120 
D. P. YONKERMAN. 
at any rate, it is next to certain that the body had been dis¬ 
turbed or otherwise tampered with after rigor mortis set in. The 
surroundings, straw, bedding, hay, etc., will also assist you in de¬ 
termining if the body had been interfered with. 
In examining a body for bruises or injuries, care must be 
taken not to mistake cadaveric ecchymosis for bruises; their dif¬ 
ference being familiar to you all, I will not detain you by des¬ 
cribing them, but will go on to consider another and the last 
branch of forensic medicine which I shall touch upon in this 
paper. So I ask your still further indulgence while I endeavor 
to suggest a thought or two in connection with the post mortem 
examination. This is an inseparable part in determining the 
cause of death. So important is it that under no circumstances 
should it be undertaken under conditions of hurry, at an improper 
time, that is, by artificial light, when certain important appear¬ 
ances, such as discolorations of the tissues and traces of poison 
might and probably would pass unnoticed. In cases of grave 
suspicion, and where important issues are at stake, the post 
mortem should be performed by at least two independent ex¬ 
perts. If the veterinary surgeon in attendance is in any way in¬ 
culpated or his treatment called in question, it is undesirable for 
him to be present, although it is only fair that he should be rep 
resented by a friend. 
I know of a case where a certain practitioner was charged by 
another with poisoning a patient with opium. A post mortem 
was ordered, and a friend was present on behalf of the practi¬ 
tioner. The examination was made by the doctor who preferred 
the charge. The post mortem revealed all the appearances of 
death by opium, but he did not state that the liver was in a com¬ 
plete state of fatty degeneration until questioned on that point. 
This would probably never have been brought out as the primary 
cause of death had not the representative of the practitioner who 
was in charge of the case been present at the autopsy. As a 
matter of prudence, therefore, neither the accused nor the ac¬ 
cuser, nor, in fact, any one actually suspected, should be present 
during the operation, inasmuch as tampering with viscera and 
the contents of the stomach are circumstances not altogether un¬ 
heard of in forensic medicine. 
