The record-union., 1891-07-09
THE TESTIMONY OF BLOOD.

In the trial of Ameer Ben Ali, the AL
gerian, in New York, for murder, the
witnesses for the prosecution We're of
shady reputation. Thereupon the prose-
cutting attorney attempted to substantiate
their declarations by scientific testimony.
1t was the boldest effort in that direction
ever made.
Certain blood was found on the bed and
clothing of the murdered woman. Dried
blood was found on the clothing and be-
meath the finger nails of the prisoner.
The claim was made that the blood last
referred to was absolutely the blood of the
victim. That by scientific proofs it would
80 be established. Also, that it would
disclose evidence that the woman had
shortly before the murder. 1t was al
readyin evidence that she had dined on
those dishes the day of the murder.
Thereupon DIR. Henry F. Formal of the
University of Pennsylvania was called.
He has for twenty-five years made the
study of blood a specially, and has acted
as expert in seventy-six cases. He ex-
amined microscopically and otherwise
the blood upon Ben Ais clothing, and
that taken from beneath his finger nails.
He testified that the blood like that on the
bed and floor was the blood of a woman.
That like the blood Of the victim it was
scanty and thin; that 1t was the blood of
an anemic person, and like the blood of
the murdered woman was mixed with a
fluid that comes from wounds. He then
declared that the blood on the person of
the prisoner was the blood of the victim.
So positive was the doctor that he said
he would stake his life upon it. DIR. Aus
tin Flint, a distinguished expert, was
called, and agreed with Formal as to the
parallels between the two examples of
blood. But he would not say that the
blood upon Ben Ali was that of the
woman, nor that it was human blood, but
did say it was the blood of q mammal.
He and DIR. Formal had examined the
blood chemically, microscopically and
with the spectroscope. Formal did not
swear that he detected in the blood on
Ben Ali the articles of food named, but
did say that he found particles of matter
that might have come from recent use of
such food.
This is applying science as a detective
more closely than has ever before been
attempted. That there is danger in such
testimony is a matter of course. It GER
tainly ought to be held valueIess to con-
vict if standing alone. Until there has
been such ample demonstration of its
worth and reliability that there can be no
denial of the scientific results, it must be
received with extreme caution. 1t is not
new that science can, even from the dried
residuum, determine with reasonable GER
tainty whether blood is that of human
being or lower animal, but it is a long
step beyond when the sex is attempted to
be proven from analysis, and when GER
tain articles of food are testified to as
represented in the blood and that the
blood upon the clothing of one person is
the blood that came from the body of an
other. 1t is one thing to distinguish
blood as that of human being, but quite
different thing to attempt to identify it
as that of a particular individual. In this
case the Algerian was convicted, and be-
cause of the testimony referred to and
for other reasons, the case will go up to
an appellate court, when the value of the
expert testimony will be considered
anew