Dupuytren remarks that stab-wounds are smaller than the weapon owing to the elasticity of the skin, but a lateral motion of the weapon may cause considerable enlargement of the wound. If a stab-wound has traversed a part of the body, the wound of exit is smaller than that of entrance.

The depth of a punctured wound may be any part of the length of the weapon, or it may even be deeper than the length of the weapon owing to a depression of the surface by the force of the blow, or the pressure of the handle of the weapon or the hand holding it. We have already seen that this may occur in a marked degree in penetrating wounds of the abdomen involving one of the movable viscera, also in wounds of the thorax, partly from depression of the surface and partly from an expansion of the thorax when opened at the autopsy, thus increasing the measured depth of the wound. Punctured wounds of the third class made by instruments with ridges or edges, like foils, files, etc., present more or less the shape of the weapon if the edges are cutting, but not always so if the direction of the wound be oblique or the parts unevenly stretched. If the edges are not cutting they cause wounds more or less like the first class of punctured wounds, but we can often distinguish them from the latter by little tears in the edges. The entrance and exit wounds may not be alike.

Wounds made by bits of glass and earthenware have irregular and uneven edges. Taylor[637] relates a case, Reg. v. Ankers (Warwick Lent Ass., 1845), where the wound was attributed to a fall on some broken crockery, but the wound was cleanly incised and the prisoner was convicted. As it may be alleged in defence that a given wound was caused by a fall on broken crockery or other substances capable of producing a punctured wound, it is important to notice whether the edges are lacerated and irregular or smooth and clean. The author quoted above cites another case which occurred to Watson, where the prisoner alleged that a deep, clean-cut wound of the genitals of a woman which had caused her death was due to a fall on some broken glass. The character of the wound disproved this defence. Another feature of such wounds, especially if they be deep in comparison to their length, is that they are very apt to contain small particles of the glass or earthenware which caused them. In fact, in all wounds it is well to search for any small fragments which will throw light upon the weapon used.

Wounds caused by scissors are often of characteristic shape. If the scissors were open we find two symmetrical, punctured diverging wounds, presenting more or less clearly the form of the blades of the scissors. If the blades have been approximated there is a triangular interval between the punctures, the apex of which is truncated if any skin remains between the punctures.

Lacerated wounds may not indicate the weapon used as clearly as punctured wounds, but the agent which produced them is often indicated by the appearance of the wound. They are generally accidental. But where they occur, as they not infrequently do, on the bodies of new-born children, they may give rise to the charge of infanticide. In some cases the weapon which caused the wound fits the wound produced, and thus important evidence may be furnished the prosecution. Taylor[638] cites the case of Montgomery (Omagh Sum. Ass., 1873), where a bill-hook which fitted the injuries on the skull of the deceased was found buried in a spot to which the prisoner was seen to go. These facts connected the prisoner with the weapon and the weapon with the murder. In other cases the wounds may be so lacerated or contused that the indications of the weapon are obscured.

Contusions and Contused Wounds.—The shape of a contusing body is sometimes reproduced by the contusion and the ecchymosis. Thus we are enabled to distinguish the marks of a whip, the fingers, the fist, etc. This is best seen when the ecchymosis is fresh, for soon the edges extend and the outline is less clearly marked. Plaques parcheminées, which we have already described as the marks of contused erosions, may show the form of finger-nails, etc. Contused wounds like simple contusions may show the shape of the weapon.

If the contusing body has a large area, the whole of this area cannot often strike the body at once, so that the outline of the contusion does not represent that of the weapon. But in general, severe contusions present greater difficulties than the preceding classes of wounds. We must generally be content if we can determine whether the wound was caused by a weapon, including the fist, or by a fall, and we are often unable to say even this. A fall is often alleged by the defence as the cause of the injury, but of course if the prisoner was responsible for the fall he is responsible for the results of the fall. If there are contusions or contused wounds on several parts of the head, or if the wounds are on the vertex of the head, it is presumptive of the use of weapons. We cannot often swear that each and every wound on the head was due to the use of a weapon. On the other hand, the presence of grass, sand, gravel, etc., in a wound is presumptive of a fall and of the origin of the wound in this manner. In case of a fall from a height the wound or wounds might be in almost any part of the body, on the vertex or elsewhere. Such a fall may be the result of accident, suicide, or murder. It is not unusual for female complainants to ascribe their wounds to a fall to exculpate the prisoner, especially if this happens to be her husband. We should remember that in the scalp or over the eyebrows a contused wound caused by a blunt instrument may resemble an incised wound. As already stated, however, if the wound is fresh careful examination will lead to a correct opinion, and the use of a sharp instrument may be disproved. If the wound is not recent there is great difficulty in judging of the cause. It is well to caution against accepting the interested statements of others in regard to the use of a weapon, unless the character of the wound bears them out very strongly. There may be a bad motive for imputing the use of a certain weapon to the assailant. It is far better to rely solely upon the evidence furnished by the wound in such cases.

It would be useful if we could lay down some general rules to discriminate between wounds caused by the blow of a weapon and those caused by falls, but this we are unable to do so as to cover all cases. Each case must be judged by itself.

If the question is asked which of two weapons caused certain contusions or contused wounds, we are still less likely to be able to answer it. In such a case we must make an accurate examination of the form of the wound and compare it closely with that of the weapon. In such cases also the second source of information on which we base our opinion as to the relation of a weapon to the wound may be of use, namely, the examination of the weapon. The presence of blood, hair, cotton or woollen fibres on one of two weapons indicates that this was the weapon used. The presence of blood is particularly to be looked for, and in those parts of the weapon from which it could be washed off least easily. We should further note the condition of the point and edge of the weapon, and if the edge is broken or nicked at all, whether this condition is old or recent. The sharpness of the edge should further be noted, and if the edge is sharp note whether it has recently been sharpened. All these points have a certain bearing on the case. Also the location, shape, depth, etc., of the wound should be carefully noted to see if an accidental fall would be likely to account for it. For these features of the wound may be such that no fall could cause it.

We see, therefore, that in incised and punctured wounds the use of a weapon may not be hard to make out, but that in general the question whether a particular instrument caused the wound is often difficult or impossible to answer. Often the best we can do is to say that the wound could have been produced by the weapon.

V. Was a Wound Self-Inflicted or was it Inflicted by Another?

In other words, was it suicidal or homicidal? Speaking of suicide in general, its most common cause is alcoholism. It is not infrequent in youth. Lutaud[639] states that in fifteen years, presumably in France, there were 1,065 cases of suicide between the ages of ten and fifteen years. This seems to be only explicable on the ground of heredity or of cerebral affections. Among 27,737 cases of suicide, observed in France, the same author gives the following commonest causes in the order of greatest frequence: Drowning, strangulation, pistol-wounds, incised and punctured wounds, poison. The age, sex, and social conditions influence the choice of means. Thus among males drowning is preferred by the young, pistol-wounds by the adult, and hanging by the aged, while among females asphyxia is the favorite method, as there is no pain and no disfigurement.

While many pathologists consider suicide an act of mental alienation, and though such may be the case in a large number or even in a majority of cases, yet in a considerable number it is a voluntary and rationally planned act. The question, Is it suicide or homicide? may be put in all cases of death by cutting instruments, and in many from other kinds of wounds. It is often, if not generally, impossible to answer it with absolute certainty. It is hardly suitable for the medical witness to try to reconstruct the scene of the crime from the medical facts, for he should abstain from everything not medical and should distinguish that which is positively proven from that which is merely probable.

Suicides often leave a letter or some such indication to show that the wound was self-inflicted. If such is not the case, the question as to the cause of the wound may or may not be medical. If the question is a medical one, there are certain points to notice as to the wound, such as its nature, situation, direction, and the number and extent of the wounds, from which we are to form an opinion. There are also other circumstances which furnish evidence and thus assist us in answering the question. This evidence is furnished by the weapon, the signs of struggle, the examination of the clothes and body of the deceased and the accused, the position and attitude of the body, and any organic lesions, etc., predisposing to suicide.

The nature of the wound bears upon the question of the homicidal or suicidal origin in the following way: Most suicidal wounds are incised or punctured wounds. Incised wounds of the throat are generally presumptive of suicide, but a homicidal wound may be inflicted here to conceal the source of infliction of the wound. Such a wound if homicidal would imply malice, on account of the attempt at deception and concealment, and would convict the assailant of murder. Unless the deceased was asleep or drunk or was otherwise incapable of resistance, such a homicidal wound can often be distinguished from a similar suicidal wound by the form and direction of the wound, by its irregularity, and by other wounds on the hands or person of the deceased. Taylor[640] mentions a case in which the peculiar form of the wound, like that made by butchers in killing sheep, led to the suspicion that homicide had been committed by a butcher, who was subsequently arrested, tried, and convicted of murder. The regularity of the wound has been taken to indicate suicide rather than homicide. That it does so is not questioned, but it is more or less fallacious if resistance is impossible, in which case a murderer may easily make a regular, clean, incised wound here. Contused wounds are seldom suicidal, for they are not sufficiently speedily or certainly fatal. They are also more painful and disfiguring. Contused wounds usually indicate murder or accident, though there are not wanting cases of suicide by such weapons as a hatchet or a hammer. There is more difficulty in the case of a contused wound from a fall instead of from a weapon; for here we have to decide whether the fall was accidental, suicidal, or homicidal. The nature of the wound is of little assistance in the case of insane or delirious patients, who may commit suicide in the most unusual and curious manner.

Taylor[641] relates the case of a delirious patient in Guy’s Hospital, in 1850, who tore away the whole of the abdominal muscles from the lower part of the anterior abdominal wall. If the case had not occurred in the hospital or where there were witnesses of the deed, the nature of the wound would have indicated homicide except for the delirium. The following case, quoted by the same author, illustrates a wound of very unusual nature and situation, which might have been taken for a homicidal wound with intent to conceal as far as the situation of the wound was concerned. The wound was accidental and occurred in the following way. A girl fifteen years old jumped on to her uncle’s knee while he was holding a stick between his legs which she did not notice. The Stick passed up her anus, but she withdrew it and went on playing, though she complained of pain. On the following night acute symptoms of peritonitis set in, and she died of it in forty-eight hours. On post-mortem examination a rent was found in the anterior part of the rectum penetrating the peritoneal cavity.

The Situation or Position of the Wound.—A suicidal wound must be in such a position that the deceased could have inflicted it himself. Such wounds are, therefore, generally anteriorly or laterally situated. The “site of election” for suicidal wounds is the neck for incised wounds and the chest, especially in the region of the heart, for punctured wounds. The situation of suicidal wounds, of lunatics, etc., shows all kinds of fantasies. The mere situation does not suffice to distinguish suicidal wounds, as a murderer may simulate a suicidal wound for purposes of concealment. Some regard a wound in the back as proof against suicidal origin, but it is not so much the situation of a wound as the situation taken in connection with the direction which furnishes the proof against suicide in such wounds.

As a rule, a suicidal wound, besides being in an accessible part of the body, is also in a part commonly known to be rapidly mortal, as the neck and heart. But suicidal wounds are not always in the situation which is anatomically best for being rapidly fatal. Concealed wounds or wounds in inaccessible parts presumptive of murder may be suicidal and so placed to impute them to another and give rise to the suspicion of murder. The blood-vessels of the arms and legs may be selected as the site of a suicidal wound. This situation is often regarded as uncommon, though the writer has met with it in one or more cases of attempted suicide. It is illustrated in the famous case of Abdul Aziz, the Sultan of Turkey. He was found dead under suspicious circumstances with two oblique, ragged wounds at the bend of each elbow, directed from above downward and from within outward. The joint on the left side was penetrated, while only the skin and veins were involved on the right side. Death was due to bleeding from the ulnar artery and the veins. The clothing was soaked with blood and scissors stained with blood were found on the sofa. These wounds were consistent with suicide, though not what would be expected. Nineteen physicians who examined the body agreed in reporting it as suicidal, though one reason given for this opinion, namely, “that the direction and nature of the wounds, as well as the instrument which might have effected them, lead to the conclusion of suicide,” was hardly a valid one, for the wounds were not typical of suicide in nature, direction, or position. Such wounds are rarely homicidal, though at least one such case is mentioned.

Suicidal incised wounds, as has been said, are usually in the neck, where they may sometimes be arrested by the larynx, especially if it be ossified, though the incision often divides the larynx. The situation of the wounds is often between the larynx and the hyoid bone, and then meeting no bony resistance, they may divide the great vessels and even nick the vertebræ. But it is rare to be so deep, at least on both sides at once. As a rule, it is deepest on the side on which it is begun and ends more superficially. As far as the situation of a wound is concerned, there is no wound which a suicide can inflict but what may also be inflicted by a murderer. The reverse, however, is not true. We cannot always certainly distinguish between suicidal and homicidal wounds from their situation.

The direction of the wound is one of the most important points to notice. It is considered by some to furnish presumptive evidence for the medical jurist, and taken in connection with the nature and situation of the wound may often lead us to a positive opinion as to the question of the suicidal or homicidal nature of a wound. The evidence from the direction of wounds is only furnished by incised and punctured wounds, rarely by contused wounds. Suicidal incised wounds of the throat are almost always directed from above downward and from left to right if the suicide be right-handed, and in the same direction from right to left if the person be left-handed. Transverse wounds in this situation without obliquity are also compatible with suicide, though perhaps more common in homicide, while obliquely transverse wounds from above downward and from right to left in a right-handed individual are indicative of their infliction by another. Homicidal incised wounds of the neck inflicted from behind or the right side, if the victim and assailant are right-handed, or from the left side if they are left-handed, may have the same direction as similar suicidal wounds. Such a wound may be inflicted by a murderer to deceive as to the cause of the wound by raising the suspicion of suicide. If an incised wound of the throat be inflicted by another from in front, then its direction is usually the reverse of a similar self-inflicted wound.

Homicidal incisions, especially in the throat, may extend at one or the other end beyond the skin wound. In similar suicidal wounds at both angles of the wound the skin is the first and the last part injured, and in such wounds the spine is seldom reached. It should be borne in mind in this connection that a given suicide may be ambidextrous and this fact may be unknown to the friends of the deceased. This is especially the case in the use of the razor from practice in shaving, and the razor is the usual weapon used in such incised wounds of the throat. Neglect of this point may lead to an unwarranted suspicion of murder. The two following cases cited by Taylor[642] well illustrate this fact:

In the case of Sellis,[643] the man was generally supposed to be right-handed, though he was found dead in bed with his throat cut and the razor on the left side of the bed. In point of fact, he was ambidextrous in the use of the razor. The second case, which occurred in London in 1865, was still more remarkable.

A publican was found dead in bed with his throat cut in a left-handed manner. He was supposed to be right-handed and there was bloody water in a basin in the room. His wife, who gave the alarm, had marks of bruises on her, and though she said she had found her husband dead in bed after having left it for a short time, suspicion fell upon her, especially as they were in the habit of quarrelling. The suspicions were removed, however, by the explanation that he had been brought up as a wood-carver, which required him to use both hands equally, and that he had frequently threatened to kill himself, and further that the bloody water in the basin was due to a daughter washing her hands after having touched her father. It is even conceivable that an ambidextrous person, to avoid suspicion of suicide or to impute murder to another, might inflict a suicidal wound from right to left. Notwithstanding all this, the above cases are very rare exceptions, and the rules stated above as to incised wounds in the throat hold in almost every case.

In the case of stab-wounds of the chest, especially in the cardiac region, the same rule as to the direction holds good, and in these wounds we can often define the direction more accurately than in the case of incised wounds. If the suicide is right-handed the wound is regularly on the front or side of the body and directed obliquely from above downward and from right to left, while it is from left to right in case of a left-handed suicide. A murderer from behind, or from that side the hand of which the victim would use, may inflict a wound in the same situation and direction as a suicidal one. Here again this may be done with the motive of concealment of the nature of the crime. Homicidal stab-wounds inflicted from in front, as they generally are, are usually directed from left to right, and they may be directed from above downward or in the opposite direction. Oblique wounds from above downward may be either suicidal or homicidal; those directed from below upward are almost always homicidal.

When a wound is caused by an instrument both cutting and puncturing, suicide cannot be admitted unless the direction of the wound is compatible with that which the weapon which inflicted the wound, held in the hand of the deceased, might cause. Taylor recommends to place the weapon in the hand of the deceased to see if the direction of the wound could possibly correspond with that which could be taken by the weapon in the hand of the deceased with any position possible for the arm and hand. Therefore certain wounds by position and direction exclude suicide, but if a wound is possibly suicidal it is also possibly homicidal.

Though suicidal wounds vary, the above points are sometimes of real assistance in distinguishing between suicide and homicide, especially if the body has not been moved.

Evidence Furnished by the Number and Extent of Wounds.—Multiplicity of wounds, as a rule, indicates homicide, and indeed the reverse is true in a majority of cases that a single wound points to suicide. There are many exceptions, however, to both statements. Multiple wounds are possible in suicide, and that, too, with different weapons; even drowning or hanging may be resorted to after self-inflicted wounds have failed. If several wounds are found, each one of which or more than one of which may be considered grave, it is usual to conclude that the wounds were not self-inflicted, but the medical expert should not judge too hastily from this fact alone, for most wounds do not kill instantly. With the presence of several wounds in a case of suicide only one of these, as a rule, is “mortal” in character. This being so, some have asserted that if two mortal wounds are present, especially if one of them is stupefying, such as a wound about the head, such wounds are incompatible with suicide. A definite statement of this kind cannot go unchallenged unless the two wounds are in different parts of the body, and both of such a nature as to be immediately or very rapidly fatal. For all cases of suicide or homicide do not die immediately from wounds commonly called mortal; in fact, this may be said to be the exception rather than the rule. We may safely say, however, that if there are several distinct wounds on the throat, each involving the large vessels, the inference is plainly murder.

Several wounds by the same or different weapons cannot, therefore, be proof of homicide. The case of a lunatic suicide is reported who inflicted thirty wounds upon his head. In a case of homicide with multiple wounds the situation or direction of some one or more of them may give evidence as to the origin of the wounds. Ogston, Sr.,[644] states that especially in the case of incised wounds of the throat a suicide may make a number of small or superficial tentative cuts besides the principal one, but these incisions are all usually parallel (see Fig. 10). In the case or multiple homicidal incised wounds of the throat, on the other hand, the wounds are not parallel, owing probably to the resistance of the victim in this case and his remaining passive in the former. The extent of the wound refers to the number and importance of the parts injured. In regard to incised wounds of the neck, this point has been thought by some to furnish presumptive evidence of suicide or homicide—of homicide if the wounds are deep, of suicide if they are not. While it is true that suicidal wounds of the neck are, as a rule, not very deep, and that they seldom reach the vertebræ and generally do not divide the vessels on more than one side, yet sometimes such wounds are as deep and extensive as homicidal ones. This may imply a determined purpose not to be foiled in the attempt at suicide. Thus Marc reports a case of suicide by an incised wound of the neck, where the wound was so deep as to reach the vertebræ or their anterior ligaments and to divide the trachea and œsophagus, both carotids and jugular veins. The extent of this wound was greater than in most suicides, but still we can hardly lay down a hard-and-fast rule of much practical value according to which extensive wounds are evidence of murder. Such wounds are, however, presumptive of murder taken in connection with other signs pointing that way.

The question may arise in regard to a wound, whether the victim wounded himself by precipitating himself on the weapon. This may be alleged by the defence, but it is difficult to believe if the wound is deep, for the body would naturally repulse the weapon. If the wound is deep the weapon must at least have been strongly held, which may or may not be consistent with the theory of self-defence. If the direction of the wound is oblique from above downward, or if there is one external wound and two separate tracts internally, from a second use of the weapon on the part of the person holding it, then the above allegation is doubtful, if not impossible.

By comparing the relative positions of the deceased and accused, as indicated by the witnesses and accused, with the position and direction of the wound, we may often judge whether the allegation is possible or probable.

Besides the above points derived from the wound itself, there are several other factors which belong to the category of circumstantial evidence, but which come within the province of the medical expert. These latter points of evidence are sometimes almost as important as the former, while taken in connection with them they help to make the evidence far more conclusive.

Evidence furnished by the weapon as to the origin of wounds.

We have already seen in a former section that we can often tell, by various signs of the wound, with what kind of a weapon it was made. We may thus be able to say that a wound was made by a weapon similar to one exhibited. Also by examination of the weapon itself and from the circumstantial evidence of where and how it was found, we may sometimes say that the wound was inflicted almost certainly with a particular weapon. All this evidence may sometimes be made use of in judging between the suicidal and homicidal origin of a wound.

The POSITION of the weapon or the place where it is found is a matter of considerable importance. If it has not been touched, its position should be carefully examined, or inquired about if it has been moved. The presence of a weapon which might have caused the wounds in the hand of the victim is in general proof of suicide. The weapon must not merely lie in the hand, it must be gripped by the hand. One might suppose that the weapon placed and held in the hand until rigor mortis sets in would still be firmly held. Casper says that this is not so, but that the weapon falls from the grasp as soon as the hand is unbound. Also Hofmann’s[645] experiments proved the same point. By the use of ligatures and several artificial means he tried to confine a weapon in the hand of a recently dead body so that it would be as firmly held as by a contraction of the muscles during life. These experiments were entirely unsuccessful, for though the fingers remained closed, the object was simply held and not grasped, and fell from the hand on the release of pressure.

In suicide the weapon is sometimes held so firmly that force is required to dislodge it. It seems as if the muscular spasm or grip persists after death, as cadaveric spasm, until rigor mortis occurs and sets it, as it were. The murderer, therefore, cannot imitate this grip, and an unsuccessful attempt to do so would indicate murder. It should be borne in mind that the weapon in the hand of the deceased may have been for the purposes of defence; therefore it is necessary to note whether the wounds on the body correspond to those which could be made by the weapon. Indeed, this fact is most important to note in all cases of suspected suicide where the weapon is found. If the weapon is not in the hand of the deceased, note carefully where it lies. If death is due to a suicidal or accidental wound which is immediately or very rapidly fatal, the weapon is generally found near the body. If so, it is well to note on which side it lies, and if it lies near, whether it has apparently fallen or been thrown or placed there. If the relation of the body and the weapon has been disturbed by moving either, the position of the weapon as found by the medical witness is of little value. In cases of suicide the weapon may possibly be found at some distance or even concealed, though this is exceptional. Thus Taylor[646] states that the razor in one instance was found shut at the side of the deceased, who had committed suicide by cutting his throat. In another instance the razor was found in the pocket of the deceased, bloody and closed. As a rule, the weapon is found lying at the side of a suicide if it is not grasped in the hand. If the weapon is far from the body and the wound was quickly fatal, especially if the weapon is hid or cannot be found, it is strongly presumptive of murder. If the weapon is found near the body it is well to note whether the edge is sharp or blunt, straight or bent, or notched, as these points may assist us in forming a judgment as to suicide or murder.

A weapon belonging to the victim may be substituted by the murderer for the one really used, and the former may be placed by the side of the body. Therefore the weapon found should correspond to the wounds as to length, depth, sharpness, etc., to be compatible with suicide.

Generally a suicide foiled in the attempt to take his life uses the same weapon over again if he persists in the attempt. But he may not do so; on the contrary, if the first attempt was made with a knife, the second may be made with a pistol, etc. Several wounds by the same or different weapons cannot therefore be an absolute proof of homicide.

The presence of blood, hair, and other substances on the weapon used, or probably used, is a matter of some importance. Blood is not necessarily found on the weapon used to inflict a mortal wound, especially in the case of blunt instruments. In stab-wounds, too, the vessels may be compressed by the blow or the weapon may be wiped as it were on withdrawal by the elasticity of the skin and by the clothing, except for a thin yellowish film. Thus it is that the first stab-wound shows no blood on the outside of the clothes but only on the inside, but the outside of the second is usually bloody but may be but little so. To make sure whether or not there is blood on a knife or other weapon it is necessary to examine all the depressions on the instrument, as the blade itself may have been washed, and only those traces of blood remain which are less accessible to cleaning by washing. Blood coagulated on a blade indicates, as a rule, blood from a living animal, but it may not do so. Furthermore, it may be hard to distinguish between a thin layer or spots of dried blood not coagulated or coagulated and dried blood in a similar form.

If blood is not found on a weapon, hair and other substances which can be identified may be. This is especially the case with blunt weapons, on which, as we have seen, blood usually fails. A fragment of the weapon may break off in the wound, as in stab-wounds, and may be identified as belonging to one in the murderer’s possession.

The signs of a struggle furnish important evidence, as they are not likely to be found in the case of suicide. If the wounds were inflicted by a cutting instrument, the existence of a struggle may be indicated by incisions on the palm of the hand or fingers or on the dorsum (see Fig 12). Such wounds would not be self-inflicted and would indicate a struggle with the murderer. Or if contusions or ecchymoses indicating the form of the foot, fist, fingers, or finger-nails are found on the face, neck, chest, forearm, or hand of the deceased, this again indicates a struggle with the assailant, and goes far to prove murder. The same is true of the imprint of a bloody or dirty hand on the clothes of the victim when the victim’s hands were not bloody. Also such an imprint in a position where the deceased could not have reached with the particular hand indicated, as is the case if the impression of a right hand be found on the victim’s right arm; this indicates a struggle with a murderer, etc. In one case of murder, on the back of the left hand of the deceased there was found the bloody mark of a left hand evidently not that of the victim himself. The presence of marks of violence about the mouth of the deceased, done to close it to prevent the victim from giving an alarm, especially if surprised during sleep, is presumptive of murder. Sometimes hair or fragments of clothing belonging to the accused are found in the grasp of the deceased, indicating a desperate struggle, and they are very suspicious of murder. Thus Taylor[647] cites the case of a murder trial in Ireland, in 1877, where hairs found firmly grasped in the hands of the deceased were found to correspond to the hair of the accused. The clothes of the deceased, as well as those of the accused, often indicate a struggle unless the accused can satisfactorily account for the condition of his own clothes in some other way.

The examination of the clothes and body of the deceased and the accused may furnish important evidence.

If suicide is accomplished by a weapon like a knife, it is rare for the hand not to be bloody. If it is not bloody we may well suspect a case of supposed suicide. The presence of blood on the hand does not prove suicide, though its absence may disprove it, as the hand is generally bloody in case of murder by being carried to the wound.

The examination of the clothing of the deceased is of great importance. As we have noticed before, a suicide generally opens them, a murderer rarely. A suicide is often partly or even wholly undressed when he inflicts the wound, while murder is usually committed on those entirely dressed. The wound of the clothes should correspond to that of the body in case of murder. In suicide the wounds of the body and of the clothes may not correspond, especially if there exists a motive to falsely impute the crime. The clothes of the deceased as well as those of the accused may indicate a struggle, as we have already noticed. Of course, in regard to the clothes examined, it is necessary to clearly prove that they were worn at the time by the deceased or accused, otherwise serious mistakes may be and sometimes are made. In examining the blood-spots on the clothing, note whether the blood occurs in large patches or sprinkled as by a spurting vessel or by continued violence.

The body of the accused may present scratches, marks of nails, contusions, bites, or other wounds indicative of a struggle. It would be well to ask the accused how he received the wounds or scars, to see if his explanations tally with the injuries. It is hard to tell when wounds which have cicatrized were inflicted; we can only distinguish between old and recent ones, and thus control the statements of the accused. An examination of the finger-nails of the prisoner soon after the crime may reveal blood underneath when the rest of the hands and person are free from it. Note also the site and shape of the blood-spots, if they exist, and whether or not they came from an arterial jet. These spots may be on the body or clothes of the accused. The account of the accused as to these spots may or may not correspond to the facts as indicated by them. The above leads us to the more or less important question:

Could the Assailant have Escaped without Stains?

It is possible for the murderer to escape without being spotted with blood, but the probability of this occurrence depends on the nature of the wound and the relative positions of the deceased and the assailant at the time the wounds were inflicted. This latter fact is very largely, if not altogether, a matter of speculation as far as the medical evidence goes. It is a popular, though false, idea that a murderer’s clothes must be bloody, and the police may be misled in expecting to find them so in every instance. Taylor[1] cites several cases in which either no blood was found on the murderer’s clothes, or only small spots wholly out of proportion to the amount of blood which must have spurted or flowed from the wound. Absence of blood on the prisoner’s clothes is often made use of by the defence to prove the prisoner’s innocence, whereas, besides the possibilities of having had no spots in the first place, the clothes may have been changed or washed before the examination was made. This has occurred in more than one murder trial. Taylor[648] mentions the following cases in illustration:

It was alleged that the absence of blood-stains on the prisoner’s clothing was a strong proof of his innocence in the trial of Sub-Inspector Montgomery for the murder of Mr. Glasse (Omagh Ass., July, 1873). In this case the weapon was a bill-hook which had produced contused wounds on the head. There was blood on the floor about the body, but the wounds were not likely to have been accompanied by much spurting. Yet it was assumed that the assailant in this case must have been covered with blood. Much stress was laid upon the absence of blood-stains. On the first two trials the jury could not agree, owing chiefly to the absence of blood-stains, but on the third trial he was convicted and afterward admitted that he had removed the blood-stains from the clothes with cold water. Also in the case of Reg. v. Courvoisier (C.C.C., 1840) the accused, who was tried for the murder of Lord William Russel, had no blood-stains on his clothes. All the vessels of the throat of the deceased had been cut to the vertebræ while he was asleep. It was contended most strongly that the accused could not possibly have committed the crime, as he had no blood-stains. But after conviction he confessed that he wore no clothes when he committed the murder, and he only had to wash his hands and the carving-knife he used. Again, in the case of Reg. v. Thompson (Durham Wint. Ass., 1863) the defence mainly relied on the absence of blood on the prisoner’s clothing. The wound in the throat of the wife of the accused was five inches long, directed from left to right, dividing all the vessels and nerves of the neck. The medical witness stated justly that no such wound could be self-inflicted. It was rapidly fatal. No weapon was found near the body. The prisoner was convicted.

The same author cites the case of a prisoner on whose trousers worn soon after the murder no blood-marks were found, but the trousers actually worn by him were found with blood upon them. Juries have even acquitted the prisoner apparently only because no marks of blood were found, though the other circumstances were explicable only on the theory of murder.

It should be remembered in this connection that blood-stains may be found on the clothing of many, especially on the coarse clothing of working-people. This may be accounted for by the occupation, flea-bites, accidental circumstances, or it may occur without definite explanation. Such persons may be accused of murder and yet the blood-stains be consistent with innocence. Too much importance should not, therefore, be attached to them, even if the accused cannot satisfactorily explain them and if he does not attempt to do so in a suspicious way. That blood on the clothing even under suspicious circumstances may be consistent with innocence is illustrated by the case of a suicide by cutting the throat, in 1872, cited by Taylor.[649] In this case the son first found his father dead, and thought that he had broken a blood-vessel. He raised the body, staining his hands and clothes, then went for help. At the inquest he was closely questioned as to the presence of the blood-stains, but there could be no doubt that the case was one of suicide.

In general, we may say that a murderer is much more likely to escape without blood-stains in contused wounds, and more likely in the case of punctured wounds than in incised wounds, for in punctured wounds the bleeding is much less free and is less likely to spurt from the wound. In the case of incised wounds he is most apt to escape without stains if he is behind or to the side of the victim when he inflicts the wound—in other words, when a part of the body of the deceased was between the assailant and the wound inflicted. Furthermore, the assailant is more likely to escape without blood-stains if there is a single wound than if there are several, and each additional wound makes it more likely that he will be spotted with blood.

The examination of the ground or floor and the furniture, etc., may furnish some evidence as to the nature of the crime, and also help the witness to answer the questions which may sometimes be asked, i.e., At what spot was the victim wounded? and Where did he die? This question is sometimes settled by examination of the spot where the deceased lay and the furniture, etc., about. Sometimes the floor or ground and the furniture or surrounding objects at a distance give the requisite evidence. The examination of the cracks and corners of the floor and furniture should not be neglected, and Taylor instances a case where the hair of a dog helped to clear up the case. If the body has not been disturbed the most blood is usually found where the deceased died. If the victim succumbs at the spot where he was wounded, blood is found only in the immediate neighborhood, except for arterial jets, which may be as far distant as two metres. The separate blood-spots of an arterial jet are circular if the jet strikes the object perpendicularly, oval or wedge-shaped with the larger end away from the body if it strikes the object obliquely.

If the blood-stains are more diffused and are found in other places, careful notice should be taken as to whether the different places communicate with one another by traces of blood. If they do not communicate, it goes to show that the body was moved after active bleeding had ceased, that is, after death, but this indication is not absolutely positive. If traces of blood do connect the larger blood-spots, it is of interest and importance to know where the deceased was wounded and where he died, also whether he moved or if he was moved before or after death. This question is not always capable of solution. Some injuries exclude the possibility of active motion. Stupefying contused injuries of the head or an incised wound opening a great artery are both inflicted where there is the greatest hemorrhage, and the spot where the deceased was wounded and died should be identical. In such cases a second large spot of blood, connecting or not with the first wound, indicates that the body has been moved. But if the wound does not bleed much or rapidly, the wounded person may fall at a distance from the spot where he was injured, and death occurs, as a rule, where there is the greatest amount of blood; for a certain amount of bleeding occurs for a short time after the victim falls or even after death. One can find in many places the signs of arterial jets marking the movement of the deceased from one blood-spot to another. This is quite different from the tracks caused by dragging a bleeding body. All this it is important to notice, for the dragging or passive moving of the body strongly indicates murder. Blood at a distance may indicate the occurrence of a struggle, or that the body was moved, or it may show the tracks of a murderer. As to the latter point, the imprints of the hands and feet, whether bloody or not, may indicate murder and establish the identity of the murderer. We have already seen how they may occur on the deceased and indicate a struggle, and thus be presumptive of murder. When the marks are made by the naked foot, it is well to examine it by lining it off in squares, and so to compare it with the imprint of the foot of the accused. Simple inspection can sometimes give the required evidence. We may even get an impression of such imprints in the snow. Imprints of the boots or shoes worn by the accused compared with those imprints found at and near the scene of the crime may sometimes help to clear up the case, but this may perhaps be considered outside of the sphere of the medical witness. Such and other signs of a struggle about one of the blood-spots would indicate that the wound was received there, though death may have occurred at another spot. In such a case it would be well to examine to see if there was much blood where the body was found, for if there was not it would indicate that the body had been moved there after death, and thus be strongly presumptive of murder.

As furnishing some evidence which may help to distinguish between suicide and homicide in the origin of wounds, the question may be asked, What was the position of the victim when injured or dying? and also, What were the relative positions of the victim and assailant?

The position of the victim at the moment of the injury is sometimes indicated by the position of the wound, the direction of its tract, and the direction from the wound of the blood on the body and clothes. On the neck or extremities the course and form of the wound may indicate the position of these parts when the wound was inflicted, for sometimes in flexions of these parts the skin lies in folds, and a wound inflicted when these parts were so flexed would be irregular, wavy, or zig-zag. Further, the position and movement of these parts necessary to restore directness to the wound may indicate the position of the parts when the wound was inflicted. The examination of the relative positions of the wound in the clothes and the body may help to indicate the position of the body when wounded. The position of the blood on the body and the direction of the blood from the wound, whether below or at the sides, etc., tends to show the position of the body when bleeding. Thus if the body was at any time in the erect position, some of the blood-stains will be vertically below the wound, or if the victim was lying on the back then the stain would be at the sides only and not below the wound, except such stains as indicate that they were produced by arterial jets. Few suicides cut the throat in the recumbent position; therefore it may be considered in the light of an indication of homicide if the blood-stains show that the victim was not erect after the wound was inflicted. It is well also to note the form, direction, and obliquity of the blood-spot. This would indicate, by comparison with the wound, the relative position of the wounded person and the blood-spot, and thus show whether the body had been moved or not, as, for instance, by the murderer for the purpose of robbery. The force of the bleeding is also indicated by the form of the spot, and this would indicate how rapidly death probably ensued. This fact might thus help us to judge whether the victim probably died where he was wounded, and whether other and remote blood-spots would not be presumptive of murder. If the victim is found in night-clothes, this fact would help to show that he was lying down when wounded. The medical evidence as to the position of the victim when injured is, therefore, circumstantial and not very positive; that in regard to the relative position of the victim and assailant is even less positive. We presuppose in this question that the case is one of murder. We are not to prove murder or refute suicide. We can rarely be positive as to the relative position of the assailed and the assailant. A wound in the back may be caused by some one in front with an arm behind. The direction of the wound would indicate this, for if the assailant is right-handed and inflicts a wound on the back from in front, a stab-wound would almost always be directed from left to right, an incised wound from right to left, both from above downward. With a left-handed murderer the direction would most likely be from right to left and from above downward for a stab-wound, and from left to right and from above downward for an incised wound. If the assailant were at the back of the victim and wounded him in front, the direction of these wounds would be the opposite of the above, i.e., from right to left for a stab-wound and from left to right and from above downward for an incised wound with a right-handed assailant and vice versa with a left-handed assailant. These wounds occur more commonly than those of the back, and are especially noticeable in incised wounds of the throat. In the case of these incised wounds of the throat inflicted from behind, the direction from left to right and from above downward resembles that of self-inflicted wounds in the same situation. As a general rule, wounds are on the same side of the victim that the assailant was; the facts given above help to show us the exceptions. Thus a wound on one side is presumptive that the murderer was on that side, or possibly at the front or back and only exceptionally on the opposite side. The presence of wounds on one side only may help to confirm the testimony of a witness that the victim was against a wall or some other obstacle which protected the other side. The question of the relative position of the combatants in duels and the nature of the weapons used as shown by the wounds has sometimes come up, especially in other countries, to determine whether the combat was regular and fair.

In all cases of suspected suicide, but where a doubt exists between suicide and murder, or even accident, hereditary disposition and organic affections of the body, such as alcoholism, incurable or painful diseases, chronic inflammation of the brain and meninges or of the genito-urinary organs—all such and hereditary predisposition may support the idea of suicide.

Imputed or Self-Inflicted Wounds.

Closely allied with the question of the suicidal or homicidal origin of wounds is the question whether a wound imputed to another is self-inflicted or inflicted by another. These wounds are seldom fatal. In discussing the question whether a wound is self-inflicted or inflicted by another, we have referred occasionally to suicidal wounds where the circumstances were such as apparently purposely to imply murder and impute the cause of death to some one else. This happens more often in cases of unsuccessful suicide. Here we have recourse to the same evidence that we have gone over in the present section which helps to distinguish between a suicidal and a homicidal wound. The case may be somewhat more difficult, as the unsuccessful suicide may manufacture evidence against the accused and hide to some extent the evidence of suicide. These cases can usually be decided, however, in connection with the circumstantial and other evidence. The majority of cases of imputed but self-inflicted wounds are very superficial, often not below the true skin. Being self-inflicted they have many of the characters of suicidal wounds. Thus they are usually situated in front and on the left or right according as the wounded person is right or left handed, and the direction is usually similar to that in suicidal wounds. Such wounds are generally incised or punctured wounds, seldom contused wounds, and in this respect they resemble suicidal wounds. As exceptions to this rule, Bergeret[650] mentions some cases where females in attacks of hysteria have inflicted severe contusions on themselves, and have preferred charges of attempted murder against innocent persons. Like suicides also the hands are seldom injured, though they may be much so in resisting homicide.

In other respects, however, these wounds differ from suicidal wounds. Thus they are not usually situated over a “mortal” spot, and they are often numerous and scattered, sometimes parallel and sometimes not. The wounds in the dress do not correspond even as often as in suicide. In comparing cuts in clothing with those on the body, it is important to find what articles were worn at the time the assault was alleged to have taken place, and to make sure that the clothes examined were those worn or alleged to have been worn. It may not be necessary that the clothes examined should have been really worn, for if they were alleged to have been worn and were not, the examination of them will almost always show the deception or the self-inflicted nature of the wounds. Then take careful note of the position, direction, form, and size of the cut and the apparent sharpness of the weapon in the several layers, and see if they correspond with one another and with the wounds on the body in those various particulars. In imputed wounds the clothes are generally cut when off the body and can seldom be done so as to deceive a careful examiner. Several wounds cannot exist in the same region of the body without some being bloody and showing the marks of it on the clothes. Even a single wound of the clothes generally shows blood on the inner surface if there is a corresponding wound of the body underneath. In simulated and imputed injuries the blood-stain may be on the outside of the clothing instead of on the inside, showing that it was artificial and not natural. An impostor may either do too much or too little, and the medical witness should be on guard against both alternatives. Taylor[651] mentions a case which occurred in London some time ago, in which there were two cuts in the shirt near together exactly alike in size, form, and direction, making it evident that the weapon had gone through a fold of the shirt. This proved that the shirt could not have been worn at the time it was cut, for if the shirt was folded while on the body the weapon must have gone through the fold and then through another layer of shirt, making three cuts instead of two, or five instead of four, before it could have reached the body. This and other facts made self-infliction of the slight wound on the chest probable. The same author cites another case showing the imperfect manner in which the cuts in the clothes are made in imputed wounds, the clothes being off the body at the time. The case occurred in Nottingham in 1872, the accused being charged with wounding the plaintiff on the highway by stabbing him in the arm, though there was no robbery or other motive for the act. The coat and shirt sleeve were found cut, but there was no corresponding cut in the lining of the coat sleeve. The charge was clearly false, and was trumped up by the youth who was the plaintiff because he wished to leave the place where he had been sent for private study.

In examining a case where the self-inflicted nature of imputed wounds is in question, the following are some of the many points to keep in mind in the examination and to be ascertained by the examination: (1) The relative position of the plaintiff and the assailant at the time of the alleged attack. This can be compared with the position as stated by the plaintiff or other witnesses. (2) The situation, direction, depth, nature, and number of the wounds. (3) The situation and direction of blood-marks or wounds on the dress or person of either or both. (4) The marks of blood and the quantity of it at the spot of the alleged struggle. (5) The signs of a struggle and the various other points of circumstantial evidence gone over in considering suicidal and homicidal wounds.

Though a severe blow may cause a slight mark, it does not follow that a slight mark implies a severe injury, else the exception is made the rule. The inconsistency of the story of the plaintiff is generally so palpable that imposture is evident, but prejudice and unjust suspicion are often excited against those accused. Thus Taylor[652] states that “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.” The same author also cites the case of M. Armand, a merchant of Montpelier, who at Aix in March, 1864, was tried for an alleged murderous assault on, or imputed murderous strangulation of, his servant. The excoriation on the back of the neck was so slight as to escape the observation of some medical men, and it was evidently self-inflicted, either accidentally or purposely, as the facts showed. The assertions of a number of medical men were taken by the court to support the servant’s story to the effect that his master had struck him a severe blow on the back of his neck, rendering him insensible for many hours from concussion of the brain. The evidence given chiefly by Tardieu for the defence showed the story of the complainant to be a fabrication, and the accused was justly acquitted.

Was a Wound Accidental?

In answering this question we must distinguish accidental wounds from those self-inflicted and those inflicted by another. These three classes comprise all wounds. In case of a trial for murder it may be alleged by the defence that the wound was caused by accident or that it was due to suicide from a fall, falls being a common class of accidental wounds. So we have to judge between accident on the one hand and homicide and suicide on the other hand. The question arises especially in cases where the injury causing death is one commonly due to accident.

As to the QUESTION BETWEEN ACCIDENTAL AND SUICIDAL WOUNDS, they are often easily distinguished, especially if the body has not been disturbed. In suicide there is clear evidence of design, and the circumstantial evidence helps to make the case clear. It may not always be possible to decide, however, as an accidental wound may sometimes resemble a suicidal or homicidal one. Accident is often shown by the nature of the wound. Thus it is rare for an accidental mortal wound to be caused by a knife or similar weapon held in the hand and forced into the body by a fall, the blow of an opening door, etc. But such exceptional cases have been reported. Incised and punctured wounds are, therefore, very rarely accidental, and most accidental wounds are contused wounds or contusions.

Again, accident is often shown by the situation of the wound, which should be on an exposed part of the body unless the accident is due to a fall from a height, when the wound may be almost anywhere. But such injuries are easily shown to be due to falls. The fall, of course, may be accidental, suicidal, or homicidal. Some wounds in exposed parts forbid accident on account of their nature, i.e., deep incised wounds of the throat. If the deceased has a life insurance, suicide is less probable, as the insurance is not paid in case of suicide. In fine, accidental wounds are distinguished from suicidal by—(1) Their nature; accidental wounds are almost always contused, suicidal very rarely so, only in cases of lunatics and delirious persons and where suicide is accomplished by a fall. (2) The situation of the wound or wounds indicates their origin. We have already studied the situation of suicidal wounds and have also seen that accidental wounds are only on exposed parts, except when the injury clearly indicates a fall from a height. The evidence from the direction of wounds rarely applies, as this is valuable only in incised and punctured wounds, which are seldom accidental. Both kinds of wounds are usually few in number except in case of a fall from a height or a crush, though sometimes suicidal wounds are multiple.

The evidence from weapons, if there be any, points strongly to suicide. The signs of a struggle are hardly consistent with either suicide or accident. The only case in which they might occur would be where a struggle occurred to prevent a suicide from throwing himself off a height or before a vehicle or railway train. In such a case accident would be excluded by the signs of a struggle, and the question would lie between homicide and suicide. The examination of the clothes of the deceased would furnish no evidence unless some letter or paper were found stating the purpose of committing suicide. Little or no evidence would be furnished by the position of the body when found in cases which might otherwise be doubtful. Organic lesions or other facts predisposing to suicide would furnish presumptive evidence against the wounds being accidental. Of all these various points the first, as to the nature of the wounds, is by itself the most valuable and conclusive. But this gives us no assistance in clearing up a case where it is doubtful whether a fall from a height or a crush by a vehicle or railway train was accidental or suicidal. Some of the other points mentioned may aid us in such a case, and also the fact that such injuries are far more often accidental than suicidal. But in these cases, also, certain circumstances may show that the fall was not the result of accident.

Accidental wounds are generally caused by a fall or a crush, and the fact of their accidental character is generally established by the circumstances of the event. Certain accidental wounds present characteristics which allow the true nature of the wounds to be determined. But in some cases a suspicion may arise and the question may be asked as to WHETHER THE WOUND WAS ACCIDENTAL OR HOMICIDAL. For instance, if a person receives fatal homicidal injuries, and just before or after death the body is thrown from a height or is run over and crushed, it may be hard to determine the murderous element among the many wounds. This is the case if the homicidal wounds were contusions or were caused by blunt instruments, but rarely, if ever so, if they are incised or punctured wounds or both. But even in the former instance, a close examination of the lesions and of the locality of the injury can often clear up the case. Thus in a case mentioned by Vibert,[653] as cited by Hofmann after Taylor, a woman was found dead at the foot of some stairs in a cave. She had died of a fracture of the skull and of the spine, produced by the fall. But about four or five feet above the level of the top step there was found on the wall the fresh marks of an arterial jet of blood. Examination showed a wound in the right temporal region which had opened the temporal artery, and it was therefore thought that the woman was wounded at the top of the stairway and then thrown down, which was afterward proved to be true. In another case, reported by M. Tourdes, a man knocked down and killed by an axe, which crushed his skull and caused the brain to exude, was placed in a road frequented at night by heavy wagons. The head was placed in the rut, but the coagulated blood and brain formed a puddle which did not appear on the wheels or their track, and no bloody furrow was caused by their passage. The same author mentions the case of a woman plainly strangulated by the hands and then thrown into the ditch of the fortifications of Paris.

It is especially with regard to fractures of the skull that the question often comes up as to the accidental or homicidal nature of the injury, as to whether it is due to a fall or a wound. Sometimes a depressed fracture may show the form of the instrument. An extensive comminuted fracture of the skull may indicate greater violence than would be received from a fall from the little height which the circumstances may allow. As to the slighter degrees of fracture, the disposition of the fracture itself often shows less than the form and site of the ecchymosis, the lesion of the scalp, and the place and position of the body when found. In such cases the traces of a struggle, the existence of other wounds, etc., may be of great importance. In distinguishing between homicide and accident, as in distinguishing between the latter and suicide, the most obscure and difficult cases are those where the injury has been caused by a fall from a height or by a crush.

This is illustrated by the case of Madame de Tourville, which is quoted by Taylor.[654] She was killed in July, 1876, by a fall from a precipice. Her husband, a lawyer, was accused of murder committed by pushing her over a precipice in the Stelvio Pass. The place where her dead body was found was at a considerable depth below, and the injury was chiefly in the head, which had been crushed by the fall. The body showed no evidence of intentional violence. The prisoner’s guilt was established on the following points: (1) The false and inconsistent statements made as to the occurrence; (2) the marks of the body having been dragged some distance so that a part of the dress was found, in a bloody condition, some way from the body; (3) there were marks of blood on the prisoner’s hands and clothing. After a long trial he was convicted, though the sentence was afterward commuted to imprisonment for life. Of course, as we have already stated, if a person is responsible for a fall he is also responsible for the results of the fall. This applies to many of the contused injuries and deaths from falls in prize-fights and drunken brawls.

We may sum up the points of evidence which help us to distinguish between an accidental and a homicidal injury much as we did when the question lay between accident and suicide. (1) The evidence from the nature of the wound is not quite so conclusive as when the question lies between suicide and accident. For contusions and contused wounds are far more often homicidal than suicidal, and accidental wounds are almost always of this class. If, however, the wounds are incised or punctured, this fact points almost certainly to homicide. (2) As to situation, a homicidal wound may be situated almost anywhere; an accidental wound, except in falls from a height, only on an exposed place. (3) The direction of the wound can seldom help us in the case of contused wounds which, practically, are the only ones in question, though it may possibly be incompatible with accident. (4) As to the number of wounds, homicidal wounds are far more apt to be multiple either in a small area or scattered in such a way that an accident could hardly account for them all. (5) A weapon may give evidence more often here than when suicide is in question, for a weapon may be used to inflict contused wounds which may resemble those received in a fall. The evidence furnished by a weapon or blood, hair, etc., on the weapon, etc., is strongly in favor of murder. (6) The evidence from a struggle is also more important because it is more often found. A struggle may occur in homicide, and only in homicide, as a rule, so that signs of a struggle are strong evidence of murder and against the idea of accident. (7) The examination of the clothes and body of the deceased may give valuable evidence, showing, as it may, signs of a struggle or other marks of an assailant and indicating murder. (8) Examination of the position and attitude of the body and of the spot where it lay and the ground around may furnish more or less proof of murder, as in the case quoted above. Thus the track of the murderer may be discovered or the body may have been interfered with and moved or robbed, all indicating homicide.

In any case, whether it is desired to distinguish accidental from suicidal or homicidal wounds, those cases present the most difficulty which result from falls from a height or crushes. But, as the case of Madame de Tourville shows, the above given and other circumstances may often show even then that the fall or the crush was not the result of accident.

Falls from a height may, therefore, be the result of suicide, homicide, or accident. The injuries are similar in all three cases. A fall of six to eight metres causes, as a rule, numerous lesions, and shows such a traumatism that the case usually excludes the possibility or, at least, the probability that the wounds resulted from blows. Sometimes, however, the gravity of the lesion is not proportional to the height of the fall. Thus Vibert[655] relates the case of a man, afterward employed for several years in the École de Médicine, who jumped from the top of the column of the Bastile, a height of fifty metres. He rebounded on to some canvas stretched at the foot of the monument, then fell to the ground, and was able to get up and walk away. Curiously enough, he killed himself later by jumping from the top of an omnibus in motion. In the case of falls from a height, it is especially true that with grave lesions internally the skin may be intact or only slightly ecchymosed or eroded, or the ecchymosis may be only deeply seated so as not to appear superficially. In the latter case, if life had continued the ecchymosis might have shown itself at some spot on the surface in a few days, but these falls from a height are fatal as a rule. In falls from a height, besides ecchymoses, which may occur where there are no other injuries or may fail where there are many injuries, the lesions consist of fractures of bones and ruptures of internal organs, with or without surface wounds. The fractures may be of a number of bones, and especially of those which first touched the ground, though the skull may be fractured at some part whether or not it was struck in the fall. These fractures are often comminuted, especially fractures of the skull and pelvis, and when the fall is from a great height. Ruptures of muscles may occur with the fractures.