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.

    1210/1268 (page 1174)
    It might havo been thought that these scars and moles were ample means of identification. However, the mystery was never solved, and an open verdict of “ Wilful murder against some person or persons un- known ” was returned. The tar made some think a bargeman had done the deed ; whilst others thought the fine saw pointed to a cabinet-maker or carpenter. It could not be attributed with any show of probability to a medical student, as it was in the recess ; and again, the mutilation was far too clumsy for any one possessing the least knowledge of anatomy. [Wee Dr. Taylor’s book, vol. i., p. 131, Ac., for a description and drawings of the several parts of Dr. Parkman’s body.] Case XVI.—The Murder of Mr. Weave, by Thurtell, Hunt, and Probert. [Hertford Assizes, December, 1823. See the “ Modem Newgate Calendar,” p. 318, Ac.] In this case a gambler was killed by his associates; Thurtell, the actual murderer, being assisted by Hunt and Probert, and the murder was deliberately planned. The murderers were arrested first on mere suspicion, but Probert turned King’s evidence, whilst Hunt confessed the murder and disclosed the body. The body was found in a pool, quite naked, the head and body in a sack, with flints under each armpit, and a handkerchief full of stones tied to the cord that fastened the sack. The jaws and the left temple were driven in, as if with a pistol muzzle. There was a shot wound in the right cheek bone, two deep cuts half through the j ugular vein on the left side of the neck, behind the ear, and another wound on the right side. A red handkerchief was tied round the neck of the corpse, as if to stanch the blood. Probert was afterwards hanged for horse-stealing. We notice this case, because we have here an example of those compound injuries which sometimes puzzle medical witnesses when asked which wound was inflicted first. For here there was—(1) A gun- shot wound; (2) A severe contused and lacerated [battered] wound on the jaws and temple ; and (3) Two or three wounds on the neck, of which those on the left side were enough to cause death. So that there were three injuries, any one of which might have been fatal, and the latter, in the absence of skilled assistance, must necessarily have been almost instantly so. The amount of blood lost might have aided us in coming to a conclusion. It is, of course, most probable, in cases like this and that of Harriet Lane killed by Wainwright, that the shots were fired first, and the throat cut after. The battering in of the temple, Ac., was probably intermediate. In reality, when any one of two or tluee or more injuries would cause death, it is of little moment which was inflicted first. Yet, whether important or not, circumstantial evidence, and the amount of blood lost, with the appearances of the wounds, Ac., will often enable us to decide this point. Mutilation or Maiming; of the Crime known as “Mayhem ’ in' English Law; and of Self-inflicted Injuries. The ancient Jewish law of equitable punishment: “And if any mis- chief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripo ” [Exodus xxi. 23-26], was doubtless intended to put a