Part 31

Hideous though may be the crime of taking away life by poison, it is probably not so horrible to contemplate as the motive of a judicial murder effected by a false witness against a man’s life. Can you suppose that this young man Newton could have the shadow of any such motive in coming forward in a court like this to take away the life of the prisoner at the bar, as, alas! his evidence must do, if you believe him. If you believe the witness that, on the Monday night, for no other conceivable and assignable purpose except the deed of darkness to be committed that night, the prisoner at the bar obtained from him the fatal means and instrument whereby Cook was to be destroyed, it is impossible that you can come to any other conclusion than that the prisoner is guilty of the foul deed with which he stands charged at the bar. My learned friend says that Newton did not speak truth, because, first, he did not make this statement before the coroner; and, secondly, because Newton laid the time of Palmer’s arrival at nine o’clock, whereas he did not arrive until ten o’clock. Now Newton only stated that it was about nine o’clock, and every one knows how easy it is to make a slight mistake as to the hour when there is nothing particular to fix the event on the memory. My learned friend has sought to meet this part of the case. He has produced a witness, all I can say of whom is, that for the sake of the prisoner at the bar, I trust you will not allow him to be affected by anything which that most disreputable witness, Jeremiah Smith, has stated. Now Dr. Bamford said that Palmer told him he had himself seen Cook between nine and ten o’clock, while Smith said that they did not leave the car until past ten o’clock. With respect to the evidence of Smith that he saw Palmer alight from the car, go from thence to the house of Palmer’s mother, I ask you not to believe one single word of it, because I do not myself believe a single word of his evidence. Certainly such a miserable spectacle as that witness in the box, I have never seen surpassed in a court of justice. He is a member of the legal profession, and I blush that such a member is to found upon the rolls. There was not one who heard his evidence who was not satisfied that the man came here to tell a falsehood--not one who was not convinced that he was mixed up in many of the villanies which, if not perpetrated, were, at all events, contemplated, and that he came here to save the life of his companion and friend, and the son of the woman with whom he had that intimacy the nature of which he sought in vain to disguise. I cannot but think that, looking to the whole of this part of the case, you must believe the evidence of Newton, and if you do so believe it, then that evidence is conclusive of the case. But the case does not stop there, because we have the most indisputable evidence that on the following day Palmer purchased more strychnine at the shop of Mr. Hawkins.

You remember the circumstance connected with that purchase, Palmer’s first asking for some prussic acid, and then ordering some strychnine to be put up for him, Newton coming in, and the prisoner calling him out of the shop to speak to him of the most unimportant matters. Why did the prisoner take Newton out of the shop? Evidently because he wished to avoid exciting suspicions which would very naturally be raised in the mind of Newton, from the fact of the prisoner having purchased strychnia on two occasions, and who would very naturally inquire for what purpose it was that the prisoner wanted nine grains of strychnine. Why did the prisoner go to Hawkins’s shop to purchase the poison? The reason was clear. If he had gone to Thirlby’s, who was his former assistant, he would naturally have asked Palmer for whom the strychnine was intended. Why the prisoner should have gone on two successive days and purchased the poison is one of those mysteries attending this case which I cannot explain. At all events, it is quite clear that he did so. But if there is some difficulty in this part of the case, there is, on the other hand, a still greater difficulty arising from the use to which this poison was to be put. If it was for the purpose of professional use, for the benefit of some patient, where is the patient, and why was he not produced? My learned friend passed over this part of the case in mysterious but significant silence. Account for that six grains of strychnia. Throw a doubt, if you please, on the purchase of the strychnine on the Monday night, but on Tuesday it is unquestionably true that six grains were purchased. If these six grains were required for the use of any patients, why were they not produced, and if for any other purpose why was it not explained?

Has there been the slightest shadow of attempt to show the use to which the poison was applied? Alas! no. Something was said at the outset about dogs which were troublesome in the paddock to the prisoner’s mares and foals, but that was proved to have been in September. And if there had been any recurrence of this annoyance why was it not proved in evidence? If it were used for the purpose of destroying dogs some one must have assisted him in the act. Why were they not called? But not only were these persons not called, they were not even named. I ask you what conclusion you can draw from these circumstances, except this one, that the death of Cook took place with all the symptoms of poison by strychnia--death in all the convulsions and throes which that deadly poison produces in the frame of man.

It is said by my learned friend that Palmer might easily have purchased strychnine at London, and that he would not have purchased it in Rugeley on two occasions, if he had intended to have used it for a criminal purpose. I admit the fact, and feel the full force of the observation; and if he could have shown any proper use to which the poison was applied, the assertion would have been one well worthy of your consideration. But, how do the facts stand with respect to Palmer’s visit to London? He might, it is true, have purchased strychnine there. But, then, on the occasion of his visit he had a great deal to do; he had to catch the train; he had pecuniary difficulties to settle and arrange; and even then it would have required the certificate of one other person in order to have obtained the strychnine, as he was not known in London as a medical practitioner. But what avail all these suppositions, when we have, on the other hand, the strong and unmistakeable evidence that the prisoner did actually purchase the strychnine at Rugeley? Well, then, it has been said that the fact of the prisoner having called in two medical men, was strong presumptive evidence to negate his guilt. It is true that he called in Dr. Bamford, and wrote to Dr. Jones to come and see Cook. Now, as medical men, it is true, that they would be very likely to know the symptoms of death by strychnine. But there is a point in this part of the case which deserves notice. If these symptoms exhibited were not those resulting from strychnia, but were referable to that multiform variety of diseases to which the witnesses have referred, there is no reason why the prisoner should have any credit for sending for these medical gentlemen. It is quite true that he called on old Dr. Bamford. I speak of that gentleman in no terms of disrespect, but still I think I do him no injustice when I say that the vigour of his intellect and the powers of his mind have been impaired, as all human powers are liable to be, by the advance of age. I do not think he was a person likely to make any very shrewd observation as to the cause of the death of Cook; and the best proof of this is to be found in what he did and what he wrote on the subject.

As regards Mr. Jones, these observations do not apply, for he was a man in the possession of the full powers of mind. The prisoner selected Jones, and the result proved how wise he was in making that selection. The death of Cook occurred in the presence of Jones, with all those painful symptoms you have heard described, and yet Jones suspected nothing, and if the prisoner had succeeded in introducing Cook’s body into that “strong oak coffin” which he had made for him, the body would have been consigned to the grave, and nobody would have known anything of these proceedings, while the presence of Jones and Dr. Bamford would have been used to prevent any suspicion. On the other hand, it is not at all improbable that the prisoner might have thought that the best mode of disarming all suspicions would be to take care that some medical men should be called in, and should be present at the time of death. There is nothing to show that the prisoner entertained the most distant notion that Jones would have to sleep in the same room as Cook, and if this had not been the case, they would have found in the morning that Cook had gone through his mortal struggle, and had died there alone and unfriended. Cook would have been found dead next morning, and the old man would have said he died of apoplexy, and the young man that he died of epilepsy; and had any suspicion been awakened, it would have been urged in reply, as it has been by my learned friend, that two medical men were called in by the prisoner previous to his death. But the case does not end here. We have had a great many witnesses who have told us a great deal about strychnia, but none that have said a word about antimony.

On the Wednesday night, at Shrewsbury, when Cook drank a glass of brandy and water, he said that there was something in it which burned his throat, and was afterwards seized with vomiting, which lasted for several hours. On that same night, Mrs. Brooks saw the prisoner shaking something in a glass. It is a remarkable fact, that when Cook drank that brandy and water, he was taken ill a few minutes after. There were, it is true, other persons taken ill at Shrewsbury about the same time; but still you will have to bear in mind that scene of the shaking up of the fluid in the glass in the passage, the fact that Cook was somewhat in liquor, and that in that state he ought not to have been told by the prisoner that he would not drink any more unless he finished his glass. Pass on, however, to Rugeley. You still find that Cook was under the influence of the same symptoms as those which he suffered at Shrewsbury. You have the fact of the prisoner sending him over toast and water and broth, and that no sooner had the poor man taken these things than he is seized with incessant vomitings of the most painful character. Then, too, there was the broth, said to have been sent by Smith from the Albion, which was sent, however, not to the Talbot Inn, but to the prisoner’s kitchen. This broth was taken over to the Talbot by the prisoner himself, and as soon as it was touched by Cook, vomitings followed. There is, too, the fact that the servant at the Talbot, after taking two spoonfuls of the broth, was ill for several hours, and vomited something like twenty times. Then, again, on the Monday, when the prisoner was absent, Cook was found to be better; but upon the Tuesday, when he returned to Rugeley, the vomitings again returned. Now, the important fact is, that antimony was found in the tissues of the poor man’s body, and in his blood; and the presence of the antimony in the blood shows that it must have been taken within the last forty-eight hours before death. The small quantity found does not afford, however, the slightest criterion of the whole quantity administered. A part of the quantity given would be thrown up in the vomiting.

Something has been said about Cook having taken the antimony in “James’s powder,” but not a tittle of evidence has been given that he ever took any of these powders, while the presence of the antimony in the blood proved that it had been administered within, forty-eight hours of death. I believe that you will feel that you have a right to conclude from all the evidence that has been brought before you upon this point, that antimony had been administered to Cook in a mode and in quantities which showed that it could have been given for no legitimate object; and further, that it must have been administered by the prisoner. And from these facts you will see how great is the probability that he must, in that case, have acted with the view of carrying out a fatal resolution previously formed; for it is well known that antimony has often been given in amounts capable of destroying life. But let us take into consideration the conduct of the prisoner in the afterstages of the case, and let us look at what took place on the day of Cook’s death. On the preceding night he had suffered from what was indisputably a most severe attack. Dr. Bamford sees Palmer on the Tuesday morning, and not a word is said to him about that attack. The prisoner manifests an anxiety that he should not see the deceased; he states that Cook is quiet, and is dosing, and that he does not wish to have him disturbed. That might be. But on the other hand it must be remembered that if Dr. Bamford had seen Cook in the morning, Cook would in all probability have made known to him his frightful suffering of the night before, as they must then have formed the subject which was, of all others, the most present to his memory. Dr. Bamford, however, did not see the deceased until seven o’clock on the Tuesday evening, when he was much better. Palmer had then talked of his having suffered from a bilious affection; and it is a remarkable fact that he had more than once represented the illness of Cook as one arising from a bilious attack, both to Dr. Bamford and Dr. Jones, although the patient had exhibited none of the symptoms which ordinarily accompany a bilious constitution. The moment Dr. Jones saw him he made the observation that his “tongue was not that of a bilious patient,” and the answer he got from Palmer was, “Oh, you should have seen him before.” Seen him when before? There was not the slightest ground for supposing that he had been suffering from any bilious complaint, either at Shrewsbury or since his arrival at Rugeley. But not one word did Palmer say to Dr. Jones about the fit of Cook on the night before. Well, the three medical men consulted together, by the bedside of the patient, and then Cook turned round and said, “Mind, I will have no more pills and medicine, to-night,” remembering, as he no doubt did at the time, his illness of the preceding night. No observation was made even then by Palmer as to what had been the nature of Cook’s attack on the night before; but the medical men having withdrawn into the adjoining room or lobby, Palmer immediately proposed that Cook should again take the same pills he had taken on the previous night; but he desired Jones not to say anything to him about what they contained, lest he might object to take them.

It was then arranged that the pills should be made up, and Palmer proposed that they should be compounded by Dr. Bamford, although it was then early in the evening, and he might easily have prepared them on his own premises. He accompanied Dr. Bamford to the surgery of the latter; and after the pills had been made up there, he asked Dr. Bamford to write the address on them, and the address was so written. An interval occurred of an hour or two, during which the prisoner had abundant opportunities of going to his surgery, and doing what he pleased in the way of changing the pills. He returned to the hotel, and before he gave the pills to Cook he took care to call the attention of Jones, who was present at the time, to the remarkable handwriting of an old gentleman like Dr. Bamford, by whom the direction of the medicine had been written. What necessity was there for that? Might it not have been part of a preconceived design to save himself from any subsequent suspicion, by his being able to state that the pills had been prepared by Dr. Bamford? and might it not have been done for the purpose of disarming any immediate suspicion on the part of Dr. Jones himself? Have we not every reason to suppose that it may have been effectual in accomplishing the latter result? Any one of these circumstances could not have been of so decisive a character as to lead you to the conviction of the prisoner’s guilt; but I ask you to consider them as a series of events following one another in close succession; and I then leave it to you to draw from them the conclusion to which you may find they must legitimately lead. I will now pass over for a moment the remainder of the history of the Tuesday night, and I will take you to the circumstances which immediately followed Cook’s death. On the Thursday, Mr. Stevens, the stepfather of the deceased, went over to Rugeley, on receiving intelligence of the sad event. He applied to Palmer for information upon the subject of Cook’s affairs; and in the course of the communications which passed between them, Stevens said, “rich or poor, the poor fellow should be buried.” Palmer then observed that he would undertake to bury him himself, but Mr. Stevens declined, in a decisive manner, to avail himself of that offer. I admit that there may be nothing suspicious in the proposal of Palmer to bury his friend, if it should be taken by itself, but there is this somewhat remarkable circumstance in this part of the case, that when Mr. Stevens had said that he could not have the funeral for a few days, Palmer observed that “the body ought to be put into a coffin immediately;” and when, after an absence of about half an hour, he returned, and was asked by Mr. Stevens for the name of an undertaker to whom he should give directions about the funeral, the prisoner stated, much to the surprise of the gentleman whom he was addressing, that “he had himself ordered a shell and a strong oak coffin.” Why should he have so hurriedly interfered in the business of another man, unless he had made up his mind that the body should be consigned to its last resting place, and removed from the sight of man with the utmost possible rapidity?

You have heard the conversation which took place between Mr. Stevens and the prisoner on the Saturday at the different railway stations at which they met. It appears that at that time Mr. Stevens had made up his mind that a _post-mortem_ examination of the body of the deceased should take place, in consequence of circumstances which had engendered a suspicion in his mind that the death of his step-son had not been the result of natural disease. He had noticed the strange attitude of the deceased--his clinched hands, and the unusual appearance of his face--and being a man of natural shrewdness and sagacity, he felt a lurking suspicion which he could not unravel, that there must have been foul play in the case. He made known to the prisoner his intention of having the body opened before it was consigned to the grave. It is true that the prisoner did not flinch from that trying ordeal, and that he met with firmness the trying gaze of Mr. Stevens, when the report of the _post-mortem_ examination was first mentioned. But finding that there was to be a _post-mortem_ examination, he was anxious to know who was to perform it. Mr. Stevens would not inform him, but merely stated that it was to take place on the Monday. Then we have on the Sunday that remarkable conversation between the prisoner and Newton, which has been for some time known to the Crown. It is true that Newton did not mention the conversation in the course of his examination before the coroner; but the reason for his silence upon the subject on that occasion may be easily proved. He was called at the inquest solely for the purpose of corroborating the evidence of Roberts with respect to Palmer’s appearance in Dr. Hawkins’s shop on the Tuesday morning; and to that point his evidence before the coroner was confined. He has since deposed that during a conversation with Palmer on the Sunday, the latter suddenly asked him, “What quantity of strychnine would you give if you wanted to kill a dog?” The reply was, “From half-a-grain to a grain.” The prisoner then asked, “Would you expect to find any traces of it in the stomach after death;” Newton answered, “No;” and, on his doing so, he observed the prisoner make a movement conveying an intimation of his delight.

I had at one time thought that my learned friend engaged for the defence would have attempted to show that the prisoner had purchased the strychnia at the commencement of the week for the purpose of destroying dogs; but no evidence whatever has been adduced to establish such a point; and we had no evidence of any kind to show how that strychnia was applied. But my learned friend has contended that the prisoner had no motive for taking away the life of his friend, Cook. Now if I convince you upon unimpeachable evidence that the death of Cook had bean caused by strychnine, and that that strychnine could only have been administered by the prisoner, then the question of motive must become a mere secondary consideration. It is often difficult to dive into the breast of man, and to ascertain with any certainty the reasons which directed him to any particular course of action; and the inscrutable character of any particular motive ought not to destroy the force of a well-authenticated fact. But motive is unquestionably an important element in a case over which any doubt as to the facts can by any possibility rest. I believe I can perfectly satisfy your minds that in this case the prisoner had a motive, and a very obvious motive, for taking away the life of Cook. He was at the time reduced to a condition of the direst embarrassment. It appears that in the month of November last he owed on bills not less than £19,000, of which £12,500 worth was in the hands of Pratt; and out of that latter sum £5,500 was pressing for immediate payment. By the death of Cook he was enabled to obtain possession of £1,020, due to the latter in the shape of bets; he was enabled to obtain possession of the money which Cook must have had about him on his arrival at Rugeley, and which, according to one of the witnesses, must have amounted to £700 or £800; and he attempted to obtain possession of the £350 which the Messrs. Weatherby were to have received as the amount of the stakes of the Shrewsbury Handicap. The order forwarded by Palmer to the Messrs. Weatherby for the £350, and purporting to bear the signature of Cook, had been sent back by them to the prisoner; and if that signature was not a forgery, why had it not been produced on the part of the defendant?