Forensic Firsts

Forensics have become pretty commonplace in our lives – not just in law enforcement, but in our entertainment and media. But how did these practices come about? In this article, I will look at the times when these perfectly typical practices were still awe-inspiring and see the first times they helped to catch a killer.

The first technique I want to look at is fingerprinting. This was first used in the Hiller Homicide. At 2am on the 19th September 1910, Clarence Hiller was woken by the screams of his wife and daughter. Their home, 1837 West 104th Street in Chicago, had already had a string of robberies lately, so all the citizens were on edge. Hiller rushed to fight the intruder and both ended up falling down the stairs. His daughter, Clarice, then heard three gunshots and her mother screaming upstairs. Their neighbours came running round but couldn’t stop the intruder, who left Hiller dying at his front door. Despite the murderer, Thomas Jennings, who had been paroled six weeks earlier, being stopped only half a mile away in a torn and bloodied coat with a revolver, the main focus of his trial was a fingerprint. A clear fingerprint was found on a freshly painted railing he had used to climb through the window and into the Hillers’ house. The police not only photographed, but cut off the railing itself to identify the assailant. Clarence Hiller’s murder became the first conviction using fingerprint evidence in a criminal trial in the USA. A less well known type of fingerprinting is DNA fingerprinting. This is building a profile of someone by using the variations in their genetic code to uniquely identify them. This was first used in a police forensic test in 1986 when two teenagers were raped and murder in Narborough, Leicestershire. One was killed in 1983 and the other in 1986 but the similarities between these attacks led the police to believe the same person was responsible for both. Richard Buckland had confessed to the 1986 murder but refused to admit to the earlier one. Sir Alec Jeffreys, a British geneticist who invented this technique, was asked to DNA profile blood from Buckland and tissue specimens and semen collected from both victims. The DNA profiling not only proved that the semen had all come from the same person, so one person was responsible for both attacks, but that Buckland had confessed falsely. He wasn’t the murderer. He became the first suspect to be cleared of a crime by DNA evidence. All adult men in the area were then asked to give blood or saliva for DNA profiling. Over 5,000 specimens were collected, 10% of which were the same blood type as the killer, but they couldn’t find a match. Fortunately, six months after the initial investigation a woman reported hearing a man say that he’d given blood on behalf of his

colleague Colin Pitchfork. Pitchfork was then arrested and DNA profiled, finally providing the long-sought match.

Finally, blood spatter analysis can be used to determine the true nature of a crime and if it was possible for somebody to have committed a crime. Analysists interpret the bloodstains at the crime scene to deduce the events that caused this bloodshed. This process has been slowly developed for years, but the first case in which it was truly essential, albeit in its most basic form, was the Sam Sheppard case, which is thought to have been the inspiration for the TV series and film The Fugitive. On 4th July 1945 Marilyn Sheppard, neurosurgeon Dr. Samuel Sheppard’s wife, was found bludgeoned to death in their home in Bay Village, Ohio. Dr Sheppard claimed to have been asleep downstairs before being awoken by his wife’s screams and running to try and stop the attacker but was convicted of second-degree murder. This was however overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 and he was found not guilty in a new trial, mostly due to the testimony of forensic science pioneer Dr Paul Kirk. He testified that Sheppard couldn’t have been the killer as the crime scene was very bloody, yet the only blood found on Sheppard when the body was found was on one knee of his trousers, which is inconsistent with the spray of blood one would expect to see if he’d carried out such a viscous attack. Blood spatter analysis has now developed to be a great and influential tool to unlocking the truth behind the silent façade of a crime scene. In conclusion, forensics as we know it has been developing for many decades to reach the point we see in our favourite dramas. Although the past cases might be more rudimentary, they show the incredible journey science has embarked on and just how hard people fought, not just for scientific advancement, but for justice.

By Lottie J (Hu)

Does the French principle of laïcité exist as a model or a threat in the 21st century?

Laïcité, commonly translated as secularism, refers to the constitutional French principle marking a formal separation of church and state. This principle is a key component of France’s political fabric within which the French state requires that religious neutrality is applied to all public services, as well as not having a state religion. Due to its commitment to total church-state separation, laïcité prohibits overt religious activities or symbols in the public sphere, meaning that a Muslim girl is not allowed to wear a hijab in a French public school, for example. The fundamental principle of laïcité is the preservation of social peace with an object of ensuring that an egalitarian application of the law is guaranteed. Does this French principle preserve equality or is it a blatant infringement upon the basic human right to religious selfexpression?

Whilst the proponents of French secularism argue that it is based on the respect of freedom of thought and religion, many argue that what began as a legal measure to promote state neutrality is now a tool utilised to inflict open religious discrimination, especially concerning those who practice minority religions. The principle of laïcité is thought to have divided the country, leaving certain religious communities, Muslims in particular, to feel targeted. Some argue that laïcité is being weaponized, to generate islamophobia and restrict religious freedom. On the grounds of the laïc principle, the law of 15th March 2004 prohibits the wearing of religious symbols or clothing which ostensibly show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools. Technically, the law prohibits all religious symbols including the Jewish kippa, the Christian cross, Sikh turbans, and the Islamic hijab. In reality, many consider this law to be primarily aimed at Muslims, targeting the wearing of headscarves by Muslim schoolgirls. This prohibition was followed by multiple cases, exemplifying the weaponization of laïcité. In 2015, a 15 year old schoolgirl was twice banned from class because she was wearing a long black skirt, considered as an ostentatious religious symbol by the school’s staff. This is certainly not an isolated incident, with over 130 cases of girls being banned from classes due to these ‘ostentatious’ outfits. This law has increased the demand for private Muslim schools, where Muslim children are permitted to express their beliefs and wear ‘ostensibly religious’ clothing. This further keeps Muslims segregated from mainstream society. Some argue that laïcité has resulted in legal islamophobia, whereby the promotion of religious discrimination is deemed acceptable

under the mask of secularism. Furthermore, it is not only Muslims who feel victimised by the subverted use of Laïcité. Other religious communities, such as French Jews, feel that laïcité itself has become unbearable.

An overwhelming majority of French citizens pride themselves on laïcité, defending the heard-fought 1905 law of the separation of church and state. They argue that even though France does not promote or recognise any religion, it protects them all. The reasoning makes a lot of sense - no specific right should be given to someone just because of their religion. In terms of equality and fighting discrimination, the principle seems very fair. Secularism gives each citizen a choice, to believe or not to believe, giving everyone religious freedom. The proponents of secularism in France argue that we must not forget its true essence.

Laïcité will always be described as a ‘polémique’ (controversy) in French society. The question that I am attempting to answer is a debate that has been brewing for effectively the last two decades. Every time an act of terrorism is committed in France, a global debate ensues. France is forced to confront the question repeatedly, has laïcité become the source of the problem? It is difficult to comprehend, whether the laws help to integrate a society or if they only exacerbate religious tensions. I personally believe that toleration is the only principle that is truly compatible with a diverse society or any society for that matter. I believe that children must be educated about other religions rather than censoring these important discussions. People should be allowed to wear an ostentatious religious symbol, as I believe that is a vital part of self-expression. We must be unprejudiced about beliefs different to our own. The foundations of the laïc principle contain a lot of reason, yet whilst laïcité is laudable in theory, I believe France must update their laws and beliefs concerning religion rather than forcing people to accommodate with their model.

In my opinion, a society that underlines true freedom rather than weariness and silence, will always be more harmonious that one that doesn’t. Forcing people to conform to the French model of integration is forcing some people to give up part of their identity. This, I do not agree with. Laïcité is certainly not a societal model, it is in some ways however a threat, especially to those who practice minority religions. In my mind, a more harmonious

France must entail revoking the laws which limit religious self-expression.

By Tabitha H (U6)

33