Part 30

Now, Dr. Copland, I apprehend, would stand higher as an authority than the man who quotes him. Dr. Copland might have been called, but was not called, notwithstanding the challenge which I threw out, because it is, unfortunately, easier for the case to gather together from the east and from the west practitioners of more or less celebrity, than to bring to bear on the subject the light of science as treasured in the books of the eminent practitioners whom you have seen. But, I say, as regards general convulsions, the distinction is plain. If they destroy the patient, they destroy consciousness. But here, unquestionably, at the very last moment, until Cook’s heart ceased to beat, his consciousness remained. But then comes another supposed condition from which death in this form is said to have resulted, and that is the cause intended to be set up by a very eminent practitioner, Dr. Partridge. It seems that in the _post-mortem_ examination of Cook, when the spinal marrow was investigated, some granules were found, and it is said these may have occasioned tetanic convulsions similar to those found in Cook. He is called to prove that this was a case of what is called arachnitis, arising from granules. I asked him the symptoms which he would find in such a case. I called his attention to what it had evidently not been called before--namely, the symptoms in Cook’s case; and I asked him, in simple terms, whether, looking at these symptoms, he would pledge his reputation, in the face of the medical world, and in the face of this court, that this was a case of arachnitis. He would not do so, and the case of arachnitis went. Then we have a gentleman who comes all the way from Scotland to inform us, as the next proposition, that Cook’s was a case of epileptic convulsions, with tetanic complications. Well, I asked him the question, “Did you ever know of epilepsy, with or without tetanic complications, in which consciousness was not destroyed before the patient died?” His reply was, “No, I cannot say that I ever did, but I have read in some book that such a case has occurred.” “Is there anything to make you think this was epilepsy?--It may have been epilepsy, because I don’t know what else it was.” “But you must admit that epilepsy is characterised generally by loss of consciousness; what difference would the tetanic complications have made?” That he was unable to explain. I remind you of this species of evidence, in which the witnesses have resorted to the most speculative reasoning, and put forward the barest possibilities without the shadow of foundation. But this I undertake to assert, that there is not a single case to which they have spoken from their experience, or as the result of their own knowledge, on which there were the formidable and decisive symptoms of marked tetanus which existed in this case.

Having gone through these three sets of diseases--general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy proper, and epilepsy with tetanic complications, I supposed we had pretty nearly exhausted the whole of these scientific theories. But we are destined to have another, and that assumed the formidable name of angina pectoris. It must have struck you when my learned friend opened his case, that he never ventured to assert the nature of the disease to which they refer the death of Cook; and it strikes me as most remarkable that no less than four distinct and separate theories are set up by the witnesses who have been called--general convulsions, arachnitis, epilepsy with tetanic complications, and lastly, angina pectoris. My learned friend had this advantage in not stating to you what his medical witnesses would set up, because I admit that one after another they took me by surprise. The gentleman who was called yesterday, and who talked of angina pectoris, would not have escaped so easily if I had been in possession of the books to which he referred, for I should have been able to expose the ignorance, the presumption, of the assertions he dared to make. I say ignorance and presumption, and what is worse, an intention to deceive. I assert it in the face of the whole medical profession, and I am sure I can prove it. These medical witnesses, one and all, differ in the views they take on the subject; but there is a remarkable coincidence between the views of some of them and the views of those who have been examined on the other side. Dr. Partridge, Dr. Robinson, and Dr. Letheby, the most eminent of the witnesses whom my learned friend has called, agreed with the statements of Dr. Brodie and other witnesses, that in the whole of their experience, and in the whole range of their learning and observations, they know of no known disease to which the symptoms in Cook’s case can be referred. When such men as these agree upon any point, it is impossible to exaggerate its importance. If it be the fact that there is no known disease which can account for such symptoms as those in Cook’s case, and that they are referable to poison alone, can you have any doubt that that poison was strychnia? The symptoms, at all events, from the time the paroxysms set in, are precisely the same. Distinctions are sought to be made by the sophistry of the witnesses for the defence between some of the antecedent symptoms and some of the others. I think I shall show you that these distinctions are imaginary and that there is no foundation for them. I think I may say that the witnesses called for the defence admit this, that, from the time the paroxysms set in, of which Cook died, until the time of his death, the symptoms are precisely similar to that of tetanus by strychnine. But then they say--and this is worthy of most particular attention--there are points of difference which have led them to the conclusion that these symptoms could not have resulted from strychnine.

In the first place, they say that the period which elapsed between the supposed administration of the poison and the first appearance of the symptoms is longer than they have observed in the animals on which they have experimented. The first observation which arises is this: that there is a known difference between animal and human life, in the power with which certain specific things act upon their organisation. It may well be that poison administered to a rabbit will produce its effect in a given time. It by no means follows that it will produce the same effect in the same time on an animal of a different description. Still less does it follow that it will exercise its baneful influence in the same time on a human subject. The whole of the evidence on both sides leads to establish this fact, that not only in individuals of different species, but between individuals of the same species, the same poison and the same influence will produce effects different in degree, different in duration, different in power. But, again, it is perfectly notorious that the rapidity with which the poison begins to work depends mainly upon the mode of its administration. If it is administered in a fluid state, it acts with greater rapidity. If it is given in a solid state, its effects come on more slowly. If it is given in an indurated substance, it will act with still greater tardiness. Then what was the period at which this poison began to act after its administration, assuming it to have been poison? It seems, from Mr. Jones’s statement, that the pills were administered somewhere about eleven o’clock. They were not administered on his first arrival, for the patient, as if with an intuitive sense of the death that awaited him, strongly resisted the attempts to make him take them; and no doubt these remonstrances, and the endeavours to overcome them, occupied some period of time. The pills were at last given. Assuming, which I only do for the sake of argument, that the pills contained strychnine, how soon did they begin to operate? Mr. Jones says he went down to supper, and came back again about twelve o’clock. Upon his return to the room, after a word or two of conversation with Cook, he proceeded to undress and go to bed, and had not been in bed ten minutes before a warning came that another of the paroxysms was to take place. The maid servant puts it still earlier, and it appears that so early as ten minutes before twelve the first alarm was given, which would make the interval little more than a quarter of an hour. When these witnesses tell us that it would take an hour and a half, or two hours, we see here another of those exaggerated determinations to see the facts only in the way that will be the most favourable to the prisoner. I find in some of the experiments that have been made that the duration of time, before the poison begins to work, has been little, if anything, less than an hour.

In the case of the girl at Glasgow, it was stated that it was three-quarters of an hour before the pills began to work. There may have been some reason for the pills not taking effect within a certain period after their administration. It would be easy to mix them up with substances difficult of solution, or which might retard their action. I cannot bring myself to believe that, if in all other respects you are perfectly satisfied that the symptoms, the consequences, the effects were analogous, and similar in all respects to those produced by strychnine, it is not because the pills have been taken only a quarter of an hour that you will say strychnine was not administered in this case. But they say the premonitory symptoms were wanting, and they say that in the case of animals, the animal at first manifests some uneasiness, shrinks, and draws itself into itself as it were, and avoids moving; that certain involuntary twitchings about the head come on--and they say there were no premonitory symptoms in Cook’s case. I utterly deny the proposition, I say there were premonitory symptoms of the most marked character. He is lying in his bed; he suddenly starts up in an agony of alarm. What made him do that? Was there nothing premonitory--nothing that warned him the paroxysm was coming on? He jumps up, says “Go and fetch Palmer--fetch me help--I am going to be ill as I was last night.” What was that but a knowledge that the symptoms of the previous night were returning, and a warning of what he might expect unless some relief were obtained? He sits up and prays to have his neck rubbed. What was the feeling about his neck but a premonitory symptom, which was to precede the paroxysms which were to supervene? He begs to have his neck rubbed, and that gives him some comfort. But here they say this could not have been tetanus from strychnia, because animals cannot bear to be touched, for a touch brings on a paroxysm--not only a touch, but a breath of air, a sound, a word, a movement of any one near will bring on a return of the paroxysm.

Now in two cases of death from strychnine we have shown that the patient has endured the rubbing of his limbs, and received satisfaction from that rubbing. We produced a third case. In Mrs. Smyth’s case, when her legs were distorted, she prayed and entreated that she might have them straightened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunneley himself attended, implored her husband, between the spasms, to rub her legs and arms in order to overcome the rigidity. That case was within his own knowledge; and yet in spite of it, although he detected strychnine in the body of the unhappy woman, he dares to say that Cook’s having tolerated the rubbing between the paroxysms is a proof that he had not taken strychnia. But there is a third case--the case of Clutterbuck. He had taken an overdose of strychnia, and suffered from the re-appearance of tetanus, and his only comfort was to have his legs rubbed. And, therefore, I say that the continued endeavour to persuade a jury that the fact of Cook’s having had his neck rubbed proves that this is not tetanus by strychnia, shows nothing but the dishonesty and insincerity of the witnesses who have so dared to pervert the facts. But they go further, and say that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the paroxysms came on; but nobody has ever pretended that he could swallow afterwards. He swallowed the pills, and, what is very curious, and illustrates part of the theory, is this--that it was the act of swallowing the pills, a sort of movement in raising his head, which brought on the violent paroxysm in which he died. So far from militating against the supposition that this was a case of strychnine, the fact strongly confirms it. Then they call our attention to the appearances after death, and they say there are circumstances to be found which militate against this being a case of strychnine. They say the limbs became rigid either at the time of death or immediately after, and that ought not to be found in a case of strychnia. Dr. Nunneley says, “I have always found the limbs of animals become flaccid before death, and have not found them become rigid after death.” Now, I can hardly believe that statement.

The very next witness who got into the box told us that he had made two experiments upon cats, and killed them both, and he described them as indurated and contracted when he found them some hours after death. And yet the presence of rigidity in the body immediately after death is put forth by Dr. Nunneley as one of his reasons for saying this is not a death by strychnia, although Dr. Taylor told us that, in the case of one of the cats, the rigidity of the body was so great that he could hold it out by the leg in a horizontal position. Notwithstanding that evidence, Dr. Nunneley has the audacity to say that he does not believe this is a case of strychnine, because there was rigidity of the limbs, because the feet were distorted, and the hands clinched, and the muscles rigid. This shows what you are to think of the honesty of this sort of evidence, in which facts are selected because they make in favour of particular hypotheses of the party advancing them. The next thing that is said is that the heart was empty, and that in the animals operated upon by Dr. Nunneley and Dr. Letheby, the heart was full. I don’t think that applies to all cases. But it is a remarkable fact connected with the history of the poison that you never can rely upon the precise form of its symptoms and appearances. There are only certain great, leading, marked, characteristic features. We have here the main, marked, leading, characteristic features; and we have what is more, collateral incidents, similar to the cases in which the administration and the fact of death have been proved beyond all possibility of dispute. Why, in two cases which have been mentioned--that of Mrs. Smyth and the Glasgow girl--the heart was congested and empty. We know that in cases of tetanus death may result from more than one cause. All the muscles of the body are subject to the exciting action of the poison. But no one can tell in what order these muscles may be affected, or where the poisonous influence will put forth. When it arrests the play of the lungs and the breathing of the atmospheric air, the result will be that the heart is full; but if some spasm siezes on the heart, the heart will be empty. You have never any perfect certainty as to the mode in which the symptoms will exhibit themselves. But this is brought forward as a conclusive fact against death by strychnine, and yet these men who make this statement under the sanction of scientific authority, have heard both cases spoken to by the gentlemen who examined the bodies. Then with regard to congestion of the brain, and other vessels, the same observation applies. Instead of being killed by action on the respiratory muscles of the heart, death is the result of a long series of paroxysms, and you expect to find the brain and other vessels congested by that series of convulsive spasms. As death takes place from one or other of these causes, so will the appearances be. There is every reason to believe that the symptoms in this case were symptoms of tetanus in the strongest and most aggravated form. Looking at the symptoms which attended this unhappy man, setting aside the theory of convulsions of epilepsy, of arachnitis, and angina pectoris, and excluding idiopathic and traumatic tetanus--what remains? The tetanus of strychnine, and the tetanus of strychnine alone. And I pray your attention to the cases in which there was no question as to strychnine having been administered in which the symptoms were so similar--the symptoms so analogous--that I think you cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that this death was death by strychnine.

Several witnesses of the highest eminence, both on the part of the Crown and for the defence, agree that in the whole range of their experience, observation, and knowledge, they have known of no natural disease to which these remarkable symptoms can be attributed. That being so, and there being a known poison, which will produce them, how strong, how cogent, how irresistible is the conclusion that it is that poison, and that poison alone, to which they are to be attributed. On the other hand, the case is not without its difficulties. Strychnia was not found in this body, and we have it no doubt upon strong evidence, that in a great variety of experiments upon the bodies of animals, killed by strychnia, strychnia has been detected by tests which science placed at the disposal of scientific men. If strychnia had been found, of course there would have been no difficulty in the case, and we should have had none of the ingenious theories which medical gentlemen have been called here to propound. The question for your consideration is, whether the absence of its detection leads conclusively to the view that this death was not caused by the administration of strychnia. Now, in the first place, under what circumstances was the examination made by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees. They told us that the stomach of the man was brought to them for analysation under the most unfavourable circumstances. They state that the contents of the stomach had been lost, and therefore they had no opportunity of experimenting upon them. It is true that they who put the portions of the body into the jar make statements somewhat different. But there appears to have been by accident some spilling of the contents, and there is the most undeniable evidence of considerable bungling in the way in which the stomach had been cut and placed in the jar. It was cut, says Dr. Taylor, from end to end, and it was tied up at both ends. It had been turned among the intestines, and placed amongst a mass of feculent matter, and was in the most unsatisfactory condition for analysation. It is very true that Dr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and Dr. Sotheby say that whatever impurities there may have been, if strychnia had been in the stomach they would have found strychnia there. I should have had every confidence in the testimony of Mr. Herapath if he had not confessed a fact which had come to my knowledge, that he had asserted that this was a case of poisoning, but that they did not go the right way to find it out. I reverence the man who, from a sense of justice and love of truth, will come forward in favour of any man for the purpose of stating what he believes to be true; but I abhor the trafficked testimony which I regret to see men of science sometimes advance. But, assuming all they say to be true, as to the case of detecting strychnine, is it certain that it can be found in all cases? Dr. Taylor says no; and it would be a most mischievous and dangerous proposition to assert that it is necessarily so, for it enables many a guilty man to escape, who, by administering the smallest quantity necessary to destroy life, might prevent its detection in the stomach.

What have these gentlemen done? They have given large doses in the experiments they have made for the purposes of this case, in which they have been retained--I use the word “retained,” for it is the proper word--in all these cases, I say, they have given doses large enough to be detected. But the gentlemen who made the experiments in Cook’s case failed in detecting strychnine in two cases out of four in which they had administered it to animals. The conclusion I draw is that there is no positive mode of detection. But this case does not rest here. Alas, I wish it did! I must now draw your attention to one part of the case which has not been met or attempted to be disputed in the slightest degree by my learned friend. My learned friend said that he would contest the case for the prosecution step by step. Alas! we are now upon ground upon which my friend has not even ventured a word in explanation. Was the prisoner at the bar possessed of the poison of strychnia? This is a matter with which it behoved my learned friend to deal, and to exhaust all the means in his power in order to meet this part of the case. The prisoner obtained possession of strychnia on the Monday night. It is true that the evidence of the man who sold the strychnia to Palmer, as I stated at the outset of these proceedings, and I repeat it now, must be received with care and attention. Now Newton said that on the night when Palmer came back from London, he came to him and obtained three grains of that poison, the symptoms and effects of which are precisely similar to those which are stated to have occurred in the case of this poor man. With respect to the evidence of Newton, my learned friend has done no more than repeat the warning which I gave you at the commencement of the case. You have heard the reason assigned by the witness why he did not state the fact of his having sold strychnine to the prisoner on the previous evening, before the coroner, and you will judge of the value of the explanation which he gave. Upon the other hand, there is the consideration, what conceivable motive could this young man have had for now coming forward and deposing to the fact of his having sold this poison to the prisoner, except a sense of truth. My learned friend has very justly and very properly asked for your most attentive consideration to the question of the motives involved in this part of the evidence, before you can come to the conclusion of the prisoner having taken away, with malice and forethought, the life of another.