lungs, the buoyancy of the body, &c. We have therefore only to observe in this place, that upon such occasions there will generally exist collateral circumstances to fortify our judgment; where, for instance, mud, or sand, are found under the nails, or any grass or weeds are discovered in the grasp of the deceased, the inference will be strong that the person died under water; on the contrary, if we discover mortal wounds, or any marks of violence inflicted upon the body, by weapons, we may very justly suspect that the deceased was murdered, and subsequently thrown into the water. But in conducting this enquiry we must be aware of the fallacies to which it is exposed; a person may in the act of drowning accidentally receive bruises and lacerations, or he may have been driven against rocks and stakes by the force of the current. The following case, related by Dr. Gordon Smith, offers a very good illustration of this point "A few years ago, a man who had leaped from each of the three bridges into the Thames with impunity, undertook to repeat the exploit for a wager. Having jumped from London bridge he sunk and was drowned. When the body was found, it appeared that both his arms were dislocated, in consequence of having descended with them in the horizontal, instead of the perpendicular position." If we arrive at the conclusion that the body was drowned, we have next to inquire whether the event was accidental or malicious? and whether the act was perpetrated by the deceased or others? The solution of these problems is to be generally effected by the examination of what may be called the
- [Footnote: drowned. This occurred in the case of Mary Ashford, the vegetable
matter discovered in the stomach corresponded with that with which the pool was covered.]
