Part 14

Do you not think that is a very slight experiment?--You must add to experiment the study of poisons and cases.

Do not you think that a rabbit is a very unfair animal to select?--No.

Would not a dog be much better?--Dogs are very dangerous to handle. (A laugh.)

Do you mean to give that answer?--Dogs and cats bear a greater analogy to man because they vomit, while rabbits do not, but rabbits are much more manageable.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I will take your answer that you are afraid of dogs.

Witness: After the experiments I have tried with dogs and cats, I have no inclination to go on.

Do you admit that as to the action of the respiratory organs they would be better than rabbits?--I do not.

As to the effect of the poison would they not?--I think a rabbit is quite as good as any animal. The poison is retained and its operation is shown. At the inquest I saw Mr. Gardner. I suggested questions to the coroner. Some of them he put to the witnesses, and others they answered upon my suggestion of them. Ten days before the inquest Mr. Gardner informed me, in his letter, that strychnia, Batley’s solution, and prussic acid had been purchased on the Tuesday; that is why I used the expressions to which you have referred. We did not allow that information to have any influence upon our report.

At the request of Mr. Serjeant SHEE, the deposition of this witness taken at the coroner’s inquest was read by the Clerk of Arraigns.

Cross-examination continued: Having given my evidence I returned to town, and soon afterwards heard that the prisoner had been committed on a charge of wilful murder.

And that his life depended in a great degree upon you?--No; I simply gave an opinion as to the poison, not as to the prisoner’s case. I knew that I should probably be examined as a witness upon this trial.

Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public discussion of the question which might influence the public mind?--Yes.

Did you write a letter to the _Lancet_?--Yes, to contradict several misstatements of my evidence which had been made.

This letter, which appeared in the _Lancet_ of February 2, 1856, was put in by Mr. Serjeant Shee and read by the Cleric of Arraigns. The principal part of the letter referred to the case of Mrs. Ann Palmer; the concluding paragraph, for which Mr. Serjeant Shee stated that he desired it should be read, was as follows:--

“During the quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like these suspected cases of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which they will affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with their probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying that the future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of murder which have arisen out of these investigations.”

Cross-examination continued: That is my opinion now. It had been stated that if strychnia caused death it could always be found, which I deny. It had also been circulated in every newspaper that a person could not be killed by tartar emetic, which I deny, and which might have led to the destruction of hundreds of lives. I entertain no prejudice against the prisoner. What I meant was that if these statements which I have seen in medical and other periodicals were to have their way, there was not a life in the country which was safe.

Do you adhere to your opinion that “the mode in which they will affect the person accused,” that is, lead him to the scaffold, “is of minor importance, compared with their probable influence on society?”--I have never suggested that they should lead him to the scaffold. I hope that, if innocent, he will be acquitted.

What do you mean by “the mode in which they will affect the person accused being of minor importance?”--The lives of 16,000,000 of people are, in my opinion, of greater importance than that of one man.

That is your opinion?--Yes. As you appear to put that as an objection to my evidence, allow me to state that in two dead bodies I find antimony. In one case death occurred suddenly, and in the other the body was saturated with antimony, which I never found before in the examination of 300 bodies. I say these were circumstances which demanded explanation.

You adhere to the opinion that, as a medical man and a member of an honourable profession, you were right in publishing this letter before the trial of the person accused?--I think I had a right to state that opinion in answer to the comments which had been made upon my evidence.

Had any comments been made by the prisoner?--No.

Or by any of his family?--Mr. Smith, the solicitor for the defence, circulated in every paper statements of “Dr. Taylor’s inaccuracy.” I had no wish or motive to charge the prisoner with this crime. My duty concerns the lives of all.

Do you know Mr. Augustus Mayhew, the editor of the _Illustrated Times_?--I have seen him once or twice.

Did you allow pictures of yourself and Dr. Rees to be taken for publication?--Be so good as to call them caricatures. No; I did not.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: There may be a difference of opinion as to that. I think it is very like.

Did you receive Mr. Mayhew at your house?--He came to me with a letter of introduction from Professor Faraday. I never received him in my laboratory.

Did you know that he called in order that you might afford him information for an article in the _Illustrated Times_?--I swear solemnly I did not. The publication of that article was the most disgraceful thing I ever knew. I had never seen him before, nor did I know that he was the editor of the _Illustrated Times_.

“On your oath?--On my oath. It was the greatest deception that was ever practised on a scientific man. It was disgraceful. He called on me in company with another gentleman, with a letter from Professor Faraday. I received him as I should Professor Faraday, and entered into conversation with him about these cases. He represented, as I understood, that he was connected with an insurance company, and wished for information about a number of cases of poisoning which had occurred during many years. After we had conversed about an hour he asked if there was any objection to the publication of these details. Still believing him to be connected with an insurance-office, I replied that, so far as the correction of error was concerned, I should have no objection to anything appearing. On that evening he went away without telling me that he was the editor of the _Illustrated Times_, or connected with any other paper. I did not know that until he called upon me on Thursday morning, and showed me the article in print. I remonstrated verbally with him. He only showed me part of a slip. I told him I objected to its publication, and struck out all that I saw regarding these cases. He afterwards put the article into the shape in which it appeared. I could not prevent his publishing the results of our conversation on points not connected with these cases.”

You did permit him to publish part of the slip?--Nothing connected with the Rugeley cases.

Did he show you the slip of “Our interview with Dr. A. Taylor?”--I do not remember seeing that. I will swear that, to the best of judgment and belief, he did not. He showed me a slip containing part of what appeared in that article. I struck out all which referred to the Rugeley cases. I thought I had been deceived. A person came with a letter of introduction from a scientific man and extracted information from me.

Why did you not tell your servant to show him the door?--Until we had had the conversation I did not know anything about the deception. It was not until the Thursday morning that I knew he was connected with a paper. He told me it was an illustrated paper.

Did you correct what he showed you?--I struck out some portions.

And allowed the rest to be published?--I said I had nothing to do with it, but I objected to its publication.

Peremptorily?--No; I said, “I do not like this mode of putting the matter. I cannot, however, interfere with what you put into your journal.”

Did you not protest as a gentleman, a man of honour, and a medical man that it was wrong and objectionable to do it?--I told him that I objected to the parts which referred to the Rugeley cases. It was most dishonourable.

Did you not know that in the month of February an interview with Dr. Taylor on the subject of poison must be taken to apply to those cases?--I did not think anything about it. I thought it was a great cheat to extract from me that information. Mr. Mayhew was with me about twenty minutes or half an hour on the Thursday morning. I remonstrated with him. I was not angry with him in the sense of quarrelling.

Did you allow him to publish this--“Dr. Taylor here requested us to state that, although the practice of secret poisoning appeared to be on the increase, it should be remembered that by analysis the chemist could always detect the presence of poison in the body?”--I did not request him to state anything of the kind. I do not remember whether that was on the slip. Had I seen it, I should have struck it out. I remember seeing on the slip, “And that when analysis fails, as in cases where small doses of strychnia had been administered, physiology and pathology would invariably suffice to establish the cause of death.” I did not strike that out. I did not think of it circulating among the class of persons from whom jurors would be selected. I think the public ought to know that chemical analyses are not the only tests on which they can rely. I don’t remember the passage--“Murder by poison could be detected as readily as murder in any other form, while the difficulty of detecting and convicting the murderer was felt in other cases as well as in those where poison was employed.” The article has been very much altered. It was a disgraceful thing. I have not seen Mr. Mayhew since. Seeing in _The Times_ an advertisement, stating that this information had been given by me, I wrote to him demanding its withdrawal, and that demand was complied with. That was on the Thursday or Friday.

Did you say to a gentleman named Cook Evans, that you would give them strychnia enough before they had done, or words to that effect?--No; I do not know the person.

Or to any one?--No. I never used any expression so vulgar and improper. You have been greatly misinstructed.

Or, “He will have strychnia enough before I have done with him?”--It is utterly false. The person who suggested that question to you, Mr. Johnson, has been guilty of other falsehoods. In the letter to Sir George Grey, and on other occasions, he has misrepresented my statements and evidence.

What did you do with the medical report to which you referred?--It was a private letter from Dr. Harland to Mr. Stevens.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL: It was memoranda made by Dr. Harland at the time.

Cross-examination continued: Cook’s symptoms were quite in accordance with an ordinary case of poisoning by strychnia.

Can you tell me of any case in which a patient, after being seized with tetanic symptoms, sat up in bed and talked?--It was after he sat up that Cook was seized with those symptoms.

Can you refer to a case in which a person who had taken strychnia beat the bed with his or her arms?--It is exactly what I should expect to arise from a sense of suffocation.

Do you know any case in which the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia commenced with this beating of the bed-clothes?--There have been only about fifteen cases, and in none of those was the patient seized in bed. Beating of the bed-clothes is a symptom which may be exhibited by a person suffering from a sense of suffocation, whether caused by strychnia or other causes. A case has been communicated to me by a friend, in which the patient shook as though he had the ague.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE objected to this last answer, but as the learned Serjeant had been questioning the witness as to the results of his reading,

The COURT ruled that the evidence was admissible.

Cross-examination continued: I have known of no case of poisoning by strychnia in which the patient screamed before he was seized. That is common in ordinary convulsions. In cases of poisoning by strychnia the patient screams when the spasms set in; the pain is very severe. I cannot refer to a case in which the patient has spoken freely after the paroxysms had commenced.

Can you refer me to any case in an authentic publication in which the access of the strychnia paroxysm has been delayed so long after the ingestion of the poison, as in the case of Cook on the Tuesday night?--Yes, longer. In my book on medical jurisprudence, page 185 of the 5th edition, it is stated that in a case communicated to the _Lancet_, August 31, 1850, by Mr. Bennett, a grain and a half of strychnia, taken by mistake, destroyed the life of a healthy young female in an hour and a-half. None of the symptoms appeared for an hour. There is a case in which the period which elapsed was two hours and a-half. It was not a fatal case, but that does not affect the question. A grain and a-half is a full, but not a very considerable dose. In my book on poisons there is no case in which the paroxysms commenced more than half an hour after the ingestion of the poison. That book is eight years old, and since 1848 cases have occurred. There is a mention of one in which three hours elapsed before the paroxysms occurred.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE then referred to this case, and called attention to the fact that the only statement as to time was that in three hours the patient lost his speech, and at length was seized with violent tetanic convulsions.

Cross-examination continued: I know of no other fatal case in which the interval was so long. In that case there was disease of the brain. Referring to the _Lancet_, I find that in the case to which I referred, as communicated by Dr. Bennett, the strychnia was dissolved in cinnamon water. Being dissolved, one would have expected it to have a more speedy action. The time in which a patient would recover would depend entirely upon the dose of strychnia which had been taken. I do not remember any case in which a patient recovered in three or four hours, but such cases must have occurred. There is one mentioned in my book on medical jurisprudence. The patient had taken nux vomica, but its powers depend upon strychnia. In that case the violence of the paroxysms gradually subsided, and the next day, although feeble and exhausted, the patient was able to walk home. The time of the recovery is a point which is not usually stated by medical men. I cannot mention any case in which there was a repetition of the paroxysms after so long an interval as that from Monday to Tuesday night, which occurred in Cook’s case. I do not think that the attack on Tuesday night was the result of anything which had been administered to him on the Monday night. In the cases of four out of five rabbits, the spasms were continued at the time of death and after death. In the other the animal was flaccid at the time of death.

Are you acquainted with this opinion of Dr. Christison, that in these cases rigidity does not come on at the time of death, but comes on shortly afterwards?--Dr. Christison speaks from his experience, and I from mine.

Did you hear that Dr. Bamford said, that when he arrived he found the body of Cook quite straight in bed?--Yes.

Can that have been a case of ophisthotonos?--It may have been.

Are not the colour tests of strychnia so uncertain and fallacious that they cannot be depended upon?--Yes, unless you first get the strychnia in a visible and tangible form.

Is it not impossible to get it so from the stomach?--It is not impossible; it depends upon the quantity which remains there.

You do not agree that the fiftieth part of a grain might be discovered?--I think not.

Nor even half a grain?--That might be. It would depend upon the quantity of food in the stomach with which it was mixed.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In case of death from strychnia the heart is sometimes found empty after death. That is the case of human subjects. There are three such cases on record. I think that emptiness results from spasmodic affection of the heart. I know of no reason why that should rather occur in the case of man than in that of a small animal like a rabbit. The heart is generally more filled when the paroxysms are more frequent. When the paroxysm is short and violent, and causes death in a few moments, I should expect to find the heart empty. The rigidity after death always affects the same muscles--those of the limbs and back. In the case of the rabbit, in which the rigidity was relaxed at the time of death, it returned while the body was warm. In ordinary death it only appears when the body is cold, or nearly so. I never knew a case of tetanus in which the rigidity lasted two months after death; but such a fact would give me the impression that there were very violent spasms. It would indicate great violence of the spasms from which the person died. The time which elapses between the taking of strychnia and the commencement of the paroxysms depends on the constitution and strength of the individual. A feeling of suffocation is one of the earliest symptoms of poisoning by strychnia, and that would lead the patient to beat the bed-clothes. I have no doubt that the substances I used for the analysis were pure. I had tested them. The fact that in three distinct processes each gave the same result, was strong confirmation of each. I have no doubt that what we found was antimony. The quantity found does not enable me to say how much was taken. It might be the residue of either large or small doses. Sickness would throw off some portion of the antimony, which had been administered. We did not analyse the bones and tissues.

Why did you suggest questions to the coroner?--He did not put questions which enabled me to form an opinion. I think that arose rather from want of knowledge than from intention. There was an omission to take down the answers. I made no observation upon that subject. At the time I wrote to Mr. Gardner I had not learnt the symptoms which attended the attack and death of Cook. I had only the information that he was well seven days before he died, and had died in convulsions. I had no information which could lead me to suppose that strychnia had been the cause of death, except that Palmer had purchased strychnia. Failing to find opium, prussic acid, or strychnia, I referred to antimony, as the only substance found in the body. Before writing to the _Lancet_, I had been made the subject of a great many attacks. What I said as to the possibility or impossibility of discovering strychnia after death had been misrepresented. In various newspapers it had been represented that I had said that strychnia could never be detected--that it was destroyed by putrefaction. What I said was, that when absorbed into the blood it could not be separated as strychnia. I wrote the letter for my own vindication.

Dr. G. O. REES, examined by Mr. E. JAMES, Q.C., said: I am Lecturer on Materia Medica at Guy’s Hospital, and I assisted Dr. Taylor in making the _post-mortem_ examination referred to by that gentleman; and he has most correctly stated the result. I was present during the whole time, and at the discovery of the antimony. I am of opinion that it may have been administered within a few days, or a few hours, of Mr. Cook’s death. All the tests we employed failed to discover the presence of strychnia. The stomach was in a most unfavourable state for examination; it was cut open, and turned inside out; its mucous surface was lying upon the intestines, and the contents of the stomach, if there had been any, must have been thrown among the intestines, and mixed with them. These circumstances were very unfavourable to the hope of discovering strychnia. I agree with Dr. Taylor as to the manner in which strychnia acts upon the human frame, and I am of opinion that it may be taken, either by accident or design, sufficient to destroy life, and no trace of it be found after death. I was present at the experiments made by Dr. Taylor upon the animals, and at the endeavour to detect it in the stomachs afterwards. We failed to do so in three cases out of four. The symptoms accompanying the death of the animals were very similar to those described in the case of Mr. Cook. I have heard the cases that have been mentioned in this Court, and the symptoms in every one of them are analogous to those in the case of Mr. Cook.

Cross-examined by Mr. GROVE, Q.C.: I did not see either of the animals reject any portion of the poison; but I heard that in one case the animal did reject a portion. I have no facts to state upon which I formed the opinion that the poison acts by absorption.

Professor BRANDE, examined by Mr. WELSBY: I am Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution. I was not present at the analysis of the liver, spleen, &c., of the deceased; but the report of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees was sent to me for my inspection afterwards. I was present at one of the analyses. We examined in the first place the action of copper upon a very weak solution of antimony, and we ascertained that there was no action until the solution was slightly acidified by muriatic acid and heated. The antimony was then deposited, and I am enabled to state positively that the deposit was antimony.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The experiment I refer to was made for the purpose of testing the accuracy of the test that had already been applied, and it was perfectly satisfactory.