In some ways, murder cases, which have served to provide much of the source material for historians interested in forensics, are not the best cases to learn about a forensic culture, because they typically form a very small minority of the crimes that are investigated by police and judicial actors. Their exceptional nature can sometimes distort the understanding of a forensic culture; the 1952 case narrated below, for example, stands out from lesser contemporaneous crimes in the Netherlands -even ones as serious as rape – by its heavy reliance on several forms of forensic expertise.  It also stands out because of the fairly extensive verbal statements by several investigators and experts at trial; Dutch forensic culture has been very reliant on written reports.

Of course, it is precisely these exceptional characteristics that make this case – and murder cases more broadly – useful for understanding how forensic science was employed when it did play an important role. This case shows how forensic expertise served to legitimize conclusions that were also drawn by non-specialist participants in the investigation. In the autumn of 1950, Hendrik (pseudonym), a farmer who ran a small farm with his aging father Aart (pseudonym) and aunt Cornelia (pseudonym,) placed a marriage advertisement in the local newspaper. He hoped to find a nice wife, who might help support his business as the work became too hard for his father and aunt. The 38-year-old Mien (pseudonym) from a nearby village responded to the ad and after a short courtship, in December op 1950, Mien and Hendrik married. Seven months later, however, on a Sunday morning in July of 1951, having just returned home after milking the cows with his father, Hendrik ran to get his neighbour, indicating something terrible had happened. When the pair made their way to the attic they were confronted by Mien’s body, hanged by the neck from a ceiling beam. Together they cut her down. The neighbour’s wife, who had come up after hearing the commotion, went to fetch the local doctor and police officer. When they arrived on the scene, the doctor declared Mien dead and the police officer began an investigation into the circumstances of her demise.

If on first sight the case had appeared a suicide, such an impression did not last long. The first officer on the scene, Van Breugel, noted not only that Hendrik’s behaviour was somewhat strange, but also that there was blood on Mien’s face and throat. When Van Breugel interviewed Hendrik and Aart, they declared that she must have hanged herself while they were out to milk the cows – but Van Breugel and the local doctor observed that rigor mortis had already set in. Thus, foul play became the leading hypothesis almost immediately. Van Breugel made sure that no one touched the crime scene while they waited for higher ups and the experts to arrive.

The first on the scene was F.A. Mulders, a photography expert tied to the national police. From the time that it became commonly embedded in police practice, photographic expertise was connected to other types of forensic expertise, including fingerprinting. The photos, which are preserved in the case file, show clearly that Mulder knew where to look; in addition to a couple of overview photos, he took photos of the victim, especially of the marks on her neck and he took a photo of the cut rope that remained attached to the ceiling beam. Most importantly, however, Mulder seems to have immediately realized that the bed on the side of the room was a crime scene. He took a photo of the sheets, which had a stain on them, and of the foot of the bed, where two boards were broken. In his report he clarified that the stain was wet – also noting that the floor under the place where Mien had hung was dry. He also noted that the state of the bed had made him suspect that a struggle took place there.

The casefile shows that pathologist Jan Zeldenrust made it to the crime scene on the same day. Although Zeldenrust’s main task was to perform the autopsy and write a report for the court, he also observed the crime scene. In his report, he noted the same things that Mulder had observed, but where Mulder had only reported the sight of the yellow-brownish stain on the sheets and the victim’s underwear, Zeldenrust noted that those stains smelled of urine.

Mien’s body was moved to the local hospital, where Zeldenrust performed the autopsy in the hospital’s chapel. As was always the case, the post-mortem report took the shape of a numbered list, that went over every external and internal part of the body, describing any and all irregularities, that could have contributed to the death. Zeldenrust concluded that Mien’s death was the result of strangulation and that she had already been dead when her body was hung from the ceiling beam, confirming the suspicion of seemingly everyone who had participated in the investigation thus far.

In addition to the crime scene investigation, several pieces of physical evidence were transported (in a Hessian bag) to the newly established forensic laboratory in Den Haag. The director of the new institute, Wiebo Froentjes, investigated blood traces on a chord that was found later and which seemed to have been employed in the efforts to strangle the victim, while chemist Anton Hendrik Witte extracted the victims clothes and the confiscated sheets to demonstrate the presence of ureum: indeed, the stains were urine.

Of course, the investigation revolved around more than just the physical traces: interrogations of the members of the household showed a strained relationship between Mien and her new family; they found her to be lazy and difficult and their catholic sensibilities were offended by her sunbathing. Neighbours and Mien’s siblings confirmed the strained relationship, saying Hendrik, Aart and especially aunt Cornelia were controlling and unkind. it would not be long before both Hendrik and his father Aart confessed that they were involved in killing Mien, although the two men were inconsistent about the details.

A notary came forward to tell the police that Hendrik had visited him asking about divorce, but he – as a devout Catholic himself – had told his visitor to try his best to work it out. Both the investigative judge and the psychiatrist who examined the two suspects later asked about this: why not file for divorce if the marriage was so unhappy? Surely, the shame of divorce would not have been as bad as the shame of murder? Hendrik answered that they did not think anyone would find out. The psychiatrist actually made much of the family’s ‘backwards’ Catholic sensibilities, arguing that the perpetrators could only be held partially responsible on the basis of it.

At trial, several police officers testified to what they had seen and Zeldenrust, too, was present to answer questions. Froentjes and Witte, working at the same location in Den Haag, had entrusted the physical evidence to Zeldenrust, who delivered it to the court. Upon seeing all the evidence, the court convicted Hendrik to twenty years in prison, which was later modified to seventeen by the court of appeals, and Aart was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The court remarked that the crime was particularly heinous, because the victim was the offenders’ wife and daughter in law.

Below is a short discussion of the general characteristics of the Netherlands and the context in which its forensic culture developed.

In the Dutch criminal code [Wetboek van Strafrecht] crimes against morality are covered in articles 239 to 254 in book II, title XIV. Articles 242 to 249 deal with what might be termed sexual violence. They include separate articles for rape (242), sexual assault of an adult without penetration (246), sexual intercourse with underaged girls (244 and 245), indecency [ontucht] with a child under the age of sixteen (247) and indecency with a minor under one’s education or care (249). Until 1971, the discriminatory article 248bis criminalised homosexual acts with a person under the age of 21, effectively setting the age of consent for same-sex relations 5 years higher than for heterosexual relations.

Article 242 on rape [verkrachting] reads as follows:
He who, by violence or threat of violence, forces a woman to have extramarital sexual intercourse with him, will, being guilty of rape, be punished with a prison sentence of no more than twelve years. [Hij die door geweld of bedreiging met geweld een vrouw dwingt met hem buiten echt vleselijke gemeenschap te hebben, wordt als schuldig aan verkrachting gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste twaalf jaren.]

The law existed in this formulation from 1886 to 1984, when the possibility of imposing a fine was introduced. In 1991, the law was changed once more, removing the marital rape exception, making the law gender neutral, broadening the conditions under which a person could be said to have been forced and replacing “sexual intercourse” with “sexual penetration.” Several of the aforementioned articles underwent similar changes.

Title XIX of book II of the criminal code deals with “crimes against life.” This includes manslaughter (287), aggravated manslaughter (288), murder (249) and infanticide (290 and 291). Manslaughter [doodslag] is understood as intentional homicide, while murder [moord] is premeditated intentional homicide. The infanticide statutes mirror this distinction: article 290 deals with kinderdoodslag and article 291 with kindermoord. Both infanticide articles apply only to mothers who kill their children during or shortly after birth, out of fear for the discovery of their deliveries. Cases concerning individuals apart from the mother involved in the killing of babies and cases where the fear of discovery plays no role are charged as murder or manslaughter.

In the period 1911-1965, with the exception of World War II, the number of homicide victims was approximately 0,4 per 100.000 inhabitants. Between 1965 and 1990, partially due to the introduction of drugs in the Netherlands, there was a significant gradual increase in the number of homicide victims. By 1990, the number was at 1,2 per 100.000 inhabitants, after which the rate remained stable.

Between 1930-1960, based on documentation concerning the court in Utrecht, the most commonly tried sexual offence was indecency with children (247), accounting for approximately 64% of all sexual violence cases. The second most commonly tried type of case was indecency with a minor under ones care or education (249), which accounted for a further 15% of all sexual violence cases.

In that same period, psychiatrists were involved in approximately 60% of all cases of indecency with a child (247). Psychiatric expertise was more commonly called on in cases of this type when they concerned same-sex offences (69%) than in cases involving heterosexual offences (47%). Psychiatrists concluded that suspects examined could not, or could only partially, be held responsible in approximately 77% of these cases.

Based on documentation about the Utrecht prosecutors’ office, approximately 44% of cases reported to the prosecutor were dismissed before making it to trial. The chance of a dismissal was higher (53%) if the victim was an adult, versus when the victim was a child or minor (42%).

Throughout the 20^th century, appointing expert witnesses in Dutch criminal cases has fallen within the purview of judges in the Netherlands. Both the prosecutor and the defence were able to make requests for a specific expert to be appointed, but such a request must be granted by either the investigative judge or the trial judge(s). Indeed, expert witnesses were expected to contribute to the court’s fact finding mission and do not serve as witness for either the prosecution or the defence.

Judges had free choice of which experts to appoint. In practice, however, courts typically relied on a small number of trusted experts who were appointed again and again. This situation was amplified in the late 1940s and 1950s, with the establishment of a number of specialised institutes.

In cases of suspicious death an autopsy was required and, after 1920, preferentially performed by the country’s main forensic pathologists (between 1920 and World War II typically J.P.L. Hulst and after World War II until 1984 Jan Zeldenrust). Due to the relatively low number of homicides, these two men (and, in the case of Zeldenrust, his assistants) were able to cover most of such cases, but before 1920 and occasionally after, other pathologists were also involved.

Investigation of the suspect’s mental state by a psychiatrist or (later) psychologist was a common feature of many criminal investigations. Typically, the psychiatric report built on a report drawn up by a probation official; the two reports together contributed not only to the question of accountability, but offered guidance to the judge with regard to the appropriateness of certain post-sentencing measures for that specific offender (i.e. imprisonment, probation, therapeutic measures).

Experts put their findings in written reports. If necessary, they could be required to explain or expand upon their report in court, though this was not especially common. In general, Dutch trials rely rather heavily on written documentation.

Throughout the nineteenth century, complaints about the quality of forensic medicine were omnipresent in the Netherlands. Neither education, nor legal provisions, nor amenities were considered sufficient to enable doctors to develop their skills and perform their tasks. Neither a 1818 regulation mandating the appointment of “sworn forensic district medicinae doctores and surgeons” nor the 1865 medical laws were felt to fix the situation. Doctors also complained that, to perform forensic duties, they were forced to abandon their own practice, losing valuable time and resources in the process. Only in 1920 a specialised forensic doctor was appointed.

The period 1870-1890 saw a growing influence of forensic psychiatry: the rise of criminal anthropology and the Nieuwe Richting [New Direction] in criminal law — a movement which emphasised not retribution against, but protection from criminal actors — put the accused’s personality centre-stage. Psychiatrists were increasingly invited into the courtroom to contribute their professional opinions about the mental state of suspects and victims.[3] Still, it wasn’t until the interbellum that legislation was enacted that underpinned the role of psychiatry in the legal system.

Criminalistics, meanwhile, began coming into its own at the turn of the twentieth century, in the context of police modernisation efforts. Local police services and their newly established unions led the charge to learn about and incorporate new techniques, such as photography, bertillonage and fingerprinting. A small group of private experts, running private laboratories, occasionally assisted police. The most famous of them, Co van Ledden Hulsebosch, established a school for criminalistics in 1914 and formally became a scientific adviser to the Amsterdam police – he was the only expert able to devote himself fulltime to criminalistics.

In the early part of the 20^th century and during the interbellum years, calls for the establishment of specialised institutes for forensic medicine (esp. pathology), forensic psychiatry and criminalistics were heard. Funding-problems and war got in the way, however, and it was not until 1945 that the long-held plans came to fruition. With the establishment of the Gerechtelijk Laboratorium [Forensic Laboratory] in 1946, the Psychiatrische Observatie Kliniek [Psychiatric Observation Clinic] in 1949, and the Gerechtelijk Geneeskundig Laboratorium [Forensic Medical Laboratory] in 1951, a new generation of experts, contrary to their predecessors, would coalesce around these central institutes.