In this research project we examine the case of the evidences of criminological pathology of the criminologist J. Georgiadis collection. Since 1912 and for 40 years that he served as a professor at the class of forensic medicine and toxicology, he collected and classified a large amount of heterogeneous objects associated with criminal acts and verified the use of violence. In 1932 he began along with the development of the forensic medicine laboratory at the Athens medical school to set up a museum and to enlist the objects of his collection, which was further enriched by his successors. It was not only the effort to create a scene of knowledge according to the examples of the great collections in other countries, but also an obsession builded of the founder himself. The criminological museum was his personal task as he the collection with a fierce insistency. Over the years there was gathered a large number of heterogeneous objects composing an idiosyncratic archive of death stories, but also a link between a series of events of scientific discourse and social reformations.

The collection is examined as a scene of knowledge, as a museum, as a personal archive through the dominant scientific theories of its age and the directions that the research of non-discursiveness ordered.

The criminological museum, a product of the theoretical developments in forensic medicine operated as a necessary addition and a manual of the scientific writings of its age and pointed at the most recent knowledge through the exhibits that were constantly added to the collection at an effort to synthesize the portrait of the criminal.

With the turn of medicine during the 19^th century towards the reorganization and the classification of knowledge to an institutional approach of the body and mapping it within a fundamental system of registrations, subdivisions and similarities, criminology seeked criminological pathology in anatomical characteristics and behaviorism.  There were constructed classification systems and criminal typologies with the prevalence of  the table as a technique of discipline and a procedure of knowledge.

Based on the upper facts two possible interpretation suggestions of the Georgiadis collection are being proposed having as an influence the anthropometrics of Bertillon and the model collection of the anthropologist and criminologist Lombroso. Georgiadis collected anything he believe could define some kind deviant behavior and anomaly in the conservative social structure of that time in Greece having as a result the remainings of his collection to become a collage of documents, a heady view of accumulated objects or even a wunderkammer of crime.   The criminological museum is nothing but a room that preserves the accumulated evidence of death, each one of them has a story of its own to tell. Every object of the collection corresponds to a specific event and therefore to a specific place. What remains eventually, and especially in our case, is a rather peculiar historical museum. A museum that thanks to the respective persistence of his founder/collector records the undergoing unofficial history of its place as it is documented by the criminality, the cruelty and the fears of its inhabitants, but at the same time it remains obscured and closed for them.