214 
Note on the Diagnosis of 
he conscientiously believes to be bis duty, it seems to me, with all 
due deference to bis superior experience, that be has in the first 
place a little undervalued the caution and prudence of our numerous 
medical brethren, who possess microscopes without considering 
themselves experts, and second that be has overlooked a most 
important factor in the calculation which we both, perhaps equally, 
sought to make, of how to secure for humanity by our researches 
the maximum advantage with the minimum amount of injury. 
This factor I conceive to be the keen sharp-witted lawyer to be 
found not only in every city, but in every county town throughout 
English-speaking countries, who whilst studying during a trial my 
essay, if it were brought forward to support the baseless pretensions 
of an unqualified microscopist, claiming to distinguish human from 
dog’s or monkey’s blood, would infallibly discover, that not one 
syllable of its carefully worded statements could be construed into 
warranting such a groundless assumption. 
Hence, trusting to this powerful and omnipresent element, for 
the protection of two or three innocent persons, who might possibly 
be in danger through my agency of conviction for manslaughter, I 
felt whilst writing both my first paper and its continuation, that 
should I more than indicate the animals which render our con- 
clusions doubtful, my work would be rendered really prejudicial to 
the interests of society. Indeed it was, I think, fairly to be antici- 
pated, that if I should emphasize and reiterate the fact that science 
alone could not detect the falsehood of a criminal’s story, if he 
cunningly asserted that suspicious stains were made by the blood of 
a dog, not only would I frequently obstruct the course of justice, 
but some jealous critics would utterly condemn my investigations, 
and compare me to a locksmith winning a wide reputation among 
the “dangerous classes,” by an essay most minutely teaching 
thieves the truth , in regard to the secrets of opening bank vaults 
and fireproof safes ; or to a toxicologist publishing a treatise, setting 
forth most faithfully the method by which poisoners may best 
destroy their victims, with the least danger of detection in their 
crimes. 
It should be remembered also, that in all cases a really innocent 
person, wrongly accused of murder on the ground of blood 
stains upon his clothing, &c., actually proceeding from that 
“ constant ” (yet rarely slaughtered) “ companion of man,” the 
dog ; or from some of our unusual associates, such as seals, otters, 
guinea-pigs,. &c., needs neither Dr. Woodward nor Dr. Richardson 
to prompt him to tell (and try to corroborate the assertion) when 
first arrested, the true origin of the suspicious blood spots. And if 
the story which he relates after legal consultation and advice is not 
the truth, I would enter my protest against that pseudo philan- 
thropy, too fashionable at the present day, which ghuts its ear to 
