Part 34

Palmer says in that letter that he had seen it in black and white. Cheshire states that he had not shown him the letter. However that might be, there can be no question that this was a highly improper letter for the prisoner to write; and speaking as the chief coroner of England, and being desirous for the due administration of justice and of the law, I have no hesitation in saying that it was not creditable in Mr. Ward to receive such a letter without a public condemnation of its having been written. You will say, gentlemen, whether the conduct of the prisoner in that respect--suggesting to the coroner the verdict which he should obtain from the jury--is consistent with innocence. The noble and learned lord then read the evidence of Ellis Crisp, the police inspector at Rugeley, who produced a medical book which had been found in the prisoner’s house, and in which the following passage occurred in the prisoner’s handwriting:--“Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles;” and remarking that this was a book which was in the possession of the prisoner seven years ago, when he was a student, he said that there was nothing in it which ought to weigh for a moment against the prisoner at the bar. Having read without comment the evidence of Elizabeth Hawkes, the boarding-house keeper, with respect to the sending of game to Ward, of Slack, her porter, and of Herring, who spoke to the directions given him by Palmer as to the disposal of Cook’s bets, his Lordship called the particular attention of the jury to the statement in the evidence of Bates, that the prisoner had told him not to let any one see him deliver the letter to Ward. The next witness, he continued, is Dr. Curling, and now, gentlemen, you will be called upon to come to some conclusion with regard to the evidence of the scientific men respecting the symptoms of the deceased before death, and the appearance of his body after death. You will have to say how far those symptoms and those appearances are to be accounted for by natural disease, and how far they are the symptoms and appearances produced by strychnine. It will be a question of great importance whether, in your judgment, they correspond with natural, that is, with traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, or with any other disease whatever. [His Lordship read the evidence of Dr. Curling, and the examination in chief of Dr Todd, without comment, and directed the Clerk of Arraigns to read the depositions of Dr. Bamford. The depositions were accordingly read, and his Lordship then remarked,--] When this deposition was first given in evidence, Dr. Bamford was too ill to come into court; but he partially recovered, and on a subsequent day he was examined and gave the _vivâ voce_ evidence which I will now read [The learned Lord here read the evidence, observing, with regard to the pills made up by Dr. Bamford, that the prisoner certainly had an opportunity of changing them, if he pleased; that circumstance deserved their serious consideration.] There is not, he continued, the slightest reason to impute any bad faith to Dr. Bamford, but it is allowed, on all hands, that the old man was mistaken in saying that the death was caused by apoplexy.

All the witnesses on both sides say that, whatever the disease may have been, it was not apoplexy; but he filled up a certificate that it was apoplexy, in compliance with a recent Act of Parliament which renders a certificate of the cause of death necessary. [The cross-examination of Dr. Todd was then read, and his Lordship pointed out that the case of strychnine seen by that witness bore a certain resemblance to Cook’s attack on the Monday night.] The next witness is a gentleman of high reputation and unblemished honour, Sir B. Brodie, one of the most distinguished medical men of the present time. [His Lordship read Sir B. Brodie’s evidence.] That distinguished man tells you, as his solemn opinion, that he never knew a case in which the symptoms he had heard described arose from any disease. He is well acquainted with the various diseases which afflict the human frame, and he knows of no disease answering to the description of the symptoms which preceded Cook’s death. If you agree with him in opinion, the inference is that Cook died from some cause other than disease. [The learned Judge then read the evidence of Dr. Daniel, who agreed with Sir B. Brodie, and of Dr. Solly, who also thought that natural disease would not account for death.]

Mr. Serjeant SHEE wished to have the cross-examination of this witness read.

Lord CAMPBELL: Certainly. I daresay it is very applicable.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE read a part of the cross-examination:--

“Is not the risus sardonicus very common in all forms of violent convulsions?--No, it is not common. Does it not frequently occur in all violent convulsions which assume, without being tetanus, a tetanic form and appearance?--Yes, it does. Are they not a very numerous class? No, they are not numerous. Is it not very difficult to distinguish between them and idiopathic tetanus?--In the onset, but not in the progress. I think you say you have only seen one case of idiopathic tetanus?--I have only seen one. When you answered that question of mine you spoke from your reading, and not from your experience?--I did not know your question applied to idiopathic tetanus alone. Does epilepsy sometimes occur in the midst of violent convulsions?--Epilepsy itself is a disease of a convulsive character. I am aware of that; but you heard the account that was given by Mr. Jones of the few last moments before Mr. Cook died? Yes, I did. That he uttered a piercing shriek, fell back and died; did he not? Yes. Tell me whether that last shriek and the paroxysm that occurred immediately afterwards--would not that bear a strong resemblance to epilepsy? In some respects it bears a resemblance to it. Are all epileptic convulsions--I do not mean epileptic convulsions designated by scientific men as of the epileptic character--are they all attended with an utter want of consciousness?--No, not all. Does not death by convulsions frequently occur without leaving any trace in the body behind it?--Death from tetanus, accompanied with convulsions, leave seldom any trace behind; but death from epilepsy leaves a trace behind it generally.”

Lord CAMPBELL.--The jury have heard you read it. It is for them to say whether it is important in their view or not. Evidence is next given of various cases of tetanus arising from strychnine; it is for you, gentlemen, to consider how far the symptoms in those cases resemble the symptoms in this case, or how far the symptoms in this case resemble those of ordinary tetanus, idiopathic or traumatic. [The learned judge read his notes of the evidence given by Dr. Robert Corbett, Dr. Watson, Dr. Patterson, and Mary Kelly, witnesses examined to prove the symptoms in the Glasgow case, and then proceeded to call the attention of the jury to the testimony of Caroline Hickson, Mr. Taylor, surgeon, and Charles Bloxham, all of whom were examined with reference to the case of Mrs. Smyth, of Romsey. He then passed on to the Leeds case--that of Mrs. Dove, whose name had transpired so frequently in the course of the trial, that it would be vain to affect any reserve on the subject now. After reading the evidence of Jane Witham and George Morley, the learned judge observed,--] It is beyond all controversy that strychnia was not discovered in the dead body of Cook, but it is important to bear in mind that the witness Morley declares that in cases where the quantity of strychnine administered had been the _minimum_ dose that will destroy life, it is to be expected that the chemist should occasionally fail in detecting traces of the poison after death. That case of Mrs. Dove’s is a very important one, because it is a case in which it is beyond all question that death was caused by strychnine, however administered. It is for you to determine how far the symptoms of this unhappy lady corresponded with or differed from those of Cook. You will remember that she had repeated attacks of convulsions. She recovered from several, but at last a larger dose than usual was given, and death ensued. With regard to the possibility of the poison being decomposed in the blood, that appears to be a vexed question among toxicologists, and Mr. Morley differs on the point from other and, I doubt not, most sincere witnesses.

The great question for your consideration at this part of the inquiry is whether there may not be cases of death by strychnia in which, nevertheless, the strychnia has not--let the cause be what it may--been discovered in the dead body. [The learned Judge then read the evidence of Edward Moore in the Clutterbuck case, where an over-dose of strychnia had been administered; and proceeded as follows:--] I have now to call your attention to the evidence of Dr. Taylor, but before doing so I think it right to intimate that I fear it will be impossible to conclude this case to-night. It is most desirable, however, to finish the evidence for the prosecution this evening. When that is concluded I shall be under the necessity of adjourning the Court, and asking you to attend here again to-morrow, when, God willing, this investigation will certainly close. [The learned Judge then proceeded to read his notes of Dr. Taylor’s evidence, and on arriving at that portion of it in which the witness described the results of his own experiments upon animals observed,--] There is here a most important question for your consideration. Great reliance is placed by the prisoner’s counsel, and very naturally so, upon the fact that no trace of strychnine was detected in the stomach of Cook by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, who alone analyzed it and experimented upon it. But, on the other hand, you must bear in mind that we have their own evidence to show that there may be and have been cases of death by strychnine in which the united skill of these two individuals have failed to detect the presence of the strychnine after death.

Both Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees have stated upon their oaths that in two cases where they knew death to have been occasioned by strychnine--the poison having, in fact, been administered with their own hands--they failed to discover the slightest trace of the poison in the dead bodies of the animals on which they had experimented. It is possible that other chemists might have succeeded in detecting strychnine in those animals, and strychnine also in the jar containing the stomach and intestines of Cook; but, however this may be, it is beyond all question that Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees failed to discover the faintest indications of strychnine in the bodies of two animals which they had themselves poisoned with that deadly drug. Whatever may be the nature of the different theories propounded for the explanation of this fact, the fact itself is deposed to on oath; and, if we believe the witnesses, does not admit of doubt. With regard to the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner, stating that neither strychnia, prussic acid, nor opium had been found in the body, his Lordship said this letter was written before Cook’s symptoms had been communicated to Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees; but they had been informed that prussic acid, strychnia, and opium had been bought by Palmer on the Tuesday. They searched for all these poisons, but they found none. The only poison they found in the body was antimony, and therefore they did not, in the absence of symptoms, attribute death to strychnia, as they could not at that time; but they say that it possibly may have been produced by antimony, because the quantity discovered in the body was no test of the quantity which might have been taken into the system.

As to the letter which was written by Professor Taylor to the _Lancet_, the learned Judge remarked: I must say I think it would have been better if Dr. Taylor, trusting to the credit which he had before acquired, had taken no notice of what had been said; but it is for you to say whether, he having, as he says, been misrepresented, and having written this letter to set himself right, that materially detracts from the credit which would otherwise be given to his evidence. Having concluded the reading of Dr. Taylor’s evidence, his lordship said: This is Dr. Taylor’s evidence. I will not comment upon it, because I am sure that you must see its importance with regard to the antimony and the strychnia. For the discovery of strychnia, Dr. Taylor experimented upon the bodies of two animals which he had himself killed with that poison, but in them no strychnia could be found. [The learned Judge next read the evidence of Dr. Rees, in commenting upon which he said: I do not know what interest it could be supposed that Dr. Taylor had to give evidence against the prisoner. He was regularly employed in his profession, and knew nothing about Mr. Palmer until he was called upon by Mr. Stevens, and the jar was given to him. He could have no enmity against the prisoner, and no interest whatever to misrepresent the facts. [Mr. Serjeant SHEE reminded the learned Judge that the experiments upon the two rabbits were not made until after the inquest.] That makes no difference. If the witnesses are the witnesses of truth, there are equally cases where there has been the death of an animal by strychnia, and no strychnia can be found in the animal; if that experiment had been made this morning, the fact would have been the same.

Dr. Taylor has been questioned about some indiscreet letter which he wrote, and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of the _Illustrated Times_. Against Dr. Rees there is not even that imputation, and Dr. Rees concurs with Dr. Taylor that in these experiments the rabbits were killed by strychnia; that they did whatever was in their power, according to their skill and knowledge, to discover the strychnia, as they did with the contents of the jar, and no strychnia could be discovered. As to the antimony, he corroborates the testimony of Dr. Taylor. Antimony is a component of tartar emetic, tartar emetic produces vomiting, and you will judge from the vomiting at Shrewsbury and Rugeley whether antimony may have been administered to Cook at those places. Antimony may not have produced death, but the question of its administration is a part of the case which you must seriously consider. His Lordship then read the evidence of Professor Brande, of Dr. Christison, a man above suspicion, who said that if the quantity of strychnia administered was small he should not expect to find it after death, and of Dr. John Jackson, who spoke to the symptoms of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus as he had observed them in India, which, concluded the evidence on the part of the Crown. Having thus gone through all the evidence for the prosecution, his Lordship intimated that he should defer the remainder of his charge until the following day; and the Court was therefore (at eight o’clock) adjourned till ten o’clock to-morrow (Tuesday) morning.

TWELFTH DAY, MAY 27.

The opening of the Court this morning presented the same extraordinary scene of excitement which was witnessed yesterday. The Court was filled immediately after the opening of the doors, and throughout the day long the Old Bailey was thronged with persons anxious to learn the progress of the summing up, or to obtain admission into the Court.

The prisoner exhibited no marked change in his appearance. Occasionally he listened with attention to Lord Campbell’s charge, and passed notes to his counsel; but for the most part there was much of apparent indifference in his demeanour.

The Lord Chief Justice, Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, took their seats on the bench at ten o’clock.

His Lordship commenced this morning by observing, that at the adjournment yesterday evening, he had laid before the jury all the evidence for the prosecution, and certainly this evidence presented a serious case against the prisoner. It appeared that in the middle of November last the prisoner was involved in pecuniary difficulties of a most formidable character, and from which he could not have possibly extricated himself without the most extraordinary means. At this period, the prisoner accompanied the deceased to Shrewsbury races, where the deceased won a large sum of money, and where, it was alleged, the prisoner formed the design of getting possession of the deceased’s property. Before and after the death, the prisoner took steps to collect all the money due to the deceased, and resorted to a device for securing the horse Polestar, which also had belonged to the deceased. In fact, had the plans of the prisoner, as developed in the evidence, succeeded, he would have become possessed of all the deceased’s property; and hence it could not be said that he would have derived no benefit from the death of his friend, nor could it be urged that the balance of advantages was in favour of his wishing the deceased to live; hence there was a strong motive for the committal of the crime imputed to the prisoner; and with this knowledge in their possession, it was for the jury to determine whether the symptoms of the deceased justified the conclusion of the scientific evidence for the prosecution--that death was the result of poisoning by strychnine.

It was true that no strychnine had been found in the deceased’s stomach, but in point of law there was no necessity that it should be found to justify the conviction of the prisoner, if there were other and sufficient evidence to satisfy the minds of the jury that such a poison had been administered. Well, now, there were two instances in evidence where, beyond all question, strychnine had been administered, and yet no traces of it could be found after death, while another portion of the evidence went to show that the body could be so prepared by antimony and similar deadly drugs, as entirely to destroy all traces of strychnine after it had run its fatal course. Now, in this case, there was the strongest proof that antimony must have been administered to the deceased immediately before death; and coupling that circumstance with the evidence of the medical men who had described first the symptoms of the deceased, and secondly, the symptoms usually observed in strychnine poisoning, it would be for the jury to say whether the prosecution had succeeded in bringing the charge of murder home to the prisoner. There were individual acts of the prisoner proved in evidence, which the jury might very well consider in arriving at their final conclusion, such as the fact of his having purchased or obtained strychnine from two different persons just previously to the death; the fact of his having attempted to bribe the post-boy to upset the jars, the fact of his having got the post-master to open Dr. Taylor’s letter; and lastly, the fact of his having tampered with the coroner to procure a verdict which would have amounted to an acquittal of the charge which was then, as now, hanging over his head.

These were the main features of the case for the prosecution, and having duly weighed and considered them, it would be for the jury to say whether they brought to their minds an irresistible conviction of the prisoner’s guilt. On the other hand, numerous witnesses had been called for the defence, and it remained for him to go through their evidence with the same care and patience with which he had gone over that of the prosecution. Like the evidence of the prosecution, the evidence for the defence partook of a moral and medical character. Those who had been called to give the latter evidence were men, of high honour, of unsullied integrity, and profound scientific knowledge, and it was only due to them to say, that in coming there they appeared to have been only actuated by a desire to speak the truth, and to assist in the due administration of justice. This evidence his lordship then proceeded to read over, commencing with Dr. Nunneley. Commenting upon that gentleman’s evidence, his lordship observed that Dr. Nunneley seemed to have displayed an interest in the case which was not altogether consistent with the character of a witness. He differed very much from some of the witnesses examined for the prosecution, particularly in reference to rigidity being produced by strychnine after death, and it would be for the jury to determine to which side they attached the most weight in these matters.

The next witness in order was Dr. Herapath, a gentleman who had directed much attention to the operation of poisons. His lordship having read Dr. Herapath’s evidence, observed that it differed from that of the prosecution in a leading particular, inasmuch as it went to affirm that where death was occasioned by strychnine, its traces were always discernible in the body, but on cross-examination the witness admitted that he had before expressed an opinion that Cook died of strychnine, and that Dr. Taylor had not taken the proper means to find it.

Passing to Dr. Letheby’s evidence his lordship remarked, after reading it, that the exceptions which in cross-examination the doctor allowed he had met with in his experience, of the effects and symptoms of strychnine, were sufficient to neutralise the evidence in chief so far as it went to rebut that of the prosecution.

The next witness was Dr. Guy, who spoke to having seen a case of idiopathic tetanus in an omnibus conductor. Remarking upon this evidence, his lordship said it was for the jury to say whether the symptoms in this case sufficiently corresponded with those of the deceased, to bring the two cases into the same class; but it must be observed that there was a difference in the symptoms, while there was strong evidence on record, which went to show that the deceased’s case was neither traumatic nor idiopathic tetanus.

The next evidence was that of Mr. Ross, who instanced a case where a man had died from tetanus induced by ulcers on the body; but his lordship reminded the jury that, in the case of the deceased, there was no evidence whatever that he had suffered from wounds or sores of any kind.

Speaking of the evidence of Dr. Wrightson, who had discovered strychnine in putrefying blood and decomposed matter, and who had given an opinion that strychnine never decomposed, his lordship told the jury that the doctor, who was a man of eminent scientific attainments and unimpeachable honour, had given his evidence with becoming caution. The doctor seemed to think, that the poison, if administered, ought to have been found, and in dealing with this part of the case the jury would have to consider whether it might not have existed in this case, and yet have defied the tests employed to discover it.

Referring to the evidence of Dr. Partridge, his lordship said it was remarkable in this--that the symptoms of the deceased did not strictly correspond with those he should have expected in the case of a death from strychnine.