Detection of Crime by Photography. in the form of a photo-micrograph. (It may be as well, perhaps, to point out here that by this term is meant the enlarged im age of a microscopic object, the term " mi cro-photograph " being applied to those tiny specks of pictures which can only be seen when magnified in a microscope.) A., one of the suspected men, had a gray beard; and a hair from his chin was photographed and compared with the first picture taken. The difference in structure, tint, and general ap pearance was so marked that the man was at once liberated. The hair of the other man, B., was also examined, and bore little resemblance to that found on the victim. The latter was now more carefully scruti nized, and compared with other specimens. The photograph clearly showed, for one thing, that the hair was pointed, — it had never been cut. Gradually the conclusion was arrived at that it belonged to a dog, — "an old yellow, smooth-haired, and com paratively short-haired dog." Further in quiry revealed the fact that B. owned such a dog, a fresh hair from which agreed in every detail with the original photograph, and the man was convicted. He subse quently confessed that he alone committed the crime. In the identification of blood-stains, sev eral difficulties crop up. As every one knows, blood when magnified is found to contain myriads of little globules, or corpuscles, as they are commonly called. Some of these are colorless; but the others are red, and give to blood its well-known color. The microscopist can tell whether the blood he submits to examination is that of a mammal, of a bird, or of a- fish; for the corpuscles o£ each have distinct character istics. But when we ask him to differentiate between the blood-corpuscles of different kinds of mammals, he is somewhat at a loss, because his only guide is that of size. Thus, the blood-corpuscles of the elephant are, as might be expected, larger than those of any of the other mammalia; but they are in other respects like those of his brother
517
mammal, man, — round in outline, and look ing like so many coins carelessly thrown together. A dog or a pig possesses cor puscles of smaller size, while those of a goat are very much smaller still. Here is a case in which these differences witnessed with terrible effect against a man suspected of a serious crime. A murder had been com mitted, and D. was the man suspected; suspicion being strengthened by the cir cumstance that an axe belonging to him was found smeared with blood, which had been partly wiped off. The man denied his guilt, and accounted for the blood-stained weapon, which he declared he had not taken the trouble to wipe, by saying that he had that day killed a goat with it. The blood was examined microscopically, and the size of the corpuscles proved his statement to be false. A photo-micrograph of it, as well as one of goat's blood, was prepared for com parison by the judge and jury. Another photo-micrograph was also made from part of the blade of the axe, which showed very clearly, by unmistakable streaks, that the murderer had done his best to remove the traces of his crime. It is certain that these photographs must be far more useful for purposes of detection than the original microscopic preparations from which they are taken; for it requires a certain educa tion of the eye to see through a microscope properly, and still more to estimate the value of the evidence it offers. It is cer tain, too, that counsel on either side would see through the microscope with very differ ent eyes. We now come to a very important sec tion of Dr. Jeserich's work, — the detection of falsification of handwriting and figures by means of photography. Crimes of this nature are far more common than deeds of violence; and, judging by the heavy punish ment meted out to the offenders, in com parison to the mild sentences often passed upon men whom to call brutes would be base flattery, the law would seem to con sider such sins worse than those committed
