Evening journal., 1893-05-24
CONFLICTING EXPERTS.
Disagreelng Doctors Create a Condition o.
Chaos In a Jurors Mind.


Chaos In a Jurors Mind.
The conflicting testimony Of medical and
scientific experts In criminal trials has long /
been n 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 no |
eoncensus of opinion as TO what that change |
should be-
II is obvious that I'm many criminal cases
expert testimony Is essential TO the due adj
ministration OF justice. This is notably
true in instances Of charged poisoning such
asthe Harris case and that Of DIR. Buchanan.
Without the evidence of expert physicians
patholugists and chemists, il would OBJ
yiously 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 Oh
| common notoriety An array Of experts
| who swear positively on one side is always
followed by am eqnal array on the other
| side to swear to the contrary II is a com
| mon expression that n paid expert can al
ways be produced to support any theory or
| view. But dismissing this view from con
| sideration 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 af-
forded by the testimony of the chemical eN-
perts in the Buchanan case. Professor Wit
thaus, "a chemist Of recognized standing and
| large experience, a teacherin one of our col
leges and the author Of a standard work on
chemistry, testified positively for the pro
secution that he found morphine in the body
| of Mrs. Buchanan. lie was corroborated 10y
Professor Doremus, also a chemist of recog
nized standing The processes and various
steps in the analysis were minutely de
scribed.
Thereupon Professor Vaughn of the Uni
, versity Of Michigan, a chemist of interna
tional repute, a specialist in poisons and
the author of standard work on the sub
iect, testified for the defense that it wa
| impossible to determine the presence O
1 | morphine from the results of the tests useC
5 | by Professor Witthaus He declared tha
. the presence of morphine in a body il
/ | which decomposition had set in could b.
!, shown only by finding and separating nor
, | phine crystals, and that in the absence O
. these the color reactions were not to b
taken as proofs
He went on 20 explain that ptomaine
without morphine, natural poisonou
= matter found in a body and due to decay
- would give the same color reactions as sue
. matter with morphine lie illustrated thi
!. by saying that he had been called upon t
y analyze tho stomach of a man supposed I
"a have been poisoned by morphine, and fine
u ing no crystals reported no morphine Thi
n finding, he said, was subsequently corrol
~ grated by the discovery that death wa
- caused by a blow on the head.
4. Professor Vaughn then undertook
demonstrate TO the court and jury the n
W curacy of his views by an object lesso
.o showing that the same tests applied to pU
~ maines without morphine and to ptomair
ir with morphine would give the same col'
M reactions. His testimony was corroborate
Ia by Dr. Scheele, a young chemist from q
I'M universities Of Berlin and Bonn, who test
20 fed among other things that the tests us'
~ bv the experts for the prosecution were n
III TO be depended ON and were not now a
u cepted by the most advanced German cher
he lists.
on 1t Is not for the lay mind TO say wheth
in this instance the experts for the prosec
IN ton or those for the defense are right.
os is evident that one side or the other mu
ma be wrong. The conflict may even lead to
N. battle among chemists generelly. Yet
~ this evidence largely jury of II avers
.ra citizens was expected to determine t
be question Of innocence or guilt in o case
nj. life or death.
- Moreover, the issue involves not mere
the opinion Of an expert in an indiyidr
case, but q chemical process which probal
has been and may be followed in otl
, cases. IL raises a vitality important qu
Aa' ton Of chemistry as well as criminal Jun
90 prudence and is likely to infuse fresh
90, into the time honored discussion of exp
,,i ,.J testimony in criminal trials.-New NC
~ Herald