Speaker 1: It is Ryan here, and I have a question for you.
Speaker 1: What do you do when you win?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: Are you at fist pumper, a woo, a handclapp or
Speaker 1: a high fiver. I kind of like the high five,
Speaker 1: but if you want to hone in on those winning moves,
Speaker 1: check out chumbuck Casino. At chumbacasino dot com, choose from
Speaker 1: hundreds of social casino style games for your chance to
Speaker 1: redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly,
Speaker 1: plus free daily bonuses, so don't wait start having the
Speaker 1: most fun ever At chumba casino dot com.
Speaker 3: Nob'd necessary dally repoord where everybo I lost the terms
Speaker 3: conditions eight plus.
Speaker 1: Okay, round two name something that's not boring.
Speaker 3: Laundry, a book club, computer solitaire.
Speaker 1: Huh oh, sorry, we were looking for Chumbu Casino. Chum.
Speaker 1: That's right, chumbucasino dot com as over one hundred casino
Speaker 1: style games joined today and playing for free for your
Speaker 1: chance to redeem some serious prizes. Chum chumbucasino dot com.
Speaker 1: Nover necessary word by long eighty plus terors the conditions
Speaker 1: of plus up to Canadian.
Speaker 4: You are now listening to true Murder, the most shocking
Speaker 4: killers in true crime history and the authors that have
Speaker 4: written about them.
Speaker 5: Gaesy, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker BTK.
Speaker 4: Every week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking
Speaker 4: and infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with
Speaker 4: your host journalist and author Dan Zupanski.
Speaker 5: Good Evening, Berkeley, California, nineteen thirty three. In a lab
Speaker 5: filled with curiosities, beakers, microscopes, Bunsen burners, and hundreds upon
Speaker 5: hundreds of books, he sat an investigator who would go
Speaker 5: on to crack at least two thousand cases in his
Speaker 5: forty year career. Known as the American Sherlock Holmes, Edward
Speaker 5: Oscar Heinrich was one of America's greatest and first forensic scientists,
Speaker 5: with an uncanny knack for finding clues, establishing evidence, and
Speaker 5: deducing answers with a skill that seemed almost supernatural, Heinrich
Speaker 5: was one of the nation's first expert witnesses, working in
Speaker 5: a time when the turmoil of Prohibition led to sensationalized
Speaker 5: crime reporting and only a small systematic study of evidence. However,
Speaker 5: with his brilliance and commanding presence in both the courtroom
Speaker 5: and at crime scenes, Heinrich spearheaded the invention of a
Speaker 5: myriad of new forensic tools that police still use today,
Speaker 5: including blood spatter analysis, ballistics, lide detector tests, and the
Speaker 5: use of fingerprints as courtroom evidence. His work, though not
Speaker 5: without its serious some would say fatal flaws, change the
Speaker 5: course of American criminal investigation. Based on years of research
Speaker 5: and thousands of never before published primary source materials, American
Speaker 5: Sherlock captures the life of the man who pioneered the
Speaker 5: science our legal system now relies upon, as well as
Speaker 5: the limits of those techniques and the very human experts
Speaker 5: who wield them. The book they were featuring this evening
Speaker 5: is American Sherlock, Murder Forensics and the Birth of American CSI.
Speaker 5: With my special guests, journalist and author and documentary producer
Speaker 5: filmmaker is Kate Winkler Dawson. Kate Winkler Dawson will join
Speaker 5: us in a fifteen minutes and in the interim. Now,
Speaker 5: this is an interview with Kate Winkler Donson that has
Speaker 5: decided to do a flurry of media today. So this
Speaker 5: is one of the one of the exclusive places where
Speaker 5: you can get and speak and listen to Kate Winkler
Speaker 5: Dawson talking about her latest book, American Sherlock, and so
Speaker 5: I will well as we wait for Kate Winkler Dawson
Speaker 5: to join us. I'm going to have the great privilege
Speaker 5: of reading the prologue, which will introduce Oscar Heinrich Edward
Speaker 5: Oscar Heinrich and a fitting introduction to the stories that
Speaker 5: Kate Winkler Dawson will tell us about some of the
Speaker 5: fascinating stories of Oscar Heinrich's life. This is tales from
Speaker 5: the archive Pistols, job, bones and love poetry. His upper
Speaker 5: job the bone was massive, a long curved bone with
Speaker 5: nine tiny holes meant to hold his teeth. The remainder
Speaker 5: of his skeleton was blackened by a fairly large fire
Speaker 5: ignited by anonymous killer. Lifting up the jawbone, she examined
Speaker 5: the small blades of grass that adhere to its exterior,
Speaker 5: organic evidence from his hillside grave in El Serrito in
Speaker 5: northern California. It was distressing to hold a bone that
Speaker 5: had belonged to a murder victim, particularly one who was
Speaker 5: never identified. Kate glanced over at the archivist, Lara Michaels,
Speaker 5: who quietly stood across the wooden desk inside the massive warehouse.
Speaker 5: What's next, Kate asked. She led Kate down a long
Speaker 5: row of large cartons, one more than one hundred boxes
Speaker 5: donated by the same owner. She had been given exclusive
Speaker 5: access to a trove of material collected over five decades
Speaker 5: by a brilliant man, a forensic scientist and criminalist from
Speaker 5: the first half of the twentieth century, a man who
Speaker 5: changed how crimes were solved before forensics became the foundation
Speaker 5: of most criminal cases, America's Sherlock Holmes. She walked along
Speaker 5: the tight corridor, scanning the labels on the cardboard boxes
Speaker 5: for a common name, Edward Oscar Heinrich. When Heinrich died
Speaker 5: in nineteen fifty three at the age of seventy two,
Speaker 5: his youngest child, Mortimer, waited sixteen years to donate the
Speaker 5: contents of his father's laboratory, a bastion of forensic history
Speaker 5: that once monopolized the ground floor of Mortimer's childhood home
Speaker 5: in Berkeley, California. In nineteen sixty eight, he bequeathed his
Speaker 5: father's many boxes containing case files, evidence, personal diaries, letters,
Speaker 5: even romantic poetry, to the University of California at Berkeley,
Speaker 5: Oscar's alma mater and the college where he spent years
Speaker 5: teaching forensic science. The archive was an incredible repository of information,
Speaker 5: but given the university's limited budget for archival material in research,
Speaker 5: the collection remained uncataloged and untouched for more than fifty years.
Speaker 5: In twenty and sixteen, she discovered Oscar Heinrich hidden in
Speaker 5: a short article that lauded one of the most famous cases,
Speaker 5: the Siskiyou train robbery of nineteen twenty three. She was
Speaker 5: astonished that no contemporary author had penned a book about him.
Speaker 5: She requested that U. C. Berkeley open his collection for research.
Speaker 5: Michaels agreed, and after more than a year of waiting,
Speaker 5: she began to immerse herself in the bizarre world of
Speaker 5: Oscar Heinrich, the most famous criminalist you've likely never heard of.
Speaker 5: The boxes contain more than one hundred thousand pieces of information,
Speaker 5: such as photographs, notes, letters, sketches, and trial transcripts. It
Speaker 5: was an overwhelming and disorganized collection that was housed in
Speaker 5: the school's off site processing center. Heinrich seemingly kept everything
Speaker 5: from his life, personal and professional, manically collecting notes written
Speaker 5: on napkins, thousands of newspapers, hundreds of bullets and financial journals.
Speaker 5: Kate began jokingly describing him as a productive order until
Speaker 5: her colleague, a psychology professor at the University of Texas,
Speaker 5: suggested that he had in fact fit the diagnostic criteria
Speaker 5: for obsessive compulsive personality disorder, which occurs in just one
Speaker 5: percent of the population. People with OCPD have a preoccupation
Speaker 5: with perfectionism, control, and order a neat life. They are
Speaker 5: frequently extremely productive and successful, but their personal relationships often
Speaker 5: suffer because their rigidity can manifest itself in righteousness even
Speaker 5: anger when their control is threatened. Heinrich's already stressful life
Speaker 5: was certainly complicated by his OCPD, but as an author
Speaker 5: and researcher, Kate was thankful for his fastidious habit of
Speaker 5: adding constantly to his collection. She was particularly grateful for
Speaker 5: the numerous boxes of evidence he had preserved from criminal cases.
Speaker 5: The evidence was plentiful, spanning investigations and unraveled over decades.
Speaker 5: The archivist allowed her to examine pieces from a detonated bomb,
Speaker 5: a locket owned by a dead woman who was run
Speaker 5: down by her own car, a lock of hair belonging
Speaker 5: to an actress who died during an infamous party, and
Speaker 5: several pistols that required having their firing pins removed by u. C.
Speaker 5: Berkeley police. As she picked up the first photo, she
Speaker 5: was struck by something that seemed like an odd observation
Speaker 5: at the time. Heinrich was quite handsome for a tightly
Speaker 5: wound scientist. He was slight and not particularly tall, with thinning,
Speaker 5: light brown hair. There was something about the sharp angles
Speaker 5: of his face that made him magnetic in photos, a
Speaker 5: confidence in his eyes as he cleaned a revolver. Kate
Speaker 5: spent months staring at thousands of photographs, some taken by
Speaker 5: Heinrich's assistance and others developed by the criminalist himself. He
Speaker 5: was an avid photographer who relished documenting crime scenes. Kate
Speaker 5: noted hundreds of details, like the way he squinted as
Speaker 5: he adjusted the focus knob on his favorite microscope, the
Speaker 5: way his teeth gripped the bit of a straight stem
Speaker 5: pipe as a small stream of smoke billowed from its bowl,
Speaker 5: The way his forehead wrinkled as he hunched over evidence.
Speaker 5: The way his round, rimless glasses fit extra snugly around
Speaker 5: his temples, a requirement for a chemist to much of
Speaker 5: his time leaning over a microscope. As Kate flipped through
Speaker 5: these portraits, she gleaned more details about his private lab
Speaker 5: in Berkeley Hills, a lovely neighborhood overlooking San Francisco Bay.
Speaker 5: Heinrich was surrounded by odd devices. Every conceivable type of
Speaker 5: microscope was crammed onto a long wooden desk. Any extra
Speaker 5: space was surrendered to test tubes, crucibles, beakers, lenses, and scales.
Speaker 5: Behind Heinrich were shelves, though with hundreds of priceless books,
Speaker 5: at least priceless to a chemist turned forensic scientist. There
Speaker 5: were tomes on fingerprint identification, applied mechanics, analytical geometry, and
Speaker 5: powdered vegetable drugs. The titles, written in six different languages,
Speaker 5: would intrigue any intellectual. Blood, urine, feces, and moisture. A
Speaker 5: book of tests read one cover Rusnik and papers and
Speaker 5: fabrics read another. He even owned a tattered dictionary's slang
Speaker 5: used by criminals. They seemed unrelated. A cache of mismatched
Speaker 5: textbooks in the library of a brilliant madman, But each
Speaker 5: was a tiny piece belonging to a bigger puzzle that
Speaker 5: only he could assemble. The Portrait of a genius and
Speaker 5: the tumultuous era which he lived began to emerge, and
Speaker 5: it was a tumultuous era. The homicide rate in the
Speaker 5: nineteen twenties, when Heinrich Heinrich's most interesting work began, had
Speaker 5: increased by as much as almost eighty percent from the
Speaker 5: decade before thanks to prohibition. For thirteen years, the federal
Speaker 5: government banned alcohol and hopes of reducing crime, but extended
Speaker 5: spawned new and more creative criminal enterprises. Varying levels of
Speaker 5: corruption tainted local governments and police departments across the country.
Speaker 5: Judges enjoyed immunity from arrests, and most major cities were
Speaker 5: ruled by crime bosses. Poverty and unemployment were also responsible
Speaker 5: for the increase in violent crimes, as many Americans became
Speaker 5: desperate for security and safety, and there was an ever
Speaker 5: growing backlog of unsolved crimes. BI was still the Bureau
Speaker 5: of Investigation, a group of insufficiently trained officers and mostly
Speaker 5: investigated bank fraud. Local police forces were underfunded, poorly instructed,
Speaker 5: and mostly using investigative techniques that hadn't been updated since
Speaker 5: the Victorian era. There would be no public federal crime
Speaker 5: lab until nineteen thirty two. Violent bank robberies increased, while
Speaker 5: murderous terrorized Americans, especially women, whose new found independence inflamed
Speaker 5: both the passions and the anger of many in society.
Speaker 5: The archaic methods of crime fighting in the nineteen twenties,
Speaker 5: procedures depending on hunches and weak circumstantial evidence were futile.
Speaker 5: Cops were combat a sneakier criminal, those thieves and murderers
Speaker 5: who understood chemicals, firearms, and the criminal court system. Police
Speaker 5: route manned and many times outsmarted. Footprints are the best clue,
Speaker 5: declared one top cop at the time. There's no need
Speaker 5: for any type of any other type of identification. Innocent
Speaker 5: men were being hanged while criminals escaped justice. The complicated
Speaker 5: crimes of the twenties demanded a special type of sleuth,
Speaker 5: an expert with the instincts of a detective in the field,
Speaker 5: the analytical skills of a forensic scientist in the lab,
Speaker 5: and the ability to translate that knowledge to a general
Speaker 5: audience in the courtroom. Edward Bosker Heinrich became the nation's
Speaker 5: unique crime scene investigator, one of America's greatest forensic scientists,
Speaker 5: a criminalist who cracked some of the country's most baffling cases.
Speaker 1: Lucky Land Casino, asking people what's the weirdest place you've
Speaker 1: gotten lucky?
Speaker 3: Lucky in line of the Delhi I.
Speaker 1: Guess ahi in my dentist's office more than once. Actually
Speaker 1: do I have to say?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: You do? In the car before my kid's PTA meeting?
Speaker 3: Really?
Speaker 1: Yes, excuse me? What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Speaker 5: I never win?
Speaker 4: And tell well, there you have it.
Speaker 1: You can get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landsloughts dot
Speaker 1: com play for free right now? Are you feeling lucky? No,
Speaker 1: We're just necessary avoid re for my long eighteen plus
Speaker 1: terms conditions plus you worts every details.
Speaker 3: You're dedicated to building a bright financial future. Grow your
Speaker 3: investments with Millibank's high Yield Savings account. Earn a highly
Speaker 3: competitive annual percentage yield with no fees or minimums. Getting
Speaker 3: started is simple to download the app, link your account
Speaker 3: and start growing your money. Welcome to a new way
Speaker 3: to save more for the things that matter most. Welcome
Speaker 3: to Millibank, visit Milli dot bank or download the milliapp Today.
Speaker 5: Ladies and Gentlemen, author of American Sherlock, Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 5: Welcome to the program, and thank you very much for
Speaker 5: greening this interview. Kate Winkler, My Dan, how are you fine?
Speaker 5: Thank you, thank you very much for joining us. I
Speaker 5: just took the liberty of reading your prologue where you
Speaker 5: discuss everything about coming into your possession these incredible information
Speaker 5: material from Edward Oscar Heinrich. Now I've done that introduction
Speaker 5: to let our audience know a little bit about how
Speaker 5: you came upon these materials and an introduction on who
Speaker 5: exactly Edward Oscar Heinrich was. Now with this, let's talk
Speaker 5: about two of the cases that you say in your
Speaker 5: book shaped his career, shaped his reputation. And are two
Speaker 5: of the fascinating cases that Oscar Heinrich was inextricably. Let's
Speaker 5: talk about May thirtieth, nineteen thirty three, in a case
Speaker 5: you call a bloody mess and David Lampson in Palo Alto, California.
Speaker 5: Tell us a little bit about this incredible case and
Speaker 5: Oscar Heinrich's involvement.
Speaker 6: Well, in this book, I start with this case and
Speaker 6: I end with this case. So the book ranges from
Speaker 6: you know, Oscar worked from nineteen ten until nineteen fifty three,
Speaker 6: so over forty years, and I picked a time period
Speaker 6: that I thought would be really fascinating, which is prohibition
Speaker 6: Roaring twenties, and then you know, through the Great Depression.
Speaker 6: And so I started with this Lambson case and I
Speaker 6: end with the Lambson case because I wanted a sort
Speaker 6: of seth stakes early. So I wanted you to know
Speaker 6: who David Lambson was, and you know why he depended
Speaker 6: on Oscar heine Rich so much as his expert in
Speaker 6: his murder case. And then you'd go through the journey
Speaker 6: through five or six other cases of what OSCARS developments
Speaker 6: were personally and professionally, and then we end again with.
Speaker 2: The Lambson case at the end of the book, so that.
Speaker 6: We can see what the results were. And so the
Speaker 6: David Lambson case was fascinating, and I'll just kind of
Speaker 6: give you up a little brief bit. You know, Heinrich
Speaker 6: was this professional forensic scientist. By the time nineteen thirty
Speaker 6: three came around, he had solidified his reputation as America
Speaker 6: Sherlock Holmes because he knew so many disciplines in forensics,
Speaker 6: so biology, botany, handwriting, bloodstain pattern analysis, ballistics, chemistry, it
Speaker 6: was really a pretty incredible toxicology, a very long list,
Speaker 6: so he could walk into a crime scene and he
Speaker 6: could determine any number of tests that he was able
Speaker 6: to run that very a few other people knew this
Speaker 6: amount of tests and that you know, would not just
Speaker 6: solve the crime, but really rebuild the crime what happened.
Speaker 6: And so by this point he has a pretty incredible reputation,
Speaker 6: so the prosecutor who hired him was really.
Speaker 2: Leaning on him to solve this case.
Speaker 6: So the case is of a man named David Lambson
Speaker 6: who was kind of an account executive at Stanford University
Speaker 6: Press in pala Alta, California. He was good looking, young,
Speaker 6: and he was married to a beautiful woman named Aileen
Speaker 6: Lambson who.
Speaker 2: Had a master's degree, which.
Speaker 6: Was pretty unusual for anyone, let alone a woman in
Speaker 6: the nineteen twenties and thirties. And they had a little
Speaker 6: girl and Memorial Day Week in nineteen thirty three, which
Speaker 6: were referring to the Lambsons had decided they were going
Speaker 6: to go to a slew of parties and they had
Speaker 6: a great time, and they sent the little girl to
Speaker 6: go spend several nights with a grandmother and so David
Speaker 6: and Aileen could be alone, and they came home Sunday night,
Speaker 6: So the night before Memorial Day, and Eileen was not
Speaker 6: feeling well. She came home late from one of their
Speaker 6: parties and she went to bed with a stomach ache,
Speaker 6: and David kind of helped her throughout the night. And
Speaker 6: the next morning he wanted to do some yard work
Speaker 6: and she wanted to take a bath, so he drew
Speaker 6: her a bath, and he went outside of their small cottage,
Speaker 6: which was in a very effluent area. It was not
Speaker 6: a big house, but it was in an affluent area
Speaker 6: called Faculty Row.
Speaker 2: Where they bought this cottage.
Speaker 6: So he went into the garden and started a bonfire
Speaker 6: and started clipping all of the fruit trees they had
Speaker 6: in the backyard, like BlackBerry bushes and apple trees, and
Speaker 6: his neighbors were all kind of around him, and everybody
Speaker 6: was gossiping and chatting. It was just a nice, you know,
Speaker 6: cool morning. The Lambsons were planning to rent out their
Speaker 6: cottage for the summer because their young daughter was having
Speaker 6: a lot of sinus infections and they wanted to take
Speaker 6: her to the mountains. So the doctor thought it might
Speaker 6: help her, and so they were renting out the cottage,
Speaker 6: and a real estate agent that morning popped her head
Speaker 6: over and said, listen, I rang the doorbell. Your wife
Speaker 6: didn't answer. I'd like to bring in a client. I'm sorry,
Speaker 6: we don't have an appointment. And David was startled, but
Speaker 6: he said sure, and he put on his t shirt,
Speaker 6: said goodbye to the neighbors. Let the bonfire continue to burn.
Speaker 6: And he went into the back and said meet me
Speaker 6: at the front of the house and I'll let you in.
Speaker 6: And he finds his wife dead in the bathtom and
Speaker 6: there's blood everywhere, on the floor, over every wall, on
Speaker 6: the ceiling, and the corner would later say that Aileen
Speaker 6: was a very spelt young woman. She was, you know,
Speaker 6: one hundred and twenty pounds at the most, and he
Speaker 6: said the corner would say that she lost about half
Speaker 6: of her blood, which is a lot, and she was
Speaker 6: laying in the bathtub, and he screamed, and the real
Speaker 6: estate agent comes in and within about fifteen to twenty
Speaker 6: minutes he is under arrest for murder. And this begins
Speaker 6: an incredibly high profile, controversial case because Oscar Heinrich comes in,
Speaker 6: is hired by the prosecution. He walks into the house,
Speaker 6: and the prosecutor says, listen, this guy beat his wife
Speaker 6: to death. And Oscar looks the blood on the walls.
Speaker 6: He looks at the blood pattern. He looks to see
Speaker 6: if there's a void in the blood spray, was there
Speaker 6: somebody behind her that would have blocked the blood And
Speaker 6: he comes back out and resigns from the prosecutor's case
Speaker 6: and calls the defense, and that's where the story goes.
Speaker 6: Then it's a.
Speaker 2: Big who done it?
Speaker 6: What happens? Did she slip and fall or did he
Speaker 6: beat her to day? And it became a massive case
Speaker 6: in not just in California, but it was an international story.
Speaker 5: What were the forensic innovations or the forensic evidence that
Speaker 5: he brought forward in that trial?
Speaker 6: It was really bloodstained pattern analysis. And so what's interesting
Speaker 6: about that case and starting an ending with that case
Speaker 6: is that I wanted to be clear in the book
Speaker 6: that you know, Oscar did a lot of firsts in
Speaker 6: forensics that were very important. He was the first to
Speaker 6: introduce forensic geology into a criminal case in America. He
Speaker 6: was the first to introduce forensic entomology. How bugs arrived
Speaker 6: to a crime scene in America? You know, he was
Speaker 6: an innovator with handwriting analysis. He was the first to
Speaker 6: introduce bloodstain pattern analysis in the United States eight years
Speaker 6: earlier in a different case, but not all of the
Speaker 6: science was good, and the science that he used, which
Speaker 6: was blood stain pattern analysis, is junk science. Now to
Speaker 6: consider junk science, there's an argument and certainly kick back
Speaker 6: from from the experts in that community that differ, but
Speaker 6: it is unreliable and it's really subjective and up to
Speaker 6: the analyst. So Heinrich used these tools a bloodstain pattern.
Speaker 6: He had a little dial that was all based on trigonometry,
Speaker 6: so he used the measurements when of the tails and
Speaker 6: the heads of the blood. So if you in this case,
Speaker 6: we're just going to stick with Lambson's facts, which were
Speaker 6: the prosecutor claimed that David Lambson, in a fit of rage,
Speaker 6: took a metal pipe and beat his wife on the
Speaker 6: back of the head as she stood in the shower,
Speaker 6: and blood went everywhere. And if you could then look
Speaker 6: at the drips of blood, so you know, you think
Speaker 6: of it as kind of an exclam point, like there's
Speaker 6: a head and then there's a little tail that experts
Speaker 6: say that you can look at those drops and you
Speaker 6: could tell how tall the perpetrator is, exactly where he
Speaker 6: was standing, where she was, was she sitting, was she standing?
Speaker 6: On all of that and that should inform us who
Speaker 6: the killer is. And Heinrich did that and what he determined,
Speaker 6: which is going to totally ruin all of this, but
Speaker 6: what he determined was that she slipped and fell and
Speaker 6: hit her head on the sink. And there are other explanations,
Speaker 6: you know, I think there is a middle ground, and
Speaker 6: I think you know that there are other explanations you'll
Speaker 6: just have to read about in the book. But the
Speaker 6: techniques that he used are currently used today, but they
Speaker 6: are dubious at best, and they are challenged in court.
Speaker 6: And what you'll find with young science that I'm sure
Speaker 6: your audience will be interested in is is that there
Speaker 6: is in many cases not very much science in the
Speaker 6: forensic science, and that experts overstate their importance in court
Speaker 6: and that can sway a jury, and that's problematic. There's
Speaker 6: also very sound science that is rooted in scientific research,
Speaker 6: like toxicology, DNA analysis, but things like blood stained pattern analysis,
Speaker 6: there are aspects to it that are accurate. So void
Speaker 6: patterns if somebody is standing behind a victim and beats
Speaker 6: them to death and blood comes backwards. Well, the person
Speaker 6: who is the perpetrator is going to absorb the blood,
Speaker 6: right the blood's going to go all over their clothes.
Speaker 6: It's not going to go on the wall right behind
Speaker 6: them because they're blocking the wall. So in a Lean
Speaker 6: Lambson's case, every wall, every part was covered with blood spatter,
Speaker 6: so nobody was standing right behind her beating her to death.
Speaker 6: But there's so many mysteries in this case and how
Speaker 6: it unfolds and does was he guilty? And you know,
Speaker 6: does Oscar have any doubts about his guilt? And is
Speaker 6: he you know, testifying on behalf of a guilty man
Speaker 6: And what happens to David Lambson is also incredible.
Speaker 5: Yes, there are so many incredible stories and needs to
Speaker 5: say progressively, you show the controversy that Heinrich is involved with,
Speaker 5: and the luster goes off his reputation. Let's talk about
Speaker 5: the dual cases that created a lot of stress and
Speaker 5: anxiety for Heinrich in nineteen twenty one, two cases going
Speaker 5: on concurrently, and these cases again are testing of this
Speaker 5: forensic methodology and the forensic science that he is employing
Speaker 5: tell us a little bit about frital cases.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and I really I spent time looking at cases
Speaker 6: that I thought would really illustrate as time moves on,
Speaker 6: the skills that he picks up, you know, the winds
Speaker 6: and the losses, so that you could see a development
Speaker 6: in his career and in his personal life kind of
Speaker 6: happening parallel, and then you know the overall arch of
Speaker 6: forensics in general and what's happening in that timeline. So
Speaker 6: the first case you're talking about was the Father Heslin case.
Speaker 6: And in the case of Father Heslin, it was a
Speaker 6: parish priest, you know, Catholic priest who was met by
Speaker 6: a stranger at his home and the stranger asked the
Speaker 6: priest in Colma, California, in nineteen twenty one to please
Speaker 6: come give last rights to a man who had tuberculosis.
Speaker 6: The stranger's friend was dying and he needed Father Hesln
Speaker 6: to come and please give him last rites. And Father
Speaker 6: Hesln agreed and left in the middle of the night.
Speaker 6: He left behind a housekeeper who was very worried because
Speaker 6: the stranger was odd and had an odd accent and
Speaker 6: just was dressed strangely and he was wearing driving goggles,
Speaker 6: which you know, people who had open air touring cars
Speaker 6: in the nineteen twenties wore. But it was foggy and
Speaker 6: rainy and in the middle of the night, and no
Speaker 6: reason for this man to be wearing goggles. So she
Speaker 6: was was concerned, and when the priest didn't show up
Speaker 6: the next day, she called the archbishop, who called the police,
Speaker 6: and thus began an incredibly complicated story about the kidnapping
Speaker 6: of a priest and sort of a nation waiting to
Speaker 6: see what was happening to this man who, you know,
Speaker 6: the father Heslin just had a stellar reputation as you know,
Speaker 6: a counselor and a spiritual guide. So this was heartbreaking
Speaker 6: for a lot of people. And Heinrich was brought in
Speaker 6: really to play second or third fiddle. He was younger,
Speaker 6: this was the beginning, This was the first decade of
Speaker 6: his career in in you know, law enforcement and scientific investigation.
Speaker 6: And so he was saying, you know, he was second
Speaker 6: or third fiddle to two other criminologists, criminalists who had
Speaker 6: more experience than he did, and he thought were just charlatan's.
Speaker 6: He just thought they were both jokes. So there are
Speaker 6: ransom letters that are coming in partially typed and partially handwritten,
Speaker 6: which was odd. The amount of the I can't remember
Speaker 6: the exact amount of amount of the ransom, but it
Speaker 6: was something like sixty five hundred dollars, where you would
Speaker 6: think that they would round up or down. So the
Speaker 6: whole thing was really odd. And so, you know, the
Speaker 6: archbishop and the cops brought in these two experts in
Speaker 6: handwriting analysis, who are also experts in what's called graphology,
Speaker 6: which is, you know, a junk science and really was
Speaker 6: never taken that seriously even in the twenties. And they predicted,
Speaker 6: you know, that this man was you know, demented, but really,
Speaker 6: you know, they couldn't give any more details at all.
Speaker 6: And what Oscar said was if you look at his handwriting,
Speaker 6: he said, I have no idea who this man is.
Speaker 6: I don't know his identity, but I do know when
Speaker 6: you find him that if you ask him what he
Speaker 6: does for a living, that he'll say he was a
Speaker 6: professional baker. And the cops first of all said, well,
Speaker 6: how is that at all helpful?
Speaker 2: I mean, how many bakers are there?
Speaker 6: And he said, listen, I'm just telling you a little
Speaker 6: bit more information and let's continue to move forward and
Speaker 6: we'll get closer to identifying him. But the reason that
Speaker 6: Oscar talked about that was because he really believed in profiling,
Speaker 6: and very little profiling.
Speaker 2: Was done in the United States.
Speaker 6: It was done after the person was caught as a
Speaker 6: way to determine whether or not he should stand trial.
Speaker 6: Is this guy crazy or not is what a judge
Speaker 6: wanted to know. So then they were profile and try
Speaker 6: to sort that out. But very little was done before
Speaker 6: the person was caught, and Oscar was one of the.
Speaker 2: First to do it.
Speaker 6: So Oscar's belief, which was true, is that a baker
Speaker 6: is a baker. If he turns into a murderer, that
Speaker 6: doesn't mean he's not a baker any longer. So he
Speaker 6: was able to look at this man's writing and say,
Speaker 6: only someone who's professionally trained as a baker would make
Speaker 6: loops like this. This is how you you you know,
Speaker 6: do writing on a cake.
Speaker 2: It's just the way you have to do it on
Speaker 2: a cake.
Speaker 6: And so this was a profile.
Speaker 2: This was actually real.
Speaker 6: This was not just handwriting comparison. This was a habit
Speaker 6: that Oscar had picked up on. It's like a murderer
Speaker 6: who has a cat and you find that fiber you
Speaker 6: know that cat hair, So he's a little pet owner
Speaker 6: even though he's a murderer.
Speaker 2: And they in these are habits. You can pick up all.
Speaker 6: The spent shells you want, you can wipe down all
Speaker 6: the fingerprints you want, and you know, make sure that
Speaker 6: you you shave your head and make sure you're not
Speaker 6: leaving behind any hand. But you still have habits that
Speaker 6: none of us can break. And so as this this
Speaker 6: went on, finally just out of I don't know if
Speaker 6: it's luck, they had a suspect named William high Tower,
Speaker 6: and much of what happened with William high Tower was
Speaker 6: determining whether he was sane or not sane. And I
Speaker 6: think it's pretty clear that he was not sane as
Speaker 6: you get closer into the story. And Oscar was also
Speaker 6: the one who encouraged the very first use of the
Speaker 6: lie detector of the polygraph in a criminal court case,
Speaker 6: in this particular court case, and we now know that
Speaker 6: the polygraph is inaccurate, that there are many reasons why
Speaker 6: people pass it or don't pass it. It can do
Speaker 6: with they have to do with your medication, with your
Speaker 6: emotions that day, with your mental health. I mean, there's
Speaker 6: too many variables and in forensic science that is the key.
Speaker 6: That's the word to underline is variable because in handwriting,
Speaker 6: your handwriting is not identical all the time, there are variables.
Speaker 2: Fingerprints the same thing.
Speaker 6: Your fingerprint doesn't change, but the quality of the fingerprint
Speaker 6: that you leave behind does change. And so this was
Speaker 6: something that it was just occurring to people in this
Speaker 6: time period. So Oscar was able to kind of really
Speaker 6: crack this case and ty William High Tower definitively to
Speaker 6: this case using grains of sand and forensic geology, using
Speaker 6: some handwriting analysis, you know, but particularly nailing down the
Speaker 6: profile of this person, and that I think is what
Speaker 6: he was great at shoring up the case for the
Speaker 6: prosecutor of the defense.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, let's use this as an opportunity to just stop
Speaker 5: for a second to talk about our sponsor, Third Love.
Speaker 5: Third Love uses the measurements of millions of women to
Speaker 5: design bras with all day comfort and support. They're perfect fit.
Speaker 5: Promise sixty days to wash it and wear it. If
Speaker 5: you don't love it, Returns are always free. Over eighty sizes,
Speaker 5: including half cups, all made with signature memory foam. My wife,
Speaker 5: Alicia Lisa immediately went and took Third Love's fit finder quiz.
Speaker 5: It took her just a minute and she ordered her
Speaker 5: twenty four to seven classic T shirt bra. She said,
Speaker 5: and I agree that bra was very flattering, and she
Speaker 5: remarked it was very comfortable. It fit perfectly, she said.
Speaker 5: She answered a few simple questions based on breast size,
Speaker 5: weight and fit issues. Hands down, the most comfortable bra
Speaker 5: you'll have her own hands, the straps that won't slip,
Speaker 5: and tagless labels, no itching, super thin, memory foam, mold
Speaker 5: to your shape. Third Love knows there's a perfect bra
Speaker 5: for everyone, So right now they're offering my listener's fifteen
Speaker 5: percent off your first order. Go to third love dot
Speaker 5: com slash true murder to find your perfect fitting bra
Speaker 5: and get fifteen percent off your first purchase. That's third
Speaker 5: love dot com slash true Murder for fifteen percent off today. Now, Kate,
Speaker 5: you were talking about this case in nineteen twenty one,
Speaker 5: but as I mentioned, there was a concurrent case going
Speaker 5: on at the same time, and as you write in
Speaker 5: the book, how interesting was the media at that time,
Speaker 5: What was their response at that time and their ethical
Speaker 5: boundaries at that time in terms of accuracy. Tell us
Speaker 5: a little bit about the media and the media's response
Speaker 5: to these two trials in nineteen twenty one.
Speaker 6: Well, the second trial, as you mentioned, was that of
Speaker 6: Fatty Arbuckle, who was a very very famous silent film
Speaker 6: star in the nineteen twenties, and in nineteen twenty one,
Speaker 6: he was capturing headlines because he had just wrapped up
Speaker 6: his latest movie. He had a movie currently playing in
Speaker 6: theaters that was doing really well. He was the highest
Speaker 6: paid actor in Hollywood at the time. He was on
Speaker 6: the top of the world. I mean really, it was
Speaker 6: an incredible year for him.
Speaker 5: And so.
Speaker 6: His friend decided to throw him a party at the
Speaker 6: Saint Francis Hotel in San Francisco, which was a really
Speaker 6: swanky hotel, and there were men from Hollywood there, there
Speaker 6: were showgirls there, kind of his entertainment and companionship. And
Speaker 6: there was a minor actress there named Virginia Repey, and
Speaker 6: she and Fatty our Buckle gone along well. And a
Speaker 6: few days after the party she ends up dead. She
Speaker 6: had a chronic condition that was exasperated when you drink
Speaker 6: kind of you know, bathtub gin. And then again we're
Speaker 6: in the middle of prohibition at the time, and she
Speaker 6: ends up dead. Fatty Arbuckle is arrested for a manslaughter
Speaker 6: and potentially for a sexual assault, and he goes on trial.
Speaker 6: And the reaction of the press of both of these cases,
Speaker 6: you asked about ethical boundaries, there.
Speaker 2: Seemed to be very few at all boundaries.
Speaker 6: And this is we see this with what we call
Speaker 6: yellow journalism. You know, this is the rise of William
Speaker 6: Hurst papers, the rise of the tabloid journalists. But really,
Speaker 6: I say that, and in some ways it's not true
Speaker 6: because if you read the Penny Dreadfuls from the eighteen hundreds,
Speaker 6: you know that are about Jack the Ripper, you know,
Speaker 6: and any of these stories in Victoria and England.
Speaker 2: I mean, boy, they.
Speaker 6: Sure did love a good murder, and particularly if it
Speaker 6: involved of celebrity, and the Fatty Arbookle trial was pretty incredible.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: There were people who, of course.
Speaker 6: Defended him, and then there were the religious right who
Speaker 6: who were incredibly critical of Hollywood. It was sort of
Speaker 6: a country divided in some ways, and Oscar Heinrich was
Speaker 6: one of those people. He really disliked Hollywood. He believed
Speaker 6: in some ways that women should continue to wear corsets
Speaker 6: and there should be chaperoning. He was sort of old fashion,
Speaker 6: which was interesting. It was an interesting choice of career
Speaker 6: for him because he, of course, you know, had to
Speaker 6: deal with what he would consider to be the dregs
Speaker 6: of society. And so the Fatty Arbuckle case was the
Speaker 6: first case that I read where I really felt that
Speaker 6: he had, for me an uncomfortable biased because in his
Speaker 6: letters to his best friend and to his son and
Speaker 6: to his.
Speaker 2: Wife, he just talked about how.
Speaker 6: Disgusted he was in general with Hollywood, with Hollywood stars
Speaker 6: and the opulence, and with flapper women, and then particularly.
Speaker 2: With Fatty Arbuckle.
Speaker 6: He just felt like this was not he was not
Speaker 6: conducting himself in the way a man should, a right
Speaker 6: man should, And so it became very clear to me
Speaker 6: early on that Heinrich had to have felt very, very
Speaker 6: comfortable with his evidence. And it was fingerprinting evidence, which
Speaker 6: is the reason why if you look at the front
Speaker 6: cover of the book, it's a handprint and that's actually
Speaker 6: Fatty our boocals handprint, and Oscar took it. Oscar went
Speaker 6: to the San Francisco jail and with the ink pad
Speaker 6: and rolled it and you know, to then took a
Speaker 6: photo of it. And I think that that handprint's really
Speaker 6: important because that was sort of the beginning of his reputation.
Speaker 6: It was solidified with the Siskiu train robbery two years later,
Speaker 6: but he made headlines for months because he dragged this
Speaker 6: out for months. His testimony and his expertise continued to
Speaker 6: hang the jury. It continued to trigger miss trials because
Speaker 6: the jury believed at least one person in each trial
Speaker 6: believed his evidence and fingerprint evidence is just not accurate,
Speaker 6: and it wasn't accurate if you look some of the
Speaker 6: photos in the book, it wasn't. It wasn't even remotely
Speaker 6: accurate in this case. And on top of that, you know,
Speaker 6: you've got the coroner who sang, listen, don't really know
Speaker 6: what caused her death. But it wasn't just Fatty Arbuckle
Speaker 6: on trial. It was Hollywood on trial. It just it
Speaker 6: was it was a country divided, and so you know,
Speaker 6: the headlines were just incredible. I mean, they certainly damned
Speaker 6: Fatty Arbuckle right out of the gate, and so it
Speaker 6: was quite a spectacle.
Speaker 2: It was the trial of the century for sure.
Speaker 6: It was definitely an OJ scenario, you know, with that
Speaker 6: that sort of salacious reporting.
Speaker 5: You talk about that trial as well, and the interesting
Speaker 5: behavior of the district attorney when he has these conflict
Speaker 5: conflicting testimonies of these showgirls, he just gets them into
Speaker 5: the room and says, you're going to change, You're going
Speaker 5: to make new statements. But that's kinwashed at that trial
Speaker 5: and leads and helps Fatty Arbuckle to a certain degree.
Speaker 5: Of course, what you mentioned too, his career is absolutely
Speaker 5: ruined as of that, so he has no career. Yeah,
Speaker 5: very interesting that you call this Sherlock Holmes and the
Speaker 5: parallel to this fictional character, but also very much like
Speaker 5: the fictional character. He has nemesis, and he also has
Speaker 5: well at least one Chauncey McGovern in particular. But John
Speaker 5: Boyton Kaiser tell us about this John Boyton Kaiser in
Speaker 5: his contribution and his role as a I guess a Watson.
Speaker 6: Yeah, John Puton Kaiser, Yeah. John Puyten Kaiser was a
Speaker 6: reference librarian that someone who Oscar had become friends with
Speaker 6: decades earlier in Tacoma, and they became friends, and when
Speaker 6: Oscar moved to Berkeley, you know, they began writing each other,
Speaker 6: which was great because.
Speaker 2: Now I have.
Speaker 6: Heiser was a big deal in the library world, and
Speaker 6: so I have all of his letters because he had
Speaker 6: his own collection at UC Berkeley, and then Oscar kept
Speaker 6: all of his letters. So again I'm able to build
Speaker 6: these conversations between these two men, and it became clear
Speaker 6: to me really quickly that Kaiser was a confidant. He
Speaker 6: was a close, close friend, He was a sounding board,
Speaker 6: and he was an advisor. So the majority of the
Speaker 6: books that Oscar used in his cases, I would guess
Speaker 6: ninety percent came from Kaiser, and Kaiser would send him unsolicited.
Speaker 2: He would send them books.
Speaker 6: He would just say, hey, I know you're doing the
Speaker 6: Fatty Airbuckle case. Here's another one on fingerprinting that I
Speaker 6: think you could use. Kaiser would ask his opinion, or
Speaker 6: Oscar would ask Kaiser's opinion about cases, and then Kaiser
Speaker 6: would give him unsolicited advice, which is all important.
Speaker 2: But I think that.
Speaker 6: John Boyden Kaiser's most important role was listening. Because Oscar
Speaker 6: had an incredible ego publicly, but privately he was very,
Speaker 6: very insecure. He was constantly a fear of losing cases.
Speaker 6: He was constantly in fear of being ridiculed on the
Speaker 6: stand by either a prosecutor a defense attorney or another witness.
Speaker 6: And that happened quite a lot you'll see in the book.
Speaker 6: And of course he was constantly in fear of debt
Speaker 6: collectors and lenders coming after him, which also happened throughout
Speaker 6: his life.
Speaker 2: So all of.
Speaker 6: This comes together in that there are very few people
Speaker 6: he can trust.
Speaker 2: Including his wife.
Speaker 6: He does not tell his wife about his financial problems.
Speaker 2: He doesn't disclose that.
Speaker 6: He says it's his honor to protect her from things
Speaker 6: like this, but he tells everything to Kaiser. And so
Speaker 6: I think that, you know, Kaiser served in a professional capacity,
Speaker 6: sort of like a Watson, but really it's the personal
Speaker 6: Kaiser knew him better than anybody. And so I think
Speaker 6: that that was so incredibly important to Oscar to have
Speaker 6: that best friend.
Speaker 2: And that's where his key role really.
Speaker 5: Is with this book. You talk about all of the
Speaker 5: court cases that he's involved with, again inextricably involved because
Speaker 5: they rely on him. Are the what are the things
Speaker 5: that affected him in terms of we talked about I
Speaker 5: mentioned the nemesis, this person that was this graphologist, and
Speaker 5: he vehemently disagreed with this guy, and he was he
Speaker 5: was the first fiddle, or at least he was that
Speaker 5: he was the second fiddle to this person that he
Speaker 5: vehemently disagreed with. What is the kind of criticism that
Speaker 5: eventually categorized his career. What were some of the things
Speaker 5: and some of the contentious things that were he was
Speaker 5: alleged to have done in his career that marred that
Speaker 5: reputation and definitely contributed for him to be lost somewhat
Speaker 5: in history.
Speaker 6: Well, I think that the reason he lost in history,
Speaker 6: I think was a couple of things. One is that
Speaker 6: forensic scientists generally work in the background. I mean, let's
Speaker 6: face it, you don't know much about forensic science.
Speaker 2: You know famous forensic scientists. There aren't the people who
Speaker 2: are in Wikipedia.
Speaker 6: I mean, the most famous people worked very quietly behind
Speaker 6: the scenes. They're not the police, they're not the das
Speaker 6: who were you know, in front of the cameras or
Speaker 6: in newspapers generally.
Speaker 2: And he also didn't have a big case.
Speaker 6: That was turned into a TV or a TV show
Speaker 6: or a movie like Paul Kirk who saw the Sam
Speaker 6: Shephard case, you know that was turned into the Fugitive
Speaker 6: with Harrison Ford, or you know Calvin Goddard who saw
Speaker 6: the Saint Valentine's Day massacre. So you know, these are
Speaker 6: cases that become well known only because of Hollywood, not
Speaker 6: because of the forensic scientists necessarily. What Heinrich really was
Speaker 6: accused of, I think the most what the most telling
Speaker 6: and the most entertaining, I think was.
Speaker 2: When Chauncey McGovern, who was probably his.
Speaker 6: Main competitor, decades after they became competitors, they were testifying
Speaker 6: in the same criminal case and Heinrich had just come
Speaker 6: up with this new technique in order to photograph two
Speaker 6: bullets side by side. So when you fire a bullet
Speaker 6: through a gun, the interior of the gun makes markings
Speaker 6: which are called bullet striations.
Speaker 2: It's unique markings to the gun specifically.
Speaker 6: So what Heinrich would do was he would take a
Speaker 6: bullet from a crime scene other from you know, it
Speaker 6: would be from a person or from a bullet fired
Speaker 6: through the wall. He would take that bullet and then
Speaker 6: he would take a clean bullet, fire it through the
Speaker 6: suspects gun, and then he would fire it into wax,
Speaker 6: dig it out, clean it off, and then he could
Speaker 6: put the bullet side by side and see if the
Speaker 6: markings matched up. It's a very valid scientific technique that's
Speaker 6: still used today. And so what Heinrich did was to
Speaker 6: get a step further, and not only was he able
Speaker 6: to you know, match these markings up, but he was
Speaker 6: able to photographic.
Speaker 2: Through a comparison microscope, which nobody.
Speaker 6: Had ever done before, and he could blow up the photographs.
Speaker 6: And he took him in and to the courtroom and
Speaker 6: showed him to the jury. And this is, you know,
Speaker 6: definitive evidence that the suspect had used the gun to
Speaker 6: shoot and kill his boss. But Chauncey McGovern, who was
Speaker 6: the expert, on the other side of the table, and
Speaker 6: they just hated each other beyond belief. Chauncey McGovern got
Speaker 6: on the stand and essentially accused him of nineteenth so,
Speaker 6: you know, twentieth century photoshopping essentially, you know, what would
Speaker 6: you in the nineteen hundreds, how would you you know,
Speaker 6: early nineteen he accused him of photoshopping kind of in
Speaker 6: the nineteen twenties.
Speaker 2: So he's fabricating this.
Speaker 6: Photo and it came very close to breaking oscar. He
Speaker 6: was humiliated and embarrassed, but then he picked himself up
Speaker 6: very quickly and he whispered to the prosecutor, and the
Speaker 6: prosecutor said, let's let him bring in his setup, and
Speaker 6: so he did and he took it through the jury,
Speaker 6: and the jury came and they looked through the microscope
Speaker 6: and they said, okay, these do look similar. But the
Speaker 6: jury was convinced the bullets were the same, but they
Speaker 6: weren't one hundred percent convinced that Oscar knew how to
Speaker 6: photograph these bullets. And so it's almost like it was
Speaker 6: case closed. But well, are you really lying about the
Speaker 6: photography thing? And so they made him take a photo
Speaker 6: then and there, and they sent a bailiff with him
Speaker 6: to watch him develop the photo so he wasn't double
Speaker 6: exposing anything and then bringing it back in. And so
Speaker 6: really Oscar was accused of falsifying information. It was really
Speaker 6: in that particular case be.
Speaker 2: Where that came up, you know. But I think that.
Speaker 6: Overall he was very very well respected. It's later on,
Speaker 6: not the man, but the science that is doubted.
Speaker 5: Absolutely. Now you talk about what's interesting is that he
Speaker 5: was totally convinced, whether this turns out to be later
Speaker 5: junk science, discredited methodologies and sciences, he was totally convinced
Speaker 5: there was no evidence that he helped anybody, any prosecution
Speaker 5: out when he was not convinced, was.
Speaker 6: There no, No, absolutely not. I mean he was as
Speaker 6: much as he could. He was honest in his techniques.
Speaker 6: The problem is now we know that his techniques weren't
Speaker 6: all valid, and that is not a reflection necessarily on Oscar.
Speaker 6: It's a reflection on the times. There wasn't time to
Speaker 6: test these techniques the way they should have been through
Speaker 6: peer reviews, you know, through more research, through rigorous testing
Speaker 6: that's supposed to be done.
Speaker 2: There wasn't it. This was the beginning of it. So, yes, they're.
Speaker 6: Going to be mistakes. So you know, that really was
Speaker 6: sort of growing pains of forensics.
Speaker 5: In the end. What are the most credible on now
Speaker 5: we would consider credible innovations in forensic investigation that he
Speaker 5: can be credited for.
Speaker 6: Well, certainly he was an innovator in ballistics with the photography.
Speaker 6: He was the first to use forensic geology and move
Speaker 6: that forward, the first to use forensic entomology, so how
Speaker 6: bugs arrived to a crime scene? He moved that forward.
Speaker 6: Criminal profiling and toxicology. He used an awful of toxicology
Speaker 6: in his cases. So there were there are a lot
Speaker 6: of very valid techniques that he used. The questionable ones
Speaker 6: are you know, fingerprinting, which who didn't use finger printing
Speaker 6: and still many people do and bloodstained pattern analysis were
Speaker 6: kind of the two big ones I think for him as.
Speaker 5: Well, would you say that that he would be responsible
Speaker 5: for He had a great interest in policing, so along
Speaker 5: with his buddy of Volmer, he did make some significant
Speaker 5: changes along with his partner Volmer. What are the kinds
Speaker 5: of things that he made sure that we're instituted.
Speaker 6: Hey, Dan, this is going to need to be my
Speaker 6: last question because I've had a take a little break
Speaker 6: before i have another big interview, So I'm.
Speaker 2: Sorry I repeat that again.
Speaker 5: The along with Volmer, Well, with Volmer, he was very
Speaker 5: interested in policing. So what are the things that he
Speaker 5: instituted within the cooperation with police Chief Volmer?
Speaker 6: Well, you know, Volmer was nicknamed the grandfather of modern policing,
Speaker 6: and Volmer learned a lot from Oscar about organizing evidence,
Speaker 6: and he and Volmer created the first criminology classes in
Speaker 6: the country, which you know was at UC Berkeley, And
Speaker 6: first it was only police officers who were allowed to
Speaker 6: attend the classes, and then it became more of the
Speaker 6: general public. So they worked together on those classes that
Speaker 6: became incredibly important, and Oscar spent decade at UC Berkeley.
Speaker 6: After that, Volmer and Oscar worked on the Father Heslin
Speaker 6: case where Oscar encouraged Volmer to use a light detector test.
Speaker 6: Now Oscar didn't wasn't the creator of it, he was
Speaker 6: at the innovator. He thought it was a good idea. Again,
Speaker 6: this is the beginning of just an understand how to
Speaker 6: catch criminals. And we now know that the polygraph is
Speaker 6: not accurate and it shouldn't be used in court. There's
Speaker 6: a reason why it's an admissible in court. But Oscar
Speaker 6: at the time thought it was a good way to
Speaker 6: catch William high Tower in a lie.
Speaker 5: Absolutely. I want to thank you very much for coming
Speaker 5: on and talking about American Sherlock murder forensics and the
Speaker 5: birth of American CSI, Kate, For those that might want
Speaker 5: to take a look at this, is there a website
Speaker 5: Facebook page? Tell us a little bit more about how
Speaker 5: they might take a look at this.
Speaker 6: Sure, there's my website, which is Katewinkler Dawson dot com.
Speaker 6: So my name dot com. I have a newsletter. You
Speaker 6: can just put your email address. It's really easy and
Speaker 6: you can kind of keep up with other projects that
Speaker 6: I'm doing and on this book, and on that page,
Speaker 6: if you scroll down, you'll be able to see all
Speaker 6: the places that you can buy the book. And then
Speaker 6: I'm on Facebook under my name Kate Winkler Dawson, and
Speaker 6: I'm on Twitter and Instagram.
Speaker 5: It's been a fascinating interview. Thank you very much much
Speaker 5: for talking about Edward, Oscar Heinrich and the American Sherlock.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. You have a great evening. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good night, Thank you, Dan, good night.