New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-08-14
MEDICAL Evidence.

Inc contradictory ItNlNdl tNihNHNO III llo
MaybIick case has revived a familiar assertion
to the effect that testimony of this kind in
criminal cases is generally worthless or mis-
leading. That this is going too far may be
shown at once by merely SuppoSing an attempt
to get at the truth in case Of alleged poison
ING without calling upon medical witnesses at
ali. No doubt there is great deal Of uncer-
taintv in many poisoning cases, but this is
largely &c to the facts that the symptoms Of
poisoning vary. and that the effect of poisons
upon the human system is dependent upon a
number Of circumstances. Thus, for instance,
a poison which would produce one set of symp-
toms in a healthy man or woman may produce
an entirely different series in diseased sub
iect. The violence of the symptoms will also
vary in accordance with the character Of the
disease. Cases have occurred in which toxic
agents administered with murdcrouS intent
have exercised a curative influence, and thus
baied the criminal. Again slow or chronic
poisoning must be distinguished from attempts
to kill by single doses, and care must be taken
not to mistake the presence of poison which
may have been administered incidentally for
the effects of criminal action.
1t is a popularity of arsenic that no matter
how administered it always and quickly affects
the stomach This popularity, in a case like
that Of Maybricll, where gastrO-enteritiS was
alleged to have been the cause of death, would
naturally tend to increased doubt, for CASTRO
enteritis may be the result of a number Of
causes among which the operation of arSeniOus
acid is only one. Where, moreover, it is claimed
e.. = dol tIa+ tho I,snrsaI xxg in tho
habit Of taking the poison said to have killed
him. the difficulties surrounding the medical
testimony must be greater than ever. In such
cases questions Of external fact must ultimate
~ determine the judgment reached, for if 1t
can be proved that a man had habitually eaten
arsenic for years who died OF the poison at
last, Il supernatural penetration alone could
solve the problem Of the character OF his
takiug-oT. In case of this kind family
physician If there is one, is more likely to
reach a correct conclusion than even an expert
Of much higher reputation who possesses no
knowledge Of thc constitution and habits OF
The dead man. Hypothetical questions under
such conditions tend more frequently to con-
fusion than to the tiearng-up OF difficulties,
and in the multitude of medical cOunScllors
there will to Il certainty DC discord and be-
Wildcrmcnt.
But it is not just to charge this upon med
zeal science. 1t must be borne in mind that
the defence in a poisoning case is directly IN
tereStcd in producing want Of confidence IN
the medical testimony whenever the accused
is really guilty. To this end nothing is more
conducive than the multiplication OF medical
witnesses. There are many cases in which the
truth would be attained if the evidence OF the
attendant physician alone could be received,
but in which the parade of experts and the
free use Of hypothetical questions by smart
lawyers hOpclessly befog the jury and the pub
lie. The mOIo conscientious medical witnesses
are the more likely are they to differ under
these circumstances. They do not know enough
of the specific conditions to give positive opln-
ions, and in geneIalzing their chief aim Is to
avoid self-cOmmttal. Hence the cOntradic-
lions which from Time to time are taken hold
Of TO support the impression that after all med
zeal science has made little progress, or that
it is when put to the test, little better than
glfoSswork. All such opinions are fallaciouS,
and wrong a noble and steadily advancing pro-
feS,ion The real defects are in the legal ma
chinery by which it is sought to elicit the truth
in criminal practice.