been given, could you find any?”
_Answer._—“No. It is taken up by absorption, and is no longer
discoverable in the stomach. The smallest quantity by which I have
destroyed an animal is half a grain. _There is no process with which I
am acquainted by which it can be discovered in the tissue._[47] As far
as I know, a small quantity cannot be discovered.”
_Question._—“Suppose half a grain to be absorbed into the blood, what
proportion does it bear to the total quantity of blood circulated in
the system?”
_Answer._—“Assuming the system to contain the lowest quantity of
blood—25lb.—it would be one-fiftieth of a grain to a pound of blood.
A physician once died from a dose of half a grain in twenty minutes.
_I believe it undergoes some partial change in the blood which
increases the difficulty of discovering it. I never heard of its being
separated from the tissues in a crystallised state._ The crystals are
peculiar in form, but there are other organic crystallised substances
like them, so that a chemist will not rely on form only. After the
_post-mortem_ examination, a portion of the stomach was delivered to
me by Mr. Boycott, covered with bladder, tied and sealed. The jar
contained the stomach and the intestines. I have experimented upon
them with a view to discover if any poison was present. I sought for
prussic acid, morphia, strychnia, veratria, tobacco poison, hemlock,
arsenic, antimony, mercury, and other mineral poisons, but only
found small traces of antimony. _The parts on which I had to operate
were in the most unfavourable condition that could possibly be. The
stomach had been cut completely from end to end; all the contents were
gone, and the fine mucous surface, on which any poison, if present,
would have been found, was lying in contact with the outside of the
intestines—all thrown together. The inside of the stomach was lying
in a mass of intestinal fœcal matter._ That was, I presume, the fault
or misfortune of the person who dissected, but it seemed to have been
shaken about in every possible way in its journey to London.[48] By
my request the spleen, two kidneys, and a small bottle of blood, were
sent up to me. We had no idea where the blood came from. _Each part of
the liver, one kidney, and the spleen, all yielded antimony._ It was
reproduced, or brought out by boiling the animal matter in a mixture
of hydrochloric acid and water. Copper, in the shape of foil and gauze
in a sort of web of fine copper, was introduced, and the antimony was
found deposited on the copper. _The quantity of antimony was less in
proportion in the spleen than in the other parts. I detected some
antimony in the blood._ We applied the tests of Professor Brande, Dr.
Rees, and others. _It is impossible to say how recently it had been
administered, but I should say shortly before death, that is, within
some days._ The longest period at which antimony can be found in the
blood after death, within my knowledge, is eight days; the earliest
period, within my knowledge, eighteen hours. A boy died within
eighteen hours after taking it, and it was found in his liver. It is
usually given in the form of tartar emetic; it acts as an irritant,
and produces vomiting. If given in repeated doses, a portion would
find its way into the blood and the system, beyond what was ejected.
If it continued to be given after it had produced certain symptoms, it
would destroy life. It may, however, be given with impunity.”
Referring to the symptoms previously proved in Cook’s case, the witness
said—
“Vomitings produced by antimony would cause those symptoms. If given
in small quantities, sufficient to cause vomiting, it would not affect
the colour of the liquid with which it was mixed, whether brandy,
wine, broth, or water. _It is impossible to form an exact judgment
when the antimony was administered, but it must have been two or
three weeks at the outside before death. There was no evidence that
it was administered within some hours before death._ It might leave
a sensation in the throat—a choking sensation—if a large quantity
was given at once. _I found no trace of mercury during the analysis.
If a few grains had been taken recently before death, I should
have expected to find some trace. If a man had taken mercury for a
syphilitic affection within two or three weeks, I should have expected
to find it._ It is very slow in passing out of the body. As small a
quantity as three or four grains might leave some trace. I recollect a
case in which three grains of calomel were given three or four hours
before death, and traces of mercury were found. Half a grain three or
four days before death, if given in divided doses more favourable for
absorption, would, I should expect, leave a trace. One grain would
certainly do so.” The witness agreed with the opinion of the other
witnesses as to the causes of the deaths of Mrs. Smyth, Agnes French,
and the other lady (Mrs. Dove), and of the attack of Clutterbuck,
and that the symptoms in Mr. Cook’s case appeared to be of a similar
character. As a professor of medical science, he did not know any
cause in the range of human disease, except strychnia, to which the
symptoms in Cook’s case could be referred.
The _cross-examination_ of _Dr. Taylor_ was necessarily very diffuse
and lengthy; with the exception, however, of the part in which it was
sought to raise a prejudice against the witness as a partisan, to
which I have previously referred, it was so important that, like the
_examination_ in chief, it must, in justice to all parties, be reported
at length.
_Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee._—“I mean by the word ‘trace’ a
very small quantity, which can hardly be estimated by weight. I do
not apply it in the sense of an imponderable quantity. In chemical
language it is frequently used in that sense. An infinitesimal
quantity would be called ‘a trace.’ _The quantity of antimony that
we discovered in all parts of the body would make up about half a
grain. We did not ascertain that there was that quantity, but I will
undertake to say that we extracted as much as half a grain. That
quantity would not be sufficient to cause death._ Only arsenic or
antimony could have been deposited, under the circumstances, on the
copper, and no sublimate of arsenic was obtained.” [The witness, in
reply to a further question, detailed the elaborate test which he had
applied to the deposit, in order to ascertain that it consisted of
antimony.]
_Question._—“Would a mistake in any one of the processes you have
described, or a defect in any of the materials you have used, defeat
the object of the test?”
_Answer._—“It would, but all the materials I used were pure. Such an
accident could not have happened without my having some intimation of
it in the course of the process. I should think antimony would operate
more quickly upon animals than upon men. I am acquainted with the
works of Orfila. He stood in the highest rank of analytical chemists.”
_Question._—“Did not Orfila find antimony in a dog four months after
injection?”
_Answer._—“Yes; but the animal had taken about forty-five grains.”
_Mr. Serjeant Shee_ called the attention of the witness to a passage
in Orfila’s work in reference to that case, to the effect that the
antimony was found accumulating in the bones, the liver contained a
great deal, and the tissues a very little.
_Witness._—“Yes; when antimony has been long in the body it passes
into the bones; but I think you will find that these are not Orfila’s
experiments. Orfila is quoting the experiments of another person.”[49]
_Question._—“But is not that the case with nearly all the experiments
referred to in your own book?”
_Answer._—“No; I cannot say that.”
_Mr. Serjeant Shee_ again referred to a case in Orfila in which
forty-five grains were given to a dog, and three and a half months
after death a quantity was found in the fat, and some in the liver,
bones, and tissues.
_Witness._—“That shows that antimony gets into the bones and flesh,
but I never knew a case in which forty-five grains had been given to a
human being in ten days, and I have given no opinion upon such a case.”
_Question._—“A pretty good dose is required to poison a person, I
suppose?”
_Answer._—“That depends on the mode in which it is given. A dog has
been poisoned with six grains. The dog died in the case you mentioned.
When antimony is administered as it was in that case the liver becomes
fatty and gristled. Cook’s liver presented no appearance of the sort.
_I should infer that the antimony we found in Cook’s body was given
much more recently than in the experiments you have described. We
cannot say positively how long it takes to get out of the body, but
I have known three grains cleared out in twenty-four hours._ I was
first applied to in this case on Thursday, the 27th of November, by
Mr. Stevens, who was introduced to me by Mr. Warrington, professor of
chemistry. Either then or subsequently he mentioned Mr. Gardner. I had
not known Mr. Gardner before. I had never before been concerned in
cases of this kind at Rugeley.”
_Mr. Serjeant Shee_ read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr.
Gardner:
“CHEMICAL LABORATORY, GUY’S HOSPITAL,
“_Dec. 4, 1855_.
“_Re_ J. P. Cook, Esq., _deceased_.
“DEAR SIR,—Dr. Rees and I have completed the analysis to-day. We have
sketched a report, which will be ready to-morrow or next day.
“As I am going to Durham Assizes on the part of the Crown, in the case
of _Reg._ v. _Wooler_, the report will be in the hands of Dr. Rees,
No. 26, Albemarle-street. It will be most desirable that Mr. Stevens
should call on Dr. Rees, read the report with him, and put such
questions as may occur.
“In reply to your letter received here this morning I beg to say that
we wish a statement of all the medicines prescribed for deceased
(until his death) to be drawn up and sent to Dr. Rees.
“We do not find strychnine, prussic acid, or any trace of opium. From
the contents having been drained away it is now impossible to say
whether any strychnine had or had not been given just before death,
but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life if given in
repeated doses; and, so far as we can at present form an opinion, in
the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may have died
from the effects of antimony in this or some other form.
“We are, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
“ALFRED S. TAYLOR.
“G. OWEN REES.”
_Question._—“Was that your opinion at the time?”
_Answer._—“It was. We could infer nothing else.”
_Question._—“Have you not said that the quantity of antimony you found
was not sufficient to account for death?”
_Answer._—“Certainly. If a man takes antimony he first vomits, and
then a part of the antimony goes out of the body; some may escape from
the bowels. A great deal passes at once into the blood by absorption,
and is carried out by the urine.”
_Question._—“Can you say upon your oath that from the traces in Cook’s
body you were justified in stating your opinion that death was caused
by antimony?”
_Answer._—“Yes; perfectly and distinctly. _That which is found in a
dead body is not the slightest criterion as to what the man took when
alive._”
_Question._—“When you gave your opinion that Cook died from the
effects of antimony, had you any reason to think that an undue quantity
had been administered?”
_Answer._—“I could not tell. People may die from large or small
quantities; the quantity found in the body was no criterion as to how
much he had taken.”
_Question._—“May not the injudicious use of a quack medicine
containing antimony, the injudicious use of James’s powders, account
for the antimony you found in the body?”
_Answer._—“Yes; the injudicious use of any antimonial medicine would
account for it.”
_Question._—“Or even their judicious use?”
_Answer._—“It might.”
_Question._—“With that knowledge, upon being consulted with regard
to Cook, you gave it as your opinion that he died from the poison of
antimony?”
_Answer._—“You pervert my meaning entirely. I said that antimony in
the form of tartar emetic might occasion vomiting and other symptoms of
irritation, and that in large doses it would cause death, preceded by
convulsions.” [The witness was proceeding to read his report upon the
case, but was stopped by the Court.] “I was told that the deceased was
in good health seven or eight days before his death, and that he had
been taken very sick and ill, and had died in convulsions. No further
particulars being given us, we were left to suppose that he had not
died a natural death. There was no natural cause to account for death;
and finding antimony existing throughout the body, we thought it might
have been caused by antimony. An analysis cannot be made effectually
without information.”
_Question._—“You think it necessary before you can rely upon an
analysis to have received a long statement of the symptoms before
death?”
_Answer._—“A short statement will do.”
_Question._—“You allow your judgment to be influenced by the statement
of a person who knows nothing of his own knowledge?”
_Answer._—“I do not allow my judgment to be influenced in any way; I
judge by the result.”
_Question._—“Do you mean to say that what Mr. Stevens told you did not
assist you in arriving at the conclusion you state in writing?”
_Answer._—“I stated it as a possible case—not as a certainty. If we
had found a large quantity of tartar emetic in the stomach we should
have come to the conclusion that the man died from it. As we found
only a small quantity, we said he might have died from it. I attended
the coroner’s inquest, first, I think, on December 14. Some of the
evidence was read over to me. I think that Dr. Harland was the first
witness I heard examined. I heard Mr. Bamford, and also Lavinia Barnes.
I cannot say as to Newton. I heard Jones. I had experimented some
years ago on five of the rabbits I have mentioned. That is the only
knowledge of my own that I had of the effect of strychnia upon animal
life when I wrote my book. I have a great objection to the sacrifice of
life. No toxicologist will sacrifice the lives of one hundred rabbits
to establish facts which he knows to be already well established. I
experimented on the last rabbits since the inquest.”
_Question._—“Do you not think it rather rash to judge of the effects
of strychnia on man by so small an experiment?”
_Answer._—“You must add to the experiment the study of poisons and
cases.”
_Question._—“Do you not think that a rabbit is a very unfair animal to
select?”
_Answer._—“No.”
_Question._—“Would not a dog be better?”
_Answer._—“They are very dangerous to handle.”
_Question._—“Do you mean to give that answer?”
_Answer._—“Dogs and cats bear a greater analogy to man because they
vomit, while rabbits do not; but rabbits are much more manageable.”
_Question._—“Do you admit that as to the action of the respiratory
organs they would be better than rabbits?”
_Answer._—“I do not.”
_Question._—“As to the effect of poison would they not?”
_Answer._—“I think a rabbit quite as good as any animal. The poison is
retained, and its operation is shown. At the inquest I saw Mr. Gardner
(the solicitor of Mr. Stevens). I suggested questions to the coroner.
Some of them he put to the witnesses, and others they answered upon my
suggesting them. Ten days before the inquest Mr. Gardner informed me
in his letter that strychnia, Battley’s solution, and prussic acid,
had been purchased on Tuesday; that was why I used the expressions to
which you have referred. We did not allow that information to have any
influence on our report.” [The witness’s deposition before the coroner
was then read.] “Having given my evidence, I returned to town, and soon
afterwards heard that the prisoner had been committed on a charge of
wilful murder.”
_Question._—“And that his life depended in a great degree on you?”
_Answer._—“No. I simply gave an opinion as to the poison, not as to
the prisoner’s case. I knew I should probably be examined as a witness
on the trial.”
_Question._—“Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public
discussion of the question which might influence the public mind.”
_Answer._—“Yes.”
_Question._—“Did you write a letter to the _Lancet_?”
_Answer._—“Yes, to contradict several mis-statements of my evidence
that had been made.”
_Letter to_ Lancet _of Feb. 2, 1856, read, in which Dr. Taylor
said_:—“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.”[50]
_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 entertained
no prejudice against the prisoner. What I meant was that if these
statements which I had seen in medical and other periodicals were to
have their way there was not a life in the country which was safe.”
_Question._—“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’?”
_Answer._—“I have never suggested that they should lead him to the
scaffold. I hope that, if innocent, he will be acquitted.”
_Question._—“What do you mean by the mode in which they will affect
the person accused being of minor importance?”
_Answer._—“The lives of sixteen millions of people are, in my opinion,
of greater importance than that of one man.”
_Question._—“That is your opinion?”
_Answer._—“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 three hundred bodies. I say these were circumstances which demanded
explanation.”
_Question._—“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?”
_Answer._—“I think I had a right to state that opinion in answer to
the comments which had been made upon my evidence.”
_Question._—“Had any comments been made by the prisoner?”
_Answer._—“No.”
_Question._—“Or by any of his family?”
_Answer._—“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.”
I omit here the numerous questions about Mr. Mayhew’s visit, and
take up the _cross-examination_ with the witness’s opinion of Cook’s
symptoms.
“Cook’s symptoms were quite in accordance with an ordinary case of
poisoning by strychnia.”
_Question._—“Can you tell me any case in which a patient after being
seized with tetanic symptoms sat up in bed and talked?”
_Answer._—“It was after he sat up that Cook was seized with these
symptoms.”
_Question._—“Can you refer to a case in which a patient who had taken
strychnia beat the bed with his or her arms?”
_Answer._—“It is exactly what I should expect to arise from a sense
of suffocation.”
_Question._—“Do you know in your reading of any case in which the
symptoms of poisoning by strychnia commenced with beating of the bed
clothes?”
_Answer._—“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 with an ague.” [Answer objected to, but allowed as witness had
been questioned as to the results of his reading.] “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.”
_Question._—“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 injection of the poison as in the case of Cook on Tuesday
night?”
_Answer._—“Yes; longer. In my book on Medical Jurisprudence, p. 185,
5th Edition, it is stated that in a case communicated to the _Lancet_,
Aug. 31, 1850, by Mr. Bennett, a grain and a half of strychnia taken
by mistake destroyed the life of a healthy 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. 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 paroxysm commenced more than an
hour and a half after the injection 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 the 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 was seized with violent convulsions.[51]
_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 rigidity was continued at the time of death and after
death. In the other the animal was flaccid at the time of death.”
_Question._—“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?”
_Answer._—“Dr. Christison speaks from his experience, and I from
mine.”
_Question._—“Did you hear that Dr. Bamford said that when he arrived
he found the body of Cook quite straight in bed?”
_Answer._—“Yes.”
_Question._—“Can that have been a case of ophisthotonos?”
_Answer._—“It may have been.”
_Question._—“Are not the colour tests of strychnia so uncertain and
fallacious that they cannot be depended upon?”
_Answer._—“Yes, unless you first get the strychnia in a visible and
tangible form.”
_Question._—“Is it not impossible to get it so from the stomach?”
_Answer._—“It is not impossible; it depends upon the quantity which
remains there.”
_Question._—“You do not agree that the fiftieth part of a grain might
be discovered?”
_Answer._—“I think not.”
_Question._—“Nor even half a grain?”
_Answer._—“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 cases 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 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 occurs
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 bedclothes. I have no doubt that the substances I used
for the purpose of analysis were pure. I had tested them. The fact
that 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. I suggested questions to the
coroner because he did not put such as enabled me to form an opinion.
I think that arose rather from want of knowledge than intention. There
was an omission to take down the answers. At the time I wrote to Mr.
Gardiner 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 not information to
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 had 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 strychnia could never be detected—that it was destroyed by
putrefaction. What I had said was, that when absorbed in the blood
it could not be separated as strychnia. I wrote the letter in my own
vindication.”
_Dr. Rees_ and _Professor Brande_ briefly but decidedly confirmed the
statements, and coincided with the opinions expressed by Dr. Taylor,
the latter witness speaking as to an experiment made by him to test the
accuracy of the previous one, with reference to the supposed presence
of antimony, which enabled him to state positively that that poison was
isolated by it. _Professor Christison_, of the University of Edinburgh,
author of the well-known treatise on poisons, was then called, and gave
the following evidence:—
_Professor Christison_ said:—“I am a fellow of the Royal College
of Physicians and Professor of Materia Medica to the University of
Edinburgh; I am also the author of a work on the subject of poisons,
and I have directed a good deal of attention to strychnia. In my
opinion it acts by absorption into the blood, and through that upon
the nervous system. I have seen its effects upon a human subject,
but not a fatal case. I have seen it tried upon pigs, rabbits,
cats, and one wild boar. (A laugh.) I first directed my attention
to this poison in 1820, in Paris. It had been discovered two years
before in Paris. In most of my experiments upon animals I gave very
small doses—a sixth of a grain; but I once administered a grain. I
cannot say how small a dose would cause the death of an animal by
administration into the stomach. I generally applied it by injection
through an incision in the cavity of the chest. A sixth part of a
grain so administered killed a dog in two minutes. I once administered
to a rabbit, through the stomach, a dose of a grain. I saw Dr. Taylor
administer three-quarters of a grain to a rabbit, and it was all
swallowed except a very small quantity. The symptoms are nearly the
same in rabbits, cats, and dogs. The first is a slight tremor and
unwillingness to move; then frequently the animal jerks its head
back slightly; soon after that all the symptoms of tetanus come on
which have been so often described by the previous witnesses. When
the poison is administered by the stomach death generally takes place
between a period of five minutes and five and twenty minutes after
the symptoms first make their appearance. I have frequently opened
the bodies of animals thus killed, and have never been able to trace
any effect of the poison upon the stomach or intestines, or upon the
spinal cord or brain, that I could attribute satisfactorily to the
poison. The heart of the animal generally contained blood in all the
cases in which I have been concerned. In the case of the wild boar the
poison was injected into the chest. A third of a grain was all that
was used, and in ten minutes the symptoms began to show themselves.
If strychnia was administered in the form of a pill it might be
mixed with other ingredients that would protract the period of its
operation. This would be the case if it were mixed with resinous
materials, or any materials that were difficult of digestion, and
such materials would be within the knowledge of any medical men, and
they are frequently used for the purpose of making ordinary pills.
Absorption in such a case would not commence until the pill was
broken down by the process of digestion. In the present state of our
knowledge of the subject I do not think it is possible to fix the
precise time when the operation of the poison commences on a human
subject. In the case of an animal we take care that it is fasting,
and we mix the poison with ingredients that are readily soluble, and
in every circumstance favourable for the development of the poison.
I have seen many cases of tetanus arising from wounds and other
causes. The general symptoms of the disorder very nearly resemble each
other, and in all the natural forms of tetanus the symptoms begin
and advance much more slowly, and they prove fatal much more slowly,
and there is no intermission in certain forms of natural tetanus. In
tetanus from strychnia there are short intermissions. I have heard
the evidence of what took place at the ‘Talbot Arms’ on the Monday
and Tuesday, and the result of my experience induces me to come to
the conclusion that the symptoms exhibited by the deceased were only
attributable to strychnia, or the four poisons containing it: namely,
nux vomica, St. Ignatius’s bean, snakewood, and a draught poison
called “exhetwick.”[52] There is no natural disease of any description
that I am acquainted with to which I could refer these symptoms. In
cases of tetanus consciousness remains to the very last moment. When
death takes place in a human subject by spasm it tends to empty the
heart of blood. When death is the consequence of the administration of
strychnia, if the quantity is small, I should not expect to find any
trace in the body after death. If there was an excess of quantity more
than was required to cause the death by absorption, I should expect to
find that excess in the stomach. The colour tests for the detection of
the presence of strychnia are uncertain. Vegetable poisons are more
difficult of detection than mineral ones, and there is one poison with
which I am acquainted for which no known test has been discovered.
The stomach of the deceased was sent in a very unsatisfactory state
for examination, and there must have been a considerable quantity
of strychnia in the stomach to have enabled any one to detect its
presence under such circumstances.”
_Cross-examined by Mr. Grove._—“The experiments I refer to were made
many years ago. In one instance I tried one of the colour tests in
the case of a man who was poisoned by strychnia, but I failed to
discover the presence of the poison in the stomach. I tried the test
for the development of the violet colour by means of sulphuric acid
and oxide of lead. From my own observation I should say that animals
destroyed by strychnia die of asphyxia, but in my work, which has been
referred to, it will be seen that I have left the question open.”
Some further questions were put to the witness by the learned counsel
for the prisoner in reference to opinions expressed by him in his work,
and he explained that this work was written twelve years ago, and that
the experience he had since obtained had modified some of the opinions
he then entertained.
_Cross-examination continued._—“I have not noticed that in cases
where a patient is suffering from strychnia the slightest touch
appears to bring on the paroxysm. It is very remarkable in the case
of animals, unless you touch them very gently indeed. Strychnia has a
most intensely bitter taste. It is said on the authority of a French
chemist that a grain will give a taste to more than a gallon of water.
If resinous substances were used in the formation of a pill it does
not follow that they would necessarily be found in the stomach; they
might be passed off.”
_By the Attorney-General._—“One of the cases quoted in the work that
has been referred to was that of a gamekeeper, who was found dead;
his head was thrown back, his hands were clenched, and his limbs were
rigid. A paper containing strychnia was found in his pocket, and upon
a _post-mortem_ examination, there were indications which, under the
circumstances, satisfied me of the existence of strychnia. There was a
substance in the body of an intensely bitter taste, which was tested
by the colour test, and it succeeded in one instance, but failed in
another. It appears that colour tests are not to be relied upon in
the case of strychnia in an impure condition: in the first place, you
may not find indication of strychnia: and, secondly, they are subject
to fallacy even if the strychnia is pure from other substances not
containing strychnia presenting similar appearances.”
With the _examination_ of this witness, the medical and scientific
evidence for the prosecution was closed.
MEDICO-SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.
The conflict in the testimony given by scientific experts in this
case, will be more clearly shown if, instead of deferring it to its
original position, after the speech for the defence, the evidence of
the eminent medical men and analysts is at once contrasted with that
of those called for the prosecution. The two points mainly in contest
were, (1.) Were the symptoms in Cook’s case such as could only be
produced by _strychnia_, or could they have arisen from other diseases,
and especially from one of the forms of ordinary _tetanus_? (2.) If
strychnia had been given, could it not have been discovered by chemical
analysis?[53] Under the _first_ head came the consideration of Cook’s
mode of life and general state of health, and his excitement at the
victory of his horse at such a critical period of his fortunes, as
predisposing causes to one or other of the various diseases to which
the witnesses for the defence were prepared to attribute the symptoms
and the result. Under the _second_, the success that uniformly attended
such analysts as Mr. Herapath in detecting, even twenty times less than
the fiftieth part of a grain of strychnia, and the inference that as
it was not discovered by such eminent analysts as Dr. Taylor and Dr.
Rees, that none had been given. If this inference was fair, it would
follow that, however mysterious the causes of the death of Cook might
have been, and the symptoms of his attacks difficult of being referred
to any known form of disease, yet it was not proved that he died of
strychnia, and that therefore Palmer was entitled to an acquittal.
“According to the witnesses for the Crown,” said Serjeant Shee, “the
poison of strychnia is of that nature, that when it has done its fatal
work, and become absorbed into the system, it ceases to be the thing
it was when it was taken into the system; it becomes decomposed, its
elements separated from each other, and, therefore, no longer capable
of responding to the tests which, according to Taylor, would certainly
detect the presence of undecomposed strychnia. They account for the
fact that it is not detected, and for their still believing that it
destroyed Mr. Cook, by this hypothesis. Now it is only an hypothesis:
there is no foundation for it in experiment: it is not supported by the
evidence of any eminent toxicologists but themselves; it was the theory
of Dr. Taylor, which he propounds in his book—but he propounds it as
a theory of his own; he does not vouch, as I remember, any eminent
toxicologist in support of it.”
Against this theory, among other eminent men, the defence called _Mr.
Nunneley_, of Leeds, who had assisted Mr. Morley (previously called for
the prosecution) in the case of Mrs. Dove, _Dr. Letheby_, the medical
officer of health of the city of London, and _Mr. William Herapath_.
Of these three experts it will be advisable to give the evidence at
some length, contenting oneself with summarising that of the other
scientific witnesses who agreed with them in rejecting, as a scientific
heresy, the hypothesis of Dr. Taylor.
The evidence of _Mr. Nunneley_ covered both points—the character of
Cook’s symptoms and the discovery of strychnia. “He had been, he said,
in large practice for more than twenty-five years, and had seen four
cases of _idiopathic tetanus_, all of which did not commence with
lockjaw; in one of them lockjaw not becoming so marked as to prevent
the person from swallowing once during the disease.”
“I assume,” said the witness, “that Cook was a man of very delicate
constitution; that for a long time he had felt himself ailing, for
which indisposition he had been under medical treatment; that he had
suffered from syphilis; that he had disease of the lungs, and an old
standing disease of the throat; that he led an irregular life; that
he was subject to mental depression and excitement, and that after
death appearances were found in his body to show this to have been
the case. There was an unusual appearance in the stomach. The throat
was in an unnatural condition. The back of the tongue showed similar
indications. The air vessels of the lungs were dilated. In the lining
of the aorta there was an unnatural deposit, and there was an unusual
appearance in the membranes of the spinal marrow. One of the witnesses
also said there was a loss of substance from the penis. That scar on
it could only have resulted from an ulcer. A chancre is an ulcer, but
an ulcer is not necessarily a chancre. The symptoms at the root of the
tongue and throat I should ascribe to syphilitic inflammation of the
throat. _Supposing these symptoms to be correct_” (_which they were
not_), “I should infer that Cook’s health had not for a long time been
good, and that his constitution was delicate. His father and mother
died young. _Supposing that to have been his state of health_, it
would make him liable to nervous irritation. That might be excited by
moral causes. Any excitement or depression might produce that effect.
A person of _such_ health and constitution would be more susceptible
of the injurious influence of wet and cold than one of a stronger
one. Upon _such a constitution_ convulsive disease is more likely to
supervene. I understand he had three attacks on succeeding nights,
occurring about the same hour. As a medical man I should infer from
this that they were of a convulsive character—_in the absence of
other causes to account for_ them. Convulsive attacks are as various
as possible in their forms and degrees of violence: it is not possible
to give a definite name to every convulsive symptom. There are some
forms of convulsion in which the patient retains consciousness. Those
are forms of hysteria, sometimes found in the male sex. It is also
stated that there are forms of epilepsy in which the patient retains
consciousness.”
_To Lord Campbell._—“_I cannot mention a case in which consciousness
has been retained during the fit. No such case has come under my
notice._”
_Examination continued._—“I know from reading that, though rarely,
it does sometimes occur. The degree of consciousness in epilepsy
varies very much. In some attacks it is wholly lost for a long time.
Convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied by violent spasms and
rigidity of the limbs—they sometimes assume tetanic complexion.
I agree with Dr. Copland that convulsions arise from almost any
cause. Affections of the spinal cord, or eating indigestible food,
will produce them. I know of no case in which they resulted from
retching and vomiting. I agree with Dr. Copland that they sometimes
end immediately in death. The immediate proximate cause of death is
frequently asphyxia. Death from spasm of the heart is often described
as death by asphyxia. I have seen convulsions recurring—in various
cases. The time at which a patient recovers his ease after a violent
attack of convulsions varies very much. It may be a few minutes, it
may be hours. From an interval between one convulsion and another I
should infer that the convulsions arose from slight irritation in the
brain or the spinal cord. When death takes place in such paroxysms
there is sometimes no trace of organic disease to be found by a
_post-mortem_ examination. _Granules between the_ DURA MATER _and
the_ ARACHNOID _are not common at any age. I should not draw any
particular inference from their appearance. They might or might not
lead to a conjecture as to their cause and effect. I do not form any
opinion upon these points._ They might produce an effect upon the
spinal cord. There are three preparations in museums where granules
are exhibited in the spinal cord, in which the patients are said to
have died from tetanus. Those are at St. Thomas’s Hospital.[54] To
ascertain the nature and effect of such granules the spinal cord ought
to be examined immediately after death. Not the most remote opinion
could be formed upon an examination made two months after death, more
especially if the brain had been previously opened. Independently of
the appearance of granules, it would not after that period be possible
to form a satisfactory opinion upon the general condition of the
spinal cord. If there were a large tumour, or some similar change,
it might be exhibited; but neither softening nor induration of the
structure could be perceived. The nervous structure changes within two
days of death. To ascertain minutely its condition it is necessary
to use a lens or microscope. That is required in an examination made
immediately after death. I have attended cases of _traumatic tetanus_.
That disease commonly begins with an attack upon the jaw. One of the
cases of _idiopathic tetanus_ that I have seen was my own child. In
three of those cases the disease began with lockjaw. The fourth case
commenced in the body, the facility of swallowing remaining. I have
within the last twelve months made _post-mortem_ examinations of two
persons who had died from strychnia. I did not see the patients before
death. In both cases I ascertained by chemical analysis that death
had been caused by strychnia. In both I found the strychnia. In one
case—that of a lady aged twenty-eight years—I made my examination
forty-two hours after death, and in the other thirty hours. In the
former case the body had not been opened before I commenced my
examination.” [The witness read a report of this examination, in
which it was stated that the eyelids were partially open, the globes
flaccid, and the pupils dilated. The muscles of the trunk were not in
the least rigid; indeed, they were so soft that the body might be bent
in any direction. The muscles at the hip and shoulder joints were not
quite so flaccid, but they allowed these joints to be easily moved;
while those of the head and neck, forearms, &c., were rigid. The
fingers were curved, and the feet somewhat arched. All the muscles,
when cut into, were found soft and dark in colour. The membranes
of the liver were exceedingly vascular. The membrane of the spinal
cord was much congested. There was bloody serum in the pericardium;
the lungs were distended, and some of the air cells were ruptured.
The lining membrane of the trachea and bronchial tubes was covered
with a layer of dark bloody mucus of a dark chocolate colour. The
thoracic vessels and membranes were much congested, and the blood was
everywhere dark and fluid.] After reading this report the witness
continued:—“In the second case I made my examination thirty hours
after death. I first saw the body about twelve hours after death. It
was a woman somewhere near twenty years of age.” [The witness also
read the report of the examination in this case. The appearances
of the body were substantially similar to those presented in the
previous case.] “In two other cases I have seen a patient suffering
from over doses of strychnia. Neither of those cases was fatal. In
one case I had prescribed the twelfth of a grain, and the patient
took one-sixth. That was for a man of middle age. Strychnia had been
given in solution. In a few minutes the symptoms appeared. They were
a want of power to control the muscles, manifested by twitchings,
rigidity, and cramp, more violent in the legs than in any other part
of the body. The spasms were not very violent. They continued six
hours before they entirely disappeared. During that time they were
intermittent at various intervals. As the attack passed off the
length of the intervals increased. At first their length was but a
few seconds. The spasms were not combated by medical treatment.
The other case was a very similar one. The quantity taken was the
same—double what I had prescribed. I have experimented upon upwards
of sixty animals with strychnia. Those animals were dogs, cats, rats,
mice, guinea pigs, frogs, and toads. The symptoms of the attack in
all animals present great resemblances. Some animals are, however,
much more susceptible of its influence than others are. The period
elapsing between the injection of the poison and the commencement of
the symptoms has been from two minutes to thirty,—more generally five
or six. I administered the poison occasionally in solution, but more
generally in its solid state. It was sometimes placed dry upon the
back of the tongue, and some fluid poured down the throat; sometimes
it was enclosed between two portions of meat; sometimes mixed up with
butter or suet, and sometimes rolled up in a small piece of gut. To
frogs and toads it was administered by putting them into a solution of
strychnia. I have also applied it direct to the spinal cord, and in
other cases to the brain. The first symptom has been a desire to be
quite still; then hurried breathing; then slavering at the mouth (when
the poison had been given through that organ); then twitching of the
ears, trembling of the muscles, inability to walk, convulsions of all
the muscles of the body, the jaws being generally firmly closed; the
convulsions attended by a total want of power in the muscles, which on
the least touch were thrown into violent spasms with a galvanic-like
shock. Spasms also come on if the animal voluntarily attempts to move;
that is usually the case, but occasionally the animal is able to move
without inducing a recurrence of the spasms. These spasms recur at
various periods, but do not always increase in violence. The animals
die after periods varying from three hours to three hours and a half.
In the cases where the animals live longest, the paroxysms occur at
the longest intervals. In all cases in the interval before death
the rigidity ceases (I know no exception to this) and the muscles
become quite soft, powerless, and flaccid. The limbs may be put in
any position whatever. There is but little difference from ordinary
cases of convulsive death in the time at which the _rigor mortis_
comes on. I have destroyed animals with other poisons, and there is
very little difference between the rigidity in their cases and that in
the cases of death from strychnia. In the two women I have mentioned
the _rigor mortis_ was much less than is usual in cases of death
from natural disease. I have known fatal cases of poisoning animals
by strychnia in which there has between the first and the second
paroxysm been an interval of about half-an-hour, but that is not
common. I have examined the bodies of upwards of forty animals killed
by strychnia. I have invariably found the heart full on the right
side; very generally the left ventricle firmly contracted, and the
blood usually dark, and often fluid. There is no particular appearance
about the spine. I have experimented with other poisons upon upwards
of 3000 animals, and have written upon this subject. It very often
happens that in the case of animals dying suddenly from poisoning the
blood is fluid after death. That also happens in cases of sudden death
from other causes. I have attended to the evidence as to the symptoms
exhibited by Cook on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights. The
symptoms on Sunday night I assume to have been from great excitement.
Cook described himself as having been very ill, and in such a state
that he considered himself mad for a few minutes. He stated that
the cause of this was a noise in the street. These symptoms in the
three nights I have mentioned, do not resemble those which I have
seen follow the administration of strychnia. Cook had more power of
voluntary motion than I have observed in animals under the influence
of this poison. He sat up in bed, and moved his hands about freely,
swallowed, talked, and asked to be rubbed and moved, none of which,
if poisoned by strychnia, could he have done. The sudden accession
of the convulsions is another reason for believing that they were
not produced by strychnia. Other reasons for believing that the
convulsions were not produced by strychnia are their sudden accession
without the usual premonitory symptoms, the length of time which had
elapsed between their commencement and the taking of the pills which
are supposed to have contained poison, and the screaming and vomiting.
I never knew an animal which had been poisoned with strychnia to vomit
or scream voluntarily. I apprehend that where there is so much spasm
of the heart there must be inability to vomit. In the cases related
in which attempts were made to produce vomiting they did not succeed.
There is such a case in the 10th volume of the _Journal de Pharmacie_,
in which an emetic was given without success. The symptoms exhibited
after death by animals poisoned by strychnia differ materially from
those presented by the body of Cook. In his case the heart is stated
to have been empty and uncontracted.”
_Lord Campbell._—“I do not remember that. I think it was said that it
was contracted.”
_Mr. Baron Alderson._-”According to my note, Dr. Harland said that the
heart was contracted, and contained no blood.”
_Examination continued._—“The lungs were not congested, nor was the
brain. In the case of animals which have recovered the paroxysms have
subsided gradually. I never knew a severe paroxysm followed by a
long interval of repose. I have experimented upon the discovery of
strychnia in the bodies of animals in various stages of decomposition,
from a few hours after death up to the forty-third day, in which
latter case the body was quite putrid. It has never happened to me
to fail to discover the poison. I have experimented in about fifteen
cases.”
_Question._—“Supposing a person to have died under the influence
of strychnia poison in the first paroxysm, and his stomach to have
been taken out and put into a jar on the sixth day after death, must
strychnia have, by a proper analysis, been found in the body?”
_Answer._—“Yes. If the strychnia be pure, such as is almost
invariably found among medical men and druggists, the test is nitric
acid, which gives a red colour, which in a great measure disappears on
the addition of protochloride of tin.[55] If the strychnia be pure, it
does not undergo any change on the addition of sulphuric acid, but on
the addition of a mixture of bichromate of potash, with several other
substances it produces a beautiful purple, which changes to varying
shades until it gets to be a dirty red. There are several other tests.
In this case the stomach was not, in my opinion, in an unfavourable
condition for examination. The circumstances attending its position in
the jar and its removal to London would give a little more trouble,
but would not otherwise affect the result. If the deceased had died
from strychnia poison it ought to have been found in the liver,
spleen, and kidneys. I have seen this poison found in similar portions
of animals which had been killed by it. I have also seen it found in
the blood; that was by Mr. Herapath, of Bristol.”
_Question._—“Could the analyses be defeated or confused by the
existence in the stomach of any other substance which would produce
the same colours?”
_Answer._—“No. Supposing that pyroxanthine and salicine were in
the parts examined, their existence would not defeat the analysis.
Pyroxanthine is very unlikely to be found in the stomach. It is one
of the rarest and most difficult to be obtained. The distinction
between pyroxanthine and strychnia is quite evident. Pyroxanthine
changes to a deep purple on the addition of sulphuric acid alone, and
the bichromate of potash spoils the colour. In strychnia no change is
produced by sulphuric acid. It requires the addition of the bichromate
to produce the colour.”
_Question._—“Supposing the death to have been caused by a dose of
strychnia, not more than sufficient to destroy the animal, would it
be so diffused by the process of absorption that you would not be able
by these tests to detect it in any portion of the system?”
_Answer._—“No; I believe it would not. That question had occupied my
attention before I was called upon to give evidence in this trial. My
reason for stating that strychnia when it has done its work continues
as strychnia in the system is, that those who say some change takes
place, argue, that as food undergoes a change, so does poison; it
becomes decomposed. But the change in food takes place in digestion;
consequently its traces are not found in the blood. Substances
like strychnia are absorbed without digestion, and may be obtained
unchanged from the blood. They may be administered in various ways.”
_Question._—“In your judgment, will any amount of putrefaction
prevent the discovery of strychnia?”
_Answer._—“To say that it is absolutely indestructible would be
absurd, but within ordinary limits, no. I have found it at the end
of forty days. The emptier the stomach, the quicker the action of
strychnia.”
On _cross-examination_ by the _Attorney-General_, the witness, who,
to judge from the expressions that passed between them, assumed an
antagonistic position to the prosecution, after admitting that perhaps
half of his sixty experiments had been made in conjunction with Mr.
Morley, and spread over thirty years; that some had been made after the
Leeds case, and some in reference to the present, and that he had been
in consultation with the prisoner’s attorney since the case at Leeds,
to whom he had transmitted its details, he thus continued:—
“The general dose in these experiments was from half a grain to
two grains; half a grain is sufficient to destroy life in larger
animals. I have seen both a dog and a cat die of this dose, but not
always. Some animals as a species are more susceptible than those of
a different species, and among animals of the same species some are
more susceptible than others. The symptoms in the experiments I have
mentioned did not occur after so long a period as an hour. We have had
to repeat the dose in some instances when half a grain was given. In
the case of a cat, symptoms of spasm were produced, but the cat did
not die; she had not swallowed the whole dose. I think I have known
animals of the cat species killed with half a grain.”
_Question._—“Have you any doubt of it?”
_Answer._—“Yes. I think it would be the minimum dose in an old
strong cat. If given in a fluid state I think a smaller dose
would suffice. Hurried breathing is one of the first symptoms,
afterwards there are twitchings and trembling of the muscles and then
convulsions.”
_Question._—“Is there any diversity in the intervals and order of the
symptoms in animals of the same species?”
_Answer._—“They certainly do not occur after the same intervals
of time, but I should say they generally occur in the order I have
described. There is some difference in the periods at which the
convulsions take place. Some will die after less convulsions than
others, but generally after four or five. In one or two instances an
animal has died after one convulsion. In those instances a dose has
been given equal in amount to another which has not produced the same
effect. The order in which the muscles are convulsed varies to some
extent. The muscles of the limbs are generally affected first. The
convulsions generally occur simultaneously.”
_Question._—“Do you know of any case of strychnia in which rigidity
after death was greater than the usual _rigor mortis_?”
_Answer._—“I think not. I don’t think there is any peculiar rigidity
produced by strychnia.”
_Question._—“Have you never found undue rigidity in a human subject
after death by strychnia?”
_Answer._—“Considerably less.”
_Question._-”In the anonymous case (the Leeds), were not the hands
curved and the feet arched by muscular contraction?”
_Answer._—“Not more than is usual in cases of death from ordinary
causes. The limbs were rigid, but not more than usual.”
_Question._—“In the face of the medical profession I ask you whether
you signed a report stating that ‘the hands were curved and the feet
decidedly arched by muscular contraction,’ and whether you meant by
those words that there was no more than the ordinary rigidity of
death?”
_Answer._—“Certainly; I stated so at the time.”
_Question._—“Where? In the report?”
_Answer._—“No; in conversation. Allow me to explain that a
distinction was drawn between the muscles of the different parts of
the body. I heard Mr. Morley’s evidence with regard to experiments on
animals, and his statement that ‘after death there was an interval of
flaccidity, after which rigidity commenced more than if it had been
occasioned by the usual _rigor mortis_.’”
_Question._—“You don’t agree with that statement?”
_Answer._—“I do not. I generally found the right side of the heart
full.”
_Question._—“Does the fact of the heart in Cook’s case having been
found empty lead you to the conclusion that death was not caused by
strychnia?”
_Answer._—“Among other things, it does. I heard the evidence of Dr.
Watson as to the case of Agnes Sennett, in which the heart was found
distended and empty: also of Dr. Taylor, as to the _post-mortem_ of
Mrs. Smyth. No doubt he stated that the heart in that case was also
empty.”
_Question._—“And do those facts exercise no influence on your
judgment?”
_Answer._—“They would not unless I knew how the _post-mortem_
examination had been made. If it was commenced at the head, the blood
being fluid, the large drains would be opened, and the blood, from
natural causes, would drain away.”
_Question._—“Do you know how the _post-mortem_ examination was made
in this case?”
_Answer._—“No. Excuse me, I do. The chest and the abdomen, not the
head, were first opened.”
_Question._—“The heart, then, was not emptied in the first instance?”
_Answer._—“No.”
_Question._—“Then what occasioned the contraction of the heart?”
_Answer._—“When the heart is emptied it is usually contracted.”
_Question._—“But how do you account for its contraction and
emptiness?”
_Answer._—“I cannot account for it.”
_Lord Campbell._—“ Would the heart contract if there was blood in it?”
_Answer._—“No.”
_Lord Campbell._—“When you find the heart contracted, you know, then,
that it was contracted at the moment of death?”
_Answer._—“It is necessary to draw a distinction between the two
cavities. It is very common to find the left ventricle contracted and
hard, while the right is uncontracted.”
_Lord Campbell._—“That is death by asphyxia?”
_Answer._—“Precisely.”[56]
_By the Attorney-General._—“In Cook’s case the lungs were described
as not congested. Entosthema is of two kinds; one of them consists
of dilation of the cells, the other of a rupture of the cells. When
animals die from strychnine, entosthema occurs. I do not know the
character of the entosthema in Cook’s case. It did not occur to me to
have the question put to the witnesses who described the _post-mortem_
examination.”
_Question._—“To what constitutional symptoms about Cook do you
ascribe the convulsions from which he died?”
_Answer._—“Not to any.”
_Question._—“Was not the fact of his having syphilis an important
ingredient in your judgment upon his case?”
_Answer._—“It was. I judge that he died from convulsions, by the
combination of symptoms.”
_Question._—“What evidence have you to suppose that he was liable to
excitement and depression of spirits?”
_Answer._—“The fact that after winning the race he could not speak
for three minutes.”
_Question._—“Anything else?”
_Answer._—“Mr. Jones stated that he was subject to mental depression.
Excitement will produce a state of brain which will be followed, at
some distance, by convulsions. I think Dr. Bamford made a mistake when
he said the brain was perfectly healthy.”
_Question._—“Do you mean to set up that opinion against that of Dr.
Devonshire and Dr. Harland, who were present at the _post-mortem_?”
_Answer._—“My opinion is founded in part on the evidence taken at the
inquest, in part on the depositions. With the brain and the system in
the condition in which Cook’s were, I believe it is quite possible
for convulsions to come on and destroy a person. I do not believe
that he died from apoplexy. He was under the influence of morphia. I
don’t ascribe his death to morphia, except that it might assist in
producing a convulsive attack. I should think morphia was not very
good treatment, considering the state of excitement he was in.”
_Question._—“Do you mean to say, on your oath, that you think he was
in a state of excitement at Rugeley?”
_Answer._—“I wish to give my evidence honestly. Morphia, when given
in an injured state of the brain, often disagrees with the patient.”
_Question._—“But what evidence have you as to the injured state of
the brain?”
_Answer._—“Sickness often indicates it. I can’t say whether the
attack of Sunday night was an attack of convulsions. I think that
the Sunday attack was one of a similar character, but not so intense,
as the attack of Tuesday, in which he died. I don’t think he had
convulsions on the Sunday, but he was in that condition which often
precedes convulsions. I think he was mistaken when he stated that
he was awoke by a noise. I believe he was delirious. That is one of
the symptoms on which I found my opinion. Any intestinal irritation
will produce convulsions in a tetanic form. I have known instances in
children. I have not seen an instance in an animal. Medical writers
state that such cases do occur. I know no name for convulsions of that
kind.”
_Question._—“Have you ever known a case of convulsions of that kind,
terminating in death, in which the patient remained conscious to the
last?”
_Answer._—“I have not. Where epilepsy terminates in death
consciousness is gone. I have known four cases of _traumatic_, and
five or six of _idiopathic tetanus_.”
_Question._—“You heard Mr. Jones make this statement of the symptoms
of Cook after the commencement of the paroxysms:—‘After he swallowed
the pills he uttered loud screams, threw himself back in the bed,
and was dreadfully convulsed. He said, “Raise me up! I shall be
suffocated.” The convulsions affected every muscle of the body, and
were accompanied by stiffening of the limbs. I endeavoured to raise
Cook with the assistance of Palmer, but found it quite impossible
owing to the rigidity of the limbs. When Cook found we could not raise
him up, he asked me to turn him over. He was then quite sensible. I
turned him on to his side. I listened to the action of his heart.
I found that it gradually weakened, and asked Palmer to fetch some
spirits of ammonia, to be used as a stimulant. When he returned, the
pulsations of the heart were gradually ceasing, and life was almost
extinct. Cook died very quietly a very short time afterwards. When he
threw himself back in bed he clinched his hands, and they remained
clinched after death. When I was rubbing his neck, his head and neck
were unnaturally bent back by the spasmodic action of the muscles.
After death his body was so twisted or bowed that if I had placed it
upon the back it would have rested upon the head and feet!’ Now, I ask
you to distinguish in any one particular between those symptoms and
the symptoms of tetanic convulsions.”
_Answer._—“_It is not tetanus at all; not idiopathic tetanus._”
_Question._—“I quite agree with you that it was not _idiopathic
tetanus_. But point out any distinction that you can see between these
symptoms and real _tetanus_?”
_Answer._—“I do not know that there is any distinction, except that
in a case of _tetanus_ I never saw rigidity continue till death and
afterwards.”
_Question._—“Can you tell me of any case of death from convulsions in
which the patient was conscious to the last?”
_Answer._—“I do not know any. Convulsions occurring after poison has
been taken are properly called tetanic.”
_Question._—“Sir B. Brodie tells us that while paroxysms of tetanic
convulsion last there is no difference between those that arise from
strychnia and those from _tetanus_ properly so called, but only in the
course the symptoms take. What do you say is the difference?”
_Answer._—“The hands are less violently contracted; the effect of
the spasm is less in ordinary _tetanus_; the convulsion, too, never
entirely passes away. I have stated that _tetanus_ is a disease of
days, strychnia of hours and minutes; that convulsive twitchings are
in _strychnia_ the first symptoms, the last in _tetanus_; that in
_tetanus_ the hands, feet, and legs are usually the last affected,
while in _strychnia_ they are the first. I gave that opinion after the
symptoms in the case of the lady at Leeds which were described by the
witness Witham, and I still adhere to it. I never said that Cook’s was
a case of _idiopathic tetanus_ in any sense of the word. It differed
from the course of _tetanus_ from strychnine in the particulars I have
already mentioned.”
_The Attorney-General._—“Repeat them.”
_Answer._—“There was a sudden accession of the convulsions.”
_Question._—“Sudden—after what?”
_Answer._—“After the rousing by Jones. There was also the power of
talking.”
_Question._—“Don’t you know that Mrs. Smyth talked and retained her
consciousness to the end: that her last words were, ‘Turn me over’?”
_Answer._—“She did say something of that kind. No doubt those were
the words she used. I believe that in poison _tetanus_ the symptoms
are first observed in the legs and feet. In the animals upon which I
have experimented twitchings in the ears and difficulty of breathing
have been premonitory symptoms.”
_Question._—“When Cook felt a stiffness and difficulty of breathing,
and said that he should be suffocated on the first night, what were
they but premonitory symptoms?” (_question evaded_).
_Answer._—“Well, he asked to be rubbed; but as far as my experience
goes with regard to animals—--.”
_The Attorney-General._—“They can’t ask to have their ears rubbed, of
course.”
_Mr. Serjeant Shee._—“The witness was about to explain the effect of
being rubbed upon animals.”
_Witness._—“In no single instance could the animals bear to be
touched.”
_Question._—“Did not Mrs. Smyth ask to have her arms and legs rubbed?”
_Answer._—“In the Leeds case the lady asked to be rubbed before the
convulsions came on, but afterwards she could not bear it, and begged
not to be touched.”
_Question._—“Can you point out any one point, after the premonitory
symptoms, in which the symptoms in this case differ from those of
strychnia _tetanus_?”
_Answer._—“There is the power of swallowing, which is taken away by
inability to move the jaw.”
_Question._—“But have you not stated that lockjaw is the last symptom
in strychnia _tetanus_?”
_Answer._—“I have. I don’t deny that it may be. I am speaking of
the general rule. In the Leeds case it came on very early, more
than two hours before death, the paroxysms having continued for two
and a half hours. In that case we believed the dose was four times
repeated. Poison might probably be extracted by chemical process from
the tissues, but I never tried it except in the case of one animal. I
am not sure whether poison was in that case given through the mouth.
We killed four animals in reference to the Leeds case, and in every
instance we found strychnia in the contents of the stomach. In one
case we administered it by two processes—one failed, and the other
succeeded.”
_Re-examined._—“In making reports on cases such as that referred to
(Leeds) we state ordinary appearances as well as extraordinary—facts
without anything more.”
_Mr. William Herapath, examined by Mr. Grove, Q. C._—“I am a
professor of chemistry and toxicology at the Bristol Medical
School—have studied chemistry for more than forty years—toxicology
for thirty. Have experimented on strychnia; have seen no case of
a human subject during life, but have examined a human body after
death. In one case I examined the contents of the stomach, and found
strychnia three days after death. I obtained evidence of strychnia
by the colour tests in that case. I have experimented on animals for
strychnia in eight or nine cases, and analysed the bodies in two cases
where I destroyed the animals myself—both cats. I gave the first one
grain of strychnia in a solid form. The animal took the poison at
night, and I found it dead in the morning. It was dreadfully contorted
and rigid, the limbs extended, the head turned round—not to the
back, to the side—the eyes protruding and staring, the iris expanded
so as to be almost invisible. I found strychnia in the urine which
had been ejected, and also in the stomach, by the test I mentioned.
I administered the same quantity of strychnia in a solid form to
another cat. It remained very quiet for fifteen or twenty minutes, but
seemed a little restless in the eyes and its breathing. In thirty-five
minutes it had a terrible spasm, the extremities and the head being
drawn together and the feet extended. I watched it for three hours.
The first spasm lasted a minute or two. The saliva dropped from its
mouth, and it forcibly ejected its urine. It had a second spasm a few
minutes afterwards. It soon recovered and remained still, with the
exception of a trembling all over. It continued in that state three
hours. During two hours and a half it was in a very peculiar state. It
appeared to be electrified all through; blowing upon it or touching
the basket in which it was placed produced a kind of electric jump
like a galvanic shock. I left it in three hours, thinking it would
recover, but in the morning I found it dead, in the same indurated
and contorted condition as the former animal. I examined the body
thirty-six hours after death and found strychnia in the urine, in the
stomach and in the upper intestine, in the liver, and in the blood of
the heart. I have discovered strychnia in all other cases by the same
tests, but I took extraordinary means to get rid of organic matter.
_In all cases in which strychnia has been given I have been able to
find it, but not only strychnia, but the nux vomica from which it
is taken._ I have found nux vomica in a fox and other animals. The
detection of nux vomica is more complicated than that of strychnia. In
one case the animal had been buried two months. _I have experimented
with strychnia mixed purposely with organic putrefying matter. I have
found it in all cases, whatever was the state of decomposition of the
matter._”
_Question._—“_Are you of opinion that where strychnia has been taken
in a sufficient dose to poison it can and ought to be discovered?_”
_Answer._—“_Yes; unless the body has been completely decomposed—that
is, unless decomposition had reduced it to a dry powder. I am
of opinion, from the accounts given by Dr. Taylor and the other
witnesses, that if it had existed in the body of Cook it ought to have
been discovered. I am aware of no cause of error in the analysis, if
the organic matter had been properly got rid of._ The experiments I
made were in Bristol. I have made experiments in London, and found
strychnia in the stomach, liver, and blood of an animal.”
_Cross-examined by the Attorney-General._—“I don’t profess to be a
toxicologist. I have principally experimented on the stomach till
lately. I tried my chemical process on the 8th of this month with
a view to the present case. The experiment here was on a dog. I
experimented on the tissues of a cat at Bristol, and a dog in London.
I found strychnia in the blood, the heart, and the urine of the cat,
besides the stomach. One grain was given to the dog. It was a large
dog. I have seen a cat killed with a quarter of a grain.”
_Question._—“_Have you not said, that you had no doubt strychnia had
been taken, but that Dr. Taylor had not gone the right way to find
it?_”
_Answer._—“No; certainly not.”
_Question._—“Have you not said it to the present Mayor of Bristol?”
_Answer._—“I have said, if it was there Dr. Taylor ought to have
found it.”
_Question._—“Have you not said several times in his presence that you
had no doubt strychnia had been given, but that Dr. Taylor had not
found it?”
_Answer._—“I had a strong opinion from the reports in the newspapers;
it is very likely I might. I don’t deny it.”
_To Lord Campbell._—“From the statements I saw in the newspapers: I
was not engaged in the case, and I conceived I had a right to express
an opinion, the same as others. I dare say I have frequently said so
in conversation. Hundreds of persons spoke to me, knowing I had made
toxicology a study, and it is possible I may have said something like
what you ask me about.”[57]
_Re-examined by Mr. Grove._—“What is the smallest quantity of
strychnia that your process is capable of detecting?”
_Answer._—“_I am perfectly sure I could detect the 50,000th part of
a grain if it was unmixed with organic matter. If I put ten grains in
a gallon, or 70,000 grains of water, I could discover its presence
in the tenth part of a grain of that water._ It is more difficult to
detect when mixed with organic matter. If a person had taken a grain,
a very small quantity would be found in the heart, but no doubt it
could be found. I made four experiments with a large dog to which I
had given the one-eighth part of a grain. _I have discovered it by
change of colour in the thirty-second part of the liver of a dog._”
In reply to a request by Mr. Grove, Lord Campbell intimated that in the
opinion of the Court experiments could not now be shown. This defect of
evidence has been cured by the Vivisection Act, before referred to.
_Dr. Henry Letheby, examined by Mr. Kenealy._—“I am a bachelor of
medicine, professor of chemistry and toxicology in the London Hospital
of Medicine, and Medical Officer of Health to the City of London. I
have been engaged for a considerable time in the study of poisons and
their action on the living animal economy. I have also been frequently
engaged on behalf of the Crown in prosecutions in cases of this
nature during the last fourteen years. I have been present during
the examination of the medical witnesses, and have attended to the
evidence as to the symptoms which have been described as attending
the death of Cook. I have witnessed many cases of animals poisoned
by strychnia, and many cases of poisoning by nux vomica in the human
body, one of which was fatal. The symptoms described in this case do
not accord with the symptoms I have witnessed in the case of those
animals. They differ in this respect:—In the first place I never
witnessed the long interval between the administration of the poison
and the commencement of the symptoms which is said to have elapsed in
this case. The longest interval I have known has been three-quarters
of an hour, and then the poison was administered under most
disadvantageous circumstances. It was given on a very full stomach
and in a form uneasy of solution. I have seen the symptoms begin in
five minutes. The average time in which they begin is a quarter of an
hour. In all cases I have seen the system has been in that irritable
state that the very lightest excitement, such as an effort to move,
a touch, a noise, a breath of air, would send the patient off in
convulsions. It is not at all probable that a person, after taking
strychnia, could pull a bell violently. Any movement would excite
the nervous system, and bring on spasms. It is not likely that a
person in that state could bear to have his neck rubbed. When a case
of strychnia does not end fatally, the first paroxysm is succeeded
by others, gradually shaded off, the paroxysms becoming less violent
every time, and I agree with Dr. Christison that they would subside
in twelve or sixteen hours. I have no hesitation in saying that
strychnia is, of all poisons, either mineral or vegetable, the most
easy of detection. I have detected it in the stomach of animals in
numerous instances, also in the blood and in the tissues. The longest
period after death in which I have detected it is about a month. The
animal was then in a state of decomposition. I have detected very
minute portions of strychnia. When it is pure, the 20,000th part
of a grain can be detected. I can detect the tenth part of a grain
most easily in a pint of any liquid, whether pure or putrid. I gave
one animal half a grain, and I have the strychnia here now within a
very small trifle. I never failed to detect strychnia where it had
been administered. I have made _post-mortem_ examinations on various
animals killed by it. I have always found the right side of the heart
full. The reason is that the death takes place from the fixing of the
muscles of the chest by spasms, so that the blood is unable to pass
through the lungs, and the heart cannot relieve itself from the blood
flowing to it, and therefore becomes gorged. The lungs are congested
and filled with blood. I have administered strychnia in a liquid and a
solid form; I agree with Dr. Taylor that it may kill in six or eleven
minutes when taken in a solid state in the form of a pill or bolus. I
also agree with him that the first symptom is that the animal falls
on its side, the jaws are spasmodically closed, and the slightest
touch produces another paroxysm. But I do not agree with him that the
colour tests are fallacious. I do not agree that it is changed when it
is absorbed into the blood, but I agree with its absorption. I think
it is not changed when the body is decomposed. The shaking about of
the contents of the stomach with the intestines in a jar, would not
prevent the discovery of strychnia, if it had been administered. Even
if the contents of the stomach were lost, the mucous membrane would,
in the ordinary course of things, exhibit traces of strychnia. I have
studied the poison of antimony. If a quantity had been introduced into
brandy-and-water, and swallowed at a gulp, the effect would not be to
burn the throat. Antimony does not possess any such quality as that of
immediate burning. I have turned my attention to the subject of poison
for seventeen or eighteen years.”
_Cross-examined by the Attorney-General._—“I am not a member of the
College of Physicians or of Surgeons. I do not now practise. I have
been in general practice for two or three years. _I gave evidence in
the last case of this sort, tried in this court in 1850_” (the case
of Ann Merritt). “_I gave evidence of the presence of arsenic. The
woman was convicted. I stated that it had been administered within
four hours of death. I was the cause of her being respited, and the
sentence was not carried into effect, in consequence of a letter I
wrote to the Home Office. Other scientific gentlemen interfered, and
challenged the soundness of my conclusions before I wrote that letter.
I have not since been employed by the Crown. There has not been a case
that I know of. I have been employed in prosecutions._”
_By Mr. Justice Cresswell._—“I was present at the trial. I perfectly
remember it.” (See the report of this case, _post_.)
_Cross-examination continued._—“I detected the poison. I said in my
letter that I could not speak as to possibilities, but merely as to
probabilities. I have experimented on animals for a great number of
years. On five recently. I have never given more than a grain, and it
has always been in a solid form—in pills or bread. In the case where
poison was administered under disadvantageous circumstances it was
kneaded up into a hard mass of bread.”
_Mr. Baron Alderson._—“Did the animal bolt it or bite it?”
_Witness._—“I opened the mouth and put it into the throat. About half
an hour elapsed before the symptoms appeared in one case in which
half a grain had been given. In another case death took place within
thirteen minutes. I have noticed twitching of the ears, difficulty
of breathing, and other premonitory symptoms. There are little
variations in the order in which the symptoms occur. I have known
frequent instances in which an animal has died in the first paroxysm.
I heard the evidence of Mrs. Smyth’s death, and I was surprised at her
having got out of bed when the servant answered the bell. It is not
consistent with the cases I have seen. That fact does not shake my
opinion. I have no doubt that Mrs. Smyth died from strychnia. Cook’s
sitting up in bed and asking Jones to ring the bell is inconsistent
with what I have observed in strychnia cases.”
_Question._—“If a man’s breath is hurried, is it not natural for him
to sit up?”
_Answer._—“It is. I have seen cases of recovery of human subjects
after taking strychnia. There is a great uniformity in its effects;
that is, in their main features, but there is a small variation as to
the time in which they are produced.”
_Question._—“What do you attribute Cook’s death to?”
_Answer._—“It is irreconcileable with everything with which I am
acquainted.”
_Question._—“Is it reconcileable with any known disease you have ever
seen or heard of?”
_Answer._—“No.”[58]
_Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee._—“We are learning new facts every
day, and I do not at present conceive it to be impossible that some
peculiarity of the spinal cord, unrecognisable at the examination
after death, may have produced symptoms like those which have been
described. I, of course, include strychnia in my answer, but it is
irreconcileable with everything I have seen or heard of. It is as
irreconcileable with everything else; it is irreconcileable with
every disease that I am acquainted with, natural or artificial.
Touching an animal during the premonitory symptoms will bring on a
paroxysm. Vomiting is inconsistent with strychnia. The Romsey case
was an exceptional one, from the quantity of the dose. The ringing of
the bell would have produced a paroxysm. I am still of opinion that
the evidence I gave on the trial in 1851 is correct. I am not aware
that there is any ground for an imputation upon me in respect of
that evidence. I have no reason to think Government was dissatisfied
with me. _I have been since employed in prosecutions, where I very
much think the Crown was the prosecutor. After that case Dr. Pereira
came to my laboratory, and asked me, as an act of mercy, to write a
letter to him to show to the Home Office, admitting the possibility
of the poison which I found in the stomach having been administered
longer than four hours before death. I wrote the letter, drawing a
distinction between what was possible and probable, and the woman was
transported for life._”
In addition to these analytical chemists, Professor Rogers, of the St.
George’s Medical School, London, described an experiment he had lately
made on a dog to which he had given two grains of strychnia. He had
not taken out its stomach and its contents, together with some of the
blood, until three days after death, and had put off the analysis of
the latter for _ten_ days, when it had become putrid, and that of the
stomach and its contents for a month or five weeks, yet found in both
portions strychnia in large quantities. This witness maintained that
unless the contents of the stomach in Cook’s case had been lost, their
being shaken would only make the process of detection more difficult,
but admitted that if strychnia had been in his stomach it would be
found smeared over its mucous membrane, which, it may be remembered,
was not sent to Dr. Taylor.
_Dr. Francis Wrightson_, a pupil of Liebig, of Giessen, a teacher of
chemistry at a school in Birmingham, described two similar experiments
on animals, with the same results as Professor Rogers. He expressed his
decided opinion that strychnia could be detected in a mixture of bile,
bilious matter, and putrifying blood and in the tissues in extremely
minute quantities indeed, and that five or six days after death he
should expect to find it, if it had been given—unless the dose had
been entirely absorbed. The clearness and decision with which this
witness gave his evidence elicited the well-deserved commendation of
Lord Campbell. On _cross-examination_ by the _Attorney-General_, he was
asked—
_Question._—“Supposing that the whole dose was absorbed into the
system, where would you expect to find it?”
_Answer._—“In the blood.”
_Question._—“Does it pass from the blood into the solids of the body?”
_Answer._—“It does, or I should rather say it is left in the solids
of the body. In its progress towards its final destination, the
destruction of life, it passes from the blood, or is left by the blood
in the solid tissues of the body.”
_Question._—“If it be present in the stomach, you find it in the
stomach; if it be present in the blood, you find it there; if left by
the blood in the tissues, you find it there?”
_Answer._—“Precisely so.”
_Question._—“Suppose the whole had been absorbed.”
_Answer._—“Then I would not undertake to find it.”
_Question._—“Suppose the whole had been eliminated from the blood,
and had passed into the urine, should you expect to find it in the
blood?”
_Answer._—“Certainly not.”
_Question._—“Suppose the minimum dose which will destroy life had
been taken, and absorbed into the circulation, then deposited in the
tissues, and then a part eliminated by the action of the kidneys;
where would you search for it?”
_Answer._—“In the blood, in the tissues, and in the ejections; and I
would undertake to discover it in each of them.”
_Mr. Partridge_, the professor of Anatomy at King’s College, gave the
following evidence, attributing the death of Cook to the granules found
on his spine at the _post-mortem_ examination:—
“These granules,” said the witness, “would be likely to cause
inflammation, and no doubt that inflammation would have been
discovered if the spinal cord or its membranes had been examined
shortly after death. It would not be likely to be discovered if the
spinal cord was not examined until nine weeks after death. I have
not seen cases in which this inflammation has produced tetanic form
of convulsions, but such cases are on record. It sometimes does, and
sometimes does not produce convulsions and death.”
_Question._—“Can you form any judgment as to the cause of death in
Cook’s case?”
_Answer._—“I cannot. No conclusion or inference can be drawn from the
degree or kind of the contractions of the body after death.”
_Lord Campbell._—“Can you not say from the symptoms you heard whether
death was produced by _tetanus_, without saying what was the cause of
_tetanus_?”
_Answer._—“Hypothetically I should infer that he died of the form of
_tetanus_ which convulses the muscles. Great varieties of rigidity
arise after death from natural causes. The half-bent hands and fingers
are not uncommon after natural death. The arching of the feet in this
case seemed to me rather greater than usual.”
_Cross-examined by the Attorney-General._—“Granules are sometimes,
but not commonly, found about the spine of a healthy subject,—not
on the cord itself; they may exist consistently with health. No
satisfactory cases of the inflammation I have described have come
under my notice without producing convulsions. It is a very rare
disease. I cannot state from the recorded cases the course of the
symptoms of that disease. It varies in duration, sometimes lasting
only for days, sometimes much longer. If the patient lives it is
accompanied with paralysis. It produces no effect on the brain which
is recognisable after death. It would not affect the brain prior to
death. I do not know whether it is attended with loss of sensibility
before death. The size of the granules which will produce it varies.
This disease is not a matter of months, unless it terminates in palsy.
I never heard of a case in which the patient died after a single
convulsion. Between the intervals of the convulsions I don’t believe
a man could have twenty-four hours’ repose. Pain and spasms would
accompany the convulsions. I cannot form a judgment as to whether the
general health would be affected in the intervals between them.”
_Question._—“You have heard it stated that from the midnight of
Monday till Tuesday Cook had complete repose. Now, I ask you, in the
face of the medical profession, whether you think the symptoms which
have been described proceeded from that disease?”
_Answer._—“I should think not.”
_Question._—“Did you ever know the hands completely clinched after
death except in case of tetanus?”
_Answer._—“No.”
_Question._—“Have you ever known it even in _idiopathic_ or
_traumatic tetanus_?”
_Answer._—“I have never seen _idiopathic tetanus_. I have seen the
hands completely clinched in _traumatic tetanus_. A great deal of
force is often required to separate them.”
_Question._—“Have you ever known the feet so distorted as to assume
the form of a club foot?”
_Answer._—“No.”
_Question._—“You heard Mr. Jones state that if he had turned the body
upon the back it would have rested on the head and the heels. Have you
any doubt that that is an indication of death from tetanus?”
_Answer._—“No; it is a form of tetanic spasm. I am only acquainted
with _tetanus_ resulting from strychnia by reading. Some of the
symptoms in Cook’s case are consistent, some are inconsistent with
strychnia _tetanus_. The first inconsistent symptom is the intervals
that occurred between the taking of the supposed poison and the
attacks.”
_Question._—“Are not symptoms of bending of the body, difficulty of
respiration, convulsions in the throat, legs, and arms, perfectly
consistent with what you know of the symptoms of death from strychnia?”
_Answer._—“Perfectly consistent. I have known cases of _traumatic
tetanus_. The symptoms in those cases had been occasionally remitted,
never wholly terminated. I never knew _traumatic tetanus_ run its
course to death in less than three or four days. I never knew a
complete case of the operation of strychnia upon a human subject.”
_Question._—“Bearing in mind the distinction between _traumatic_ and
_idiopathic tetanus_, did you ever know of such a death as that of
Cook according to the symptoms you have heard described?”
_Answer._—“No.”
_Re-examined by Mr. Grove._—“Besides the symptom which I have
mentioned as being inconsistent with the theory of death by strychnia,
there are others—namely, sickness, beating the bed clothes, want
of sensitiveness to external impressions, and sudden cessation of
the convulsions and apparent complete recovery. There was apparently
an absence of the usual muscular agitation. Symptoms of convulsive
character arising from an injury to the spine vary considerably in
their degrees of violence, in their periods of intermission, and in
the muscles which are attacked. Intermission of the disease occurs,
but is not frequent in _traumatic tetanus_. I don’t remember that
death has ever taken place in fifteen hours; it may take place in
forty-eight hours during convulsions. Granules about the spine are
more unusual in young people than in old. I don’t know of any case
in which the spine can preserve its integrity, so as to be properly
examined, for a period of nine weeks. I should not feel justified in
inferring that there was no disease from not finding any at the end
of that time. The period of decomposition varies from a few hours to
a few days. It is not in the least probable that it could be delayed
for nine weeks.”
_By the Attorney-General._—“Supposing the stomach were acted on by
other causes, I do not think sickness would be inconsistent with
_tetanus_.”
With reference to the existence of these granules, _Mr. Oliver
Pemberton_, anatomical lecturer at Queen’s College, Birmingham, who was
present with Professor Bolton when Cook’s body was exhumed, in January,
for the special purpose of arriving at a more satisfactory decision
on this point than had been effected at the first _post-mortem_
examination, was called for the defence. He gave it as his opinion, in
which Professor Bolton agreed, that the spinal cord was not then in a
condition to enable him to judge as to what was its state immediately
after death; the upper part, where it separated from the brain, being
green from decomposition, and the other part, though better preserved,
not soft enough for that purpose. This point was, therefore, left in a
far from satisfactory position.
A _Dr. G. Robinson_, of the Newcastle-on-Tyne Dispensary, also
supported the spinal granules theory, and considered that from his
habits of life Cook was predisposed to epilepsy. He admitted, however,
on _cross-examination_, that “he had never seen symptoms of epilepsy
proceed to anything like the extent as in Cook’s case; never saw a
body so stiff in epilepsy as to rest on its head and heels; nor such
symptoms, except in tetanus, and that the extreme form of epilepsy was
always accompanied by unconsciousness.” “The granules,” he thought,
“were likely to have irritated the spinal cord, and yet no indications
remain after death; they might have produced Cook’s death.”
_Attorney-General._—“But do you think so?”
_Witness._—“Putting aside the assumption of strychnia, I should say
so.”
_Attorney-General._—“_Are not all the symptoms reported by Mr. Jones
indicative of death by strychnia?_”
_Witness._—“_They certainly are._”
_Attorney-General._—“Then it comes to this, that if there were no
other cause of death suggested, you should say it arose from epilepsy?”
_Witness._—“Yes. Epilepsy is a well-known disease which includes many
others, and the convulsions of that disease sometimes assume tetanic
appearances.”