This is a remarkable story and a clever use of early forensic science. There are other aspects to consider — could the blood have belonged to someone else? Perhaps, the novelty of these methods also meant that defence attorneys were not ready to challenge such findings.
Yes, it certainly would have been possible that blood belonged to someone else, but the expert witness did not allude to this possibility, or to the fact that they were unable to differentiate between individual blood samples at the time. I suspect, however, that the conviction was more likely to have been secured through the circumstantial evidence, with the scientific evidence in support. It's interesting that there doesn't seem to have been any other suspects, other than the two employees. I'm glad you enjoyed the case!
Thank you. I would find it interesting to see how forensic evidence is used, disputed, and what kinds of authority and legitimacy it is given by judges, lawyers, authorities, sleuths, and the public. Probably different stories for each step, but maybe similar trajectories: skepticism, lots of credence, and then more informed (whether well intentioned or not) skepticism...
This is a remarkable story and a clever use of early forensic science. There are other aspects to consider — could the blood have belonged to someone else? Perhaps, the novelty of these methods also meant that defence attorneys were not ready to challenge such findings.
Thank you for sharing!
Yes, it certainly would have been possible that blood belonged to someone else, but the expert witness did not allude to this possibility, or to the fact that they were unable to differentiate between individual blood samples at the time. I suspect, however, that the conviction was more likely to have been secured through the circumstantial evidence, with the scientific evidence in support. It's interesting that there doesn't seem to have been any other suspects, other than the two employees. I'm glad you enjoyed the case!
Thank you. I would find it interesting to see how forensic evidence is used, disputed, and what kinds of authority and legitimacy it is given by judges, lawyers, authorities, sleuths, and the public. Probably different stories for each step, but maybe similar trajectories: skepticism, lots of credence, and then more informed (whether well intentioned or not) skepticism...
Yes, I think that’s really interesting and I would like to examine the role of the expert witness in historic crime cases in more detail.