Part 22

Without going into unnecessary details, I will now state what I intend to prove upon this part of the case. I shall call a great number of most respectable medical practitioners and surgeons in general practice, with a large experience in great cities, who will support the theory that these fits of Cook were probably not tetanus at all, but violent convulsions, the result of a weak habit of body, increased by a careless mode of life--by at least a sufficient amount of disease to render violent mineral poisons, in their opinion, desirable, and by habits which led to a chronic ulceration of the tonsils and difficulty in swallowing. They will prove that men with constitutions weakened by indulgence have often, under the influence of strong mental excitement and violent emotion of any kind, been suddenly thrown into such a state of convulsion that symptoms have been exhibited in the voluntary muscles of violent disease, and that persons suffering from those symptoms have constantly died asphyxiated or of exhaustion, leaving no trace whatever as to the cause of death. In addition, I will call several gentlemen who will speak to experiments they have made upon animals, and who will be ready to show you those experiments in any yard belonging to this building, if my lords should think fit. They will tell you, on the authority of Orfila, that no degree of putrescence will decompose strychnine, and that if it is in the body they would be sure to find it even now.

Lord CAMPBELL said that the Court could not see the experiments made, but witnesses might be called to prove them.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I have now done with that branch of the case, and will proceed to the last matter to which I propose to direct your attention. I propose to discuss whether the circumstantial evidence is inexplicable on the supposition of the prisoner’s innocence; and, if I show you that in all its broad and salient features it is not so, I am sure that you will be only too happy to acquit him, recollecting that you represent the country, which is uninformed upon the case, which has no opportunity of hearing the witnesses on either side.

Lord CAMPBELL: In the language of the law “which country you are.”

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Which country you are. You are responsible not to render this kingdom liable to the charge of having, in a paroxysm of prejudice propagated by a professional man with no knowledge of his own upon the matter, condemned an innocent person. In discussing the circumstantial evidence, I will avoid no point that seems at all difficult; but, not to waste time, I will not, after the intimation which I have received from the bench, trouble you with such matters as the pushing against Dr. Devonshire during the _post-mortem_ examination or the cutting of a slit in the cover of the jar, which might be done accidentally with any of the sharp instruments which were being used, or the putting it at the further end of the room.

Lord CAMPBELL: What was said referred only to the pushing.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I take leave to suggest that in an examination in the town of Rugeley, where Palmer was perfectly well known, the fact of there having been a little apparent shoving, which may for the moment have disturbed the operator, is not to be allowed to have weight against the prisoner, especially as Mr. Devonshire said nothing was lost. The matter was one in which all present took considerable interest, and a little leaning over might easily have produced the effect which was spoken to. Then, as to the removal of the jar. It was not taken out of the room. It could not have been taken away without its removal being observed, and it would have been to the last degree foolish for any guilty person to attempt to remove it. That a man who knew himself to be innocent should be very unwilling that the jar should be removed out of the hands of persons upon whom he could rely for honest dealing is very probable. Palmer knew that there were some persons who did not want to pay him £13,000, and who had for a long time been doing all they could to undermine his character, and to impute to him most wicked conduct with regard to the death of a relation--suspicions in which none of his relatives had joined. It is clear from his observation, “Well, doctor, they won’t hang us yet,” that he knew that it was intended to ground a suspicion or a complaint upon the _post-mortem_ examination, and it was exceedingly natural that he should like to have the jar kept in safe custody, even in the crowded room. All his conduct is consistent with this explanation. To Dr. Harland, with whom he does not appear to have been particularly intimate, he says, “I am very glad you are come, because there is no knowing who might have done it.” That is the conduct of a respectable man, who knew that his conduct would bear investigation if it were properly conducted.

I dare say there are in Rugeley many excellent and very serious people to whom the prisoner’s habits of life, his running about to races, and so on, would not much recommend him, and who he had reason to know entertained prejudices against him. As to his objection to the jar being taken to Mr. Frere’s, there had, I believe, been some slight difference, arising out of Thirlby (Palmer’s assistant) having come to him from Mr. Frere. I do not do Mr. Frere the injustice to think that this slight dispute would have led him to put anything into the jar, but it may account for Palmer’s caution. Let us now come to the more prominent features of Palmer’s conduct, upon which, in accordance with his instructions, my learned friend principally relied. I will first call your attention to the evidence of Myatt, the postboy at the Talbot Arms. Mr. Stevens had come down from London, and had acted towards Palmer in such a way as would have induced some men to kick him. Assuming Palmer to be innocent, Stevens’ conduct was most provoking. He dissembled with Palmer, cross-questioned him, pretended to take his advice, scolded him in a harsh tone of voice, almost insulted him, threatened a _post-mortem_ examination, and acted throughout under the impression that some one had been guilty of foul play towards Cook, which ought to be brought to light and punished. Stevens had been there during the whole of the _post-mortem_ examination--a gloomy, miserable day it must have been, poring over the remains of that poor dead man; the jar was ready, and the fly was at the door to take himself and Boycott to Stafford, in order that this jar might be sent to London, out of Palmer’s ken and notice; so that if there was anybody base enough to do it, either in support of a theory, or to maintain a reputation--God forbid that I should suggest that to the prejudice of Dr. Taylor! I do not mean to do so--but if there was anybody capable of acting so great a wickedness, it might be done; and it was but a reasonable concern that Palmer should be anxious that it should stop at Dr. Harland’s. He did not like its going with Stevens to London. Stevens had been particularly troublesome; he had been vexatious and annoying to the last degree. The fly was ready, when Palmer met Myatt, the postboy, and learned that he was going to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford.

According to Myatt’s evidence, Palmer then asked him if he would upset “them.” That word was first used in this court to designate the jars; but as there was at that time but one jar, it must have been intended to apply to Mr. Stevens and his companion. Palmer’s conduct to Stevens had been most exemplary, and he must have been irritated to the last degree to find that he was suspected of stealing a paltry betting-book, which was of no use to anyone, and of having played foully and falsely with the life of his friend, the deceased. That he was much annoyed was proved by his observation to Dr. Harland in the morning--“There has been a queer old fellow down here making inquiries, who seems to suspect that everything is wrong. He thinks I have stolen a betting-book, which everyone who knows anything knows can be of no use to anyone now that poor Cook is dead.” This shows that Palmer’s mind was impressed with a sense that Stevens had illtreated him. He, no doubt, said to himself, “He (Stevens) has encouraged and brought back suspicions which have well-nigh destroyed me already, and which, if he proceeds in this course of bringing another charge against me, will probably render it impossible to get the sum which would be sufficient to release me from my embarrassments.” In this state of mind Palmer met the postboy who was ready to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford. What occurred then was thus described by Myatt:--“He said he supposed I was going to take the jars.--What did you say then, or what did he say?--I said I believed I was.--After you said you believed you were, what did he say?--He says, ‘Do you think you could upset them?’--What answer did you make?--I told him ‘No.’--Did he say anything more?--He said, if I could, there was a £10 note for me.--What did you say to that?--I told him I should not.--Did he say any more to you?--I told him that I must go, for the horse was in the fly waiting for me to start.”

In cross-examination he was asked--“Were not these the words Palmer used,--‘I should not mind giving £10 to break Mr. Stevens’s neck?’--I do not recollect him saying ‘to break his neck.’--Were they not words to that effect, ‘I should not mind giving him £10 to break his neck?’--I do not recollect that.--Then ‘£10 to upset him?’--Yes.--Those were the words, were they?--Them were the words, to the best of my recollection. Did he appear to have been drinking at the time?--I cannot say.--When he said ‘to upset him,’ did he use any epithet; did he describe him in any way, such as ‘upset the fellow?’--He did not describe him in any way.----Did he say anything about him at the time?--He did say something about it; ‘it was a humbugging concern,’ or something to that effect.--That he was a humbugging concern, was that it?--No.--That ‘it was a humbugging concern,’ or something to that effect?--Yes.”

I submit to you that, after this evidence, you can only regard this expression about “upsetting them,” in its milder and more innocent sense, as a strong expression used by a man vexed and irritated by the suspicious and inquisitive manner which Stevens had from the first exhibited. That this is the correct view of the matter is confirmed by the fact that at the time of the inquest nothing was known of this, and Myatt was not called. Myatt was engaged at the Talbot Arms, and must frequently have conversed about the death of Cook and the _post-mortem_ examination with servants and other persons about that inn. Had any serious weight been attached to this offer of Palmer, it would have excited attention, and would have been given in evidence before the coroner. On the other hand, it is to the last degree improbable that a medical man, knowing that he had given a large dose of strychnine, with the violent properties of which he was well acquainted, should have supposed that by the accidental spilling of a jar--the liver, spleen, and some of the tissues remaining behind--he could possibly escape detection. I will next call your attention to the evidence of Charles Newton, who swore that he saw Palmer at Mr. Salt’s surgery at 9 o’clock on Monday night, when he gave him three grains of strychnine in a piece of paper. He did not bring this to the knowledge of the Crown until the night before this trial commenced. He was examined before the coroner, but although then called to corroborate the statement of Roberts as to the presence of Palmer at Hawkins’s shop, where he was said to have purchased strychnine, he then said nothing about the purchase on the Monday night. A man who so conducts himself, who when first sworn omits a considerable portion of what he tells three weeks afterwards, and again comes forward at the last moment and tells more than enough in his opinion to drive home the guilt to the person who is accused, that man is not to be believed upon his oath. There are other circumstances which render Newton’s statement in the highest degree improbable. That Palmer should once in a way purchase strychnine in Rugeley is not to be wondered at. It is sold to kill vermin, to kill dogs. And whatever the evidence as to the galloping of the mares and their dropping their foals, it shows that Palmer had occasion for it, and for other purposes. But that, having bought enough for all ordinary purposes, he should go and buy more the next day, and should purchase it at the shop of a tradesman with whom he had dealt for two years, is in the highest degree incredible. Nobody would believe it. Nobody can or ought to believe it. But observe this also. Palmer had been to London on the Monday, and in London there is no difficulty in procuring strychnine. It is sold to any one who, by writing down the technical description of what he wants, shows that he has had a medical education. Why did he not get it in London? And if he could not get it in London, why did he not get it at Stafford, or at any of the other places to which he had been? If he had bought it for this guilty purpose, would he not, as a wary man, have taken care that when his house was searched there should be found in it the paper containing the exact quantity of strychnine which he had purchased? What could have been easier to do than that? Newton’s story, therefore, cannot be believed, but, in addition, I will show that Palmer, who is stated by Herring to have been in London at a quarter past 3 o’clock, could not have been in Rugeley at the time at which Newton says he was at Mr. Salt’s.

Palmer attended the _post-mortem_ examination; and is it credible that he, a skilful medical man, who studied in a London hospital, and made a note upon one of his books of the effect of strychnine, would ask that stupid sort of fellow Newton anything about its action upon a dog; and would, when the answer was given, snap his fingers and say, “It is all right, then, it cannot be found.” No one will believe it for a moment. The _animus_ of Newton is shown by his omitting the word “poor,” and representing Palmer as having said, “You will find this fellow suffering from a disease of the throat; he has had syphilis;” and then, when cross-examined upon the subject by my learned friend Mr. Grove, replying, “I don’t know whether he said poor or rich,” as if that had anything to do with the question. I will now take you back to what occurred at Shrewsbury. The case for the Crown is that as early as Wednesday, the 14th November, the scheme of poisoning Cook begun to be executed at Shrewsbury. It is suggested that Cook was dosed with something that was put into his brandy-and-water. You will remember that I read to you a letter from Cook to Fisher, dated the 16th of November, to which there is this postscript--“I am better.” That must have referred to his illness at Shrewsbury. It is the postscript to a letter in which he speaks of the object he has in view, which is of great importance to himself and Palmer. Is his writing in that tone consistent with his having a belief that Palmer had drugged him with poison for the purpose of destroying his life at Shrewsbury? What did Palmer say about it?--“Cook says I have put something in his glass. I don’t play such tricks.” He treated it as though it had never been understood to be more than the expression of a man who, if not actually drunk, was very nearly so. Palmer did not arrive at the Raven until after the dinner hour. We have no evidence how Cook fared there; but we shall be able to prove that he went from there to the Unicorn, where he arrived pretty flush, and where he sat drinking brandy-and-water with Saunders the trainer and a lady. Seven or eight glasses of brandy-and-water did this good young man drink, and the result was that his unfortunate syphilitic throat was in a very dreadful state, if not of actual laceration, at least of soreness and irritation. [The learned Serjeant here read to the jury a long extract from an article which had appeared in some newspaper, which he did not mention, in which the occurrences at Shrewsbury were described in a style which seemed intended to be humourous, and in which Cook’s sickness was attributed to his having taken too much brandy upon champagne, in order to “restore his British solidity.” The learned Serjeant said that this entirely concurred with his own view of the case. He then continued.]

Cook’s own conduct afterwards proved that his illness was owing to his having drunk too much. He got up in the morning, breakfasted with Palmer, was good friends with him, and went with him to Rugeley. At Rugeley they received Pratt’s letter of the 13th, in consequence of which Palmer wrote to Pratt to say that some one would call upon him and pay him £200, and Cook wrote to Fisher and asked him to call on Pratt and pay this money. Does that look as though he thought there had been an attempt to poison him? Mrs. Brooks, who gave her evidence in a most creditable manner, proved that there was much sickness among the strangers who were at Shrewsbury; and the rest of her evidence did not tell much against Palmer, who might, after Cook’s complaint, very naturally have been looking at the tumbler to see if anything had been put into it. Cook got worse, and at last had the good sense to put his money into Fisher’s hands and go to bed. He was still very sick, and a doctor was sent for, who recommended an emetic. Cook made himself sick by drinking warm water and putting the handle of a toothbrush down his throat. He took a pill and a black draught, went to sleep, and next morning was quite well. This is really too ludicrous to receive a moment’s consideration. A person named Myatt was in the room at the Raven all the evening. He has been put into the box, but I shall call him, and you will hear his account. Palmer and Cook having got back to Rugeley the history of the slow poisoning continues. They went there together, and probably talked on the way of their difficulties and the mode of getting out of them, and of the small way that the winnings at Shrewsbury would go to effect that object, both seeing ruin staring them in the face unless the Prince of Wales Insurance-office could be made to pay the money which was due, and they could meanwhile remain free from all suspicion of insolvency or any sort of misconduct. When they got to Rugeley they provided for the temporary difficulty by sending £200 to Pratt. They were then evidently on friendly terms, Cook’s winnings being at Palmer’s service, and probably both effecting their objects, because, as it would appear from what Palmer said, Cook had some interest in the bills which were outstanding. Probably his name might not be upon them, but as they were engaged in these racing transactions, were joint owners of one horse and had the same trainer, they were very probably equally interested in these bills--were in fact what I remember to have once heard a nobleman well known upon the turf call “confederates.” The frequency of Palmer’s visits to Cook during the illness of the latter at Rugeley affords no ground of suspicion against the prisoner. On the contrary, it tells in his favour. Cook had no friend in the town but Palmer, with whom he may almost be said to have been on a visit; for though he did not sleep in Palmer’s house Palmer was in continual attendance on him, and, owing to the close proximity of his own residence, was enabled to bring him many little delicacies not easily attainable at an inn. Had he neglected the sick man, and only visited him occasionally, the inference of the Crown would probably have been that he was a black-hearted scoundrel, who only looked in now and then to give him his poison; but as he was zealously and laboriously attentive to him the conclusion is that he must have murdered him!

It is said that Palmer was guilty of a falsehood in representing Cook as suffering from diarrhœa; but that is to put a very violent and a very uncharitable construction on his words, for you will remember that Bamford swore to Cook having told him that his bowels had been affected twice or three times on Sunday. But, leaving these minor points, I come to one which in this case of circumstantial evidence is of the very last importance, and should be deemed decisive of the prisoner’s innocence. The supposition of the Crown is, that Palmer intended to dose Cook with antimony--to keep his stomach in continual irritation by vomiting, in order that he might the more surely despatch him with strychnine; and that during Sunday, the day on which he insisted on his taking the broth, Cook was under the influence of this insidious treatment. Now, supposing this to be true, and assuming it to be the fact that Palmer was indeed bent upon destroying Cook by this singular process, is it not manifest that there is one man who of all the men in the world would have been the very last whom he would have selected to be a witness of his proceedings? That man is a surgeon in the prime of life, a man intimately acquainted with Cook, and very much attached to him--Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth. Yet this is the very man to whom, when he is about to set out for London, Palmer writes a letter informing him that Cook is ill, and urging him to come over and see him without delay. I entreat of you to appreciate the full importance of that fact. The more you think of it the more profound will become your conviction that it affords evidence irrefragable of Palmer’s innocence. The imputation is that Palmer meant to kill Cook to possess himself of his winnings. Who was with Cook when the race was won? Who was by his side on the Shrewsbury racecourse for the three minutes that he was speechless? Who saw him take out his pocketbook and count up his winnings? Who but Jones?--Jones, who was his bosom friend, his companion, his confidant, and who knew to the last farthing the amount of his gains. Jones was of all men living the most likely to be the recipient of Cook’s confidence, and the man who was bound by every consideration of honour, friendship, and affection to protect him, to vindicate his cause, and to avenge his death. Yet this was the man for whom Palmer sent, that he might converse with Cook, receive his confidences, minister to him in his illness, and even sleep in the same room with him!