The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-09
ExPERr TrxrIMoNr.

= - V #
 As The New York Post sees 1t. ex- pert testimony 'as at present utilised. might as well be discarded, Justice would suffer no appreciable harm and the people would welcome reduced hills. On the other hand, there Is the very decided mischief the system cre- ates in giving more than color to the popular notion that riches may pur- chase immunity from crime. We recall the case of the New York workman who was arrested some months ago and charged with the murder ot phy- sician under whose treatment the pris- oner's wife had died. without the least fault. it was evident. on the part of the medical man. On the anniver- sary of his wife's death, the police claim. the accused broke into the phy- sician's house and shot him in bed. Here, if the act should be brought home, is as patent case as we can conceive, of a crime founded in brood ing. mental distortion. and insanity. Yet how many high-priced experts could the accused rally to his defense? There would be force to the complaint. For many reasons. a public medical board, such as Dr. Hamilton proposes. should work vast improvement. It would give It's services to rich and poor alikes and its private sessions would do away with the necessity of L~ of an entire family in order to save the worthless life of one of it's mem- bers.'
 We have heard much about expert testimony since the Thaw trial has been on and we think the general opinion of the reading public is that not much has been added to the stock of human knowledge. and not much advance in the road to justice has been made by or through this class of evidence. Both sides have had their experts and both have naturally diff fered. We say naturally" because as a general proposition the expert, like most other witnesses, will testi- fy for the side by which he is em- ployed. however conscientious he may intend to be. and if the expert on one side testifies in one way and the ex- pert on the other side testifies another way, what has been gained, and what Is the jury to believe? If they refuse to believe either no one should be surprised.
 The case of the poor man cited by The Post Is to the point. Were he a very rich man he could easily secure expert testimony to show that he kill ed the doctor in fit of emotional in- sanity or something of the kind, and thus save his life. Not that we mean to charge that his money would procure men to swear falsely for him. That might be done, it is true. but what we intend to convey Is that without money he has little chance to secure this class of evidence. Harry Thaw on one side and the State of New York on the other, can procure all the experts they require without regard to expense.
 Another point brought out by The Post, and 1t is one not lightly to be passed over, is what 1t says about medical Board to examine and give unbiased testimony in cases like that of Thaw instead of having the wit nesses put on the stand in the court room. If such course served no other purpose 1t might prevent such brutal persecution as Mrs. Thaw has been subjected to and save such dis creditable efforts to drag women down into the mire as Mir. Jerome has ex- hibited in this affair. That of itself would be a welcome change. As a general thing we should say that in- telligent jurors are not very much impressed by average expert witnesses.