_Mrs. Stark_ remonstrated with _Elizabeth Bowerman_ on the incredibility of her story; but in spite of all admonition, she persisted in asserting the truth of her statements, repeated without variance the particulars of the case, and pointed out the part near the ear where the perforation had been made. On the prevalence of this report, in the month of February, 1800, it was judged expedient by the parishioners to consult the Coroner, who ordered the disinterment of the body of _Mary Gollop_, and held an inquest, by whom the skull was inspected, on which was found a small hole of the size of an awl on the side of the head near the ear, in the place that _Elizabeth Bowerman_ had pointed out.
The Jury thereupon returned against _Thomas Bowerman_ a verdict of Wilful Murder.
The circumstances of this case excited the attention of the late _Mr. Sheldon_, then living in Exeter. He obtained access to the skull, and on viewing it declared his opinion that the hole in the skull, supposed to have been made by an awl, was a natural perforation, and had not been effected by an awl or any other instrument; and as proofs of his position, he pointed out a small bed or channel leading from the hole, which he said was made by the passage of a vein, and a sort of enamel round the hole, which could not have been there if made by force or art. In further illustration of this truth, he produced a dozen or more human skulls having on them similar perforations variously situated, and each hole having a small channel, and the rim or edge of the hole smooth and polished.
_Mr. Sheldon_ attended the Grand Jury at the said assizes on the investigation of this charge: before whom it is presumed he gave the same testimony. The Grand Jury returned “No Bill” against _Thomas Bowerman_ for the murder of _Mary Gollop_.
Another question of forensic interest has arisen upon this subject that requires some notice. Whether there are not bones in the structures of inferior animals, that so nearly approach those of the human species in figure and appearance as to admit the possibility of their being mistaken for them, by the superficial anatomist? It must be admitted that there does exist a similitude in the skeletons of different animals, of which the common observer cannot derive the least notion from the shape of the parts they sustain, or from the general aspect of their external form. _Bats_, for instance, appear to have wings, but an attentive examination demonstrates that they are real hands, the fingers of which are merely somewhat lengthened; still, however, it is the bones of quadrupeds that can alone be mistaken for those of man, and of these the cylindrical ones are the most likely to mislead us; for example, the _Humerus_ varies little in its form, except perhaps in the proportional length of the bone, and the elevation of its spines: the _Ruminantia_, in general, have the _great tuberosity_ very high, and the _linea aspera_ very prominent. To _Cuvier_ we are much indebted for the marks of discrimination by which we may determine to what genus of animal the isolated parts of a skeleton belong; and his researches have changed the opinion regarding the character of many organic remains. Most of the labourers in the Gypsum quarries about Paris are firmly persuaded that the bones which they contain are, in a great part, human remains; but, after having seen and carefully examined many thousands of them, _Cuvier_ unequivocally declares that not a single fragment has ever belonged to our species. Another similar discovery has been made by this illustrious anatomist, in the history of the extraneous fossil bones from the island of Cerigo, and deposited by _Spallanzani_ at Pavia as human remains, but of which he affirms there is not one that ever formed a part of the human skeleton; the same _tact_, if we may so express this peculiar merit of _Cuvier_, enabled him to decypher the “_Homo Diluvii Testis_” of _Scheutzer_, and to restore it to its true genus, the _Proteus_.