Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1893-07-07
CONFLICTING EXPERTS.
oisas-eeing Doctors Create q Condition OF
chaos In Jurors Mind.

DAsaS- seE11S DOcocr3 Create O Condition OF
chaos In a Jurors Mind.
II conflicting testimony of medical and
| scientific experts in criminal trials has long
been theme Of discussion in the circles of
medico-legal Jurisprudence. The need of
some change in the existing system is gen.
orally recognized, but there seems to be DO
concensus of opinion as to what that change
should be-
II Is obvious that in many criminal cases
expert testimony is essential to the due adj
ministration of justice. This is notably
true in instances of charged poisoning such
as the Harris case and that of DIR. Buchanan.
Without the evidence Of expert physicians,
Psychologists end chemists, it would OBJ
v1ously be impossible to prove guilt, bring
the offender to justice and protect society
against one of the most dangerous forms of
murder.
While expert testimony is necessity, its
abuses and even dangers are matters OIL
common notoriety. An array of experts
who swear positively on one side is always
followed by an equal array the other
side to swear to tho contrary. 1t is q COM
mon expression that paid expert can al
ways be produced to support any theory or
view. But disnissiag this view from con
s1deration the fact remains that conflict of
opinion, whether due to unconscious bias,
lack of knowledge or carelessness, is COM
mon among experts of the highest profes-
sional standing, whose integrity is beyond
question.
A most striking Illustration of this is cf-
forded by the testimony of the chemical c.
perts in the Buchanan case. Professor Wit
thaus, chemist of recognized standing and
large experience, ateacher in one of our col
leges and the author of u standard work on
chemistry, testified positively for tnc pro
becution that he found morphine in the Lo;,y
of Mrs. Buchanan. He was corroborated by
Professor DorenlUS, also a chemist of rccog-
nized standing. The processes and various
steps in the analysis were INFINITELY de
scribed
Thereupon Professor Vaughn of the Uni
versity of Michigan, n chemist of inter:.a-
tional repute, a specialist in poisons and
che author of q standa-, lwork On the sub
Ject, testified fer the defense that it was
impossible to determine the presence Of
morphine from tn results OF the tests used
by Professor Witthaas. He declared that
the presence of morphine in body in
which decomposition had set in could he
shown only by finding and Separating nor
phine crystals, and that II the absence of
these the colCr reactions were not to be
taken as proofs.
He went on to explain that ptcmaines
without morphine, . natural po.5ancus
matter found IL . body and due to Decay,
would give the same color reactions Is such
matter with morphine He illustrated this
by saying that he had been called uDoa to
analyze the stomach Of q man supposed to
have been poisoned - morphine, and ind,
ing no crystals reported no morphine. This
finding. he said, yv;:s subsequently corrob-
grated by tho t,isc1-Gcy that death was
car&ed by . hlo,- CT = head
Professor Vaughn thea undertook to
demonstrate to tie co,.Iu and Jury the &C
curaCy of his views by an object lessen
showing that the same tests applied 70 ptc-
mGines without morphine and to ptomaine
With morphine would giv2 he same color
reactions. His testimony was corrobo-ated
by Dr.. Scheol", &. young chemist from the
universities Ci I,c-li:l and Bonn, who testi-
fed among other thing that the tests used
by the experts fcr the prosecution were not
to be depended on and were not now &C
copied by the most advanced German chem
lists.
1t is not for the iar mind to say whether
il this irstancs the experts for the prosecu-
ton or those for the defense are right. 1t
is evident that one s;t;a or the other must
be wrong. The conflict may even lead to =
battle among chemists ganerelly. Yet on
this evidence largely jury of II average
citizens was expected to determine tn
question of innocence or guilt in a case of
life or death.
Moreover, the issue involves not merely
the opinion Of an expert in an individual
case, but chemical process which probably
has been and may be followed in other
cases. 1t raises u vitality important ques-
ton of chemistry as well as criminal juris-
prudence and is likely to infuse fresh life
into the time honored discussion of expert
testimony in criminal trials.-New York
Herald.