerous dictionaries of the argot of criminals that appeared throughout the course
of the nineteenth century, of which Eugene Vidocq's Les Voleurs was one of the most
popular found their place here. Vidocq promised with his publication to unveil the
ruses used by rogues and comments that if their language were known they could be
spotted just before they were about to commit an offence. From his intimate knowledge
of the milieu and mores of the underworld Vidocq, the master of disguises, would
provide a guide to enable honest men to protect themselves against criminal
depredations.
That is not the only significance of Les Voleurs. It also presented several songs in
thieves' argot, which Vidocq duly translated. One of these began with the acclamation:
'A sole feeling moves you: to steal a lot.' The song expressed hatred of the police and
their informers, scorn at the fear of imprisonment, and the delicious profanity that
thieves preferred to steal on holy days. It ended with the resolution never to leave the
trade of the thief: 'prefer to die a thief. Such was the defiance, pride in the brotherhood
of the guild of thieves, rejection of the propriety of religious mores in a Catholic country.
As such, it should be remembered that the use of scientific methods of criminal
investigation, and also that expert discourse on crime, criminology, have as both target
and opposition impulsive deeds committed in anger or under the sway of other
passions, dissimulation and cunning, a criminality that becomes a way of life, the
impenetrable erudition of the argot and customs of a subculture. This insubordination,
deceit, recklessness, despair, pleasure, fury, is not successfully suppressed, not even in
tales of 'solved' cases, cases in which the scientific investigation is verified by the ideal
denouement of a confession, conjectures supported by a panoply of measurements read
off the surface of the body, the deployment of the methods of the autopsy, psychological
tests, statistics directed at the elucidation of an aetiology, maps of the topography of
criminogenic milieux. No aetiology of crime has been found that has enabled the
development of a universal panacea. While that quest continues, the development of
sophisticated metfiods of criminal investigation has promised: 'We might not be able
to stop crime, but we can do something about catching criminals.' Have you worked
out what the cipher means yet, this scornful message scrawled on trees by the Austrian
criminals of the late nineteenth century? It can be decoded as: 'Where is the thief? Can't
you catch him?' (or so Hans Gross put it).
101
 TRUE CRIME STORIES

REFERENCES

ADDISON, T. and MORGAN, J. (1829), An Essay on the Operation of Poisonous Agents Upon the Living
Body. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green.
ANFOSSO (1897), 'Sur l'identification individuelle', Congres international d'anthropologie criminelle.
Compte rendu des travaux de la quatrieme session, 210-11. Geneve: Georg and Co.
ANFOSSO and ROMITI (1890), 'De la possibility de faire servir la me"thode et les instructions de
1 'anthropologie criminelle aux recherches de la police', Actes du Deuxieme Congres
International d'Anthropologie Criminelle, Biologie et Sociologie, 205-7. Lyon: A. Storck, Paris: G.
Masson.
ANONYMOUS (1890), 'L'Anthropome'trie Judiciaire a Paris en 1889', Archives de Vanthropologie
criminelle et des sciences pinoles, 5: 473-98.
(1903), 'Publication of Bertillon Measurements and Photography as a Basis for an Action of
Libel', Harvard Law Review, 142-3.
AUBRY, P. (1897), 'A propos de l'anthropome'trie et d'une r6cente interpellation', Archives
d'anthropologie criminelle, de criminologie et de psychologie normale et pathologique, 12: 289-92.
BARR UEL (1829), 'M£moire sur l'existence d'un principe propre a caractdriser le sang de 1'homme
et celui des diverses especes d'animaux', AnnaUs d'hygiine publique et de midecine Ugale, 1/1:
267-77.
BARRUEL and CHEVALLIER (1834), 'Faux en e'criture. Rapports a ce sujet.', Annales d'hygiine
publique etde midecine Ugale, 12/1: 138-70.
BAYARD, H. (1839), 'Emploi du microscope en me'decine l£gale. Examen microscopique du
sperme de'sse'che' sur le linge, sue les tissus de nature et de coloration diverses', Annales d'hygiine
publique et de midecine Ugale, 22: 134-70.
BECCARIA, C. (1764), Dei delitti e dellepent. Livorno: Coltellini.
BEIRNE, P. (1993), Inventing Criminology: Essays on the Rise of Homo Criminalis. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
BELPER (1901), Report of a Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State to Inquire into the Method of
Identification of Criminals by Measurements and Finger Prints. London: HMSO.
BENTHAM, J. (1789) 'An Introduction To The Principles of Morals and Legislation', in Bowring,
ed., Works, 1843.
BERTILLON, A. (1886), 'Address', Actes du premier congres international d'anthropologie criminelle,
biologie et sociologie, 151-8. Turin: Bocca.
(1890), 'Une application pratique de 1 'anthropome'trie sur un proce'de' d'identification
permettant de retrouver le nom d'un re'cidiviste au moyen de son seul signalement, et pouvent
servir de cadre pour une classification de photographies . . . ' Mhnoires anthropomitriques de
M. Alphonse Bertillon 1879-1889 (this unpublished volume was placed by Bertillon in the
Archives de la Prefecture de Police de Paris).
(1894), 'Sur 1 'identity de Pauwels et du faux Rabardy', Archives d'anthropologie criminelle, de
criminologie et de psychologie normnle et pathologique, 9: 276-82.
BOUTIGNY (1834), 'Recherches propres a determiner l'£poque a laquelle une arme a 6t6
de'charge'e', Archives d'hygiine publique et de midecine Ugale, 458-9.
CANTILO (1890), 'Sur le signalement anthropome'trique', Actes du deuxOme congrh international
d'anthropologie crimineUe, biologie et sociologie, 378-80. Lyon: A Storck, Paris: G. Masson.
CAUSSE, S. (1854), 'Des empreintes sanglantes, des pieds et de leur mode de mensuration',
Annales d'hygiine publique et de midecine Ugale, 175-89.

102
 CLAIRE VALIER

CHEVALLIER, A. (1826) 'Sue les faux en e'critures authentiques, privies et commerciales, et sur
les moyens de reconnaitre les falsifications des 6critures, et de les prevenir', Journal de ckmie
midicale, de pharmacie et de toxicologie, 2: 392-30.
(1834), 'Faits dans le but de reconnaitre la nature de taches sur le linge', Archives d'hygihte
publique et de midecme Ugale, 11/1: 210-23.
CHEVALLIER and BARRUEL, (1834), Taches de sang',Annalesd'hygiine publique etdemidecine Ugale,
10/1: 160-7.
COLQUHOUN, P. ('A Magistrate') (1796), A Treatise On The Police of The Metropolis. London: C.
DiUy.
DARMON, P. (1989), Midecins et Assassins a la Belle Epoque. Paris: Seuil.
DESBAROLLES, A. et JEAN-HIPPOLYTE [sic] (1872), Les MysUres de l'icriture. Art dejuger les hommes
sur leurs autographes. Paris: Gamier.
DICKENS, C. (1975), The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
DIDI-HUBERMAN, G. (1982), Invention de I'Hystirie. Charcot Et LTconographie Photographique de la
Salpetriire. Paris: Macula.
Echo de Paris (1903), issue of 30.11.1903 [this cutting has been collected in the dossier 'Alphonse
Bertillon B. A/960' at the Archives de la Prefecture de Police de Paris].
FODERE, F. E. (1813), Traiii de midecine Ugale et d'hygibne publique ou de police de SanU adapti aux
codes de 1'Empire francais, etauxconnaissancesactuelUs, 2eme Edition. Paris, Imprimerie de Mame.
FORRESTER, J. (1996), 'If p, then what? Thinking in cases', History Of The Human Sciences, 9/3:
1-25.
FOUCAULT, M. (1975), Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.
FREUD, S. (1938), Psychopathology of Everyday Life, trans. A. A. Brill. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
(1956), 'Psycho-Analysis and the Ascertaining of Trudi in Courts of Law', trans. E. Herford,
in Collected Papers, Volume II. London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute Of Psycho-Analysis.
GARLAND, D. (1994), 'Of Crimes and Criminals: The Development of Criminology in Britain',
in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford:
Clarendon.
GERNSHEIM, C. A. (1965), History of Photography.
GINZBURC, C. (1980), 'Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and the Scientific Method',
History Workshop, 9: 7-36.
GRAHAM, L., LEPENIES, W. and WEINCART, P., eds. (1983), Functions and Uses of Disciplinary
Histories. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
GRASSBERGER, R. (I960), 'Hans Gross (1847-1915)', inH. Mannheim, ed., Pioneers in Criminology.
London: Stevens and Sons Ltd.
GRIFFITHS, A. (1894), Secrets of the Prison House, Or Gaol Studies and Sketches, vol. 2. London:
Chapman and Hall.
GROSS, H. (1899), Handbuch fur Untersuchungsrichter, als System fur Kriminaltstik, 3rd edn. Graz:
Leuschner und Lubenskys.
(1907), Criminal Investigation: A Practical Handbook for Magistrates, Police Officers, And Lawyers
adapted by Adam, J. and Adam, J. London: The Specialist Press, Ltd.
(1918), Criminal Psychology: A Manual ForJudges, Practitioners, And Students, trans. H. Kallen.
Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
—(1934), Criminal Investigation: A Practical Handbook for Magistrates, Police Officers, And Lawyers
adapted by Adam, J. and Adam, J. C. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
HACKING, I. (1975), The Emergence ofProbability: A Philosophical Study ofEarly Ideas About Probability,
Induction and Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
103
 TRUE CRIME STORIES

(1990), The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HEBENTON, B. and THOMAS, T. (1993), Criminal Records: State, Citizen and the Politics of Protection.
Aldershot: Avebury.
HOOVER, J. (1929), 'Criminal Investigation', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 235: 205-13.
Intransigent (1909), issue of 1.12.1909 [this cutting and numerous others have been collected
in the dossier 'Alphonse Bertillon B. A/ 960' at the Archives de la Prefecture de Police de Paris].
JONES, E. (1967), Sigmund Freud, Life and Work, vol. 2. London: Hogarth.
KALUSZYNSKI, M. (1987), 'Alphonse Bertillon et l'anthropometrie,' in Vigier, P. et al., Maintien
de 1 'Ordre et Polices en France et en Europe au XIX1 Siecle. Paris: Creaphis.
(1988), La criminologic en mouvement: Naissance et developpement d'une science sociale en
France a la fin du XlXeme si&cle. Autour des archives d'anthropologie criminelle d'Alexandre
Lacassagne Paris VII.
KIND, S. (1991), 'Science and the Hunt for the Criminal', The Criminologist, 15/4: 204-10.
LACAN, E. (1854), 'Photographic signal£tique ou application de la photographie au signalement
des libe'reY, La Lumiere, 22ndjuillet 1854.
LACASSAGNE, J. -A -E. (1881), Les tatouages. Paris: Bailliere.
LAILLER, M. and VOVOVEN, H. (1897), Les Erreurs-judiciaires et leurs causes. Lyon: Rey.
LANNOIS, M. (1887), De l'oreille au point de vue anthropologique et midico-ligal. Lyon: A. Storck.
LAVELEYE, de, M. (1907), 'Les nouvelles m^thodes d'identification judiciaire et leurs
applications', Revue de droit penal et de criminologie, 1: 229-51.
LENOIR, T. (1993), The Discipline of Nature and the Nature of Disciplines,' in Messer-Davidow
etal., eds., Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity. Charlottesville and London:
University Press of Virginia.
LIAISONS (1979), no. 243 [this is a publication of the Prefecture de Police de Paris, and this issue
has been filed in the dossier 'Alphonse Bertillon E. A/ 167' at the Archives de la Prefecture de
Police de Paris].
LOCARD, E. (1920), L'Enquite criminelle et les mithodes scientifiques. Paris: Flammarion.
LUKE, D. (1980), Criminal Record Development. Godalming: Dennis E. Luke.
MANNHEIM, H. (1960), Pioneers in Criminology. London: Stevens and Sons Ltd.
MCCORN (1896), 'Degeneration in Criminals as Shown by the Bertillon System of Measurement
and Photographs', American Journal of Insanity, 52: 47-56.
MICALE, M. and PORTER, R. (1994), 'Introduction: Reflections on Psychiatry and Its Histories',
in M. Micale and R. Porter, eds., Discovering The History ofPsychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
MICHON, J.-H. (1880), Memoire a consulter aux magistrats, aux avocats, aux avouls, aux hommes
d'affaires sur la mithode vicieuse des expertises en tcriiures suivie jusq'a ce jour et sur 1 'intervention
heureuse de la science graphologique pour dicouvrir le vrai en matiJere d'tcritures contesties. Paris: Au
Bureau de la Graphologie.
MONSTERBERG, H. (1909), On The Witness Stand. Psychology And Crime. London: T. Fisher Unwin.
NICEFORO, A. (1907), La Police et l'enquite judiciaire scientifiques. Paris: Librairie Universelle.
OTTOLENGI, S. (1905), 'La nuova cartella biografica dei pregiudicati adottata nell'
Amministrazione di Pubblica Sicurezza', Scuola Positiva, 65-99.
PANCHASI, R. (1996), 'Graphology and the Science of Individual Identity in Modern France',
Configurations, 1: 1-31.
PERNOT, H. (1885), De l'anthropomitrie au point de vue de ['identification des rtcidivistes. Lyon:
Association Typographique.
104
 CLAIRE VALIER

PHELINE, C. (1985), 'L'Image Accusatrice', Les Cahiers de la Photographie, 17.

RADZINOWICZ, L. (1961), In Search Of Criminology. London: Heinemann.
RADZINOWICZ, L. and HOOD, R. (\986), A History ofEnglish Criminal Law and its Administration from
1750, vol. 5. London: Stevens and Sons.
REY, A. and FERON, L. (1900), Le Prefecture de Police a L'Exposition Universelle de 1900. Paris:
Imprimerie Municipale.
RYCKERE, DE, (1893), 'Le signalement anthropom6trique', Actes du troisiime congris international
d'anthropologie criminelle, 97-106. Bruxelles: F. Hayez.
SANNIE, C. (1954), La Recherche Scientifique du Criminel. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin.
SEKULA, A. (1986), T h e Body and the Archive', October, 39.
SIMPSON, K. (1966), 'Scientific Methods in Crime Investigation', Crime and Detection, V 1: 54-64.
STEAD, P. (1977), Pioneers in Policing. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
TACG, J. (1988), The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. Basingstoke
and London: Macmillan.
TARDIEU, A. (1855), 'Etude m6dico-16gale sur le tatouage consider^ comme signe d'identit^',
Annales d'hygitne publique et de midecine Ugale 2/3:171-206.
THORWALD J. (1965), The Marks of Cain. London: Thames and Hudson.
VIDOCQ, E. (1837), Les Voleurs, physiologie de leurs maurs et de lews langage. Paris: Chez L'Auteur.
WARD, J. (1993), Origins and Development of Forensic Medicine and Forensic Science in
England 1823-1946. PhD thesis, Open University.
WELSH, A. (1992), Strong Representations: Narrative and Circumstantial Evidence in England.
Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Press.
WILLS, W. (1838)/4n Essay On The Rationale Of Circumstantial Evidence. London: Longmans.

105