Preface

Many years ago, fate decreed I should become the Pasadena police chemist. Some of the happiest moments of my varied life were spent in the Pasadena crime lab.

I had been a policeman for almost eighteen years. And for the next twenty I worked intimately with police agencies, consulting, criticizing, advising, and encouraging. I do today. And some of my best friends are those wonderful, dedicated men who choose this thankless role and who do it well.

My continuing affair with criminalistics has never terminated. It was just set aside. I’d been saving carbons of my case notes for many years, against the day when I’d memorialize the subject in print. So when my agent, Jay Garon, struck a responsive chord with Prentice-Hall, I was ready to bring myself up to date on the fascinating discipline of criminalistics.

How the field had changed since I was intimate with it! The romance was in full bloom when I started the research for this book. And what a challenge it was getting on top of it, since criminalistics embraces the whole of science! But I quickly became ambivalent—excited beyond measure at the current potential of criminalistics, but disillusioned with its utilization. This is one of the principal reasons for this book. The potential of the criminalistics field is almost unlimited—if only it were used. I am the severest critic of those who don’t perform up to their capability. But like a parent with a backward child, my most fervent hope is for improvement.

The scientists toiling in the scraggly criminalistics vineyard need public support as much as any group I have ever known. They know what could be—and why it isn’t. I only hope that this work will help bring about an understanding of the tremendous possibilities for both journeymen policemen and their bosses, and that having read this book, an informed public will start asking questions, demonstrating its support, working for needed change. The properly structured crime laboratory has so much to offer. Its services are desperately needed if we are to have any hope of reversing the ever-rising criminal tide.

There were so many who helped in the writing of this book. Perhaps my greatest debt is to Bill Harper, my mentor in the beginning, and again, now, all these years later.

Then there is Don Harding, who came to the Pasadena crime lab when I sold the boss on getting a truly qualified police chemist to fill the spot I was vacating. Don opened my eyes to the great potential of criminalistics and helped me keep in touch over the intervening years. He rendered yeoman service in supplying illustrative cases, checking my scientific concepts, and reading many portions of the manuscript.

Jack Cadman taught me much of what I know in criminalistics. During the writing of this book, Jack made the many splendid people on his staff available for further illumination, particularly the distinguished toxicologist Bob Cravey. Bob not only led me through the labyrinth of toxicology and provided fascinating cases, but—stout fellow—read every word of the manuscript critically.

Only a few days before the end of his life, I was accorded many courtesies by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and numerous members of his staff.

Two others were kind enough to go over the manuscript with a fine-tooth comb, offering invaluable suggestions: Dr. Brian Parker of the Stanford Research Institute and W. Jerry Chisum, who emphasized the vital role of reconstruction services available from the criminalists.

Mr. D. M. Lucas, past president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, was generous beyond belief. And my particular thanks are owed an old friend and outstanding public servant, Evelle J. Younger, attorney general of California.

I must also thank the lovely people who first responded to the hundreds of letters my wife, Sibyl, and I wrote to all quarters of the globe. Peter Bucky first proved that there really was someone out there. Tony Longhetti was the first and perhaps most generous of criminalists who supplied illustrative cases.

How can I thank all the other individuals who have contributed ideas, illustrations, and illumination? The only way I can mention them all is to list them alphabetically—scant compensation for the many hours of dedicated interest that they provided. Until they are better rewarded, I hope they know that their zeal, intelligence, and fervor to improve the field of forensics is deeply appreciated!

Ernest Bonelli, the Finnigan Corporation; Dr. A. S. Curry, Director, British Central Research Establishment; David Q. Burd; Wallace Dillon; Herbert Dodd; Brian S. Finkle; James L. Harris, Sr., Scripps Visibility Laboratory, University of California; Cecil L. Hider; Graham H. Humphrey, Jr.; Harry Johnson; Dr. Peter Jones, the Aerospace Corporation; Dr. Alexander Joseph, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University, New York; Dr. L. G. Kersta, Voiceprint Laboratories; Superintendent William Kirwan, New York State Police; Martin Klein; Don Lang; Forest R. Litterly; Charles Livingston, Office Alcohol Countermeasures, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; John E. Murdock; Detective Lieutenant Ernest W. Nash; Robert Ogle; Joseph L. Peterson, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice; Raymond H. Pinker; Peter J. Pitchess, Sheriff, Los Angeles County; Victor D. Riesau; David Schmidt; Richard F. Shaw; John Thornton, School of Criminology and Criminalistics, University of California; Ernie Vogt; Jim White; and Fred Wymbrandt.

And finally my appreciation and affection to my friend of twenty years, the man I joined professionally to start a new and challenging assignment in the safety profession. In recognition of his encouragement, assistance, and warm friendship I want to thank most especially J. Arthur Rude, managing director of the California Traffic Safety Foundation.

Jay Cameron Hall