Abstract
In this article, we try to contribute to the new discipline Forensic Semiotics – a discipline introduced by the Canadian polymath Marcel Danesi. We focus on clues as information and criminal investigative processes as inferential. These inferential (and Peircean) processes have a certain complexity consisting of the interrelation between the collateral observations of the investigator, e. g., his background knowledge concerning criminal and technical analysis, the context that the investigator acts within or in relation to (the universe of discourse), e. g., the scene of crime or the criminal law, as well as the clues as information that will cause the inferential processes in the first place. We believe that this focus can tell us something about crime solving that is not just sensitive to epistemological factors (how to know), but also ontological (what to know) and normative factors as well (how to value the processes of crime solving).
References
Bonfantini, Massimo & Giampaolo Proni. 1988. To guess or not to guess? In Umberto Eco & Thomas Sebeok (eds.), Dupin, Holmes, Peirce: The sign of three, 119–135. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Jennifer & Elizabeth Campbell (eds.). 2010. The Cambridge handbook of forensic psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511730290Search in Google Scholar
Bryant, Robin P. 2009. Forms of reasoning and the analysis of intelligence in criminal investigation. In Stephen Tong, Robin P. Bryant & Miranda A. H. Horvath (eds.), Understanding criminal investigation, 35–67. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470682388.ch3Search in Google Scholar
Canter, David. 2010. Investigative psychology. In Jennifer Brown & Elizabeth Campbell (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of forensic psychology, 81–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1093/actrade/9780199550203.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Danesi, Marcel. 2014. Signs of crime: Introducing forensic semiotics. Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614513162Search in Google Scholar
Gallie, Walther B. 1966. Peirce and pragmatism. Hardmondsworth: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar
Fahsing, Ivar. 2013. Effektivitet, dyder og krydspres i efterforskningen. In Camilla Hald & Kira V. Rønn (eds.), Om at opdage: Metodiske refleksioner over politiets undersøgelsespraksis, 115–147. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Search in Google Scholar
Fisch, Max H. 1978. Peirce’s general theory of signs. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Sight, sound, and sense, 31–70. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fisette, Jean. 2007. Literary practice on the immediate horizon of the elaboration of semiotic: Peirce’s meeting with a few great authors. Semiotica 165(1/4). 67–89.10.1515/SEM.2007.033Search in Google Scholar
Hald, Camilla & Kira V. Rønn. (eds.). 2014. Om at opdage: metodiske refleksioner over politiets undersøgelsespraksis. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Search in Google Scholar
Harrowitz, Nancy. 1984. The body of the detective model: Charles S. Peirce and Edgar Allan Poe. In Umberto Eco & Thomas Sebeok (eds.), The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, 179–197. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Innes, Martin. 2007. Investigation order and major crime inquiries. In Tim Newburn, Tom Williamson & Alan Wright (eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation, 255–276. New York: Willan.Search in Google Scholar
James, Stuart H., Jon J. Nordby & Suzanne Bell (eds.). 2002. Forensic science: An introduction to scientific and investigative techniques. Dayton: CRC Press.Search in Google Scholar
Johansen, Jørgen D. 1993. Dialogic semiosis. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ketner, Kenneth L. & Christian J. W. Kloesel. 1986. Peirce, semeiotic, and pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch. Bloomington: Indiana University. Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liszka, James J. 1996. A general introduction to the semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Newburn, Tim, Tom Williamson & Alan Wright (eds.). 2007. Handbook of criminal investigation. New York: Willan.Search in Google Scholar
Osterburg, James W. & Richard H. Ward. 2000. Criminal investigation: A method for reconstructing the past. Cincinnati: Anderson.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1982–. Writings of Charles S. Peirce, 6 vols., M. Fisch, E. Moore & C. Kloesel (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s writings will be designated W followed by volume and page number.]Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1998. Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, vol. 2 (1893–1913), Peirce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.]Search in Google Scholar
Ransdell, Joseph. 1979. The epistemic function of iconicity in perception (Peirce Studies 1). Lubbock: Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism.Search in Google Scholar
Savan, David. 1987–1988. An introduction to Peirce’s full system of semiotic. Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle.Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas & Jean-Umiker Sebeok. 1988. “You know my method”: A juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes. In Umberto Eco & Thomas Sebeok (eds.), The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, 11–55. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Short, Thomas L. 2007. Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498350Search in Google Scholar
Sørensen, Bent, Torkild Thellefsen & Martin Thellefsen. 2014. Collateral experience as a prerequisite for signification. In Torkild Thellefsen & Bent Sørensen (eds.), Charles S. Peirce in his own words: 100 years of semiotics, communication and cognition, 557–560. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781614516415.557Search in Google Scholar
Taroni, Franco, Colin Aitken, Paolo Garbolino & Alex Biedermann. 2006. Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science. Oxford: John Wiley.10.1002/0470091754Search in Google Scholar
Tong, Stephen & Ben Bowling. 2006 Art, craft, and detective work. Police Journal 79(4). 323–329.10.1350/pojo.2006.79.4.323Search in Google Scholar
Tong, Stephen, Robin P. Bryant & Miranda A. H. Horvath. 2009. Criminal investigation in context. In Stephen Tong, Robin P. Bryant & Miranda A. H. Horvath (eds.), Understanding criminal investigation, 171–196. Oxford: John Wiley.10.1002/9780470682388.ch8Search in Google Scholar
United Nations Office on Crime. 2011. Criminal intelligence – manual for analysts. New York: United Nations Office on Crime.Search in Google Scholar
Vosk, Ted & Ashley Emery. 2014. Forensic metrology: Scientific measurement and inference for lawyers, judges, and criminalists. Boca Raton: CRC Press.10.1201/b17462Search in Google Scholar
©2017 by De Gruyter Mouton
