“A person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities”: This is the dictionary definition of a hero. Although, one could take the stance that it is more apt to use a definition that could apply more easily to someone on a personal level, such as if what makes a person a hero could be simply a person having a positive and exemplary influence on another individual or group of people. This definition opens the descriptor to be used for people who do not fly around wearing capes or bearing guns, the typical image that latches to the mind when one is asked to think of a hero. It is thus far more welcoming to our intellectually astonishing scientists, many of whom history and modern day scientists would deem …show more content…
In this case, a man killed three women by drowning them in their bathtub. His killings were at first seen as mere coincidences (the women had seized in the tub), but after it was uncovered that all three women had been married to him, as only the first marriage was actually legally recognized, he was convicted as a serial killer. Sir Bernard Spilsbury is accredited with bringing this evil man to justice, as well as many others (Leafe). It is very clear that a man who dedicates his life to bringing justice to this earth should be considered a hero, and Sir Bernard definitely qualifies. Not only did he solve the case of the Brides in the bath case using impressive forensics, but he also convicted felon Norman Thorne. Norman Thorne killed his bride as well. This case was complex in the sense that Spilsbury had to work with an exhumed (dead body) in order to prove his case against thorne, being particularly challenging because technology then is not what it is today. Sir Bernard Spilsbury figured out how to show Thorne as the murderer he was based on largely the bruises on the woman’s body (Burney). Truly, Sir Bernard was laying the cornerstone of forensic science in all that he did. It does seem that all heroes meet their demise, and after losing his family he became depressed and committed suicide (McKie). Should it be arguable that he no longer qualifies as a hero? Should this gross …show more content…
The man held courage that his gut was right, he influenced the lives of many people of the day, and he continues to have influence on the Forensic Sciences even today in the age of modern technology. Although there are claims against this man, one should not be swayed. Sir Bernard Spilsbury is fully worthy of his title, and of much more. He sacrificed much of himself in order to contribute to bringing justice to the world through his lasting impact on forensic sciences. A hero is an individual who is able to bring good to others through truthful mechanisms. Spilsbury did exactly that, in putting away many criminals by way of scientific investigations. Additionally, not only does Spilsbury fit a more courteous definition of a hero, but also a dictionary definition. Through the evidence shown, one can clearly draw the conclusion that Spilsbury is a man of great valor and honor, courage and self-conviction. Although some parts of history make a sly attempt at dishonoring this man, true historical evidence seen in all of his cases (which are presented in a strictly factual manner, being unbiased) point to a blaringly obvious sign that this man is a hero of forensic science, and of a move towards a safer and more just world. Truly, Sir Bernard Spilsbury is a hero of forensic pathology, the “Father of