Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/475

 A. Yes; so far as we may be allowed to form a judgment upon appearances so long after death.

Q. By your putting it in that way, do you, or do you not mean to say that all judgment upon such a subject, in such a case, is unfounded?

A. I cannot say that, because from the analogy between the appearances in that body, and those distinguishable in animals killed by the poison I have just mentioned, I think them so much alike that I am rather confirmed in my opinion with respect to the operation of the draught.

Q. Those bodies were instantaneously opened?

A. Yes, so much so that there was the peristaltick motion of the bowels upon their being pricked.

Q. This was upon the eleventh day after Sir Theodosius's death?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the appearance of the body when you first went to Lawford Hall?

A. At the first time I saw the body, what I did see of it was, the face was in the condition I have described, with a maggot crawling over its surface, it was black as I have described, it was quite in the same state; in short, I saw no difference the last day, excepting that the maggot was not upon it then.

Q. Were you or not offended by a violent stench as you approached the dead body?

A. We were.

Q. Had not putrefaction considerably taken place?

A. I believe it had.

Q. Does not putrefaction increase very much in the space of five or six days, in a hot summer?

A. I should think it must certainly increase.

Q. Was or not the body, in a very high state of putrefaction when you saw it?

A. Upon the shroud being removed, the body appeared to me much fairer than I expected; I expected to have seen it in a very black putrified state, but the external appearance was not quite so highly so, as I expected.