A handy-book of forensic medicine and toxicology / by W. Bathurst Woodman and Charles Meymott Tidy.

Date:
1877
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A handy-book of forensic medicine and toxicology / by W. Bathurst Woodman and Charles Meymott Tidy. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    1127/1268 (page 1091)
    had numerous cuts in her fingers [figured at page 492 of Dr. Taylor’s book], such as would be caused by a person taking hold of a knife in order to try and wrest it from her assailant. The importance of noting minute circumstances is well shown by a case recorded by Dr. F. Ogston of Aberdeen [“ Med. Times and Gazette,” January 20, 1877 ; see also Taylor, loc. cit., p. 504, yol. i.]. The prisoner Davidson was tried for murder before the Aberdeen Court of Justiciary, April, 1855, and the origin of certain wounds on the head of the de- ceased, turned on the question of the presence or absence of nails at the head of a bed. Lord Deas, the judge, remarked :—“ A medical man, when he sees a dead body, should notice everything’’ There was reason to believe that the nails had been driven in after the infliction of the vio- lence, and even after the post-mortem examination; and although some medical evidence went to show that the wounds might have been acci- dental, yet Dr. Ogston showed that there was no blood on the bed-stock where the nails were said to have been, as on the theory of the defence there should have been. Again, the distance of the nails from one another and the distance of the wounds do not seem to have coincided. It does not appear that there were any actual measurements of the distance between the wounds. Dr. Ogston justly says :—Not only measure the wounds themselves, but also the distance apart, when there are two or more wounds on any one region of the body. Had there been sufficient atten- tion to the state of the bedstead the prisoner would have been convicted. You may be asked in some of these cases, how far could a person with such-and-such a wound, whether suicidal, accidental, or homicidal, run, walk, or crawl after the reception of the wound 1 We would suggest to you not to be too dogmatic on such a point.* We will give two cases to illustrate the need of caution in framing your reply. A young woman in the neighbourhood of Uxbridge is confined of a child at or near term. She loses so much blood that her own clothes, a number of towels and shifts, and the bed and bedding, and floor of the room, are soaked with it. She contrives, however, to drop from a bedroom window, a height of twelve or fourteen feet, to walk at least a couple of miles (for she was tracked by the blood so far), and, it is believed also, to walk all the way to London—some nine or ten miles at the least—and when seen by one of the Authors four days after, appeared little the worse for it. She also carried a bundle. It is possible she may have had a ride in a market- cart part of the way. Again, a man is wounded in the skull [parietal * We can scarcely do better here than quote the sensible and manly advice of Sir William Blizard, formerly surgeon to the London Hospital. He said to his pupils, “ Be the plainest men in the world in a Court of Justice ; never harbour a thought that if you do not appear’ positive you must appear little and mean ever after ; many old practitioners have erred in this respect. Give your evidence in as con- cise, plain, and yet clear a manner as possible ; be intelligent, candid, plain, and just, never aiming at appearing unnecessarily scientific ; state all the sources by which you have gained your information. If you can, make your evidence a self-evident truth ; thus, though the Court may at the time have too good, or too mean an opinion of your judgment, yet they must deem you an honest man ; never then be dogmatic, or set yourselves up for judge and jury ; take no side whatever, be impartial, and you will be honest. In Courts of Judicature, you will frequently hear the coun- sellors complain when a surgeon gives his opinion with any kind of doubt, that he does not speak clearly ; but if he is loud and positive, if he is technical and dog- matic, then he is allowed to be clear and right! I am sorry to have it to observe that this is too frequently the case.” “ London Medical and Physical Journal,” vol. xxi., p. 403. Quoted in a note to Beck, p. 961. Sir William Blizard was justly considered one of the first surgeons of his day.