Talkies May Assist at Rogues Gallery

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 880, 25 January 1930, Page 18

Talkies May Assist at Rogues Gallery

Novel Experiment By American Police Likely To Become Permanent Addition to System of Crime Identification and Conviction. Eliminating Chances of “ Third Degree ” Methods . . . ys HEN Sherlock Holmes began the scientific tracking of criminals through the pages of fiction, detectives had to depend upon sheer brainwork for adding up odd bits of evidence and finding the solution of a • rime. Study of footprints, fingerprints. chemistry and dentistry were brought in to aid the cleverest manhunters to identify and convict thieves and murderers.

Every good police force developed its “Camera-Eye Dick,” a man with lemarkable memory for faces and features, and, despite the unceasing use of science. successful detective work continued to depend upon the rogues gallery which the crime investigator carried around in his own head.

Not long ago in Philadelphia there gathered in the reception room of the Mayor a distinguished audience of psychologists, criminologists, welfare workers and detectives from other cities. The room was jammed with people who had come to see the fir3t run of a talking motion picture. The Director of Public Safety, Mr. Lemuel R. Schofield, gave the word to the operator and the screen not only showed the scene and dialogue of a morning "stand-up” of criminals and inspects at police headquarters, but also the audience saw and heard a inspected thief and a suspected murderer confess to their crimes and describe how they were carried out.

"This use of the movietone is a revolutionary step forward in the identification and conviction of criminals," declared Director Schofield. "It is the most . important development in police technique since the adoption of the fingerprint system. It will modify police methods, increase the efficiency of the average detective, and make it more difficult for suspected men to escape recognllion by the police. “A movietone rogues gallery must become an important part of the equipment of every first-class police department; while the use of the talking picture in court, both by prosecution and defence, will, I venture to predict, create a subtle change in the processes of justice as well as in the conviction of criminals.”

The inspiration for the use of talking pictures in police work came to Director Schofield while preparing evidence in a murder case. A negro had held up a storekeeper and killed him. He accompanied detectives to the scene of the crime, and a series of photographs was taken in which the man re-enacted his part in the crime. He demonstrated how he had approached the store and how he had used his gun. When Director Schofield spread the prints out on his desk showing the sequence of the murder, the idea of using a motion-picture camera occurred t.o him. And if a motion picture, why not a talking picture? The police had just arrested a milk driver accused of robbing houses and a boy after the shooting of his sweetheart. Inspector of Detectives William J. Connelly, who belongs to the school o£ detectives opposed to the “third degree,” believing that more flies are caught with molasses than with vinegar, had persuaded both of the young men to make confessions and they consented to have a camera record the visual and vocal aspects of the scene.

Inspector Connelly sat at a desk with a stenographer beside him, while William A. Peters sat opposite. The scene was clear and vivid. As the film flickered on the boy told the story of the tragedy, while the crowd leaned forward eagerly not to mis 3 a word. Leona, his sweetheart, was in the » store, said Peters. ' Q. The girl you shot? A. Went back into the bakeshop. Her father was there and I believe her mother was in the store. I told the father I wanted to do the right thing. . . . The father said we would have to cut it out completely, no letters. I talked to Leona and we walked into the hallway. I said. “Leona, want to quit me?" And she said, “No, but you have to act that way on account of pop being hero." . . . Went inside again and she was going upstairs. I called her hack and I said, “Lee.” And she said, "I have to go upstairs.” I said, "Listen, Lee, we will make a clean slate of the thing.” Then we went upstairs to the parlour and started to talk. The father said something to me, and she said. “All right, we will settle this in court.” She said something else and I lost my head. Q. Tell us what she said. A. I can’t remember. Q. Well, it’s all right if you can’t

remember. What happened then? A. Anyhow, I got out the gun and I shot her. I wanted to shoot myself, but somebody grabbed me and the next thing I knew I was on the floor. A couple grabbed me and after that there was three on me. The mother came in and she said, "You shot my daughter.” I said, "No, mom, no.” Then I said, "Get somebody, get a doctor, I am not going to beat it." After that the police came and took me away. Q. They brought you to the police station and then here to City Hall, where we had a pleasant little chat, when I told you the police had nothing to do with getting you into this trouble and of course could do nothing toward getting you out of it? A. Yes, sir. Q. You bought the gun purposely, with the intention of going to see this girl to commit this murder? A. Not to shoot her; wanted to do away with myself first. Q. But' did away with her first and, after you shot her, changed your mind about shooting yourself? A. No, didn’t change my mind! Somebody grabbed me. Q. Now, everything you have told me is the truth? A. Yes. Q. And you won’t say later youwere forced? A. No, sir. Q. And you won’t make up some other story that will not. correspond with this? A. No, sir. Every one hearing and seeing the confession held his breath sharply at the point Inspector Connelly had tried to make Peters admit premeditation. But the boy avoided it with no suggestion of guile or adroitness. It was certain that if this film was introduced in court as evidence of confession the slumped, wistful figure telling of the dire end of his romance would evoke mitigating sympathy. It reflected a picture of the circumstances of the killing and the manner of the confession which could never be communicated by a cold, typewritten record of the same scene. • “From the standpoint of the police,” said Director Schofield, “the use of talking film to record confessions makes it difficult for the defendant to recant and declare that his signature and his story were obtained through brutality and pressure. “The Peters film shows that he carefully looked over every page before he signed his name at the bottom and that he was treated with consideration and courtesy by the inspector. The presence of the stenographer is selfevident and is more convincing than sworn testimony to the same fact. “Confessions have often been made by criminals because of clever police work in appealing to their human side and then, under the guidance of an attorney, the man on trial has repudiated his confession and declared that his signature was obtained only through the use of the ’third degree.’ As a matter of fact, there is no ‘third degree’ in Philadelphia. “Of course, there*is nothing to prevent the ‘third degree’ being used in advance of a movietone confession, but since the hatred of the police and cringing and fear would show in the man’s face, and actions and be reflected in his voice, it is my prediction that the use of this method of recording confessions will tend to eliminate the use of the ’third degree,’ even in those police departments where it is still employed.

“The suggestion has been made to me that a film which revealed the police in an unpleasant light could be destroyed and that it was essential in order to protect the accused to create a system which would compel the police to account for every foot of film. “Of course, that would require legislation. I would not be opposed to it, nor to any other regulation for the safeguarding of the men who are questioned. “There may be some difficulty in some States in having talking film admitted as evidence and made part of the record, but X believe that any legal objections can, in. time, be overcome, and that the talking picture will take its place with other scientific devices as part of the legally admissible record. “Courts recognise finger-prints. They recognise photostatie copies of documents. They have permitted the introduction of signatures on cheques transmitted by the telephoto process across the Atlantic, and they must admit the inescapable veracity of the talking picture. Defendants can be protected against the manipulation of the film so that the police cannot eliminate what they consider undesirable portions. “As a matter of fact, it is a perverted. perspective of police work which would lead any department to order eliminations in order to make a man’s story worse. The business of the police is to uncover the facts. Whether they are good or bad, all the evidence should he presented. The attorneys for the State and the defence will give the facts all the interpretation they require. “X foresee another very important aspect, of this development in the filming of trials when either the prosecution or defence feels that an appeal to a higher court may be necessary. “A judge may say to a jqfy: Gentlemen, you have heard the evidence of both sides; do you believe the story of the defendant, or do you believe the stories told by the witnesses for the State? “On the face of the record, the cold type shows no prejudice whatever, but a movietone record of the judge’s words would record the emphasis and tone of his voice, and bring out any attempt to influence the jury against or in favour of one side or the other. “A movietone rogues’ gallery may be used by the co-operating police departments throughout the nation to exchange prints of the movietone portraits of notorious or escaped criminals in addition to the snapshots now in use, so that the visual and vocal photographs of dangerous men will be available to man-hunters all over the United States. “The talking movie will not displace present statistical and photographic work of police departments, but it will be an invaluable accessory. Fingerprints will still be used for comparison and identification, and the combined accuracy of finger-prints and talking film will create a net from which the criminal will find it increasingly difficult to escape. “The public is greatly interested in more efficient police work against crime, and I urge the inauguration ot the movietone everywhere as a scientific development which will aid in the detection and conviction of criminals.”