In a blog interview I did around the release of The Paris Affair, Heather Webb asked a question that got me to thinking about forensics in historical mysteries. So much of present day mysteries, in books, on television, in movies, involves analyzing forensic evidence. My Malcolm and Suzanne Rannoch have no CSIs, medical examiners, or forensic anthropologists to assist them in gathering and analyzing data. On the other hand, even without 21st century technology sleuths can still forensic evidence. C.S. Harris has a doctor character whose analysis of corpses is often of key help to Sebastian St. Cyr. The Victorian Sherlock Holmes was, as my father liked to say, a classic empiricist, his solutions built from the data he gathers. Both John Watson and Mary Russell frequently record him bemoaning the lack of data.
Like other literary investigators in the 19th century and earlier, Malcolm and Suzanne look at footprints, find stands of hair or threads of fabric caught on cobblestones of table legs or left behind on sheets. Of course they can’t do DNA or chemical analysis, but they can do is compare the color of the hair or fabric or look at where the mud left behind by a shoe might have come from. If they’re really lucky someone drops a distinctive earring. They can use lividity and rigor to roughly arrive at time of death They can sometimes determine from a wound whether the killer is left or right handed.
Of course as a writer there are times the lack of sophisticated forensic analysis presents challenges in how one’s detectives will solve the mystery. On the other hand, sometimes it can complicate matters in a good way. A killer in a crime of impulse, who probably would not be wearing gloves, would most likely to caught much more easily today than in the days before fingerprinting, let alone DNA analysis.
Writers, how do you deal with the lack of modern day technology in your books? Readers, what are some of your favorite examples of forensic analysis in an historical setting?
June 20, 2013 at 3:57 am
Tracy, I like your reference to the St. Cyr series and specifically the doctor. Not only does Candace portray him as a likable character, but she also gives a real feeling for a Surgery in 1812 – the smells, bodies and drawbacks of solving the murders with so little knowledge (compared to the 21st century). I can remember Malcolm and Suzanne discussing little bits of informatiom to help reach a solution and thinking about how very different it was during those years. Reading a series like yours and Candace’s makes me realize how very far we’ve come in 200 yrs. Both of you ladies make the past so very real in your stories – probably why I keep coming back for more.
June 21, 2013 at 1:30 am
Completely agree about the doctor in the St. Cyr series, Lynne! He’s a great, nuanced character and as you say she paints a vivid picture of a Surgery in the period and the challenges facing surgeons. It’s a great series!
July 12, 2013 at 3:50 am
Forensics isn’t something I follow, but I do find it interesting to see how things are done in historicals. I’ve only read a few of the Lord Peter Wimsey series, but even that is a step up from Regency age. What I enjoy about mysteries is the “big reveal” at the end. I know some people like to figure out whodunit as they go, but not me! I figure the writer has already put all the thought into the plot, so I just want to enjoy it and be surprised when I found out how it all went down.
My sister in law is a writer and has actually written a How-To book for writing forensic dramas. It’s called Forensic Speak. She’s a good writer.
January 12, 2014 at 9:24 pm
I found this blog as I was searching cartilage earrings so I
think that I am very lucky for doing so. I think that this is a
extremely cute post you got there. Would it be ok if I post your
page on twitter with your link and the title of your article:
“Forensics & the Historical Sleuth “??
Kind regards,
Rogelio