Fig. 19.—Hymen of child of
four years—annular type.
The illustration also shows the prominence of the
urinary portion of
the genitals.
(Glaister.)
In the case of young children, the anxiety on the part of the parents of the child to push the charge, and the story of the child and that of the parent heard apart, may assist in guiding the opinion. The lesson-like way in which the child tells her story, even to the minutest details, is always suspicious. The proof of a previous defloration negatives the pretended loss of virginity at the time of the commission of the deed for which the accused is being tried. In most cases, it is best to let the patient tell her own tale, and then cross-examine. An injudicious question may put her on her guard.
2. Examination of the Limbs and Body of the Female for Bruises, &c.—Little value is to be placed on injuries said to be inflicted on the person of a female the result of a struggle, as these may be produced by the woman on herself in order to substantiate her story. In children, for obvious reasons, they do not occur.
Fig. 20.—Virgin hymen,
with central slit.
(Glaister.)
3. Examination of the Linen.—In all cases a careful examination of the body linen of both parties should be made. With regard to the position of the stains on the chemise of the woman, M. Devergie insists that the stains on the front of the chemise are seminal, those on the back are due to blood. This distinction is too arbitrary to meet all the facts of these cases, for the position of the spots necessarily depends on the respective positions of the parties at the moment of ejaculation; and, moreover, the woman is more likely to wipe the parts with the front than the back of her chemise. Mistakes may arise from—
1. The garments being intentionally soiled with blood. This is not infrequently done in cases of false accusations.