THE MIDHIRST SENSATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 January 1916, Page 3

THE MIDHIRST SENSATION.

DR. PAGET'S EVIDENCE. (From Our Stratford Correspondent,) Stratford, Yesterday. The Midhirst sensation is the chief topic in Stratford to-day. it is only fair to Dr. Paget that his evidence at .the inquest should be published, for although he corroborated Dr. Stevens as to the results of the postmortem examination he held entirely different ideas to Dr. Stevens as to the cause of death. ' In his evidence, Dr. Paget said that he and Dr. Stevens made a post-mortem of the body. The condition of decomposition led him to believe that (lie body had been dead several days. Examination of tiie right forearm showed a wound of a very peculiar nature, the extent of it and general condition being as described by Dr. Stevens. It was particularly noticeable that there were no surrounding scratches or abrasions of the skin in the neighbourhood of the wound or elsewhere upon the body, except upon the right ear and right knee. The edges of the wound showed that the skin had been worn away by friction, and in his opinion the- thin edge of the skin, where it was [rayed, and the condition of the edge of the hole in the skin where it covered the bony • prominence on the outer side and back of the right wrist showed that the .wound had been caused by a long continued friction by a fairly smooth substance, probably metal or other hard substance. The whole of the injury to the right forearm was caused after death. The injury to the posterior edge of the right ear partook of the same nature and was apparently caused in the same way as the injury to the right forearm. He had examined the coat, and the position of the sleeve worn away at the cuff corresponded to the position of the wound on the right forearm and hand. The substances found in the wound were obviously (1) portions of the cloth from the coat, and (2) several pieces of scaly substances which had the appearance of chipped paint. The tear in the knee of the trousers would correspondeud with the abrasion over the right knee, which injury, the witness thought, was made before death. The bruise in the scalp was made before death. The condition of congestion about the neck, face, and brain suggests death either by strangulation, or a dependent position of those parts either after death or before rigor mortuis set in. The examination of the organs of the body did not reveal the absolute cause of death. It showed, however, that death did not certainly take place by drowning. The heart was flabby and softened, and the main artery from the heart was enlarged and the walls unduly compressed, but these were not sufficient to cause death. If death occurred by strangulation si line soft article must have been used, as there were no marks on the skin such as would likely to be left by a rope. A hand would not leave any mark that could be detected in the condition of the. body. If the body was found as described to witness he thought it was placed there after death. He thought it quite impossible for contact with a motor-car or vehicle travelling the road to have caused death. The reasons are that the injuries were not of t.ucli a nature as to cause death, they were far too localised and limited to have been paused by a collision with a motor-ear or vehicle. The only way witness could account for the wounds on the ear and arm was that they were caused after death by the body having been, in some vehicle, carted a considerable distance, in such a position that the right arm and head were hanging over the side and were in contact with the iron tyre of the revolving wheel. They were certainly not caused by abrasions on the road, or by a blow with the piece of iron (produced) with barbed wire, or by contact with a stump or spade. It could not possibly be done by the action of water or the teeth of any animal like a rat.