264

CHARACTERS OF IMPUTED WOUNDS.

youth charged a man with unlawfully wounding him on the highway. He stated that the man had stabbed him in the arm, cutting through his shirt and coat-sleeve. There was no attempt at robbery, and no motive for such an act. On examining the coat and shirt-sleeve it was found that they had been cut, but there was no corresponding cut in the lining of the coat-sleeve. The prosecutor could give no explanation of this. It was clear that the charge was false, that there had been no cutting or stabbing by another, but that the wound was self-inflicted when the coat was not worn. The youth wished to leave the place where he had been sent for private study, and he had adopted this plan to induce his friends. to remove him.

It has been contended that no rules can be laid down for the detection of such cases; each must be decided by the facts which accompany it. The facts which a medical man must endeavor to ascertain are the following: 1. The relative positions of the assailant and the assailed person at the time of the alleged attack. 2. The situation, direction, and depth of the wound or wounds. 3. The situation or direction of marks of blood or wounds on the person or dress of either, or of both the assailant and assailed. 4. The marks of blood, and the quantity effused at the spot where the mortal struggle is alleged to have taken place. The importance of these inquiries cannot be overestimated. A strong suspicion was raised against the then Duke of Cumberland, in 1810, in reference to the death of Sellis, when a skilful examination of the wounds on the deceased would have shown that they might have been self-inflicted.

It is worthy of remark that imputed wounds are generally cuts or stabs, They are seldom of the contused kind; the impostor cannot, in reference to contusions, so easily calculate upon the amount of mischief which is likely to ensue. Bergeret, however, has related some cases in which females laboring under hysterical attacks have inflicted upon themselves severe contusions, and have charged innocent persons with attempts to murder. (Ann. d'Hyg., 1863, t. 1, p. 463.) In general the inconsistency of the story is so palpable as to betray the imposture at once; but much prejudice is often unjustly excited against those who have been falsely accused. Slight excoriations or bruises may be magnified into marks of murderous violence; and if a medical man can be found to admit in an unqualified form that a severe blow may be inflicted and yet leave but slight marks on the skin, the charge will be considered proved against the unfortunate accused.

The case of M. Armand, a merchant of Montpelier, who was tried at the assizes at Aix, in March, 1864, for an alleged murderous assault upon his servant, Maurice Roux, furnishes a good illustration of the readiness with which the most inconsistent stories are accepted by the public when they are supported by pseudo-medical evidence. This case was rather one of imputed homicidal strangulation than self-inflicted wounding; nevertheless, a foundation was laid for medical opinions by the presence, as it was alleged, of a slight excoriation of the skin on the nape of the neck. The injury was so slight that it escaped the observation of some medical men who examined the complainant, and there could be no doubt from the facts that it had been produced, either accidentally or designedly, by the complainant on himself. Several medical gentlemen, taking the man's story as true, asserted without any qualification: 1. That a blow on the nape of the neck might produce cerebral concussion and syncope. 2. That a blow to produce such effects need not be violent. 3. That such a blow so inflicted would not always leave upon the skin marks of contusion or ecchymosis. These admissions were taken by the court to support the

WOUNDS INDICATIVE OF HOMICIDE.

265 man's story that his master had struck a severe blow on the back of his neck, that this blow had produced concussion of the brain, and that he had been rendered insensible for many hours. (Ann. d'Hyg., 1864, t. 1, p. 451.) The evidence for the defence, and chiefly that given by Tardieu, removed the evil effect produced by such loose medical statements as these, and satisfied the jury that the story of the complainant was a pure fabrication. The accused was justly acquitted of the charge. Although it has been elsewhere stated that severe blows are not always attended with external marks of violence (p. 249), it by no means follows that such blows have been struck in all cases in which the skin presents a slight abrasion. This would be converting the exception into the rule, and every superficial injury might be thus distorted into a proof of the infliction of murderous violence.

Pistol-shot wounds are sometimes voluntarily inflicted for the purpose of imputing murder or extorting charity. A man intending to commit suicide by firearms, and failing in the attempt, may, from shame and a desire to conceal his act, attribute the wound to the hand of some assassin. In examining such imputed wounds, they will not be found to involve vital parts, except in cases of attempted suicide; and they will possess all the characters of near wounds produced by gunpowder, wadding, or a bullet. The skin around will be more or less lacerated and bruised; there will be much ecchymosis, and the hand holding the weapon, as well as the dress and the wounded skin, may be blackened or burnt by the exploded gunpowder. A pistol-shot wound from an assassin may be produced from a distance, while an imputed wound which is inflicted by a person on himself must always partake of the characters of a near wound.

CHAPTER XXV.

WOUNDS INDICATIVE OF HOMICIDE, SUICIDE, OR ACCIDENT.—EVIDENCE FROM THE SITUATION OF A WOUND. EVIDENCE FROM ITS NATURE AND EXTENT.—EVIDENCE FROM THE DIRECTION OF A WOUND.-WOUNDS INFLICTED BY THE RIGHT OR LEFT HAND.-SEVERAL WOUNDS.-USE OF SEVERAL WEAPONS.

Wounds indicative of Homicide, Suicide, or Accident.-Supposing that the wound which is found on a dead body is proved to have been caused before death, it may be necessary to inquire whether it was the result of suicide, homicide, or accident. It might at first sight be considered that the determination of a question of this nature was wholly out of the province of a medical jurist. In some instances it may be so, and the settlement of it is then properly left to the legal authorities; but, in a large number of cases, it is so closely dependent for its elucidation on medical facts and opinions, that juries could never arrive at a satisfactory decision without medical evidence. Let us suppose, then, that a medical jurist is consulted in a doubtful case: what are the points to which he should direct his attention? They are, with regard to the wound, (1) its situation, (2) its nature and extent, and (3) its direction.

1. Evidence from the Situation of a Wound.-It is a general principle, in which most medical jurists agree, that wounds inflicted by a suicide are usually confined to the fore or lateral parts of the body. The throat and chest are commonly selected when cutting instruments are employed;

266

WOUNDS EVIDENCE FROM SITUATION.

while the chest, especially in the region of the heart, the mouth, the orbit, and the temples are the spots generally chosen for the perpetration of suicide by firearms. But it is obvious that any of these parts may be also selected by a murderer, with the especial design of simulating a suicidal attempt; therefore, the mere situation of a wound does not suffice to establish the fact of suicide. Some have regarded it as fully established in legal medicine that, when wounds exist at the back of the body, it is a positive proof that they have not been self-inflicted. This situation is certainly unusual in cases of suicide; but, as Orfila observes, it is not the situation so much as the direction of a wound which here furnishes evidence against the presumption of suicide. A wound traversing the body from behind to before in a direct line is not likely to have resulted from a suicidal at tempt; at least, it must be obvious that it would require more preparation and contrivance on the part of a self-murderer, so as to arrange matters that such a wound should be produced, than we can believe him to possess at the moment of attempting his life. Besides, his object is to destroy himself as quickly and as surely as circumstances will permit; he is, therefore, not likely to adopt complicated and uncertain means for carrying this design into execution. Nevertheless, we must not always expect to find suicidal wounds in what an anatomist would pronounce to be the most appropriate situation to produce instant destruction. An incised wound in a concealed or not easily accessible part is presumptive of murder, because this kind of injury could have resulted only from a deliberate use of the weapon. Suicidal wounds are, however, sometimes found in unusual situations. Thus, the blood vessels of the arms or legs may be the seat of injury. Abdul Aziz, Sultan of Turkey, was found dead under suspicious circumstances. The arms presented two gashes at the bend of each elbow in front. The direction of both of these wounds was oblique, from above downwards and from within outwards, and their edges were jagged. That on the left arm penetrated to the joint. The superficial veins and the deep-seated tissues were cut through, and the ulnar artery laid open, but not entirely divided. The wound on the right arm was superficial, involving only the skin and the veins. The bleeding from the ulnar artery and veins had led to death. The dress was soaked with blood. A pair of scissors stained with blood was found upon the sofa. Although the situation of these wounds is unusual, there is nothing in them inconsistent with suicide. The body was examined by nineteen physicians, and they agreed in signing a report that the act was suicidal. Unfortunately, they assigned as one of their reasons, "that the direction and nature of the wounds, as well as the instrument which might have effected them (the scissors), lead to the conclusion of suicide;" whereas, it is perfectly clear from the description that such wounds as these might have been easily produced by an assassin, and that their situation, nature, and direction were very unusual in cases of suicide. In reference to this subject it has been truly remarked that there is no wound which a suicide is capable of inflicting upon himself which may not be produced by a murderer; but there are many wounds inflicted by a murderer which, from their situation and other circumstances, a suicide would be incapable of producing on his own person. We cannot always obtain certainty in a question of this kind-the facts will often allow us to speak only with different degrees of probability. See the case of Elizabeth Gibbons, convicted of the murder of her husband. (See p. 270, post.)

The situation of a wound sometimes serves to show whether it is of an accidental nature or not-a point often insisted on in the defence. Accidental wounds are generally found on those parts of the body which are

EVIDENCE FROM NATURE AND EXTENT.

267

exposed. Some wounds, however, forbid the supposition of accident even when exposed; as deeply-incised wounds of the throat and gunshot wounds of the mouth and temple. (For the report of a case in which an accidental wound on the head by an axe closely simulated a homicidal wound, see Casper's Wochenschrift, May 24, 1845.)

2. Evidence from the Nature and Extent of a Wound-Contused wounds are rarely seen in cases of suicide, because in producing them there is not that certainty of speedily destroying life to which a selfmurderer commonly looks. There are, of course, exceptions to this remark; as where, for instance, a man precipitates himself from a considerable height, and is wounded by the fall. Circumstantial evidence will, however, rarely fail to clear up a case of this description. Greater difficulty may exist when life is destroyed by a contused wound voluntarily inflicted. When persons laboring under insanity or delirium commit suicide, they often inflict upon themselves wounds of an extraordinary kind, such as would at first view lead to a suspicion that they had been produced by the hand of a murderer; and therefore the rules which are here laid down to distinguished homicidal from suicidal wounds must be guardedly applied to cases of this kind. In 1850, a case occurred at Guy's Hospital, in which a patient in a fit of delirium tore away the whole of the abdominal muscles from the lower and forepart of the abdomen. Had the body of this person been found dead with such an unusual and serious personal injury, it is not improbable that it would have been pronounced homicidal and not suicidal. In 1876, a French artisan was found dead, with a severe wound in his throat. He had weighted a large knife with heavy stones, and had placed it between two upright planks, on the principle of the guillotine. He had so placed his neck that when the knife fell by releasing a string it would cause a fatal wound. In the following case, but for the facts being known, an accidental wound in a concealed part of the body might have been pronounced to be homicidal. A girl, æt. 15, while jumping on to the knee of her uncle, received a severe wound under the following circumstances. He was holding a stick between his legs, and the girl did not observe it In the act of jumping, this passed up the anus. She withdrew the stick, and though she complained of pain, she amused herself as usual. On the following night acute symptoms set in, and she died in forty-eight hours of peritonitis. A rent was found in the forepart of the rectum which had penetrated the peritoneal cavity. (Brit. Med. Jour., 1874, ii. p. 403.) The body of a man was found in a lane near Rhyl. It appeared that the deceased had stretched himself on his back on the ground, unbuttoned and turned back the lower part of his vest on the left side, and had then thrust the long, thin blade of a pocket-knife into the heart, between the fifth and sixth ribs. The knife was found on his breast close to the wound. The body was warm when found. He had not been disturbed; there had been no robbery of his person, his hat remained on his head and his gloves in his left hand. He had arrived at Rhyl that afternoon. Everything indicated great deliberation.

The extent of a wound, by which we are to understand the number and importance of the parts injured, must in these cases be always taken into. consideration. It has been somewhat hastily laid down as a rule that an extensive wound of the throat, involving all the vessels and soft parts of the neck to the spine, could not be self-inflicted. Although, in general, suicidal wounds of this part of the body do not reach far back or involve the vessels of more than one side, yet we find occasionally that all the soft parts are thus completely divided. These are cases in which, perhaps, with a firm hand, there is a most determined purpose of self-destruction.

268

EVIDENCE FROM THE DIRECTION OF A WOUND.

In a case of suicide, observed by Marc, the weapon had divided all the muscles of the neck, the windpipe and gullet-had opened the jugular veins and both carotid arteries, and had even grazed the anterior ligaments of the spine. A wound so extensive as this is rarely seen in a case of suicide, but there is no ground for the assertion that such extensive wounds in the throat are incompatible with self-destruction. (See also Ann. d'Hyg., 1872, t. 1, p. 419.)

Incised wounds in the throat are generally set down as presumptive of suicide, but murderers sometimes wound this part for the more effectual concealment of crime. Circumstances connected with the form and direction of a wound may in such cases lead to detection; for, unless the person attacked be asleep or intoxicated, resistance is offered, evidence of which may be obtained by the presence of great irregularity in the wound or the marks of other wounds on the hands and person of the deceased. The peculiar form of a wound on the throat has sometimes led to a justifiable suspicion of homicide. In one instance a man was found dead with his throat cut in the manner in which butchers are accustomed to kill sheep. This led the medical man to believe that the wound had been inflicted by a butcher. The police, guided by this observation, arrested a butcher, who was subsequently tried and convicted of the murder. In some instances, however, it is extremely difficult to say whether the wound is homicidal or suicidal, the medical facts being equally explicable on either hypothesis. (See case by Marc, Ann. d'Hyg., 1830, t. 2. p. 408; another by Devergie, ibid. 414; and a third by Olivier, Ann. d'Hyg., 1836, t. 1, p. 394.) Regularity in a wound of the throat has been considered to be presumptive of suicide. This was the publicly-expressed opinion of Sir Everard Home in the well-known case of Sellis. The deceased was found lying on a bed, with his throat extensively cut, and the edges of the incision were regular and even. This condition of the wound, it was inferred, repudiated the idea of homicide; but, as a general principle, this appears to be a fallacious criterion. A murderer, by surprising his victim from behind, by having others at hand to assist him, or by directing his attack against one who is asleep or intoxicated, or who from age or infirmity is incapable of offering resistance, may easily produce a regular and clean incision on the throat.

3. Evidence from the Direction of a Wound. The direction of a wound has been considered by some to afford presumptive evidence sufficiently strong to guide a medical jurist in his inquiry. It has been remarked that in most suicidal wounds which affect the throat, the direction of the cut is commonly from left to right, either transversely or passing obliquely from above downwards; in suicidal stabs or punctured wounds the direction is commonly from right to left and from above downwards. In left-handed persons, the direction would, of course, be precisely the reverse. Suicidal wounds are, however, subject to such variation in extent and direction that it is scarcely possible to generalize with respect to them. Nevertheless, an attention to these points may sometimes be of real assistance to the inquirer, especially when the body has not been removed from its position. It is recommended that the instrument with which the wound has been inflicted should be placed in either hand of the deceased and the arm moved towards the wounded part, so that it may be clearly seen whether the direction of the wound could or could not correspond to it in any position. It might happen that neither arm would reach the wounded part, so as to inflict a wound of the particular direction observed: this may be the case in wounds situated on the back. It is obvious that if a murderer makes an incised wound in the front of the throat from