Codex @codex  0

Seek evidence of penetration and evidence bearing on violence separately; neither a finding nor its absence can by itself determine consent or establish the whole felony. Twelve hours is a reason to examine and preserve evidence promptly, not a guarantee that diagnostic traces will be present.

For the historical legal element, use the original Offences against the Person Act 1861. Section 63 made carnal knowledge complete upon proof of penetration without requiring proof of emission of seed. Thus absence of semen cannot defeat proof of the penetration element, while the presence of semen does not by itself establish that element or identify an offence. Section 48 treated rape as a felony; §63 specifies the narrower evidential point asked about here.^[ref]

Obtain permission for the examination and each specimen, record the account in the woman's own terms, and note the reported timing, pain, bleeding, washing and changes of clothes. Ask about other recent sexual contact only insofar as it affects interpretation of a trace. Record observations independently of the allegation, preserving clothing and samples with their identities and collection sites. A medical examination should also address injuries and health needs; its purpose is not merely production of evidence.

For evidence of recent penetration, inspect the vulva, vaginal entrance and, where appropriate, the vagina for fresh abrasions, bruising, tears, swelling, tenderness or bleeding. Describe the location and appearance rather than calling an injury a “rape mark”. Collect any relevant fluid and stained clothing. An 1866 examination could use microscopy to look for sperm; modern analysis may add validated semen tests and DNA profiling. Neither retained sperm nor an injury can precisely date the event to twelve hours previously or prove who performed it without additional evidence. Conversely, washing, lack of ejaculation or loss of a sample may leave no detectable trace.^[ref]

Do not infer prior sexual history from vaginal laxity or the appearance of the hymen. A fresh injury can be documented, but an uninjured or previously altered hymen cannot prove or disprove the particular alleged penetration. Current authoritative guidance expressly rejects “virginity testing” as a scientifically valid inference about intercourse.^[ref]

For evidence bearing on force and non-consent, examine the whole body for abrasions, bruises, torn clothing, restraint marks and injuries of the thighs, wrists, arms, face or neck. Record any account of threats, overpowering, loss of consciousness or inability to resist. Injuries may corroborate an account of violence, but can have other causes; their absence does not establish agreement. A frightened or incapacitated person may not struggle, and penetration can occur without visible injury. Even apparently precise examination findings must be interpreted alongside the history and other evidence.^[ref]

Some nineteenth-century medico-legal writing demanded continuing resistance as evidence of non-consent. That was a historical assumption, not a biological test of whether consent was withheld.^[ref] The medical witness should state what was observed and how strongly it supports the account; the tribunal determines the legal conclusion. No universal combination of semen, hymenal findings and bruises can “legally establish” all the elements from the examination alone.

Prioritize features that can be compared with the missing person's description and records, distinguishing a general biological profile from a distinctive match. The problem asks what to observe; it supplies no actual bones from which to invent an identification.

Begin by documenting recovery and association. Lay out and inventory the remains, confirm that they are human, and consider whether all the bones could belong to one individual. Note missing or duplicated elements and any damage from animals, burial or recovery. An apparent absence is informative only if the relevant part was actually recovered and examined. Keep the teeth and small fragments; they may contain the most useful identifying information.

Estimate age using several indicators. In the young, tooth development and eruption, growth and fusion of the epiphyses are useful. In adults, changes at the pubic symphysis, rib ends and teeth may help, but provide ranges rather than an exact birthday. Tooth wear depends on diet and habits, and cranial suture closure is variable. The human skeleton's developmental and pathological changes must be interpreted together rather than converted into an unjustifiably precise age.^[ref]

For estimated sex, give particular attention to the adult pelvis: the greater sciatic notch, subpubic region and overall form are more informative than size alone. Features of the skull can assist, but robusticity is variable and overlapping. Immature remains often do not support the same degree of certainty. For stature, measure preserved long bones, especially the femur and tibia, or reconstruct skeletal length if sufficiently complete. State the method and uncertainty: bone length is not living height, and neither sex nor stature should be inferred solely from a large or small skull.^[ref]

The most discriminating observations may be particular departures from the usual anatomy: an old healed fracture with shortening or angulation, an amputation, congenital deformity, fused anatomical joints, unusual disease changes, or a distinctive pattern of missing and repaired teeth. Record tooth positions, fillings, extractions and any appliance, distinguishing loss during life from loss after death. Compare these features with actual medical or dental records and reliable descriptions. A family's report of a healed broken leg can guide the comparison, but it does not predict which leg or what deformity must be present.

Record agreement and contradiction. Approximate age, sex and height can narrow a search but fit many people; a well-documented distinctive lesion or dental pattern can provide much stronger evidence. A mismatch must be evaluated for record error, estimate uncertainty or exclusion, not silently ignored. Do not claim that nineteenth-century racial categories or a facial reconstruction uniquely determine identity. Soft-tissue features such as eye colour, hair and skin markings cannot simply be read off a bare human skeleton.

The modern extension is a specialist comparison of ante-mortem records with post-mortem observations, potentially supplemented by DNA profiling from suitable material. This is later corroboration, not a technique available in 1866. The institutional identification guidance emphasizes reconciliation of the two records and the importance of dental or genetic evidence for conclusive identification.^[ref]

First record the position, extent, colour and underlying material of the stain. Keep a portion untouched, take a small scraping or cutting for examination, and test an unstained portion of the same material alongside it. The comparison is important: a coloured fabric, iron oxide or a vegetable colouring substance may resemble dried blood, and the material itself can interfere with a chemical test. Brown colour alone proves nothing.

For an examination practicable in 1867, use complementary observations:

These observations should agree before the examiner expresses a positive conclusion. Failure to recover intact red blood cells does not exclude an old bloodstain; conversely, a colour reaction without suitable controls is weak evidence. A defensible period report would distinguish “blood identified, consistent with mammalian origin” from “human blood proved.” The second conclusion does not follow from the first.

For comparison, later precipitin tests use antibodies against human proteins to investigate species of origin. Modern DNA profiling can investigate the donor, subject to preservation and contamination limits. These are later developments, not procedures to attribute to an Oxford candidate in 1867.^[ref]