If the deceased be a female, whether there be any marks or bruises that would indicate the commission of a rape?—The importance of this inquiry need not be argued, nor is it necessary in this place to point out the indications which may confirm our suspicions upon this subject. We must refer the reader to our chapter on rape, vol. I, p. 416. The interesting trial of Abraham Thornton, for the murder of Mary Ashford, abounds with curious evidence upon this point.
2. Circumstances to be learnt by an examination of surrounding and collateral objects.
The information which may be occasionally derived from the state of the objects surrounding the body, will be best illustrated by the numerous cases in which they have furnished the principal means of discovery.
Whether the spot in question be of a description to explain the cause of the deceased having been found there; or how far its retired situation excites the suspicion that the body has been conveyed thither for concealment, or some other purpose?—Having examined all the circumstances which attach to the person of the individual, we should direct our attention to the spot in which the body is found. The Cornish case which is related at page [27], offers an admirable illustration of the utility of such observations. The nature of the place may perhaps suggest the probability of the person having fallen down from some height, in which case any appearance of wounds must be examined with reference to such a suspicion. We may also in the progress of such an inquiry be led to conclude that the spot may have been infested with some unwholesome vapour, destructive of life; the various circumstances which may contribute to the generation of noxious air have been fully examined under the head of Suffocation, vol. ii, p. 48, and were we to discover a dead body in the vicinity of a lime-kiln, or in an unventilated apartment, where charcoal[[19]] had been burning, or in a cellar where carbonic acid might probably have accumulated, we should derive an important clue for the investigation.
Whether any indications of a struggle having happened on the spot are visible on the ground, or herbage near the deceased; and whether any footsteps can be traced near the body?—The Cornish case presents itself to us again in illustration of this question. There are also several cases where impressions upon the snow have led to the detection of the guilty party. In the case of Wm. Spiggot, Wm. Morris, David Morgan, Walter Evans, Charles Morgan, and David Llewellin, for the murder of Wm. Powell, Esq. at Glenareth, in Caermarthenshire, March 30, 1770, footsteps were traced from Powell’s house (a deep snow having just fallen) to that of Charles Morgan, who was in consequence apprehended, and did not long deny the fact. Some very interesting evidence was delivered upon the subject of footsteps, on the celebrated trial of Abraham Thornton, for the murder of Mary Ashford, at the Warwick assizes of 1817. William Lovell, a workman at Penn’s Mills, and several other witnesses, spoke as to the presence and direction of the footsteps of a man and a woman, which approached each other at one spot; their appearance shewed that the persons had been running, and dodging each other, “as well from the stride, as the sinking in of the ground, and the little scrape at the toe of the woman’s shoe.” The footsteps were afterwards compared with the shoes of Thornton, and found to coincide; the shoes, moreover, had a particular nail, called a sparrow bill, the impression of which was also perceptible. The same comparison was made with the shoes of the unfortunate Mary Ashford, and with a result which appeared to be equally satisfactory and conclusive. Instances have also occurred in which the presumption of guilt against certain persons has arisen from the absence of such marks; this happened in the murder of Mr. Jeffries, by Elizabeth Jeffries, his niece, and John Swan, his servant, at Walthamstow, in July 1751; in which case the perpetrators of the deed were suspected to have been domestics, from the single circumstance of the dew on the grass surrounding the house not having been disturbed on the morning of the murder, which must have happened, had any persons left the premises.
Has there been any thunder storm?—For an account of the appearances in the body of a person, who has been thus suddenly deprived of life, we must refer the reader to our chapter on “Death by Lightning,” vol. ii, p. 63. It will, at the same time, be right to consider, whether the death of the person in question can have arisen from an exposure to the rays of the sun, which has occasionally happened in the harvest field—“And Manasses was her husband, of her tribe and kindred, who died in the barley harvest. For as he stood overseeing them that bound sheaves in the field, the heat came upon his head, and he fell on his bed, and died in the city of Bethulia.” Judith, chap. viii, v. 2, 3. Sauvage relates the case of several young persons, who suffered an asphyxia from sleeping in an open field, exposed to the rays of the sun; and it may deserve notice in this place, that in such cases, hemorrhage from the nose is not an uncommon occurrence; the appearance of blood will thus receive an explanation which might otherwise excite unjust suspicions of violence.
Whether any, and what weapons are lying near the body; and what is their position in relation to it?—Much light may be thrown upon the inquiry by an attentive examination of the weapons found near the deceased; and some interesting cases are recorded, wherein this circumstance alone led to their developement. In the year 1764, a citizen of Liege was found shot, and his own pistol was discovered lying near him; from which circumstance, together with that of no person having been seen to enter or leave the house of the deceased, it was concluded that he had destroyed himself; but on examining the ball, by which he had been killed, it was found to be too large ever to have entered that pistol; in consequence of which, suspicion fell upon the real murderers. The wadding of the pistol has also in several instances offered the means of affixing the accusation on the guilty. The Lord Chancellor, in a debate in the House of Lords, in November 1820, quoted a very curious case in which the wadding of the pistol was found to correspond with a torn letter in the possession of the murderer.
If the body is found in the water, are there any and what reasons for supposing that it was killed by other means, and subsequently thrown into the water?—This question has upon several occasions been discussed with great eagerness; see the Reports of the Edinburgh Colleges in the case of Sir James Standfield, in our Appendix, p. [225]; and also Extracts from the medical evidence in the case of Spencer Cowper, Esq. for the murder of Sarah Stout, ibid. p. [230]. We have already, under the consideration of the phenomena of drowning, p. [35], endeavoured to appreciate the true value of the several indications which have been received as physiological evidence upon this subject, such as the presence of water[[20]] in the stomach and lungs, the buoyancy of the body, &c. We have therefore only to observe in this place, that upon such occasions there will generally exist collateral circumstances to fortify our judgment; where, for instance, mud, or sand, are found under the nails, or any grass or weeds are discovered in the grasp of the deceased, the inference will be strong that the person died under water; on the contrary, if we discover mortal wounds, or any marks of violence inflicted upon the body, by weapons, we may very justly suspect that the deceased was murdered, and subsequently thrown into the water. But in conducting this enquiry we must be aware of the fallacies to which it is exposed; a person may in the act of drowning accidentally receive bruises and lacerations, or he may have been driven against rocks and stakes by the force of the current. The following case, related by Dr. Gordon Smith, offers a very good illustration of this point. “A few years ago, a man who had leaped from each of the three bridges into the Thames with impunity, undertook to repeat the exploit for a wager. Having jumped from London bridge he sunk and was drowned. When the body was found, it appeared that both his arms were dislocated, in consequence of having descended with them in the horizontal, instead of the perpendicular position.” If we arrive at the conclusion that the body was drowned, we have next to inquire whether the event was accidental or malicious? and whether the act was perpetrated by the deceased or others? The solution of these problems is to be generally effected by the examination of what may be called the external circumstances of the case; the locality of the water may be such as to account for the deceased having accidentally fallen into it, or its situation may at once preclude the possibility of such an event. The suspicion of the person having been violently thrown into the water by the hands of the assassin, will be fortified by the discovery of footsteps on the brink, and by the indications of resistance on the part of the deceased, as manifested by the appearance of bruises on the arms and other members of the body. In the case of Mr. Taylor who was murdered at Hornsey, in December, 1818, marks of footsteps, deep in the ground, were discovered near the new river; and on taking out the body, the hands were found clenched, and contained grass, which he had torn from the bank. If the person be found in the water tied hand and foot, there is a strong presumption that he was forcibly placed in such a situation; and yet there are two instances on record which afford very extraordinary exceptions to the truth of such a conclusion. The one occurred in the end of June, 1816, in the case of a gauging-instrument maker, who had been missing from home for several days. His body was discovered floating down the Thames; and on being taken out, his wrists were found tied together, and made fast to his knees, which were in like manner secured to each other. He had been in a state of mental derangement for two years. The cord with which he had tied himself was recognised as one that had hung from the ceiling over his bed, by which he used to raise himself up, having been confined to his bed for several weeks; he was a good swimmer, and it was presumed he had taken the precaution to prevent himself from swimming. The verdict was “found drowned.” The other instance occurred two years afterwards. A man, aged 28, with a wife and children, was reduced to great distress. On a certain day he took an affectionate leave of his family, declaring he would not return until he had obtained some employment, by which he should be able to procure them bread. The following day his body was taken out of the new river, with his hands and legs tied. A card with his address was found in his pocket; and also three-pence; when he left home he had five-pence, and it was supposed that he had purchased the cord with the deficient sum. The verdict in this case was “insanity.”
If the deceased be found hanging by the neck, whether he was suspended during life, or hung up after death? Whether it was an act of suicide or murder?—In cases where the deceased has been hanged alive, we shall find the trace of the rope in the neck very distinctly marked by a deep discolouration; whereas, the effect occasioned by such a ligature upon the dead body, will be far less striking. We have also to inquire whether the deceased has any wounds, or whether, upon dissection, the usual appearances are found which generally occur in hanged persons. But, should any marks of external violence present themselves upon such an occasion, we must judge of them with caution. They may perhaps be purely accidental. Dr. Male supposes a case in which the person, with the view of speedily destroying life, may have thrown himself off with violence, broken the rope, and wounded himself by falling upon articles of furniture, and yet had sufficient fortitude again to suspend himself. “An apprentice boy, in my neighbourhood,” says this author, “working alone in an attic, tied one end of a rope loosely round his neck whilst his master was from home, probably without any intention of destroying himself, and twisted the other round the projecting part of the top of a door, the planks of which were irregular and somewhat divided; a small stool, on which he stood, slipped from under him, when he fell forwards, striking his temple against the corner of a box which cut him to the bone; he lay along the floor, his head and shoulders only elevated a few inches above it; the cord not being tied, had run nearly its whole length, and then caught between the planks of the door; in this state he perished. The wound was magnified by popular rumour into many, and vengeance was denounced against the innocent master, who was accused of having first killed, and afterwards suspended the boy. On examining the boy the mark of the cord was found to extend from ear to ear; the vessels of the brain were turgid, the thyroid cartilage broken; the nails blue, and the hands firmly closed. From this and other important circumstantial evidence, the coroner’s jury were convinced that the charge was unfounded.” Dr. Smith remarks that, except in the instance of children, or extremely feeble persons, it is very difficult to hang an individual by force, unless the situation be remote, and no interruption likely to take place; or the assailants be numerous and powerful enough, (as in the celebrated case of Porteus) to set all interference at defiance.
Persons have been accidentally hanged, as in the case above cited from the work of Dr. Male, and instances are recorded where the operation has been resorted to as a mode of exciting passion. In all such cases of doubt and difficulty, each particular circumstance, however minute, must be noticed—the nature of the ligature—the manner in which it is fixed—the state of surrounding objects, are often capable of throwing light upon the transaction. In the case of George Hebner, a tailor, who was found hanging to the top of a bedstead, in a garret of a house of ill-fame in Dean Street, East Smithfield, kept by a widow of the name of Hughes, the manner in which the hands of the deceased were tied behind his back, and his handkerchief was drawn over his face, proved most decidedly that he had not strangled himself. Upon examining the rope round his neck, it was found to have been fastened by what is termed a sailor’s knot; in consequence of which circumstance a sailor named Richard Ludman, together with the aforesaid Eleanor Hughes, were indicted for the murder, found guilty, and executed.