Sherlock Holmes (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
could_be_dangerous) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
asgardeventide2013-06-22 09:55 pm
could_be_dangerous) wrote in asgardeventide2013-06-22 09:55 pm
Entry tags:
003 | Text (cut for length)
The Principles of Deduction
The science of deduction is first and foremost rigorous, a construct based in experiential and experimental fact. It consists of a series of theories, these based upon the results of years of inquiry and experimentation, and each an element of a single overarching theory which states, in brief, that all actions leave a trace, and by those traces one may logically determine, working backwards from the cause, the effect, even having failed to observe it. This principle exists and is in use across a multitude of fields, obviously – geology, for instance, notable due to the scale upon which theories of this nature are put into practice – but rarely have these sub-theories been united into a universal, cross-discipline practice. The attempt to do so most obviously has particular applications in the field of criminology; forensic science has existed for some time and has brought about the successful resolution of countless independent cases. However, the scope can be widened – the principles upon which it is based can be taken further.
Deduction, as any other science, demands evidence. Whereas a geologist, however, needs must turn his attention to a limited set of evidence, the investigator must examine everything presented, discarding nothing out of hand. Even the slightest detail may yield information of note. One may tell by the dirt on a man's shoes, a seemingly inconsequential detail, where he has walked. The development of his muscles, in particular those of the hand, may indicate his profession, his personal habits, his past, his general state of health. Scars give a superficial outline of events of note in the individual's past. Pollen collected from his clothing may indicate his general place of residence. Moreover, where he goes, what he does there – or did there, deduced from the traces he has left behind – and the way in which he does it may all be taken to indicate a number of things about him.
One may, for instance, tell a smoker by his hands and his teeth and a drinker by his mobile phone or his sclerae. An adulterer may be read by his or her jewelry, maquillage, and habits; a liar may be picked out in conversation by the movements of his eyes (among a dozen other signs). An airline pilot may be spotted by his wristwatch, a pianist by his tendons. The process is derivational – one learns to identify the results of a process by observing that process in action, and then may recognize those results elsewhere and work backwards to discern the very likely cause. A series of interacting systems – i.e., a collection of interrelated results – further narrows the scope by reducing the field of probability, thereby presenting the investigator with a limited series of likely options, from which one can derive an increasingly more accurate picture of the events under investigation.
As further elaboration, a case study:
Victim was female, discovered hanged in a hotel room she'd hired some days before and to which she'd checked in only a few hours before her discovery. Doors and windows were locked, no indication of forced entry. Single suitcase, medium size, open but untouched. Clothing neat, barely worn. Hung by the neck. Nylon rope. Single chair underneath the body, toppled to the floor.
At the time of examination, the body's rigor mortis was advanced. Swelling of the face and bruising around the neck relatively minimal, though sclerae of the eyes were reddened, consistent with death by asphyxiation. Hair was damp, though skin was dry. Further examination showed that the victim had recently bathed or her body had recently been cleaned. Little jewelry. One earring, right lobe; matching piercing in left, but no jewelry. Skin pallid; little livor mortis, that which was evident appearing primarily in the lower extremities. Feet were bare, manner of dress casual. All shoes found in the room belonging to the victim were clean. Only indication of foul play was the removal of one of the victim's fingers, smallest on the left hand, wound clean, little blood on and below the body. Section of hair also removed. Security cameras in the hotel discovered to have been damaged, method unknown.
Of immediate import to myself was the state of the body. In particular the relative lack of livor mortis cf. time of death (determined via the usual method by which extent of rigor mortis was compared to body temperature) was of note, as was the relative lack of bruising on the neck or swelling of the face one usually finds in victims of hanging. I was able to determine very quickly based on these factors that hanging was not, indeed, the cause of death, and moreover that the victim's skin temperature was slightly cooler than her core body temperature, indicating that the body had been submerged in cold water for a period of a few hours. The reddened sclerae indicated to me that the likelier cause of death was drowning, a conclusion corroborated by the extraction of water from the victim's lungs. The lack of sediment indicated to me that the most likely location of the victim's death was in truth her room's bathtub, which upon examination did bear traces of having been used, including strands of hair matching the victim's found in the trap.
The state of the victim's clothes, pressed and quite neat despite ostensibly having been worn the day through, and most importantly wholly dry, indicated further that the victim had been drowned in her bathtub, then hanged and dressed after, likely in that order. In addition, the cleanness of the wound on her left hand indicated that the finger was very likely severed after death rather than before. This, in conjunction with the ritualized, deliberate nature of the killing, the missing locks of hair, and the arrangement of the body indicated quite clearly that the killing was premeditated and the killer focused and obsessive. The taking of trophies was deliberate, and such an act tends to indicate an intention to collect, highly suggestive of the work of a serial killer. Moreover, the taking of her jewelry indicated an attention to the identity of the victim – something about her attracted the killer (statistically more likely to be male). The taking of bodily trophies indicates physical obsession, but the taking of possessions indicates emotional or intellectual attachment, which suggested he knew her or had spent some time observing her before enacting the killing.
The likelihood that he knew her might have seemed initially out of place given the location of the killing – why a hotel room and not simply her flat? – but the care taken in arranging the body to cover his tracks, to the point of placing the chair such that it appeared to have been toppled by the victim, indicated a clear regard for appearances and a desire to obscure his tracks, which a hotel room would only facilitate.
That established, and given the place of residence discovered on the ID found in her wallet, it was easy to determine the likely origin of the killer. Her clothing and the contents of her suitcase indicated her to be a businesswoman, someone in the private sector; the possibility that the killer was among her coworkers gave an avenue for further inquiry. All of this was determined within ten minutes of my arrival at the scene of the crime and ultimately lead to the capture of the murderer.
Violent crime is not the only possible application of the science of deduction – one is equally well-suited applying it in cases of theft and burglary, cases of blackmail and extortion, kidnapping, and any persuasion of criminal activity, as well as in the determination of any person's origins, occupation, and other factors of similar nature.
As it has become plain to me that there exists among you hardly a single person capable of performing or willing to perform the mental exertion necessary to infer my methods based upon my results, it has become equally apparent that an outline of my means and practices, highly simplified and vastly truncated to suit the audience, has become necessary, if only to spare myself the irritation of having to explain myself repeatedly and you lot the further embarrassment of asking.
SH
no subject
SH
no subject
no subject
There will be no shooting at anyone!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
...What if they sort of ask for it, like your friend there?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
SH
no subject
no subject
SH
no subject