I have come to believe that the "Sherlock Holmes" tales were a massive copaganda campaign designed to prime the general public for advanced forensic investigation techniques.
I mean, Sherlock could "deduce" anything with his magnifying glass just by looking at a clump of mud on a shoe, or a thread of fabric on a lady's dress. But meanwhile, the actual police were developing actual scientifically-based theories of evidentiary examination that would revolutionize the jobs of detectives everywhere.
Sherlock Holmes's powers of deduction were, of course, exaggerated and improbable. Nevertheless, the author was probably privy to scientific developments that held promise. Fingermarks, for example, were emerging in law enforcement contemporary with Conan Doyle's writings.
If you want an amusing modern take on this, and you love to watch copaganda shows, I recommend the Canadian Murdoch Mysteries. They combine emerging science of the late 19th century with some really outlandish steampunk stuff ("The Tesla Effect") and it's a rollicking homage to Sherlock Holmes.
Anyway, fast-forward to the present day. I feel like police are way too reliant on technology instead of doing their job. I feel like the general public watches way too much CSI and NCIS and they expect to see an Abby Sciuto in every precint. I believe that if LEOs weren't shelving all those rape kits for 20 years, and spending $millions on bogus "gunshot detection" networks, and not purchasing literal urban assault vehicles and a stockpile of ammunition to rival Ruby Ridge, I think that they might focus their efforts on something more productive. Anything more productive.
> I mean, Sherlock could "deduce" anything with his magnifying glass just by looking at a clump of mud on a shoe, or a thread of fabric on a lady's dress. But meanwhile, the actual police were developing actual scientifically-based theories of evidentiary examination that would revolutionize the jobs of detectives everywhere.
This is a pop culture bastardization/modern reimagining of the original stories. Sherlock Holmes spent an absurd amount of his time memorizing things he could apply to his work, for example where certain trees grew and what their seeds look like, which he'd recognize in the clump of mud. Basic forensic techniques combined with things he memorized that the rest of us would have to look up.
I mean, Sherlock could "deduce" anything with his magnifying glass just by looking at a clump of mud on a shoe, or a thread of fabric on a lady's dress. But meanwhile, the actual police were developing actual scientifically-based theories of evidentiary examination that would revolutionize the jobs of detectives everywhere.
Sherlock Holmes's powers of deduction were, of course, exaggerated and improbable. Nevertheless, the author was probably privy to scientific developments that held promise. Fingermarks, for example, were emerging in law enforcement contemporary with Conan Doyle's writings.
If you want an amusing modern take on this, and you love to watch copaganda shows, I recommend the Canadian Murdoch Mysteries. They combine emerging science of the late 19th century with some really outlandish steampunk stuff ("The Tesla Effect") and it's a rollicking homage to Sherlock Holmes.
Anyway, fast-forward to the present day. I feel like police are way too reliant on technology instead of doing their job. I feel like the general public watches way too much CSI and NCIS and they expect to see an Abby Sciuto in every precint. I believe that if LEOs weren't shelving all those rape kits for 20 years, and spending $millions on bogus "gunshot detection" networks, and not purchasing literal urban assault vehicles and a stockpile of ammunition to rival Ruby Ridge, I think that they might focus their efforts on something more productive. Anything more productive.