Sunday Washington globe., 1902-01-26

revive any interest in the celebrated Bonine-
Ayres case, Judge and jury having finally
settled that most sensational tragedy, feels
nevertheless, that the truth of history calls
for some additional exploitation owing 10
some recent anmadversions on the ques-
ton Of expert testimony, which have APP
peared in the star. The deductions evi
IDENTIFY intended to be conveyed by the Stars
correspondents and interviews" are that;
I'd Expert testimony b. the state in
murder trial is entitled to FIRST credence
(2) Expert testimony offered on the part
Of the defense is an impertinence and is
clouded by the suspicion that il is alone
offered to disproye the states expert tesu-
mOny.
If there are any readers of the GLOBE who
imagine that we are exaggerating the deduc-
tory inference of the Starts "interviewers"
and lawyer" correspondent we cite them
10 the columns Of that sheet January 4, 1907.
This legal luminary suggests a remedy
for conflicting expert testimony the enact
ment Of a law confning expert testimony TO
a single individual and having such per.
son summoned by the court He could be
examined and cross-examined by both the
state and the defense and the net result
given to the jury for what it was worth This
limiting the outlay for experts by both the
state and the defense but would be utterly
worthless, unfair and er bayfe to which ever
side this single experts testimony told
against.
In the Bonine trial for instance or ex-
ample DR. Shaffer, the Government ex.
pert, testified positively that there was no
blood on Alrs. Bonine's wrapper He had
subjected il 70 the microscopic test only and
applied none Of the other scientific tests
and so testified on the witness stand. This
testimony, if uucontradicted and disproven
as il subsequently, was by experts for the
defense, would have told hard against Mrs
BOnine and might have resulted in her con-
victon Thus an iunocent woman might
have been convicted Of a capital crime If
the Starts Lawyer" correspondents sug-
gestiou Of a single expert was to become
law. A correspondent IN commenting on
this Star article sent US al the time the
following criticism, which we now print as
being pertinent to the subject in hand
Editor SUNDAY Globe.
In the Star of January A. 1902, there ap-
/ peared an article headed Expert Testi-
| mony," which cited the disagreeing or
/ conflicting nature Of the testimony OF the
/ experts in the Bonine trial intimatiuR that
court TO appoint experts whenever needed
The writer Of this article was a very CON
/ stant attendant at the trial and has been
much interested in the case. Happening
to meet Mrs. Bonine a few days since
the star article was referred to during the
conversation And now ! beg the indul
4 gence of the GLOBE and its many readers
I that ] may cite the manifest injustice rem
! dered in this case by the expert employed
| by the prosecution, man, ho70e5eJ, 0f
HHd0H6ied a6HiLy, and one who should
| have reached different conclusions from
material at hand than he did.
During the conversation the following
thought was suggested
If instead of the court appointing one exc
pert as the Star suggests, lhe c0HSf could
| appoint an dTbifrdfilg expert 70i0 z0OHid
| aSisf me cOnfeHdfRq crberfs in reaching a
decision from the data obtained by each
there would be an element of fairness and
usefulness established in using expert tes-
tinony. The advantage Of this plan TO that
} which the Star suggests may be seen by
the following: If in this case the court had
! hGbbeHed to appoint Dr. Shaffer as expert
and no one else had been GH0z0ed to present
expert testimony the testimony which he
gave would have been damning of itself
unchallenged, while that Of the experts
employed by the defense together with the
use of the HHdided eyes Of the jurors 2Ods
cOHciHSize as to the incorrect position which
IMH
fine opportunity Of viewing the wrapper
while in the courtroom, and it is to him a
source Of much wonder how DR.. Shaffer
arrived at the conclusions which he stated
he did. As between the collar and lining
on the right side are many indisputable
blood stains and evidences of washing vsi-
bic to the naked eye and one particularly
distinct spot low on the collar where il had
evidently run down and escaped the wash
ing which the collar received higher up.
The collar was not ripped open until on the
stand when Dr. Shaffer refused to take any
more samples for inspection. give por-
tion Of the doctor testimony as given in the
Times Of November 80 1901
After having had wrapper for twenty
days, during which time he subjected it to
many crucial tests, when asked whether he
had found blood stains replied: Not a
spot even the size Of a pin head. This
contention he adhered to through cross ex-
animation and redirect examination, saying.
1T there had been a drop Of blood on that
wrapper would have found il
Again, when asked whether the blood
stains could have been washed from the
garment the witness said: They could not
OF the microscope would have discovered
IT,
"Under crosse examination Dr. Shaffer
stated that he had used only one test. the
microscopic, as he regarded the others as
unreliable. He further stated that he did
not believe the results would have been any
more conclusive had he used all four of the
tests knOloH 10 science, and had secured
positive results by their use than he was
with the negative result arising from the
use of only one test"
Now the facts of the case are that the ex-
perts for the defense were and are men Of
recognized ability, standing high in their
profession, and they both agreed positively
as to the finding Of blood on the exterior OF
the wrapper before the collar was ripped
open in the courtroom.
Again Dr. Shaffer attributed the stains
under the collar on the right side to perspi.
ration, but FAILED to notice that the CORE
spending portion on the left side was not in
the least discolored. However, twelve tried
and true men, who had the opportunity of
knowing better both sides of the question
than anyone else, we're unanimous In their
acquittal aud good wishes afterward
J. HK
Mrs Bonine was, and probably is yet, un.
necessarily sensitive TO the positive testi.
mony Of Dr. Shaffer The fact that the
jury, spectators and others who examined
her wrapper besides the experts who tesG.
fed were all convinced that there were