Free Medical Detectives by Robin Odell

or as an act of murder. Doctors who had examined the injured woman when she was admitted to the infirmary observed no signs of blackening or tattooing around the wound in her right ear where the bullet had entered. Such evidence would be expected in a case of suicide when it is usual for the weapon to be held close to, or in contact with, the skin. It was reported that a great deal of blood had been washed away from the wound using water-soaked swabs and that the subsequent examination for powder tattooing was only made by means of the naked eye.
    The absence of tattooing made it difficult to argue forcibly in favour of suicide. The experts called by the prosecution were inclined at first to the view that the shooting was ‘consistent with suicide’ but then changed their minds. This followed consultation with Sydney Smith, a man of acknowledged expertise in the field of forensic ballistics and the assessment of gunshot wounds, who said, ‘It looks to me like murder.’ He advised Littlejohn and Glaister to carry out a few tests with the weapon involved in the shooting to establish its discharge characteristics.
    The Spanish-made .25 automatic was used to fire ammunition of the same manufacture as that used in the fatal shooting into paper targets at distances ranging from half an inch to twelve inches. At six inches, all signs of powder blackening around the bullet hole had disappeared, although a few tattoo spots were visible without the use of magnification. Aided by Professor Glaister, further experiments were carried out using an amputated limb obtained from a hospital operating theatre. The conclusion drawn in Glaister’s report was that while not entirely ruling out the possibility of a self-inflicted wound, he believed it was an improbable explanation. In other words, he opted for murder.
    Spilsbury and Churchill carried out their own experiments using an identical firearm and a different batch of ammunition. The gunsmith advised that the absence of scorching or blackening around the wound was not significant. In the first place, superficial blackening might have been washed away by the flow of blood and, secondly, the particular ammunition which had caused the fatal injury employed smokeless flake powder which caused less discoloration than gunpowder.
    Not satisfied with arguments unsupported by experiment, and as Churchill told him that firing at paper targets produced unrealistic results, Spilsbury also went in search of a supply of amputated limbs. Test firings into dead flesh at various distances proved to their satisfaction that flake powder did not tattoo the skin and that traces of blackening were only superficial. Consequently, their opinion was that in the circumstances of the shooting, suicide was a distinct possibility.
    The prosecution’s experts did not give the impression that they were entirely convinced by their own arguments and Professor Glaister, in particular, resorted frequently to the use of the word ‘probable’ to qualify his statements. Defence counsel, Craigie Aitchison, drew out this hesitation in cross-examination and he also distinguished himself when Spilsbury was called by addressing his expert as ‘Saint Bernard’. Spilsbury’s contribution in support of Robert Churchill’s testimony was given with customary precision. In essence, his opinion was that he had found nothing that was inconsistent with the notion of suicide. On the vital question regarding the significance of powder blackening around the wound, he felt that no firm conclusion could be drawn in circumstances where there had been considerable bleeding and subsequent cleaning of the wound.
    The jury returned a verdict of Not Proven on the murder charge but found Merrett guilty of forgery. He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. After serving his sentence, he married a teenage girl, inherited £50,000 and changed his name to Chesney. It was as Ronald Chesney that in 1954 he murdered his wife and mother-in-law