Five Early Ways We Solved Crimes Without Forensics

In the early days of criminal investigations, before the development of modern forensic science, law enforcement officials relied on creative and often unconventional methods to solve crimes. While they didn't have access to the sophisticated tools and techniques we have today, they demonstrated remarkable ingenuity and resourcefulness in their pursuit of justice. Here are five ways early investigators used to solve crimes without forensics.

1. Trial by Ordeal

One of the earliest methods used to determine a person's guilt or innocence was trial by ordeal. This method relied on the belief that divine intervention would protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Various ordeals were administered, such as trial by fire, water, or combat. For instance, in trial by water, the accused would be bound and thrown into a body of water. If they sank, it was believed that innocence was proven, as the water "accepted" them. If they floated, it was taken as a sign of guilt. While trial by ordeal may seem archaic and superstitious to us today, it represented a form of justice in early history. It operated on the belief that a higher power would intervene to reveal the truth. However, this method was highly subjective and often led to unjust outcomes, as it relied on beliefs and physical reactions rather than concrete evidence.

2. Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony has been a crucial tool in crime-solving for centuries. In the absence of advanced forensic techniques, investigators heavily relied on the accounts of individuals who witnessed crimes or observed suspicious activities. Eyewitnesses played a significant role in identifying suspects, providing descriptions, and recounting crucial details. Early investigators recognized the importance of eyewitness testimony and sought to gather accurate and reliable accounts. They would interview witnesses, record their statements, and cross-reference information to build a comprehensive understanding of the crime. While eyewitness testimony is a valuable source of evidence, it is not infallible. Memories can be influenced by various factors, such as stress, trauma, or external suggestions, leading to inaccuracies. Over time, the limitations of eyewitness testimony became apparent, prompting the development of more objective forensic methods.

3. Confessions and Torture

In the absence of scientific evidence, confessions were often considered the ultimate proof of guilt. Investigators would employ various methods to extract confessions from suspects, including physical and psychological coercion. Interrogation techniques such as torture, intimidation, and prolonged isolation were used to compel suspects to confess to crimes. Torture was a widely accepted practice in early history, with the belief that it would force the truth out of the accused. This approach was based on the assumption that the guilty party would eventually admit their wrongdoing under extreme duress. However, it is important to note that torture often resulted in false confessions, as individuals would confess to crimes they did not commit simply to end their suffering.

4. Informants and Community Cooperation

Even without the benefit of modern forensic techniques, early investigators understood the value of information provided by informants and the cooperation of the community. They relied on individuals who had insider knowledge or were involved in criminal activities to provide tips and leads. Informants were motivated by personal gain, protection, or a desire to bring justice. Law enforcement officials would establish relationships with informants, offering them protection or incentives in exchange for information. The cooperation of the community was also vital in solving crimes. Investigators would appeal to the public, encouraging them to come forward with any information that could assist in the investigation. 

5. Trial by Combat

Another intriguing method used to determine guilt or innocence in early history was trial by combat. This practice involved a physical duel between the accused and the accuser, with the belief that the outcome would be determined by divine intervention. It was believed that the innocent party would be favored by a higher power and emerge victorious. Trial by combat was considered a way to let the "will of God" prevail in legal matters. The idea was that if the accused party won the duel, it was a sign of innocence. However, this method heavily relied on physical prowess and often disadvantaged the weaker party. It favored those who had combat skills or resources to hire skilled champions. As societies progressed and legal systems evolved, trial by combat fell out of favor as a reliable method of determining guilt or innocence.