Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1

by R. A. Witthaus; Tracy C. Becker

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.