Dr. J. O. Marble, who has written of this subject, affirms: “It must be admitted that cases of criminal poisoning, such as would be detected by an exhumation and examination of a buried body, are very rare, for in our day Lucrezia Borgias and Brinvilliers are few and easily detected. In a community like ours cases of this kind are extremely rare. In a vast majority of cases the cause of death is perfectly evident to any intelligent physician. No doubt obscures the case. The list of causes of death, perfectly evident even to the friends and non-medical persons, embraces probably at least nine-tenths of the whole mortality. Doubtful cases have generally been visited by more than one skilful physician. The fraction in which crime of any sort might have been perpetrated becomes thus very small. Moreover, in the present state of chemical analysis and expert medical testimony, the advantages of the posthumous examination of a body with a view to the detection of crime accrue less to justice than to the lawyer for the defense.”
The medico-legal objection, as it is called, does not apply in every case, since every day individuals die of easily determined causes, such as small-pox, consumption, hemorrhage from the lungs or stomach, drowning, or other accidents, and suicide; in short, in such a way as to place the cause of death beyond cavil and dispute.
It is true that a regular proportion of bodies are dug up every year on suspicion of foul play; but, aside from the fact that that proportion is very small, how many of these cases justify the exhumation? So uncertain and inaccurate is the post-mortem evidence of criminal poisoning, that no bodies have been exhumed for forensic purposes in Vienna, Austria’s capital, since 1805.
Tarchini-Bonfanti, for 26 years perito-medico (medical expert) at the tribunal of Milan, Italy, declares that during this time, although many thousands of litigations came before the court which was requested to pronounce judgment upon them, only in ten cases was it necessary to resort to exhumation. Only ten cases in 26 years, out of several thousands of lawsuits, and four only out of the ten exhumations led to the detection of the crime and the criminal. These four cases, however, occurred in a single lawsuit—that of Boggia. In this instance the disinterment would have taken place, even if cremation had been at the time an established and universal custom, for Boggia had buried his victims in his own cellar. Tarchini-Bonfanti asserts that exhumations for forensic purposes are extremely rare, and that those which are made yield either negative, or at best doubtful results.
Disinterment, instead of furnishing an explanation, instead of shedding light upon some mystery, more often is followed by confusion, and may give rise to erroneous conclusions. It would be next to impossible to cremate a murdered person in a furnace of the ordinary kind. As to the poor and ignorant murderer, the regulation of cremation would make him shrink from submitting his victim to the authorities of a crematorium, and he would find it far more convenient and safe to inter the corpse secretly, as these criminals generally do at the present time.
There are many poisons which, by a rapid change of their substance, are extremely difficult to detect in the human body after death, even after a short time, sometimes but a few days; for instance, cyanide of potassium, prussic acid, and at certain times phosphorus. But when a careful inquest, such as the cremationists propose, is held, poisoning by these agents cannot so easily escape detection. In poisoning by phosphorus, the yellow hue of the face of the victim would excite suspicion and lead to a post-mortem examination, when the characteristic sign of phosphorus poisoning in the fatty degeneration of the liver would be discovered. An autopsy would speedily make evident poisoning by pure prussic acid, for the open cavities of the body would exhale the odor of bitter almonds. Poisoning by cyanide of potassium can, of course, only be detected by a chemical analysis of the contents of the stomach, intestines, etc.
I think I may safely affirm that it is impossible for the best of anatomists to determine the lesions, if there be any, of a decomposed body.
All vegetable poisons, except the alkaloid of strychnia, decompose with the body; it is extremely rare that any alkaloid can be discovered in the body posthumously. Mineral poisons, such as antimony, lead, copper, combinations of baryta, and many others, are indestructible, and can be detected in the ashes. It may even happen that, by some extra care, the process of incineration may be the most efficient means of detecting poisoning by arsenic and mercury. Of course we should not forget that, without some precaution, the salts of arsenic and mercury would be volatilized; but while they are volatilized, they must also, at a reduced temperature, be again deposited, and it remains for the chemist to determine the most efficient contrivance for recognizing its deposition.
Direct experiments instituted by M. Cadet and verified by MM. Doursant and Wurst, even prove that the salts of arsenic can be detected in the ashes after incineration.
As matters stand to-day, it is puerile to think that we can prevent the rich and skilful poisoner from committing crime as long as we permit him to employ undertakers, who, without restraint of law, inject arseniate of soda and corrosive sublimate into the body of his victim, and thus remove all traces of the crime.