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

Date:: 1877

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.

1206/1268 (page 1170)

$after. His skull was extensively fractured ; the cartilage of the left ear was severed; about an inch in front of this was a deep wound, extending to the bone; over the temple, a contused wound, superficial and grazed. There were several incised wounds on the scalp. “I think as many as four,” said Mr. Toulmin, the surgeon. On the crown of the head an incised wound three inches long. There was effusion of blood between the scalp and the skull. This witness, and Mr. Brearton, the other surgeon, both attributed the wounds to a blunt instrument. The stick carried by deceased was a stout one, heavy at one end, aud was a formidable weapon. The prisoner sold the chain of the deceased; and it would appear that he either altered the hat himself, or had it done. Mr. Digance, the hatter, identified the hat as like the one sold to Mr. Briggs, and made by him, except for the alteration. An attempt was made to prove an alibi, which was unsuccessful. Muller, when executed, said, “Ja, ich habe es gethan!” [Yes, I did it.] It has been suggested that trephining might have restored consciousness to Mr. Briggs, but this was an ex post facto idea, and must, therefore, be received rather as a hint for the future, than a subject of regret or jensure for the past. Case XII.—Identity established by a Finger bitten off in the Struggle between a Surgeon and Two Robbers. [Dr. Taylor, loc. cit., p. 525, vol. ii.] “ Mr. Smith, a gentleman who formerly attended my lectures, com- municated to me a singular case in which identity was established by the production in evidence of a portion of a finger belonging to the assailant. In 1834 two men were charged with having assaulted the prosecutor, a surgeon, with attempt to rob him. The prosecutor, whilst walking late at night along a lonely road in the country, overtook three men who were strangers to him. One knocked him down by a severe blow on the face and held him, while another put his hand upon his mouth to prevent him giving alarm. The prisoner contrived to get his finger into the prosecutor’s mouth, aud, during the struggle, the latter bit off the end completely between the nail and the first joint. The men then ran away. The piece of finger was given to a constable, and in the course of about eight hours he found one of the prisoners with his hand bandaged. On examining the hand, the tip of one finger teas missing. The prisoner accounted for this by saying that he had acci- dentally cut it off ! This statement was found to be false, and he made several other inconsistent statements. On comparing the piece of finger with the injured finger of the prisoner’s hand, they were found to correspond closely. The portion of finger was preserved in alcohol for the trial, and upon this clear proof of identity he and his companions were convicted.” [Other cases of the kind are on record. Beck gives one or two. And in a recent police-court case the assailant was identi- fied by the loss of the tip of her nose, which her victim had bitten off and preserved !] Dr. Taylor gives another case in which a wound of the lenee, produced by the recoil of the breech of a gun, was the means of identifying an assailant \loc. cit., p. 525].$