_If the body is found in the water, are there any and what reasons for supposing that it was killed by other means, and subsequently thrown into the water?_—This question has upon several occasions been discussed with great eagerness; see _the Reports of the Edinburgh Colleges in the case of Sir James Standfield_, in our _Appendix_, _p._ 225; and also _Extracts from the medical evidence in the case of Spencer Cowper, Esq. for the murder of Sarah Stout_, _ibid._ _p._ 230. We have already, under the consideration of the phenomena of drowning, _p._ 35, endeavoured to appreciate the true value of the several indications which have been received as physiological evidence upon this subject, such as the presence of water[20] in the stomach and 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 external circumstances of the case; the locality of the water may be such as to account for the deceased having accidentally fallen into it, or its situation may at once preclude the possibility of such an event. The suspicion of the person having been violently thrown into the water by the hands of the assassin, will be fortified by the discovery of footsteps on the brink, and by the indications of resistance on the part of the deceased, as manifested by the appearance of bruises on the arms and other members of the body. In the case of _Mr. Taylor_ who was