Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1

by R. A. Witthaus; Tracy C. Becker

Just how to account for the missing lead has never been clearly established. We have to remember that a few grains may be left in the bore of a rifle, especially if rusty; that in passing through glass another portion is lost, and finally it is scarcely conceivable that any bullet should penetrate an adult skull, especially in the neighborhood of the mastoid processes, without losing quite a perceptible percentage of its mass by friction.

It was also claimed by the defence that the ball taken from Mrs. Billings’ head had been fired from a weapon of low velocity, which was held to account for the fact that the ball failed to pass out of the skull. The rifle when tested at the Government Arsenal showed a mean velocity of 999 feet per second. Had it been as high as was supposed by the defence, namely, 1,300 or 1,400 feet, the argument that a bullet driven with this force would always go through the skull would have more weight, but with the velocity found by actual test the energy of the ball was lessened to nearly one-half of that supposed. The bullet which killed Mrs. Billings did not pass entirely through the skull. It ploughed into the opposite side and broke before it a triangular piece of bone which broke the skin externally. This shows the resistance of external fascia against perforation. A study of the lines of fracture in this particular case proved very interesting, but perhaps would be somewhat irrelevant here. A measurement of the skull and of the bullet-track through it shows the former to have been of more than ordinary thickness and density, and the channel ploughed in the bone by the bullet along the base of it to have been nearly two inches in length. Dr. Balch gives the following conclusions to his very interesting evidence: 1st. A leaden ball passing through bone loses lead in proportion to the amount of bone traversed. 2d. If the petrous portion of the temporal bone be the part struck by the ball and struck squarely at the base, that portion of the bone is crumbled or broken in such exceedingly fine pieces as to defy restoration. 3d. That if the ball struck any part of the skull the petrous portion will be broken, but can be usually recognized and generally put together again. 4th. That a ball of given calibre fired through glass may make a hole enough smaller than the full size of the ball before firing to prevent an unfired ball of like calibre passing.

In all this kind of experimentation upon cadavers for the purpose of eliciting evidence by reproducing as nearly as possible ante-mortem injuries, we must not forget that Casper has strongly insisted that “it is extremely difficult to break up the organic cohesion of dead organs.... If we endeavor to fracture the skull of a dead adult we shall find that an amount of force which if applied in life would indubitably produce fissures if not fracture, or complete crushing of the skull, leaves the dead skull quite uninjured.... The most powerful blows struck down upon the body, laid down horizontally, were without result, and only after repeated violent blows were we able to produce perhaps one or a few fissures in the occipital or parietal bone, or in the temporal bone (squamous portion), and usually in the latter. We were unable to produce more considerable effects, such as complete smashing of the skull or fissures of its base, even in one single instance. The dead skull seems to have considerably more power of resistance, and after its removal fissures of the bone were more easily produced by similar blows” (Vol. I., p. 245). And again: “The result of my experiments on the dead body in regard to gunshot wounds could only be to make more complete the proof of the resistance of the dead corporeal tissues, in contradistinction to the tissues when alive. After I had already learned this peculiarity from my experiments with contused wounds, this peculiar resistent property was found to be confirmed in a most remarkable manner” (“Forensic Medicine,” Vol. I., p. 271).

If the number of bullets known to have been fired, or, more important still, which have been found exceeds the number which could have been discharged from the weapon in question, a very large element of doubt and uncertainty is introduced which must be quieted by other and more circumstantial evidence. Should two different weapons be in question, it is very necessary to establish from which of them the bullets have been discharged. This can be done mainly by weight and evident calibre of the bullets, or some other peculiarity; possibly in disputed cases even by analysis of the metal.

Wounds by Shot-Guns.—In most of what has been said it has been supposed that the injury has been inflicted by an arm of the kind commonly described under the terms pistol, revolver, or rifle. Gunshot wounds are, however, occasionally inflicted with shot-guns and a charge of shot varying in size from small bird-shot up to that generally known as buck-shot. It is characteristic of such missiles that they separate after their discharge from the gun, and a determination of the degree of their separation is approximately a determination of the distance of the mark from the muzzle of the weapon. In suicide or accidental discharges of a shot-gun the muzzle is so near the body that the charge of shot acts very much as would a single bullet of the size of the bore of the gun, and near wounds thus inflicted, while necessarily large, have about them a minimum laceration and disturbance of tissue, so that perhaps only by their size could one say, viewing the wound alone, that the weapon used had been a shot-gun. On the other hand, at a distance of a few feet the shot begin to separate to such an extent that there is much more laceration of tissue, and after separation to an indeterminate, because variable, number of feet we get such marks as individual shot may make. This distance is indeterminate because it is predicated on the size of the gun, the dimensions of shot, and the weight of the charge of powder. The writer, for instance, has recently seen one case where the muzzle of the gun could not have been more than two feet away from the surface of the foot at which it was discharged, the consequence being a round and very slightly ragged hole through the mid-tarsal region from dorsum to sole.

It is possible for a single grain of shot to produce death. Such a case is related by Ollivier d’Angers: a thief scaling a wall received at a distance of fifteen paces a charge of shot from a fowling-piece; he fell dead immediately. The charge had struck him in the breast, centring over a space of three or four inches, but one shot had penetrated the aorta over the attachment of the sigmoid valves, and another had traversed the entire wall of this vessel.

Powder-Marks.—A very important part of evidence in case of near wounds of gunshot character pertains to the powder-marks upon the clothing and skin. Naturally every one knows that when a weapon is discharged near a given surface there will be more or less powder-marking upon that surface, the same being due to particles of gunpowder which are incompletely or not at all consumed, and which are black because of the charcoal they contain; but the circumstances under which powder-marks of a given character can be inflicted are so extremely variable that no statistics or information of value in a general way can be given. Thus the fineness of the marks will depend upon the fineness of the powder, and the area covered and the depth of the marking upon the same, upon the distance of the muzzle from the surface; and the only way to make out the exact distance of the muzzle from the surface at the time of the infliction of a given wound is to use the same weapon, if possible, with cartridges or charges out of the same lot as that used at the time of injury. Distances could, perhaps, be stated in round numbers, but their value would only be remotely approximate, and in a given case the best evidence is to be obtained by experiment with the fire-arm in question.

Dimensions of Perforations.—At different times a great deal of weight has been attached to the dimension of the perforation through such objects as wood, glass, or even through the bones of the body, made by the bullet which is supposed or known to have destroyed life. Wrong inferences have been drawn sometimes from a study of undischarged bullets or cartridges similar, at least before firing, to that which has been taken from a given body. It has been stated, for instance, that such a bullet was too large to have passed through such an aperture or to have made such a hole, or that it was so much smaller than a certain hole that it was not the particular missile which made that perforation. Upon this matter has hinged a great deal of uncertainty and consequently a good deal of study. The size of opening which a bullet of given calibre will make through wood depends upon the distance of the weapon, the firing charge, the velocity of the bullet, the extent to which its shape has been altered by passing through the given barrier, by the heat of the explosion, by the impact of the air upon the heated and consequently softened metal, and by the density and thickness of the wood, as well as by the resistance which it may have offered mainly from its being fixed in place or movable. There is, however, ordinarily less question about the size of a similar hole through a piece of glass or bone. It is generally supposed that a bullet passing through a window-pane will shatter it. This depends, however, mainly upon the perfection of fixation of the glass in its resting-place. If for purposes of experiment panes of glass be tacked into a shutter and bullets be fired at them from varying distances, they will be practically invariably shattered. It is, however, quite different if the pane of glass be firmly fixed in a frame by means of putty which has become old and hard, and especially if the window-frame itself be closely fitted in the casing. Under these circumstances a bullet will often make a clearly punched hole, or one with very few radiating lines of fracture. Experiment, therefore, to secure evidence should be made under circumstances exactly parallel to those which necessitate such evidence.

EVIDENCE FROM EXAMINATION OF THE DEAD BODY.

Fractures.—Considerable evidence of great interest with respect to the effect of a bullet-wound upon the skull and the possibility of fractures being produced at the base by contre coup will be found in the statement of the case of The People v. Elisha B. Fero, published by Dr. Charles T. Porter, of Albany, in the Journal of Psychological Medicine, April, 1870. Mrs. Fero was murdered while in her bed and was found to have been bruised about the head and body, her husband claiming that the deed was that of a robber who had attacked them both. He was found with slight bruises or scratches about the face and black marks as if from burnt powder between the middle fingers of his right hand. The first autopsy appears to have been carelessly made, but a flattened conical ball weighing twenty-six and one-half grains was found lodged in the middle of the right cerebral hemisphere. It had not gone completely through the brain. Its base fitted the shells of the metallic cartridges used in Fero’s revolver. Eight days after death a second examination was made, after which the head was removed and preserved in 95% alcohol. A theory of the prosecution was that Mrs. Fero was murdered by her husband; that he shot her, as well as struck her numerous blows upon both sides of the head and its front and back with some broad, heavy, and elastic body, making fractures found on autopsy. Not the least interesting part of the testimony is that referring to the condition of tissues alleged to have been bruised after long preservation in alcohol. The expert testimony in this case appeared to show that such fractures as were found, without reference to the fact of external bruises, were due to the unskilful manner in which the skull-cap was removed. In this connection it is well right here to emphasize the fact that fresh fractures can be produced in the skull by too forcible or injudicious efforts to remove the calvarium when making autopsies, or that fractures previously existing can be extended or complicated in the same way. Shaw in his “Manual of Anatomy” says: “The question whether there has been a fracture of the cranium previous to death is sometimes more difficult to decide than a person not accustomed to make dissections might imagine. If the fracture has occurred immediately before the patient’s death, there will be found coagulated blood upon the bones and in the fissures. If the patient has survived for some time, there will be marks of inflammation and, perhaps, pus in contact with the skull, but if a fracture has been made in making the examination, which sometimes happens in even very careful dissectors’ hands, the blood in the fracture will not be coagulated, nor will there be any effusions around the portions. In Beck’s Medical Journal, Vol. XXII., p. 28, Mr. Alcock some time since stated in a public lecture in London that he had known a fracture of the base of the skull produced by the awkward and violent tearing of the upper portion by the saw in penetrating enough to divide the bones, and this to be mistaken by the inexperienced operator for fracture of the skull producing death. Being a medico-legal case, it might have led to melancholy consequences had not the error been detected by an observer.” That an extensive and often complicated fracture by contre coup can occur as the result of gunshot injuries of the skull is a fact well known to all surgeons of experience and laid down in all text-books and illustrated in all large museums.