Polynesian., 1857-03-07
From Chambers's Edinburg Journall
MURDER AND THE MICROSCOPE

Amongst the immense number of alterations and
improvements which have of late years taken
place in the mode of administering the criminal
justice of the country, perhaps none are more re-
markable than those which have reference to- tn
examination of scientific witnesses, when called
upon to substantiate the guilt or innocence of an
accused person. A few years ago, it the
common opinion that the testimony of such wit
nesses ought to be regarded with great deal of
caution, if not of absolute dslrnst. We have
ourselves heard people, who should have known
better, say that circumstantial evidence was bad
enough, but scientific evidence was worse; and that
II upon jury, they would certainly throw over
board the testimony o. scientific witnesses as to
the guilt or innocence of the prisoner" To
wards the formation of these opinions, scientific
men themselves uniutentIonally contributed; n
man of science, in the witness-box, being in times
past very different from the same person in every
day life. II witness for the prosecution, every
uttle of evidence, vaueless to the common sense
byslander and every petty act of the prisoner,
was in some way made fresh link in the chain
which drew the miserable wretch to The gaIows
while, on the contrary, If 1t were upon the prison.
er's behalf he gave his testimony, the most out
rageous pruOis of guilt were explained being
perfectly consistent with, and indeed confrmatory
of the prisoners innocence. OF course, in such
evidence there an immense deal of hair split
ting, and considerable number of technical terms
and learned phrases used wholly unintellIgible tu
the unprOfessiomal man; the consequence of which
eventually was, that the unprofessonal man treat
ed the evidence as be treated most other things
he did not understand-that is to say, he looked
upon 1t with contempt and pronounced 1t nothing
worth.
All this is very much altered in the present day.
Ii Is true thlt evidence is now and then gwen by
unscrupulous men for certain purposes so entirely
opposed 10 our common sense, as to bring some
amount of odlum oil science generally; but such
cases are not of veIy frequent occurrence. The
cause of this great change Is owing to The dlssen
mination, amongst all classes, of knowledge of
many Of the data upon which scientific witnesses
found their opinions. Questions as 10 the opinion
of such witnesses were formerly the only ones put;
whereas, such questions are now always accOmpa-
MED by Others to the reasons for forming such
opinion. Ii, in years gone by, counsel had ven
tured TO ask a medical man, while in the witness
boz, upon what authority he formed his cOnclu-
siOns, the witness would Immediately have backed
himself by an appeal to the doctrines propOunded
bv HIppocrates, Gaen, and dozen other of his
illustriOus predecessors-the older the better. At
the present day, such authorities have, 10 great
extent, been snppanted by others of quite dlf-
ferent description, most of whom have arisen dur
ing the last few years. aud have in their revelations
taught us important truths hitherto undreamed Of
One of the most invaluable of these authorities is
the Microscope.
OF course The evidence which this instrument
affords in all thOse cases where it Is appealed to-
is entirely circumstantla; bat 1t IS clrcuTistanta
evidence of the most important description. Ii
may tell u that certain brown rust upon knife
or razor is blood-and more that it is human Blood
it may acquaint US with the nature of a piece OF
poisonous matter wholly Invisible to the naked eye,
and which would therefore, without its assistance,
have entirely escaped detecton; and SO in number
less vays may the instrument gil up 4 hiatus in