Our Environment in Miniature: Dust and the Early Twentieth-Century Forensic Imagination.

This article explores the articulation of the crime scene as a distinct space of theory and practice in the early twentieth century. In particular it focuses on the evidentiary hopes invested in what would at first seem an unpromising forensic object: dust. Ubiquitous and, to the uninitiated, characterless, dust nevertheless featured as an exemplary object of cutting-edge forensic analysis in two contemporary domains: writings of criminologists and works of detective fiction. The article considers how in these texts dust came to mark the furthest reach of a new forensic capacity they were promoting, one that drew freely upon the imagination to invest crime scene traces with meaning.

Making space for criminalistics: Hans Gross and fin-de-siècle CSI.

This article explores the articulation of a novel forensic object-the 'crime scene'-and its corresponding expert-the investigating officer. Through a detailed engagement with the work of the late nineteenth-century Austrian jurist and criminalist Hans Gross, it analyses the dynamic and reflexive nature of this model of 'CSI', emphasising the material, physical, psychological and instrumental means through which the crime scene as a delineated space, and its investigator as a disciplined agent operating within it, jointly came into being. It has a further, historiographic, aim: to move away from the commonplace emphasis in histories of forensics on fin-de-siècle criminology and toward its comparatively under-explored contemporary, criminalistics. In so doing, it opens up new ways of thinking about the crime scene as a defining feature of our present-day forensic culture that recognise its historical contingency and the complex processes at work in its creation and development.

War on fear: Solly Zuckerman and civilian nerve in the Second World War.

This article examines the processes through which civilian fear was turned into a practicable investigative object in the inter-war period and the opening stages of the Second World War, and how it was invested with significance at the level of science and of public policy. Its focus is on a single historical actor, Solly Zuckerman, and on his early war work for the Ministry of Home Security-funded Extra Mural Unit based in Oxford's Department of Anatomy (OEMU). It examines the process by which Zuckerman forged a working relationship with fear in the 1930s, and how he translated this work to questions of home front anxiety in his role as an operational research officer. In doing so it demonstrates the persistent work applied to the problem: by highlighting it as an ongoing research project, and suggesting links between seemingly disparate research objects (e.g. the phenomenon of 'blast' exposure as physical and physiological trauma), the article aims to show how civilian 'nerve' emerged from within a highly specific analytical and operational matrix which itself had complex foundations.

Bruised witness: Bernard Spilsbury and the performance of early twentieth-century English forensic pathology.

This article explores the status, apparatus and character of forensic pathology in the inter-war period, with a special emphasis on the 'people's pathologist', Bernard Spilsbury. The broad expert and public profile of forensic pathology, of which Spilsbury was the most prominent contemporary representative, will be outlined and discussed. In so doing, close attention will be paid to the courtroom strategies by which he and other experts translated their isolated post-mortem encounters with the dead body into effective testimony. Pathologists built a high-profile practice that transfixed the popular, legal and scientific imagination, and this article also explores, through the celebrated 1925 murder trial of Norman Thorne, how Spilsbury's courtroom performance focused critical attention on the practices of pathology itself, which threatened to destabilise the status of forensic pathology. In particular, the Thorne case raised questions about the interrelation between bruising and putrefaction as sources of interpretative anxiety. Here, the question of practice is vital, especially in understanding how Spilsbury's findings clashed with those of rival pathologists whose autopsies centred on a corpse that had undergone further putrefactive changes and that had thereby mutated as an evidentiary object. Examining how pathologists dealt with interpretative problems raised by the instability of their core investigative object enables an analysis of the ways in which pathological investigation of homicide was inflected with a series of conceptual, professional and cultural difficulties stemming in significant ways from the materiality of the corpse itself. This article presents early findings of a larger study of twentieth-century English homicide investigation which focuses on the interaction between two dominant forensic regimes: the first, outlined in part here, is a body-centred forensics, associated with the lone, 'celebrity' pathologist, his scalpel and the mortuary slab; the second is a 'forensics of things' centred on the laboratory and its associated technologies of trace analysis (hair, blood, fibres), deployed in closed technician-dominated spaces and in the regimentally managed crime scene. Future work will seek to illuminate the shifting landscape of English forensics by following the historical interplay between these two powerful investigative models.

Testing testimony: toxicology and the law of evidence in early nineteenth-century England.

This essay's principle objective is to examine how, when confronted with a case of possible criminal poisoning, early nineteenth-century English toxicologists sought to generate and to represent their evidence in the courtroom. Its contention is that in both these activities toxicologists were inextricably engaged in a complex communicative exercise. On the one hand, they distanced themselves from the instabilities of language, styling themselves as testifiers to fact alone. But at the same time, they saw themselves as deeply implicated in the difficulties of forging a coherent signifying system out of a disparate collection of signs that in themselves bore no intrinsic meaning. The analysis has three main components: first, two suggest why criminal poisoning featured so prominently in the burgeoning legal literature on evidence which provided the framework for expert testimony in English courts; next, to show that the scientific evidence offered by toxicologists in poisoning cases can be usefully understood as a form of (unstable) language; and finally, to suggest that this recourse to signs informed the toxicologist's encounter with another type of courtroom expert-the legal advocate-who was equally (though differently) interested in manipulating signs in order to construct (and deconstruct) legally sanctioned proof.

Testing testimony: toxicology and the law of evidence in early nineteenth-century england.

Examines how, when confronted with a case of possible criminal poisoning, early-19th-century English toxicologists sought to generate and to represent their evidence in the courtroom. Contends that in both these activities, toxicologists were inextricably engaged in a complex communicative exercise. On the one hand, they distanced themselves from the instabilities of language, styling themselves as testifiers to fact alone. At the same time, they saw themselves as deeply implicated in the difficulties of forging a coherent signifying system out of a disparate collection of signs that in themselves bore no intrinsic meaning. The article suggests first, why criminal poisoning featured so prominently in the burgeoning legal literature on evidence, which provided the framework for expert testimony in English courts; next, that the scientific evidence offered by toxicologists in poisoning cases can be usefully understood as a form of (unstable) language; and finally, that this recourse to signs informed the toxicologist's encounter with another type of courtroom expert - the legal advocate - who was equally (though differently) interested in manipulating signs in order to construct (and deconstruct) legally sanctioned proof.