120 MEDICO-LEGAL REVIEW

FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES

By J. B. FIRTH, D.Se., F.R.I.C., M.I.Chem.E.
(Director of Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, North-West Region)
FROM the earliest times the two main methods of criminal killing appear to have
been, and still are, by the use of (a) weapons; (b) poisons.
It will be readily admitted that with the development of civilization there has
been a very considerable change and augmentation of the resources of the criminal,
not only in weapons-from bludgeon to firearms, etc., but also in poisons, from snake
venom and poison pot to toxic chemicals; the technique of the criminal has also
undergone marked development. In fact, in many major crimes, evidence of scientific
skill and knowledge on the part of the criminal has often been manifested.
Poisoning seems to have exerted some degree of fascination for the human race.
Early history records many cases of death by criminal poisoning, also the production
of alleged antidotes. Thus, Sir William Willcox records] that in the first century B.C.,
Mithridates conducted toxicological experiments on condemned criminals and others
and invented a universal antidote alleged to have contained 36 ingredients. He
himself became so immune to poisons that, wishing to commit suicide, was compelled
to ask a mercenary to kill him with his sword.
Poisoning became a fine art, political murders by poison developed to such a
degree that it became the practice of kings and persons in high office to protect
themselves by having" tasters" of both food and drink, a portion being removed and
tasted in the presence of, and immediately before consumption, by the person or
persons to be safeguarded.
Although poisoning in England was not as prevalent prior to 1500 as on the
Continent, it did exist; thus it is recorded that Henry VIII ordered poisoners to be
boiled to death. After this, "criminal poisoning" developed fairly rapidly and
became quite common up to the nineteenth century-the chief poisons were probably
preparations containing arsenic and corrosive sublimates.
The methods of diagnosis of poisoning were very limited, depending very largely
on observations before and during illness prior to death, together with post-mortem
appearances.
Thus the scientific investigations relating to poisoning cases (i.e., toxicology), were
undertaken by qualified medical men, and included in the field known as Forensic
Medicine or Medical Jurisprudence. The development of toxicology was in some
measure restricted and controlled by the advances in modern chemistry and reliable
analytical methods, and ran parallel with developments in forensic medicine.
(There are still, however, some who still claim that toxicology is included in forensic
medicine.)
The foundations of toxicology were laid towards the end of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Thus we have the discovery by Scheele of arsenic (1775),
hydrogen cyanide 1783, the Marsh test for arsenic 1836. The detection of arsenic in
the alimentary tract and organs by Orfila (1839) indicated the importance of a deter-
mination of the degree of absorption of this poison. The first systematic description
of chemical tests for poisons in Britain appear to have been given by Christison in
his Treatise on Poisons (1829)' In 1844, Fresenius and von Babo devised a scheme
* Read at the Meeting on April 30, 1945, the President being in the Chair.
t Address to the Joint Meeting of the Manchester and District Section of the Institute
of Chemistry and other Scientific Societies, November, 1924.
 FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES 121

for the search and detection of mineral poisons including methods for destruction of
organic matter (vicera, etc.) prior to analysis.
In 1850 Stas described a process by which alkaloid poisons could be extracted from
viscera, a modified form of which (Stas-Otto) is frequently used to-day.
The appearance of Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence (1844) and
Handbook of Poisons (1848) by Taylor marked a definite advance in toxicology;
Taylor was subsequently appointed Home Office Analyst.
The development of toxicology falls into three phases :-(a) the detection and
recognition of poisons by their physiological effects and observations made at post-
mortems; (b) the isolation and detection of the poison; (c) the quantitative estimation
of and the distribution of the poison within the body with the view to ascertainment
of total amount taken and the period involved.
Modern medicine has become an applied science and its progress closely inter-
locked with progress in chemistry. Many products of the chemist have been of
considerable value in medicine-many substances used in modern medicine are
scheduled poisons, and when taken in excess produce fatal results. Thus in many
cases the subsequent detection and estimation falls naturally into the province of
the chemist.
Again, with the discovery and use of highly powerful and toxic substances, the
amounts required to produce fatal results becomes correspondingly small, and
subsequent detection and estimation of such substances in the body becomes corre-
spondingly difficult. In such cases highly specialized technique has had to be
developed involving microchemical, colorimetric, electrometric and nephelometric
methods. Until comparatively recently, the systematic application of science to
investigations relating to crime seems to have been directed to major crimes, and in
particular, to murder or more general offences against the person. It seemed quite
natural that such investigations should have been undertaken by qualified medical
men, but with the subsequent development of chemistry, bringing with it a sub-
stantial increase in the number of potential poisons, the province of toxicology passes
from the medical man to the chemist.
In a limited number of cases, men having a strong forensic bias have the dual
qualification in medicine and chemistry, but almost invariably one or other pre-
dominates. For example, such men as Stevenson, Willcox and Roche Lynch were
official Home Office Analysts holding the dual qualification, whilst Webster in a
similar capacity had ~o medical qualifications. Although considerable progress
had.been made in the application of science and the detection of major crimes, such
development in this country may be described as essentially individualistic. There
was no organized system for dealing with such problems as they arose.
Provision for laboratory examination of materials resulting from major crimes has
varied considerably in different countries-the degree of prevalence of crime being,
no doubt, a determining factor. Thus, in Egypt, the Government established scientific
laboratories at Cairo. This cosmopolitan district provided a variety of problems.
At the outset, forensic medicine played the predominant part; developments in
toxicology and the application of other sciences followed. The department soon
established a reputation, not only as an investigation centre, but in some measure as
a training centre for persons specially interested in forensic problems. Glaister and
Smith, after a spell at Cairo, returned to establish strong schools of forensic medicine
in the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Another phase in the application of science to forensic problems followed the
compulsory appointment by public authorities of a public analyst, of proved ability,
as analyst and microscopist. Although previously the duties of a public analyst
122 MEDICO-LEGAL REVIEW

related to the purity of foods, such work on occasions involved the giving of evidence
in Courts of Law; not infrequently he came to be regarded as the local scientist and
was called upon to give assistance in many problems requiring scientific investigation,
including investigations relating to crime. Thus a public analyst frequently func-
tioned as a forensic chemist. Some public analysts showed considerable ability in
this field, whilst others showed marked lack of interest in this type of work, treating
problems submitted in a very routine manner. On occasions, private consultants
developed limited fields in forensic science with marked success. For example,
Ainsworth Mitchell focussed his attention on the scientific examination of documents,
and has made a comprehensive study of the chemistry of inks, with the result he is
now a man of outstanding authority on these subjects.
In recent years the community has been excellently served by a handful of brilliant
scientists; in pathology and forensic medicine by Spilsbury, Glaister, Smith, and
Webster, J. M., and in chemistry, and in particular, toxicology, by Stevenson,
Willcox, Webster, J., and Roche Lynch; but these highly trained specialists have only
been called on in a very limited number of cases. What happens to the others?
In some cases post-mortems and allied investigations are carried out by hospital
pathologists, who are frequently lacking in forensic experience. In the larger
towns a whole-time police surgeon or pathologist undertook post-mortems with some
measure of success. In a large number of cases, however, the post-mortems are
undertaken by local part-time police surgeons and local practitioners.
The post-mortems and the interpretation of the results therefrom are often of
vital importance, and the work is often of a highly specialized character, demanding
considerable experience. It is true that the medical curriculum includes a short
course in forensic medicine; this course is designed to give the medical student a
general acquaintance of the subject, but such training cannot be regarded as a
qualification to practise forensic medicine.
The present position is, no doubt, due in some measure to the Coroners' Amendment
Act (1926), which provides that a post-mortem shall be carried out by a qualified
medical man, and a man so qualified shall be deemed an expert. It is not sufficient,
in my opinion, that the holding of a degree or diploma qualifying a man to practise
medicine is a qualification to make a post-morten examination. It may be true that
post-mortems required in non-criminal cases can be efficiently carried out by ex-
perienced hospital pathologists, but in a number of cases the border line between
criminal and non-criminal cases is not well defined; in fact, on occasions it is the post-
mortem which reveals a criminal act, and a skilled pathologist, lacking in knowledge
and experience in forensic medicine, may be hopeless in criminal cases.
The majority of medical practitioners do not undertake such work; a few with a
forensic bias gaining experience in the field become, within limits, quite good; others
are hopeless in ability and equipment. On the other hand, there would appear to
be some truth in the expression given in the Medico-Legal Review (1944, 12, 128),
"Courts are quite willing to recognize any holder of an M.D. degree as a universal
expert in science"-nothing could be further from the truth.
It should not be possible for a man, having completed his course and obtained his
degree, to make unaided post-mortem examinations.
For those who desire to practise forensic medicine a more extended course is
essential, followed by a probationary period in the field under the guidance of an
expert. There are young pathologists with a flair for forensic medicine who
desire such training, yet the facilities for it do not exist. Quite recently a
hospital pathologist said to me, "I am interested in forensic medicine, where can I
get training and experience"? I told him that he would be welcome to witness
 FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES 123

post-mortem investigations of a criminal character in the district. He was suffi-

ciently keen to get up in the early hours to witness an exhumation and subsequent
post-mortem examination. A limited area, such as a provincial town, is not likely to
provide adequate experience; for example, I remember one police surgeon who had
carried out many post-mortems over a period of about 30 years and had never
experienced a strangulation case.
I have known experienced hospital pathologists walk into the mortuary with a
Smith or Glaister under the arm.
So long as the conduct of post-mortems is so widely regarded as a perquisite or
side line of the police surgeon or general practitioner, the position will not be satis-
factory. Whilst forensic medicine and chemistry often playa fundamental part in
the investigations relating to major crimes, experts of all kinds have, from time to
time been called upon by the police or coroner. To-day most of the pure and applied
sciences, together with the various technicological subjects and developments there-
from, are available for service in the forensic field, but such service has never been
systematically developed.
The laboratory work has often been done piecemeal in the various laboratories
of the individual experts, the ultimate correlation of reports being left to the police
and for their legal representatives; such representatives may not be able to appreciate
to the full the significance of such reports. The general employment of individual
experts is fraught with many difficulties. His experience from the forensic angle is
frequently very limited, sometimes associated with ignorance of, or lack of apprecia-
tion of, the relation of his particular field of investigation to the case as a whole.
There is bound to be a tendency to consider expenses and to limit scientific enquiry
to serious cases, or to those cases where already there are strong reasons to expect a
positive result-a negative result is often not appreciated by those who have to foot
the bill. Again, really valuable evidence obtained by an expert may be minimized
or even lost by the inability of the expert to present the evidence in a form readily
grasped by the Court.
In some areas small laboratories were developed by local police authorities, but
their service was restricted by accommodation, equipment and suitable laboratory
staff. Where such exist, they are often run by the police surgeon or pathologist and
their service thereby limited, being mainly on the pathological side.
Many European countries and the United States of America have institutions for
the study of forensic science, but their activities seem to have been mainly directed
to major crimes. Thus, in France, institutions were active in Paris, Lyons and Lille.
Their work was, however, largely academic in character.
It should not be overlooked that advances in science are available to both criminal
and criminologist, and there is no doubt the criminal has been aided by the fact that
until comparatively recently there has been no systematic study of the sciences in
relation to crime.
The police are the primary investigators in any alleged criminal offence, and
therefore any comprehensive system must include facilities for instruction and
collaboration with the police.
The report of the Advisory Committee on the Scientific Investigation of Crime,
presided over by Lord Trenchard (1936) stated, "The organisation within the police
service of a comprehensive laboratory system, for bringing the resources of science to
bear upon the investigation of crime, is, we are satisfied, a development of immense
value and should be pressed forward without delay."
In 1935, a police laboratory, much larger and more comprehensive than any
already in existence was set up at Hendon to serve the Metropolitan Police. A
124 MEDICO-LEGAL REVIEW

Home Officecommittee on detective work and precedure, reporting in 1938, considered

the application of science to the investigation of crime and the establishment of
laboratories.
One central laboratory would not suffice; only those police forces within easy
reach could be adequately served; the service available to those more remote would be
limited. In quite a number of cases speed of service is of the utmost importance.
All cases do not lend themselves to scientific investigation, in fact, this committee
estimated that only in about 4 % of indictable crimes are likely to provide material
suitable for scientific examination, and that the total number of such crimes for
England and Wales would be of the order of 10,000.
If, therefore, developments proceed along the right lines, the field should be
considerable.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with all the findings of this committee;
suffice it to say that it was recommended that forensic science laboratories should be
established up and down the country, especially for work in connexion with the
investigation of crime, these laboratories being so dispersed that facilities are within
easy reach of every police force.
A scheme designed to put into effect the recommendations of this committee
was devised by the Home Office, largely as the result of the personal efforts of Sir
Arthur Dixon and his colleagues. The scheme is to divide the country into a number
of regions, each of which is served by a laboratory; these laboratories to be equipped
with the most up-to-date apparatus and staffed to cover investigations of the more
general types. In addition, each laboratory is to be provided with a specialist
feature, each laboratory specializing in a particular branch of forensic science; thus,
the more difficult problems occurring in a given region can be referred to the
appropriate laboratory where necessary. It was envisaged that the work in each
laboratory would cover a very wide field, including, for example:-
Examination of materials, documents, etc., by ultra-violet and infra-red radiation;
Chemical analysis, including spectrographic analysis, and in certain laboratories,
micro-chemical analysis, including toxicological examinations; identification
by absorption spectra, etc.
Various classes of work on documents, inks, etc.
Comparison work applied to fine details on tools, instruments and materials
adhering thereto with marks and material recovered from body, object or scene.
Identification and comparison of marks on or produced by weapons, with marks on
bullets, cartridge cases and/or material of contact.
Comparison and identifications by microscopy, including the comparison and
identification of hairs, fibres, plant fragments and all manner of fragments,
both organic and inorganic. .
Tests for blood, including identification of blood groups, parasites, tests for semen
and identification of spermatazoa.
Pathological work of various kinds.
Photographic work including microphotographic, ultra-violet, infra-red and X-ray
work, mainly for court demonstrations, etc.
This provides for a wide range of scientific investigation, some of which will be of
a routine character; other work is of a specialist character. It is not proposed
that in the first place, at any rate, each laboratory shall be staffed and equipped to
deal with the whole of the work outlined.
In some problems, investigations of a highly specialized character, not included
in the above, may be required. To attempt to staff and equip laboratories for all
such contingencies would be unreasonable and uneconomic. Such contingencies are
 FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES 125

provided for by the utilization of the services of not only other Government labora-
tories, including research laboratories, but also the facilities afforded by the research
and technical laboratories of many industries. The willingness with which industrial
organizations have placed at the disposal of the Director of a regional laboratory
any special scientific resources they may have has materially contributed to the
efficiency of the laboratory. Even the individual specialist can often be pressed
into service when required. Thus it becomes possible for a Director to bring to bear
on a criminological problem the scientific resources of the country.
It will be apparent that the primary service of the laboratories will be to the
police and it is of paramount importance that any scheme must include courses of
instruction to the police and, in particular, the detective forces, indicating to them
the possibilities of the application of science to the investigation of crime. In
some countries there has been a tendency for the laboratory work to drift apart
from .. field work" and become too academic and too remote from actual crime
investigation.
Adequate provision for such instruction is of vital importance because in many
cases the discovery and preservation of objects found at the scene of crime, or other-
wise associated with it, depend in large measure on the detective or uniform officer
who happens to be first on the scene, or responsible for the investigation. Such
courses of instruction are designed to give the officers a good general knowledge of
what can be accomplished by laboratory methods; the importance of even minute
traces of material; the material to look for and preserve in the various types of crime;
the handling, packing, labelling, and forwarding for laboratory examination.
Demonstrations are held at the laboratory with a view to indicating the significance
of the material and the information obtained when examined by the expert.
In certain types of crime it is of importance that the expert conducts some of
his investigations at the scene itself, often in major crimes; the laboratory expert
should be on the scene as quickly as possible; such investigations as may be made
by the laboratory staff at the scene or at the laboratory are intended to supplement,
not to supersede, the police enquiries. Ultimately, the working relations should
develop naturally, resulting in close and amicable co-operation between the laboratory
staff and the officers of the associated forces. The investigations are carried out
solely from the scientific angle and the results and conclusions given regardless of their
effect on the case in question; in other words, any results or conclusions would be
disclosed no matter whether they may be to the advantage of prosecution or defence.
With this object in view the report indicates that it is essential that the laboratory
staff should be as free as possible from any element of police control-hence all
laboratory appointments are held from the Home Office.
The report stresses the importance of research, not only from the standpoint of
improvement of laboratory processes and technique, and the solution of new problems,
but also co-ordinating research work with universities and technical colleges; in fact,
a close liaison with these two institutions is desirable. In addition to regional
laboratories, a Central Forensic Science Institute is considered. Lord Trenchard's
Committee (1936) recommended a Central Medico-Legal Institute. Such an institute
is not sufficiently wide, for .. scientific police work covers a very much wider field
than medicine"; therefore a Central Forensic Science Institute in close collaboration
with the regional laboratories, serving as a consultation centre for the laboratories,
would include facilities for research in forensic science on a broad basis, together with
library and museum facilities.
Before the Departmental Committee q.v. had published its report, laboratories
had already been established under the direct supervision of the Home Office at
126 MEDICO-LEGAL REVIEW

Nottingham, Birmingham and Cardiff, to serve the East Midlands, West Midlands,
and South Wales respectively; later laboratories at Preston and Wakefield have
been established to serve the North-West and North-Eastern areas. As already
indicated, each laboratory is equipped and staffed to deal with the investigations
relating to the commoner crimes, and in addition, each laboratory specializes in a
particular branch of forensic science as follows :-Nottingham-biology; Birmingham
-pathology; Cardiff-handwriting, typewriting, etc.; Preston---chemistry and
toxicology; Wakefield---chemistry.
In all cases the staff includes chemists and biologists; the initial staffing included
only one pathologist, Prof. Webster of Birmingham. It was realized that much the
.larger proportion of the work was of a non-medical character and that in the first
place, at any rate, there would be insufficient work for a pathologist, unless he had
other work to do. It was believed that local arrangements for post-mortems, primarily
in the hands of the coroner, could be undertaken by local pathologists, the Director
of the West Midlands laboratory, Prof. J. M. Webster, being available for the more
difficult cases and for consultations. It will be realized that during practically the
whole of the period the laboratories have been in existence the country has been at
war and the existing conditions abnormal. Yet, in spite of this, the results show that
the laboratories have been a great success, and the police forces realize that a valuable
aid to criminological investigations has been brought into service.
With regard to the North-Western Region, for which I am responsible, I can say
that the work has' increased year by year, and the forces realize more and more the
services which the laboratory can give. The staff has been increased and the
accommodation will be extended (when building conditions permit). Since the
laboratory was opened in July, 1939, material has been submitted on about 3,000
occasions; more than 14,000 exhibits have been examined; 570 scenes of crime
visited; and 72 lectures given to the various forces, and scientific societies, including
medico-legal societies. Thus the scheme embarked upon by Sir Arthur Dixon and
his colleagues has more than justified itself.
It is an advantage to have the scientific investigations required in a particular
case under the supervision of one person; for the majority of the investigations he will
have trained scientists under his direct control, whilst for others he would enlist the
services of specialists having experience relating to the problem in question. In the
latter case direct contact between scientists and technical experts is much more
satisfactory than with the police direct.
Although many investigations follow established lines, in others it is necessary
to plan and devise methods to suit the particular problem and to interpret correctly
the results. In the more complex cases it is essential to present the evidence in as
complete a chain as possible. In some cases the investigations may involve several
members of the team working more or less independently; the conclusions reached
must be correlated; contradictions reconciled; there may be missing links and further
experiments devised.
The interpretation of the data and drawing up of the final report often call for
restrained imagination, and it is in this final phase that the ability of the
Director is frequent[y exercised to advantage.
I have already indicated that with perhaps the exception of the West Midlands
(which has a pathologist-Prof. J. M. Webster-as Director), it was expected that
"pathological" investigations, particularly post-mortems, relating to crime could be
provided for locally. This has not materialized to the extent expected. There are,
of course, quite a number of hospital pathologists in the area, also pathologists at the
universities, but few of them can be pressed into service. Others, quite willing to
 FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES 127

serve, are seriously lacking in forensic technique and experience, and on occasions
unable to present their evidence in a inanner intelligible to the Court. In one or two
cases a good pathologist is not available, or only to a very limited extent, owing to the
terms of their appointments. .
I was surprised to find the extent to which post-mortems are carried out by local
general practitioners and police surgeons as a sort of sideline. They may serve the
purpose of the coroner, but with one or two exceptions these medical men have neither
training qualifications or experience for forensic work. The conduct of post-mortems
is one of the problems with which I have been faced and, in my opinion, requires
attention. A Home Office pathologist has recently been appointed to serve the East
Midlands, and a development of the future undoubtedly will be further similar
appointments to serve other regions. Of course, post-mortems relating to criminal
cases are in themselves insufficient for full-time employment, but it should be possible,
by collaboration with coroners, to provide sufficient work for full-time employment;
such work would also be of value from the standpoint of experience. In some
cases it is the post-mortem which reveals the crime, as, for example, in certain types
of "abortion." Again, such an officer would be of distinct value in the teaching of
forensic medicine at the universities.
Although the laboratory is intended to give assistance in criminological investiga-
tions, the service should, in my opinion, be extended to other closely related services.
In the criminal field alone poisoning cases are comparatively few, and experience in
toxicology from this source thereby limited, but by undertaking toxicological examina-
tions for the coroners,' a much wider experience in toxicology is attained.
In the North-Western area a close collaboration with many coroners exists, and
this has definitely been to our mutual advantage. In one area, however, I have often
a difficulty in eliminating the local police surgeon or general practitioners from the
post-mortem. In one incident of poisoning the coroner, in view of the evidence,
considered toxicological examination of viscera unnecessary, but at the request of
the police he agreed to allow the organs to be removed for toxicological
examination on behalf of the police. The inquest was completed before the toxico-
logical examination and associated investigations had been completed and reported.
The poison found was not the poison expected-a chemist, apparently believing the
material requested not to be for internal use, supplied an alternative-the coroner
assumed, in the first place, that the material requested had been supplied and hence
the poison was known.
I have endeavoured to give some indication of the work of forensic science
laboratories. The laboratories have been functioning mainly during the period when
the country is at war and certain aspects of this work is somewhat restricted. On
the other hand, the laboratory in the North-Western area has given very considerable
service in connexion with war-time problems. Such service has been given to the
Ministry of Supply, Ministry of Aircraft Production, and the Fire Services. Problems
relating to sabotage, arson, industrial hazards-production and storage, explosions-
deliberate and accidental, etc.
All the country is not yet served by Home Office laboratories. The" crime
areas" have been largely provided for, but in the" lighter" areas provisional arrange-
ments exist; thus the Scientific Department of the University College, Exeter, has
given assistance; a provisional laboratory also exists at Bristol.
Experience of recent years has, however, shown quite clearly the value of forensic
science in its broadest sense as a modern weapon, safeguarding the citizen, his
person and his property.
A wider interest on the part of the universities is looked for; a closer liaison
128 MEDICO-LEGAL REVIEW

between the laboratories and the universities would be of advantage-the former

could feed the latter with up-to-date information; post-graduate courses for medical
men, with a bias on the forensic side would be useful. There are medical men
desiring such opportunities, who do come to our post-mortems, often at personal
inconvenience-solely from an instructional aspect; or again, medical students have
visited the laboratory on their own initiative to supplement the forensic medicine
courses at the university.
Students in other branches of science might with advantage receive some instruc-
tion on the forensic aspect of their particular science.
The service which these laboratories have been able to give has had its reper-
cussions in the Courts. It will be realised that the qualified staff of these labora-
tories are frequently required to give evidence in the Courts. Above all, the evidence
must be impartial; it is imperative that the evidence of a witness from the laboratories
should be given in a manner intelligible to the Court, and the demeanour of the witness
inspire confidence. This is much more important in the case of a "regular" witness
than in the case of a casual witness. If a member of a laboratory staff were to
create an impression of prejudice or bias in the Courts, his career would be seriously
jeopardized, whilst if a casual witness blots his copybook in Court, his career is not
materially affected.
Many solicitors and barristers are finding it difficult to deal adequately with
scientific evidence in the Courts. Some little time ago I appeared as a scientific
witness in a fur robbery case at the Old Bailey. The prosecuting barrister said he
was quite unacquainted with scientific evidence and felt he could not do justice to
my evidence by adopting the usual procedure; he merely introduced me to the Court
and then asked me to give my evidence in my own way. This I did; I described my
examination and gave very definite conclusions; the Common Sergeant and jury
showed much interest; the defending barrister said he was unable to cross-examine.
In a recent number of the Medico-Legal Review (1944, 12, 128) the question
is raised, "How law students should be trained to cope with scientific testimony in
cross-examinations. In every kind of scientific proof there are fundamental prin-
ciples, and a legal training might include a knowledge of how to put together a chain
of proof and to discover its weak links."
The repeated appearance of laboratory staff in the Courts has led to an apprecia-
tion of the significance which may be given to scientific evidence in certain cases,
with the result that the defending solicitor, on being acquainted with the evidence,
will advise his client to plead guilty. In commital cases the defending barrister,
after consideration of the evidence given in .the lower court will, on occasions,
advise a guilty plea and thus save much time of the Court.
Even the hardened criminal is beginning to realize the significance of scientific
evidence and on being informed of the scientific evidence against him admits the offence.
Before concluding, there is one further observation I would like to make: The
Medical-Legal Review (1943, 11, 223) includes a report on a paper given to
the Manchester and District Medico-Legal Society by Dr. Stewart Smith, Chief
Pathologist to Municipal Hospitals.
The report indicates that the author makes out a good case for the specialist
pathologist to carry out post-mortems-this is in agreement with the views I have
already expressed. If he is correctly reported, he makes the following reference to
the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratories:-"The Home Office Forensic
Science Laboratories were apart from the university, and were not intended for
pathological examinations. They could not contribute to the teaching of the students.
No contributions had been made to the literature."
 FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES 129

This is definitely not a correct statement of fact. It has already been submitted
that included in the functions of a laboratory are research and liaison with the
various types of academic institutions. Just prior to the war the Home Office
provided post-graduate research studentships tenable at one or other of the labora-
tories. Owing to existing conditions these have been temporarily suspended. Even
in spite of war conditions the staff of the laboratories have made substantial contribu-
tions to forensic science literature; furthermore, the Director of one of the labora-
tories is Professor of Forensic Medicine at one of our universities. A liaison of the
laboratories with the universities is desirable, and it should be possible for this first-
hand experience of the laboratory staff to become available to the appropriate
students, say by short course of lectures and demonstrations. In this way the
tuition in forensic science at the universities could be kept up to date.
In conclusion, may I thank the Society for the opportunity to say something to
its members on the work of Forensic Science Laboratories. As I have indicated, in
the past forensic work has been in the hands of a very limited" few," and it has only
been humanly possible to obtain their services in a limited number of cases. Again,
when such persons produce "corners" in their respective fields, there is a danger of
their being regarded somewhat as "an oracle"; with a wider field of service this
should be minimized or a scientific development on the legal side should make it
practically impossible for "oracles" to give evidence in the Courts.

DISCUSSION
The PRESIDENT thanked Dr. Firth for his paper, which had given a great deal of
information upon the forensic laboratories about which he (the President) knew something
but certainly not enough. One of the original objects of the Society was the formation
of a medico-legal institute, and he hoped that in the days of peace there would be
established such an institute in London which would be the centre for research into
medico-legal matters in this country.
There seemed to be a certain amount of danger in experts being developed in too
concentrated a form. These laboratories were established under Home Office auspices,
the one at Hendon being established for police purposes. If general practitioners and
specialists were trained in medico-legal matters, and yet were not used for that purpose
because they were not on the staffs of these laboratories, people might ask what was the
use of this training. If it simply meant that they became candidates for positions at
laboratories of this kind it would not be altogether to the advantage of the medical
profession of this country, and therefore not to the advantage of the country-because
the medical profession exists for the sake of the patients.
If a general practitioner, having gone to the trouble of being trained in medico-legal
knowledge, found that he had no use for his training, except by accident, it would not be
a favourite study with people who were destined for general practice, and that impinged
upon something which Dr. Firth had said on the subject of post-mortem examinations
for the purpose of coroners' inquests. Under the Act of 1926 the discretion as to whether
a post-mortem examination should be held or not, and the selection of the person who
was to hold it, was vested in the coroner, and it was for him to determine whom he should
call in for the purpose. If he was not in a position to use an independent judgment it
would somewhat hamper the discharge of his duties. It was a matter which required
some consideration. .
Another point which had occurred to him while listening to the paper was whether
these laboratories were made known to and were available for the general public who
might need their services. The police knew all about them, but the general public,
speaking by and large, did not know. Among the general public were the people on the
defence side, and if they went to the laboratories, how could they be assured that the work
done on their behalf was not known to the other side?' A problem might be referred to
the laboratory by the police, and the accused, by his representative, might go to the same
laboratory for the solution of the problems arising for the purposes of the defence, but
was the staff so organised that the man doing the work on behalf of the prosecution did
not become aware of the troubles and problems of the defence? If he did become aware
13 MEDICO-LEGAL REVIEW

of them he would be getting information which he could not forget if he was to discharge
his duties completely. The public ought not to feel doubtful whether these institutions
did, in fact, exist for the assistance of the prosecution and not of the defence.
Whenever one of these laboratories was asked by the prosecution for a report, that
report should be communicated to the defence as a matter of course. There should be no
idea that such a line should be taken in examination-in-chief so that part of the report
would never be brought to light or would only be used in re-examination after the defence
had been led into a line of cross-examination which could, in fact, be a trap. He hoped
that there were not many prosecuting counsel in this country who would lead a defence
into a trap on a matter of scientific investigation. If the report were in the hands of the
defence, and they made a mistake, it would then be their own fault and not the result of
superior manceuvring by the prosecution. Counsel for the prosecution was prosecuting,
he was not persecuting, and it was his duty to put all the relevant facts before the court,
and if such facts were reserved for re-examination the judges would probably not be too
favourably impressed.
It was in the interests of the public-and that meant in the interest of the prosecution
and of the defence alike-that scientific problems should be handled properly and
impartially. The object of the laboratories, presumably, was to do that, but unless steps
were taken to make the existence and the work of these laboratories better known to the
general public, and to assure them that the staffs could be completely trusted, and to
disabuse the public of the notion that the staffs were merely adjuncts to the prosecution,
all would not be well.
Dr. Firth hinted that members of the Bar did not know how to cross-examine scientific
witnesses, but, even without that qualification, the criticism might stand in some respects.
Not all barristers were fully competent, and in matters of science he had noticed that
there was a tendency on the part of some legal practitioners to throw their hand in rather
too soon. When a member of the Bar took on a case which involved the examination of
facts relating to science it was his duty to see, as far as humanly possible, that he rendered
himself competent to test those facts. If he ceased his examination before putting those
facts through a proper examination then he had not done his duty.
Mr. BLANCO WHITE, K.C., wished to emphasize what the President had said about
the reports. The laboratory' was consulted by the prosecution, it made a report, prima
facie, that report was one of the documents of the prosecution and was privileged and the
defence could not get it, as of right. He would very much like to know what the orders
to the laboratories were in connection with the report, whether the witness from the
laboratories, as a matter of course, gave the report to the defence, or was it only done if
the prosecution consented.
It seemed from what Dr. Firth had said that in some places prosecutions were con-
ducted in an extremely tricky way, if part of the report was kept back instead of disclosing
the whole of it. The prosecution counsel in such a case was not doing his duty, and if
the defending counsel found out what was going on and in consequence did not ask many
questions and the evidence did not come out, one could only say that it served the
prosecution right for their trickiness. He had had some experience of criminal cases as
Recorder and had never caught the prosecuting counsel keeping anything back.
The PRESIDENT: Nor have I.
Mr. BLANCO WHITE said that his impression of prosecutions in the south of England
was that they were conducted with extreme fairness and there was nothing to complain of.
On the matter of the ignorance of counsel some people were born stupid and nothing
would help them, but the average barrister who had had some~ears of experience had to
read up one thing after another and got into the habit of doing so whatever the particular
subject, and if he was any good he knew a good deal about it while the case was proceeding,
although in three months' time he would have forgotten all about it. This was certainly
true in the higher ranks. A Sir Edward Marshall Hall, in a poisoning case, was capable of
dealing with any evidence of the prosecution.
The laboratories were impartial, but they were "impartial on the side of the prosecu-
tion." If there was a prosecution it was because the report supported such action.
Although the laboratory was as impartial as possible when it went into court, it was a
very dangerous thing from the point of view of the defence, and probably the defending
counsel who left the report alone as much as possible was being very wise.
Sir ARTHUR DIXON said that he had been very interested in this topic for some time.
Indeed, his name had been mentioned in the lecture as having been associated with the
Home Office side of police work, and the development of the Home Office Forensic Science
 FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES 13 1

Laboratory Scheme. In the initial stages the problem was approached from the angle
that until material had been found and had been examined no one could really tell, in
some cases, whether there could be a prosecution at all. The Home Office were convinced
that a very great deal of information which might be useful for the prosecution or the
defence was being missed because it was not coming to the notice of the police, and the
police were not in a position to find it, for lack of instruction in what the scientists could do.
This arose largely in connection with non-pathological cases, and experience had shown
that the expectation that the establishment of these laboratories would be helpful had
been fully justified. The matter was approached, therefore, from the angle that the
police needed instruction in the possibilities of scientific aids, and the introduction
of a laboratory system, able to deal not only with pathological or other specialized
work which arose in special types of cases, but also to deal comprehensively with the
scientific problems which arose in the ordinary routine cases with which the police had
to do.
More than that, however, it was believed that a lot of information would emerge
in the course of the laboratory work which would need to be integrated, and that it
would be very much to the public interest, directly and indirectly, both to the courts
and to the teaching side of the public service, if that information could be collected and
collated, and applied on a comprehensive basis. Furthermore, if the police were going
to be able to use whatever aid science could bring to bear, there should be a system for
teaching the police. This Dr. Firth had already emphasized. Then there was the
important point which had been referred to, that all this work should, if possible, be
carried out from the standpoint of independence of any particular prosecution and any
prosecuting agency.
All this led to the sort of introduction of the system which had been referred to--a
series of laboratories under direct Home Office control-and, although he was not now
associated with the police side of the work, he had kept in touch with his friends who had
been concerned with him in this work, and he knew that the laboratories had abundantly
established their position in the police scheme of things. But he would not say that they
had as yet gone all the way they would do.
He was particularly interested in Dr. Firth's reference to future developments and
the further integration of the work, which had been commenced both from the police
angle and from the laboratory angle, namely, the linkage with the legal profession and
the medical profession and the universities. It was part of the original conception that
there should be something in the nature of a central Forensic Science Institute, and this
would be an enormous advantage to both sides. Such a linkage was started, in a tentative
manner, before the war, in the establishment of a sort of studentship at the laboratories
themselves, and if that experiment could be developed and the experience gained in the
la~ories could be carried into the universities' teaching, by way of lectures, he thought
it w6uldprove a practical and valuable development. As to the formation of a Forensic
Science Institute, that would put the crown on the organization.
With regard to the prosecution, this was a little off his beat, particularly now, but
it was perfectly clear that so far as the laboratories were concerned their work commenced
in most cases long before there was any decision as to whether there was a case for the
Crown or not, and a report should be made to those responsible for "the defence if it had
any bearing whatever on the case of the defence. He would, however, leave that side to
others, and confine himself to the brief summary of the objects in view when these
laboratories were formed. As far as the system had gone it had proved its capacity
to advance the police technique, to contribute to a considerable degree towards the
detection of crime, which was certainly in the public interest, and also to establish a body
of experience which was very specialized and which so far as he knew at present could
not be found in quite the same degree except among those individual scientists who had
specialized in this side of the work.
Mr. BARRY O'BRIEN, speaking as a solicitor, said that he did not share the anxiety
which the President and another speaker had expressed regarding the laboratories, for the
reason that prosecutions were conducted as near to perfection as could be, and no matter
what institutes were available either to the prosecution or to the defence, he could not
imagine that they would ever do anything which would work to the detriment of the
accused.
Dr. Firth came from Lancashire, and not so long ago the speaker had to go to
Preston to visit police headquarters there and was immensely impressed by the efficiency
and general layout of that institution.
13 2 MEDICO-LEGAL REVIEW

Concerning the qualifications and competence of barristers as a whole to cross-examine

he was not sure that he could so cordially support either the President or Mr. Blanco
.White, because, although lawyers might be learned, doctors might be learned and scientists
might be very learned, good advocates were born and not made. Similarly the learned
lecturer had referred to pathologists and scientific men in general who might be' first class
in their knowledge, their learning and their training, but they might not possess that
particular type of ability which enabled them to make themselves understood in court
in the same way. that a man of less knowledge would be able to do.
Mrs. HELENA NORMANTON wished to take exception to the opening sentence of the
lecture in which the lecturer said that poisoning was not a prevalent crime in this country
until 1500. There was a good deal which could be alleged in opposition to that statement.
The act of poisoning was almost as old as the human race, and when Cleopatra wanted to
commit suicide she knew just what to do. There were innumerable historical instances
to show that poisoning was widely known.
The Near East had an enormous traffic with Western Europe, even from the time of
the Norman Conquest, and knowledge of poisons came with the traders. There were
many known instances of poisoning and many more were suspected, but as the art of
human vivisection was strictly forbidden by the Church for hundreds of years, no investiga-
tions could be made. How could there be accurate diagnosis of poisoning if the body
could not be opened?
The story of Romeo and Juliet proved that poisons and their actions were well known
by 1303, the date of the history from which Shakespeare took the plot. The priest knew
of a powerful drug which put ] uliet to sleep for 48 hours and Romeo knew where to get
the poison when he wanted to kill himself.
There were regulations against the sale of poison, but as methods of investigation were
so poor it was not surprising that a large amount of poisoning went undetected.
Mr. PHILIP ALLEN wished to emphasize the point that the laboratories had only just
started work when the war broke out and developments had been held up by war
conditions. It was hoped to go ahead in the manner indicated by Dr. Firth after the war.
Dr. FIRTH, in reply, said he was pleased that his paper had given rise to so much
discussion. As it was getting rather late he would deal very briefly with some of the
points raised by speakers. With regard to pathologists trained in forensic work, serving
as Home Office Pathologists, at least six would be required, but he visualized that most
post-mortems other than these would be carried out by persons who had had some training
in post-mortem work-a Home Office Pathologist being available in a consultative'
capacity as required. He also foresaw advantages to the Universities by the utilization of
these Home Office Pathologists in the training of medical students in Forensic Medicine-
probably as Professors of Forensic Medicine-who could encourage a group of interested
trainees for ultimate service in the field.
Pathologists in London were in a much better position than pathologists in the
provinces. One speaker had misquoted him in suggesting that he said that coroners
could employ police surgeons for post-mortem work; what he actually said was that
he was against the employment of police surgeons and general practitioners in post-
mortems unless they had had adequate training and experience.
The opening sentence of his paper was: "From the very earliest times the two main
methods of killing have been and still are by the use of weapons and poisons." With
regard to the periods in which poisoning was known, he simply said it was not so prevalent
prior to 1500 but it did exist. If anyone wished for further details he referred them to
the paper to the Institute of Chemistry by Sir William Willcox, in which he stated that
poisoning was known in 410 B.C.
With regard to the example of murder by strangulation, the police were told that
it was murder by strangulation, and the preliminary examination of material from the
scene, etc., by the laboratory gave information which led to a definite line of investigation
which ultimately led to an arrest. Further laboratory examination materially assisted
in linking the suspect with the crime, and was of assistance to the police in building
up their case. .
With regard to evidence of fact and evidence of opinion, evidence given by the staff
of the laboratory was mainly fact. Whenever possible they tried to present the facts
in such a form (examples, illustrations or demonstrations) that the jury could come to
its own conclusion, irrespective of the stated opinions of the experts.
The laboratories were not in a position at the moment to deal with civil cases. He
visualized that eventually it might be possible for the civil population to approach the
 THE SOCIAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITV 133

laboratories, but some system of approach would have to be evolved so that it was done
through a solicitor or some recognized representative of the persons concerned.
Sometimes .the results of laboratory examination favoured the defence and on
quite a number of occasions in which the police were potential prosecutors, when informed
{)f the laboratory findings, they dropped the case and no prosecution took place. The
work of the laboratory was as impartial as possible.
In cases of drunkenness in charge of a motor vehicle-in some cases associated with
serious accidents-the occasions on which blood-alcohol tests were asked for were com-
paratively few; in fact, it seemed to be the exception rather than the rule. Again. the
occasions on which the blood of the victim in a serious or fatal motor accident was submitted
for examination were comparatively rare. Yet, in one case submitted this test com-
pletely exonerated the motorist in a fatal accident. The smell of alcoholic liquor was
noted at the post-mortem on the deceased and the blood was examined for alcohol. The
result showed high alcohol content (equivalent to 8 oz. of neat whisky). Police enquiry
revealed that the deceased had consumed much whisky at a nearby club, had left in
a state of intoxication, tried to mount his bicycle and wobbled into the path of an
approaching motor car. There was no prosecution of the motorist.
Experience with the American forces would indicate that the Americans make far
greater use of blood-alcohol tests-not only in accident cases, but also to detect loitering.
For example, a military driver arriving late at his destination gave mechanical defect
and/or repairs as the cause. If this was doubted, a sample of his blood might be taken.
If alcohol was found, it was considered as evidence of illicit "calls" on the journey-such
calls being considered the real explanation of the delay.
The PRESIDENT proposed a hearty vote of thanks to Dr. Firth, which was accorded
by applause.

THE SOCIAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF

SEXUAL ABNORMALITY*
Bv EDWARD GLOVER, M.D.
ALTHOUGH the twin-science of forensic medicine testifies to the close bonds that
unite Medicine and the Law, these professions have, I venture to say, more in common
than even members of the Medico-Legal Society may suspect. To begin with both
are concerned with the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of disorder. A conviction
for theft, for. example, is an act of legal diagnosis, differing only in depth of under-
standing from the medico-psychological diagnosis of kleptomania: in principle a
sentence of imprisonment is as much a form of treatment as the medical "certifica-
tion" of the insane: a probation order is a preventive measure of the same order as the
observation of a case of scarlet fever during the period of "peeling." The main
differences between the Law and Medicine are these :-medical science is concerned
for the most part with the health of the individual, the Law for the most part with the
well-being of the community: medical science is concerned with causes as well as with
effects, the Law, except in the case of the criminal irresponsibility of the insane, is
concerned with effects: finally, the Law still nourishes a primitive and mostly
superstitious belief in the virtues of punishment: medical science, except in the case
of venereal disease, alcoholism and the inferiority complex, has abandoned the view
that illness is reprehensible or that it serves the sufferer right.
I have emphasized these common interests and divergences because the subject
we are about to discuss calls not only for the most dispassionate scrutiny but for a
dear understanding of the different psychological and sociological premisses of the
two sciences. Regrettable as the fact may be, it has to be admitted that the problem
* Read at the meeting on May 24, the President being in the Chair.