was blood type and finger prints pretty much "IT" ?

or was there other stuff ?

Blood type probably was only tangentally useful. Too many people have the same blood type. Fingerprints were useful, but less so than now. They could get match between a known suspect and a latent print. But cold hits, where they were able to ID an unknown suspect by comparing a latent print to an index of prints, were, AFAIK, very difficult to impossible, because a human examiner had to do the matching. Computerized matching against digitized print index databases revolutionized this.

In the old days, it was much less tech, and much more shoe leather detective work.

Even fingerprinting for criminal cases is a fairly modern development. While fingerprints have been recognized for what they were for centuries, according to fingerprinting.com,

"The first recorded use of fingerprint identification in a criminal matter dates back to 1892 when an Argentinean Police Commodore by the name of Juan Vucetich took prints off a door post to nail a murderer. The use of fingerprint identification as a means of solving criminal cases advanced quickly as both Scotland Yard and the U.S.A. implemented the use of fingerprints by the turn of the 20th Century.

"The use of fingerprinting became standard operating procedure in the United States and, in 1924, Congress endowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) with the authority to establish an Identification Division. This centralized all fingerprinting files and made it much easier to identify repeat criminals and missing persons."

Similarly, blood typing started around 1901, with AB, the smallest (and last) of the blood groups, being discovered in 1931.

This information is from the Timesuck podcast (episode Bonus 21: "Jack the Ripper") and it touches on the timelines of evidence development.

I want to give an explanation as to why it was so hard to catch someone in 1888.

1. Not only could not analyze blood if you found a bloody piece of evidence you thought was connected to one of the crime scenes, there was no scientific way to even discern the difference between animal and human blood until 1901.

2. Fingerprinting was not a proven or usable method yet. The first criminal identification based on fingerprints happened in 1892 in Argentina.

3. There were no police radios, telephones, etc., so quick communication wasn’t possible. Yes, telephones had been invented, but they were in the beta testing phase still. The first “long distance’ call of about a six mile distance had happened in 1876. They were extraordinarily rare and the police just didn’t have them. This alone make detective work extremely difficult.

4. Local knowledge, witness accounts, logic, expert opinions, and hoping to catch a criminal in the act were the primary means of catching a criminal. Short of catching someone literally red-handed, these cases were extremely difficult to solve.

Fingerprinting is still a better form of identification than DNA. There have never been two people found with identical fingerprints. Identical twins often have the same DNA profile.

Also, the database of fingerprints is FAR larger than the CODIS database.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
Fingerprinting is still a better form of identification than DNA. There have never been two people found with identical fingerprints. Identical twins often have the same DNA profile.

Also, the database of fingerprints is FAR larger than the CODIS database.

May be true, but it is also the case that there are many crimes where you would not expect to get any prints, but you might get DNA. Sexual assault foremost among them.

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
was blood type and finger prints pretty much "IT" ?

or was there other stuff ?

Phone books.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
Fingerprinting is still a better form of identification than DNA. There have never been two people found with identical fingerprints. Identical twins often have the same DNA profile.

Also, the database of fingerprints is FAR larger than the CODIS database.

Fingerprint identification has its problems.

When fingerprint technicians compare prints there is no uniform standard for a positive identification.
“Some fingerprint examiners use a “point-counting” method that entails counting the number of similar ridge characteristics on the prints, but there is no fixed requirement about how many points of similarity are needed. Six points, nine, twelve? Local practices vary, and no established minimum or norm exists”

With “point counting” there is the possibility that different people the same number of points.
“How likely is it that two people could have four points of resemblance, or five, or eight? Are the odds of two partial prints from different people matching one in a thousand, one in a hundred thousand, or one in a billion?”

This creates the possibility that an innocent person could be charged based on a fingerprint. Recall a “Law & Order” plot where a examiner did this.

https://issues.org/mnookin/

Sort of similarly...

Not only is the notion that Eye Witnesses are often "bad witnesses" true, but technology wise we aren't far away from video "proof" being considered very unreliable as well. You may have seen the news last January about what they did with the faked porn videos with the celebrity faces, and that news and technology is a year older already.

Nothing is fool proof. Not eye witness accounts, not DNA testing, not Fingerprints, not Video or Audio recordings. It's all getting better and worse at the same time, due to technology. Like Radar Detectors vs Radar Guns, x10.

Who knows what it will be like in 5, 10, 20yrs.

Knowing your local bad guys helped. Did the recent crime fit the MO of any local bad guys You knew?

Informants were useful.

Beat Cops, on the street their entire shift, knew what was going on. They knew all the locals, they were a good source of intel info.

Way different era back even 30 or 40 years ago.

Rubber hose and beat a confession out of them...

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Rubber hose and beat a confession out of them...

Damn you, you beat me to it!

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
Fingerprinting is still a better form of identification than DNA. There have never been two people found with identical fingerprints. Identical twins often have the same DNA profile.

Also, the database of fingerprints is FAR larger than the CODIS database.

Fingerprint identification has its problems.

When fingerprint technicians compare prints there is no uniform standard for a positive identification.
“Some fingerprint examiners use a “point-counting” method that entails counting the number of similar ridge characteristics on the prints, but there is no fixed requirement about how many points of similarity are needed. Six points, nine, twelve? Local practices vary, and no established minimum or norm exists”

With “point counting” there is the possibility that different people the same number of points.
“How likely is it that two people could have four points of resemblance, or five, or eight? Are the odds of two partial prints from different people matching one in a thousand, one in a hundred thousand, or one in a billion?”

This creates the possibility that an innocent person could be charged based on a fingerprint. Recall a “Law & Order” plot where a examiner did this.

https://issues.org/mnookin/

You can judge fingerprint identification by an episode of Law and Order or you could go through eight weeks of professional training and years of on the job training. Just saying. People, usually defense attorneys, have tried to discredit fingerprint identifications and they always fail. It's either a good ID or it isn't and bad IDs are typically made by people who have no business doing it.

The art of interviewing and reading body language was the most important tool.

quote:

Originally posted by Ozarkwoods:
The art of interviewing and reading body language was the most important tool.

A properly done interview and interrogation (utilizing tactics which don't rely upon direct or implied threats or promises and meets court directions showing the arrestee knowingly and willingly waived his/her rights as outlined by the "Miranda" decision) provides context and credibility to physical, eyewitness, and circumstantial evidence.

Prior to DNA identification and continuing to the present time, credible admissions obtained from the accused can and do lead to convictions and are likely to assist law enforcement personnel to more quickly recognize and exonerate factually innocent arrestees, so they can release them from custody and redirect the investigation as needed. This is what behavioral analysis based interview and interrogation tactics (including recognition of "body language") are all about. Also included is the ability to recognize such things as verbal timing, strength, and word choices, knowing how important it is to avoid "contamination" errors that can ruin the reliability of admissions, and obtaining corroborating evidence from the person(s) being questioned. Done right, interviews and interrogations can make a case nearly "bullet proof" in trial and withstand the best arguments on appeal.

Improperly done questioning leads to unreliable admissions of guilt, cases overturned on appeal with rulings that make it tougher for cops to get statements, and can/do lead to false confessions from factually innocent accused persons.

I don't always agree with Pulicords on some point or another, but I have always enjoyed his commentary and insights regarding law enforcement and policing. Like Jones and various others here - think of them and their positions on such-and-such what you will - but it's obvious they are or were in the profession a long time and do know tons about the subjects.

^^ Yeah, that fella certainly knows what he’s talking about on interviews. You’d think he’d done a couple.


My two comments on the topic: I’ve been indirectly aware of only one “dirty” law enforcement type person. A fingerprint investigator that would determine a suspect was IDd via print on-demand. They don’t work in LE anymore...

And beat cops knowing the people in their areas is good policing that we should all strive for. When I was on patrol and a housing officer that was definitely my strength. I knew family trees, even. But currently we are far too short for officers to develop that level of mastery, or even a lesser proficiency. My officers run call to call to call. Most of them priorities. Very little down time. I hate it for them, it’s nowhere near as fun, and nearly impossible to develop information.

I have had great luck locating and lifting shoe prints from inside of crime scenes over the years. The shoe print is another nail in the coffin (if you will) when you locate your suspect.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I don't always agree with Pulicords on some point or another, but I have always enjoyed his commentary and insights regarding law enforcement and policing. Like Jones and various others here - think of them and their positions on such-and-such what you will - but it's obvious they are or were in the profession a long time and do know tons about the subjects.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
^^ Yeah, that fella certainly knows what he’s talking about on interviews. You’d think he’d done a couple.

Thanks guys! I've been retired from LE for more than a decade now, but have spent a good portion of that time trying to put my experience to use on a part time basis. In addition to training cops on behavioral analysis based interview and interrogation tactics, I've been an investigative and expert resource for indigent criminal defendants on this subject. Most of my nearly 100+ appointments were by county Superior courts in CA, but I also had one by the U.S. Court of Appeal, which is a pretty rare situation.

As you can see, I'm kinda passionate about this subject matter. With that in mind, I hope you'll excuse one last point: I've never met a cop that believed he/she was excessively coercive or knowingly obtained a false confession. I've even heard members of the Innocence Project admit that they didn't think cops made these kinds of errors intentionally. With that in mind; I think its important to note that training on how to get reliable information is a very big issue that (IMHO) police managers habitually ignore. Most new officers get little more instruction than how to read a "Miranda Card" or warnings about not questioning defendants on "serious" cases, when they're in the academy or going through the FTO program. Case law familiarization is not tactics.

When officers do get formal instruction on behavioral analysis, its five or more years down the road, at a point when they're getting assigned as an investigator after years on patrol and by then its bad habits are ingrained. After this many years, a lot of good cops just figure there's no reason to change something they think has worked just fine for them. Big mistake!!!

LEOs need this type of formal training before they leave the academy and certainly should have it reinforced during the FTO period. Supervisors should have had it years before they got their stripes and they should be confirming their officers are using it diligently. It takes no more time to question someone properly as improperly and doing it right saves the department embarrassment, payouts on civil suits, and the loss of community confidence. There's lots of good schools out there teaching this stuff and managers need to get their people to them and reinforce the training through department policy, just as they do with other critical skills. LEOs might need to use lethal or less than lethal force on any given day, but its just about a sure thing that they will be required to obtain reliable information from victims, witnesses, arrestees, and detainees at least once during every working shift.

All done with my rant. Thanks again for the kind words! Stay safe in the new year and best of luck guys!