Blood Stains. By J. G. Richardson. 
215 
tlie righteous appeal of our brother's blood, when, as in the days of 
Cain, it crieth unto us from the ground, and yet listens with a half 
maudlin sympathy to the pitiful tale of a guilty criminal appalled 
at the prospect of just punishment for his sin. 
Such then were the arguments which influenced me to publish 
my researches in a guarded manner ; but now, since Dr. Woodward 
has bravely taken all responsibility for harm that may ensue upon 
himself, I am glad, for the benefit of the few rash microscopists and 
dull-brained lawyers our countries produce, to state explicitly my 
full corroboration of the Doctor's assertions, and declare that as far 
as I am aware there is at present (1875) no method known to 
science for discriminating, microscopically or otherwise, the dried 
blood of a human being from that of a dog, monkey, rabbit, musk 
rat, elephant, lion, whale, seal, or in fact any animal whose cor- 
puscles measure more than ^-^Vo of i^^h in diameter. Hence, 
therefore, until further discoveries are made, a microscopist's best 
efforts at revealing crime can only serve the cause of right and 
justice in those cases where the criminal's attorneys, in spite of 
being forewarned, and consequently forearmed, are unable to 
prepare or suborn testimony to show that one of the creatures just 
enumerated has been killed in such a way as to produce blood 
stains, which are likely to be confounded with those from the 
murdered victim. Of course, however, a change in the prisoner s 
story, so as to attribute the blood spots to a dog, monkey, &c., after 
consultation with shrewd lawyers for the defence, or scientific 
friends, as in the case mentioned below, must have great weight 
with the jury, and go far to put them on their guard against the 
crafty trick attempted upon their intelhgence. 
That I was led to avoid reiterating and emphasizing this failure 
of our science by no unfounded apprehension of the evil likely to 
arise from dinning such knowledge into the ears of rogues, is 
proved by the fact that after my testimony was delivered in the 
Lambee trial at Franklin, Venango Co., Pa., the prisoner's " keen, 
sharp-witted lawyer " brought two female witnesses into court who 
testified that on a certain occasion about the time of the murder, 
when the defendant's boots (on which were the suspected blood 
spots) were standing in the corner of a particular room, they were 
engaged in clipping the ears of a terrier dog, and just as they got 
one ear done the baby cried, and they were obliged to let go the 
dog, which ran round the apartment shaking its head, and thus 
sprinkled the boots with its blood. Further to substantiate this 
tale, a dog with one ear clipped was exhibited to the jury, and 
sworn to as the very one from which the blood was shed. For- 
tunately, however, it so happened that I had examined one or two 
spots upon the prisoner's pantaloons, finding them to be human 
blood in contradistinction to pheasant's blood, as he first explained 
VOL, XTII. R 
