Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1

by R. A. Witthaus; Tracy C. Becker

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?