TRIALS FOR POISONING BY ARSENIC.
NOTWITHSTANDING the difficulties thrown in the way of the purchase of
arsenic by the “Sale of Arsenic Regulation Act” of 1852, the cases of
poisoning by the use of this drug have been so numerous, that it has
been difficult to select examples without greatly extending the bulk
of this volume. I have, therefore, limited the full reports in this
chapter to two, namely:—(1). The case of Miss Madeline Smith for
the imputed murder of her lover, Pierre Emile L’Angelier in Glasgow,
tried before the “Lords of the Justiciary,” the chief criminal court
of Scotland, in Edinburgh, on the 30th of June, 1857, a case full
of interest and doubt, the mystery of which will probably never be
disclosed; and (2) that of Ann Merritt for the murder of her husband,
tried at the Old Bailey, March 8th, 1850, on the verdict in which
arose a notable difference of opinion between leading medical and
other experts, and the chief medical witness, as to the possibility
of fixing, with any definiteness, the time at which the arsenic
found in the body had been administered; resulting in the eventual
commutation of the capital sentence by Sir George Grey, the Home
Secretary. This was the case referred to by the Attorney-General in
his cross-examination of Dr. Letheby in Palmer’s trial. For the trial
of Madeline Smith I have relied on the Report reprinted with additions
and corrections from “The Scotsman,” by far the most accurate that I
have read. To my copy is an Appendix of the _whole_ of the letters,
including those suppressed in Court, published in New York at the
Astor Press. Happily it is not necessary to dwell on their disgusting
details.
TRIAL OF MADELINE SMITH.
_Before the_ LORD JUSTICE CLERK (_the_ HON. JOHN HOPE), LORD IVORY,
_and_ LORD HANDYSIDE, _at_ EDINBURGH, _30th June and following days,
1857_.
_For the Prosecution_: The Lord Advocate (Jas. Moncrieffe), The
Solicitor-General (E. F. Maitland), and Mr. Donald Mackenzie.
_For the Defence_: The Dean of Faculty, Mr. John Inglis (now Lord
Justice General), Mr. G. Young (now Lord Young), and Mr. H. Moncrieff.
By the indictment the Prisoner was charged with administering or
causing to be administered to Emile L’Angelier,[102] arsenic or some
other poison, in coffee, cocoa, or some other food or drink, on the
19th or 20th of February, and on the 22nd or 23rd of February last,
with intent to murder, and on the 22nd or 23rd of March, whereby he
died on the day last named, and was thus murdered by the Prisoner. To
which the Prisoner pleaded “Not Guilty.”
THE HISTORY OF THE CASE.
_Pierre Emile L’Angelier_, a Frenchman by birth, had been employed in
Scotland since the year 1843, when he was with a firm of nurserymen at
Dundee. How long he stayed with them was not proved, but according to
his own statement he was one of the National Guard in the Revolution
in Paris in 1848. He was always a poor man, and in 1851, when again
in Scotland, was in such straits that he was living at a tavern in
Edinburgh on the charity of its proprietor. When there he was at times
in very low spirits, crying at night, and speaking of committing
suicide, getting out of bed and walking about the room weeping, and
on one occasion on the point apparently of throwing himself out of
the window of his room had he not been prevented by his companion.
Some love affairs—one with an English lady, another with a lady in
Fife—were the causes he assigned for his melancholy and depression.
In a letter, probably of this date, he wrote, “I never was so unhappy
in my life. I wish I had the courage to blow my brains out.” In 1852
he was in the employ of another nurseryman at Dundee, still harping on
his disappointment in love, complaining bitterly of the last lady’s
intended marriage with another—gloomy, moody, dull, and threatening to
stab himself. Vain of his person, he was always talking of his success
with ladies, and of what he should do if he was again jilted. On one
occasion, when speaking of the use of arsenic for improving the coats
of horses, and asked if he was not afraid of poisoning them, he said,
“Oh, no: so far from doing that, he had taken it himself, without any
bad effects.” From this employment he went to that of Messrs. Huggins
and Co., of Glasgow, where he was looked upon as a steady, industrious
clerk, “a well-behaved, well-principled, religious man.” Whilst with
this firm he pressed a young friend to introduce him to Miss Smith; and
thus sprang up the attachment which led to the catastrophe.
_Miss Madeline Smith_, to whom L’Angelier was introduced towards the
end of 1854, was the daughter of an architect of position in Glasgow,
and had lately returned from an English boarding-school. She was
attractive in person, and just of the age to fall violently in love
with such a plausible, goodlooking man as L’Angelier. As her parents
naturally had little liking for a merchant’s clerk as their daughter’s
husband, the love affair that arose at once after the introduction
was carried on clandestinely by a voluminous correspondence, in which
more than 200 letters passed from her to the deceased in the brief
period of their attachment, and such stolen interviews in or out of her
father’s house as could be arranged with the connivance of one of his
servants. According to the theory of the prosecution, L’Angelier was an
accomplished and deliberate seducer, who at last gained his purpose on
the 6th of May, from which date Miss Smith’s letters to her lover speak
plainly of matters of which even married persons would be reticent,
and are couched in language suitable only to married persons. She was
clearly in L’Angelier’s power, who wished to marry her, and made
more than one arrangement for an elopement. Towards the end of 1856,
however, her affection for him began to cool, and with reason. She had
accepted the attentions of a Mr. Minnoch, with the full consent of her
parents, and shortly after actually fixed the day for her marriage with
him. The danger of her situation pressed upon her. L’Angelier, when he
knew of this, was not the man to sit tamely under such a slight, or to
let another person marry one of whom he knew so much to her discredit.
She wrote him to return her letters, begged and prayed him to do so,
and let the engagement drop, to which she never could get the sanction
of her parents. He refused. He had heard a rumour of the Minnoch
engagement, and he threatened to send the letters to her father. Still
it was not revenge that he wanted; he wanted his wife. Her letters at
this time give the most painful proofs of the state of mind into which
she had fallen. “On her bended knees,” she wrote, begging “him not to
expose her, for her mother’s sake,” and “the dread of her father’s
anger.” “As you hope for mercy at the judgment day, do not inform on
me; do not make me a public shame. There is no one I love. My love was
all given to you. My heart is empty, cold. I am unloved. I am despised.
I told you I had ceased to love. It is true.” Such was her letter,
presumably of the 11th of February, 1857. At this time she was engaged
to Minnoch, and the day of the marriage, if not actually fixed, had
been talked about. She begged for an interview. In the postscript to
this sad letter, she added: “I will take you within the door; the area
gate will be open. I shall see you from my window, twelve o’clock. I
will wait till one o’clock.” The exact date of this letter could not
be proved, as it had been delivered and not posted. It was dated only
Tuesday evening, twelve o’clock; and however ingenious was the argument
of the Lord Advocate, it failed to satisfy the court that it produced
an interview on the 11th which led to another on the 19th—the day on
which, according to the Crown, she first administered the poison to her
lover, from which arose the first of his illnesses, as described by
Mrs. Jenkins, his landlady.
Previously to the trial, the following explanation of the connection
with L’Angelier had been given by the prisoner, in her examination
before the Sheriff Substitute of Lanarkshire on the 31st of March,
“when,” he said, “she answered his questions without hesitation, and
with great appearance of frankness and candour.”
DECLARATION OF THE PRISONER.
“I am a native of Glasgow, 21 years of age, and reside with my father
at No. 7, Blythswood Square, Glasgow. For about two years I have been
acquainted with P. Emile L’Angelier, who was in the employment of
Huggins & Co., in Bothwell Street, and resided at 10, Franklin Place.
He recently paid his addresses to me, and I have met him on a variety
of occasions. I heard of his death on the afternoon of the 23rd of
March from my mother. _I had not seen him for about three weeks before
his death_, and the last time I saw him was on a night about half-past
ten o’clock. On that occasion he tapped at my window, which is on the
ground floor and fronts Main Street. I talked to him from the window,
which is stanchioned outside, and I did not go out to him, nor did he
come into me. This occasion, which, as already said, was the last,
_was about three weeks before his death, and was the last time I saw
him_. He was in the habit of writing notes to me, and I was in the
habit of replying to them. The last note I wrote _was on the Friday
before his death, the 20th of March_. (Identifies note and envelope.)
_In consequence of that note I expected him to visit me on Saturday
the 21st, at my bedroom window, in the same way as before, but he did
not come and sent no notice. There was no tapping at my window on the
Saturday night, nor on the Sunday following._ I went to bed on the
Saturday night about eleven, and remained in bed until the usual time
of getting up next morning, being eight or nine o’clock. In the course
of my meetings with him, he and I had arranged to get married, and at
one time we had proposed September last as the time and subsequently
the present month of March. It was proposed we should reside in
furnished lodgings, but we had not made any definite arrangement as
to time or otherwise. He was very unwell, and had gone to the Bridge
of Allan for his health, and he complained of sickness; but I have
no idea what was the cause of it. _I remember giving him some cocoa
from my window one night, some time ago, but I cannot specify the time
particularly. He took the cup in his hand and barely tasted it, and
I gave him no bread with it._ I was taking some cocoa myself at the
time, and had prepared it myself. (Identifies note No. 2, which she
wrote and sent to post.) _As I had attributed his illness to want of
food, I proposed, as stated in the note, to give him a loaf of bread,
but I said that merely in a joke, and in point of fact I never gave
him any bread._
I have bought arsenic on various occasions. The last I bought was a
sixpenny-worth, in Currie’s, the apothecary’s shop in Sauchiehall
Street. Prior to that I had bought other two quantities of arsenic for
which I paid sixpence each—one of these in Currie’s, and the other
in Murdoch’s, the apothecary’s shop in Sauchiehall Street. I used it
all as a cosmetic, and applied it to my face, neck, and arms, diluted
with water. The arsenic I got at Currie’s on Wednesday, 18th March,
and used it all on one occasion, having put it all in the basin where
I was to wash myself. I had been advised to this use of arsenic by
a young lady of the name of Giubilei, the daughter of an actress,
whom I had met at school at Clapton near London.[103] I had also seen
it recommended in the newspapers. I did not wish any of my father’s
family to know that I was using arsenic, and therefore never mentioned
it to anyone, and I do not suppose that they or any of the servants
noticed it in the basin. When I bought the arsenic at Murdoch’s, I
am not sure whether I was asked or not what it was for; but I think
I said for a gardener, to kill rats or destroy vermin about flowers,
and I only said this because I did not wish them to know that I was
going to use it as a cosmetic. I do not remember whether I was asked
as to the use I was going to make of the arsenic on the other two
occasions. I likely made the same statement about it as I had done
at Murdoch’s; and on all three occasions, as required in the shops,
I signed my name to a book in which the sales are entered. On the
first occasion I was accompanied by Mary, a daughter of Dr. Buchanan,
of Dumbarton. For several years past Mr. Minnoch, of the firm of W.
Houldsworth & Co., has been coming a good deal about my father’s
house; and about a month ago he made a proposal of marriage to me,
and I gave him my hand in token of acceptance, but no time for the
marriage has been fixed;[104] and my object in writing the note, No.
1, before mentioned, was to have a meeting with Mr. L’Angelier to tell
him I was engaged to Mr. Minnoch.[105] (Identifies two notes and an
envelope bearing the Glasgow post-mark of 23rd January, as written and
sent by her to L’Angelier.) On the occasion that I gave L’Angelier the
cocoa, I think that I used it must have been known to the servants and
members of my father’s family, as the package containing the cocoa
was lying on the mantelpiece in my room, but no one of the family
used it, as they did not like it. The water that I used I got hot
from the servants. On the night of the 18th, when I used the arsenic
last, I was going to a dinner party at Mr. Minnoch’s house. I never
administered, or caused to be administered, to Mr. L’Angelier arsenic
or anything injurious. And this I declare to be truth.”
With this brief introduction, let us proceed to the details of his
various illnesses, due, as the prosecution inferred, to arsenical
poisoning.
THE SYMPTOMS.
Mrs. Jenkins, at whose house L’Angelier came to lodge in the July of
1856, and continued there till his death, spoke of her lodger as of
civil habits, but wont to stay out at night, for which purpose he
had the use of a latch-key. His health was usually good; but about
the middle of February, 1857, he had a severe attack of illness, and
another on the 23rd, of which she gave the following account:—
“One night he wished a pass key, as he thought he would be late out.
I went to bed and did not hear him come in. I knocked at his door
about eight the next morning and got no answer. I knocked again, and
he said, ‘Come in, if you please.’ I went in. He said, ‘I have been
very unwell; look what I have vomited.’ I said I thought it was bile.
It was a greenish substance. There was a great deal of it. It was
thick stuff, like gruel. I said, ‘Why did you not call me?’ He said
that while on the road coming home, he was seized with a violent pain
in his bowels and stomach, and when he was taking off his clothes,
thought he should have died on the carpet, and no human eye would have
seen him. ‘I was not able,’ he said, ‘to ring the bell.’ He asked me
to make a little tea, and said he would not go out. I emptied what he
had vomited, and advised him to go to a doctor, and he said he would.
He took a little breakfast and then went to sleep for an hour, when
I went back to him, and he said he was better, and would go out. Mr.
Thuau, who lodges in my house, saw him. He went out between ten and
eleven—his place of business is two streets off. He returned about
three in the afternoon, said he had been to a doctor and brought a
bottle of medicine with him. He took the medicine and complained about
feeling very thirsty.
“His illness made a great change in his appearance. He looked yellow
and dull, and before that his complexion was fresh. He became dark
under the eyes, and the red of his cheeks seemed to be more broken.
He complained of being very cold after he came in. He lay down on the
sofa, and I laid a railway-rug over him. I did nothing for his feet.
He never was the same after his illness. When asked how he felt, he
was accustomed to say, ‘I never feel well.’ On a Monday morning, about
four o’clock, he called me. He was vomiting. It was the same kind of
stuff as before in colour and otherwise. There was not quite so much
of it. He complained on this occasion likewise of pain in the bowels
and stomach, and of thirst and cold. I did not know he was out the
night before. He did not say anything about it. I put more blankets on
him, jars of hot water to his feet, and made him some tea. I gave him
also a great many drinks—toast and water, lemon and water, and such
like—because he was thirsty. I called again about six in the morning.
He did not rise until the forenoon. Dr. Thomson came to attend,
fetched by Thuau, and left a prescription for powders, of which he
took one or two. He said they were not doing him the good he expected;
‘the doctor always said he was getting better, but he did not feel
well;’ ‘he did not feel getting better.’ He was eight days away from
business at that time. Some time after he went to Edinburgh, and
returned to Glasgow on the 17th of March, and stayed till the 19th,
when he went away, as he said, to the Bridge of Allan.
“He went away about 10 A.M., and said he would not be home before
Wednesday night or Thursday morning next week. A letter came for him
on the 19th like those that used to come, and I gave it to Thuau.
I don’t remember any coming on Friday, but one more, like a lady’s
writing, on Saturday, which I also gave to Thuau. (Identifies envelope
as like that of letter received on Saturday, but not another which was
shown her.) L’Angelier was much disappointed at not getting a letter
before he left, and said, ‘If I get a letter, perhaps I shall be home
to-night.’
“I next saw L’Angelier on Sunday night, about eight. He said the
letter sent had brought him home. I told him it had come on Saturday
afternoon. He did not say where he had come from. I understood he
had been at the Bridge of Allan. He looked much better, and said he
was so. He went out about 9 P.M., and asked for a latch-key, as he
might be late. I was to call him early. It was about half-past two
next morning when I next saw him; he did not use the latch-key, but
rang the bell violently. When I opened the door, he was standing with
his arms on his stomach. He said, ‘I am very bad. I am going to have
another vomiting of that bile.’ The first time I saw the vomitings, I
said it was bile. He said he was never troubled with bile. He said he
never thought he should have got home, he was so bad on the road. He
did not say how he had been bad. The first thing he took was a little
water. I filled up the tumbler, and he tried to vomit. He wished a
little tea. I went into the room (with it?), and before he was half
undressed he was vomiting severely. It was the same kind of matter as
I had seen before. There was a light. The vomiting was attended with
great pain. I asked him whether he had taken anything to disagree
with his stomach. He said he had taken nothing since he was at the
Bridge of Allan. He was chill and cold, and wished a jar of hot water
to his feet, and another to his stomach. I got these for him, and
two blankets and mats. He got a little easier. About four o’clock
he was worse, and on my proposing to go for a doctor said he was a
little better, and I need not. About five he was worse again, and
his bowels became bad. He had been vomiting only up to this time. I
went for Dr. Steven, who could not come so early, but told me to give
him twenty-five drops of laudanum, and put a mustard blister on his
stomach, and if he did not get better he would come. At L’Angelier’s
request, I went again, and the doctor came, who immediately ordered
him mustard. I said to him, ‘Look at what he has vomited.’ He said,
‘Take it away, it is making him faint.’ I got the mustard, and the
doctor put it on, and I think gave him a little morphia. I said to
L’Angelier, ‘This is the worst attack you have had.’ The doctor stayed
about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. I took him into the
dining-room, and asked him what was wrong; he asked me if he was a
person that tippled. I said, ‘No,’ and that this was the second time
this had occurred, and asked what was the reason. The doctor said this
was matter for explanation. The first time I went back, L’Angelier
asked what the doctor had said. I said he thought he would get over
it, and L’Angelier replied, ‘I am far worse than he thinks.’ About
nine, when I drew the curtains, he looked very ill, and I asked if
there was no one he wished sent for. He asked to see Miss Perry, of
Bamfield Street. I sent for her. He said he thought that if he could
get five minutes’ sleep he should be better. These were the last words
I heard him use. I went back into the room in about five minutes; he
was then quite quiet, and I thought he was asleep. The doctor then
returned, and I told him so. He went into the room, felt his pulse,
lifted his head, and said he was dead.”
Nothing of importance with reference to the symptoms of his attacks
was elicited in cross-examination. His first illness, according to the
witness, was a great deal worse than the second. It was in January that
he first complained of ill health. He then first complained of his
tongue; then a boil came out on his neck, and shortly after another.
She did not think that he ate what suited him, and especially too
many vegetables, to which he said he was accustomed in France. On the
morning of his death he complained about his mouth being sore. The
doctor gave him some water, and he said it was choking him, or that
it was going into his chest. When in bed that morning he always had
his arms out on the bed clothes. She did not remember his hands being
clenched. His right hand was clenched when he died. The remainder of
the cross-examination related to the dress he usually wore, and the
search by the officers for his papers.[106]
MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
_Dr. Thomson_, a physician in Glasgow, who had known L’Angelier for two
years, gave the following evidence as to his health up to about the
10th of March:—
“He consulted me professionally, the first time, fully a year ago,
when he had a bowel complaint, of which he got better. Next time was
on the 3rd February this year for a cold and cough, and boil on his
neck, for which I prescribed. The next week after I saw him, when
another boil had appeared. _On the 23rd of February_ he came to me.
He was very feverish, and his tongue was furred, and had a patchy
appearance, from the fur being off in various places. He complained of
nausea, and had been vomiting. He was prostrate, his pulse was quick,
and he had general symptoms of fever. I prescribed for him (taking his
complaint to be bilious derangement) an aperient draught. He had been
ill, I think, for a day or two, but he had been taken worse the night
before he called on me—during the night of the 22nd and the morning
of the 23rd. He was confined to the house for two or three days. I
visited him on the 24th, 25th, and 26th of February, and on the 1st of
March met him. The aperient draught I prescribed contained magnesia
and soda. On the 24th I prescribed powders containing rhubarb, soda,
chalk of camomile, and ipecacuanha. On the 24th he was much in the
same state. He had vomited the draught I had given him on the 23rd,
and I observed that his skin was considerably jaundiced; and from the
whole symptoms I called the disease a bilious fever. On the 25th he
was rather better, and had risen from his bed to the sofa, but was not
dressed. On the 26th he felt considerably better and cooler, and I did
not think it necessary to repeat my visits till I happened to be in
the neighbourhood. _It did not occur to me that these symptoms arose
from the action of any irritant poison. If I had known that he had
taken an irritant poison, these were the symptoms I should expect to
follow._ I don’t think I asked him when he was seriously taken ill. I
had not seen him for some little time before, and certainly he looked
very dejected and ill; _his colour was rather darker and jaundiced,
and round the eye the colour was rather darker than usual_. I saw him
again eight or ten days after the 1st of March. He called on me, but I
have no note of the day; he was much the same as on the 1st of March.
He said he was thinking of going into the country, but did not say
where. I did not prescribe for him then. On the 26th of February, I
think I told him to give up smoking. I thought it was injurious to his
stomach. I never saw him again in life.”
“On the morning of the 23rd of March, Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Thuau
called on me, mentioned his death, and wished me to go and see his
body, and see if I could give an opinion as to the cause of his death.
They did not know that I had not seen him alive in his last illness. I
went to the house. The body was laid out on a stretcher on the table.
_The skin had a slightly jaundiced hue._ I said it was impossible to
give a decided opinion, and requested Dr. Steven to be sent for, who
had been in attendance. I examined the body with my hands externally,
and over the region of the liver the sound was dull; and over the
region of the heart the sound was natural. I saw what he had vomited,
and made inquiry as to the symptoms before death. Dr. Steven, when he
arrived, corroborated the statements of the landlady, as far as he was
concerned. No resolution as to a _post-mortem_ examination was come
to that day, but in the afternoon I stated to Mr. Huggins and another
gentleman, who called on me, that the symptoms were such as might have
been produced by an irritant poison, and that it was such a case that,
had it occurred in England, a coroner’s inquest would be held.”
On _cross-examination_, the witness said—
“_At the time I attended L’Angelier, in February, there were no
symptoms that I could definitely say were not due to a bilious attack,
they were all the symptoms of such an attack. There was no appearance
of jaundice. I have heard of that as a symptom of irritant poison._
It is in Dr. Taylor’s work on poisons. _The jaundice I saw was quite
consistent that he was labouring under a bilious attack, and could
easily be accounted for that way._”
_Dr. Steven_, physician of Glasgow, who was called in by Mrs. Jenkins
on the 23rd of March, at the commencement of the fatal attack, carried
on the case to the death of the deceased:—
“I was applied to,” said the Witness, “early in the morning of the
23rd of March last, by Mrs. Jenkins, to see her lodger, who she told
me was suffering from a severe bilious attack. Being unwell myself I
was unwilling to go, but advised her to give him hot water and drops
of laudanum. She came to me again about seven. I went, thinking,
as he was a Frenchman, he might not be understood. I found him in
bed, very much depressed. His features were pinched, and his hands.
He complained of coldness and pain over the region of the stomach.
By pinched, I mean shrunk and cold, or inclined to become cold. He
complained of general chilliness and his face and hands were cold
to the touch. He was physically and mentally depressed. I spoke to
him and observed nothing peculiar in his voice. I did not expect a
strong voice, and it was not particularly weak. That was when I first
entered the room. But his voice became weaker. He complained that his
breathing was painful, but it did not seem hurried. I dissuaded him
from speaking, had extra clothes put on his bed, gave him a little
morphia (mustard?) to make him vomit, but he seemed to have vomited
all he could. He had a weak pulse. I felt the action of the heart
corresponding to it. That imported that the circulation was weaker at
the extremities. The feet were not cold. Hot bottles were put to them,
and also above his body for his hands. He was not urgently complaining
of thirst. He seemed afraid of drinking large quantities for fear of
making himself vomit. He asked particularly for cold water, and was
unwilling to take whisky, which the landlady talked of giving him. He
said he had been vomiting and purging. I saw a utensil filled with the
matter vomited and purged. I ordered it to be removed and a clean one
put in its place, that I might see what he had vomited. I did not see
it. I believe it was kept for some time, but I said it might be thrown
away: that was after his death. He said, ‘_This is third attack_ I
have had: the landlady says it is bile, but I never was subject to
bile.’ He seemed to get worse while I was there. He several times
said, ‘My poor mother,’ and how dull he felt at being so ill away
from friends. I applied a mustard poultice to his stomach. I stayed I
suppose half-an-hour. I called again about a quarter past eleven. The
landlady met me and said he had been quite as bad as in the morning. I
went into the room and found him dead. He was lying on his right side,
with his back towards the light, his knees drawn a little up, one
arm outside the bedclothes and the other in. They were not much—not
unnaturally drawn up. He seemed in a comfortable position, as if
sleeping. About mid-day I was sent for again; Dr. Thomson was there
when I went in. I asked him if there was anything in his previous
illness, with the symptoms I mentioned, which would account for the
cause of death, but we were entirely at a loss to account for it. I
declined giving a certificate unless I made an examination, and Dr.
Thomson and I made one the next day. We subsequently made a second
examination after the body was exhumed.”
The witness then described how the stomach and its contents were
carefully preserved and sent to Professor Penny for analysis (see
Appendix A., p. 355).
ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.
_Dr. Penny_, the Professor of Chemistry in the Andersonian University,
Glasgow, then read the following report of his analysis of the parts of
the body handed to him by Dr. Thomson, made at the request of one of
the procurators fiscal of the country.
(1.) _Contents of Stomach._
“The liquid measured 8½ ounces. On being allowed to repose, it
deposited a white powder, which was found on examination to possess
the external characters and all the chemical properties peculiar
to arsenious acid, that is, the common white arsenic of the shops.
It consisted of hard, gritty, transparent, colourless crystalline
particles; it was soluble in boiling water, and readily dissolved in a
solution of caustic potash. It was unchanged by sulphide of ammonium,
and volatised when heated on platina foil. Heated in a tube it gave a
sparkling white sublimate, which, under the microscope, was found to
consist of octahedral crystals. Its aqueous solution afforded, with
ammonio-nitrate of silver, ammonio-sulphate of copper, sulphuretted
hydrogen, and bichromate of potash, the highly characteristic results
produced by arsenious acid. On heating a small portion of it in a
small tube with black flux, a brilliant ring of metallic arsenic was
obtained, with all its distinctive properties. Heated with dilute
hydrochloric acid and a slip of copper foil, a steel-gray coating was
deposited on the copper; and this coating, by further examination, was
proved to be metallic arsenic.
“Another portion of the powder, on being heated with nitric acid,
yielded a substance having the peculiar characters of arsenic acid.
A small portion of the powder was also subjected to what is commonly
known as ‘Marsh’s Proof,’ and metallic arsenic was thus obtained, with
all its peculiar physical and chemical properties. These results show,
unequivocally, that the said white powder was arsenious acid—that
is the preparation of arsenic which is usually sold in commerce, and
administered, or taken as a poison, under the name of arsenic or oxide
of arsenic.
“I then examined _the fluid contents of the stomach_. After the usual
preparatory operations, it was subjected to the following processes:—
“(1.) To a portion of the fluid Reinsch’s process was applied, and an
abundant steel-like coating was obtained on copper foil. On heating
the coated copper in a glass tube, the peculiar odour of arsenic
was distinctly perceptible, and a white crystalline sublimate was
produced, possessing the properties peculiar to arsenious acid.
“(2.) Another portion was distilled, and the distillate subjected to
Marsh’s process. The gas produced by this process had an arsenical
odour, burned with a bluish-white flame, and gave with nitrate
of silver the characteristic reaction of arseniuretted hydrogen.
On holding above the flame a slip of bibulous paper moistened
with a solution of ammonio-nitrate of silver, a yellow colour was
communicated to the paper. A white porcelain capsule depressed upon
the flame was quickly covered with brilliant stains, which on being
tested with the appropriate reagents, were found to be metallic
arsenic. By a modification of Marsh’s apparatus, the gas was conducted
through a heated tube, when a lustrous mirror-like deposit of arsenic
in the metallic state was collected; and this deposit was afterwards
converted into arsenious acid.
“(3.) Through another portion of the fluid a stream of sulphuretted
hydrogen was transmitted, when a bright yellow precipitate separated,
having the chemical properties of trisulphide of arsenic. It dissolved
readily in ammonia; it remained unchanged in hydrochloric acid; and it
gave, on being heated with black flux, a brilliant ring of metallic
arsenic.
“(4.) A fourth portion, being properly acidified with hydrochloric
acid was distilled, and the distillate subjected to ‘Fleitmann’s’
process. For this purpose it was boiled with zinc and a strong
solution of caustic potash. Arseniuretted hydrogen was disengaged and
was recognised by its odour, and its characteristic action on nitrate
of silver.”
(2.) _Stomach._
“I examined, in the next place, the stomach itself. It was cut
into small pieces, and boiled for some time in water containing
hydrochloric acid, and the solution, after being filtered, was
subjected to the same processes as those applied to the contents of
the stomach. The results in every case were precisely similar, and
the presence of a considerable quantity of arsenic was unequivocally
detected.”
(3.) _Quantity of Arsenic._
“I made, in the last place, a careful determination of the quantity
of arsenic contained in the stomach and its contents. A stream of
sulphuretted hydrogen gas was transmitted through a known quantity
of the prepared fluid from the said matters, until the whole of the
arsenic was precipitated in the form of trisulphide of arsenic. This
sulphide, after being carefully purified, was collected, dried, and
weighed, and the weight corresponded to a quantity of arsenious acid
(common white arsenic) in the entire stomach and its contents equal
to 82 grains and seven-tenths of a grain, or nearly one-fifth of
an ounce. The accuracy of this result was confirmed by converting
the sulphide of arsenic into arseniate of ammonia and magnesia, and
weighing the product. _The quantity here stated is exclusive of the
white powder first examined._ The purity of the various materials
and reagents employed in this investigation was most scrupulously
ascertained.”
_Conclusions._
“Having considered the results of this investigation, I am clearly
of opinion that they are conclusive in showing (1), That the matters
subjected to examination and analysis contained arsenic, and (2), That
the quantity of arsenic found was considerably more than sufficient to
destroy life.
“All this is true, on soul and conscience.
“FREDERICK PENNY,
“_Professor of Chemistry_.”
_April 6, 1857._
_Examination resumed._—“It is not easy to give a precise answer to
the question ‘How much arsenic would destroy life?’ Cases are on
record in which life was destroyed by two and four grains; four or
six grains are generally sufficient to destroy life, and the amount
I determined as existing in the stomach was 82 grains. On the 31st
of March I attended the exhumation of M. L’Angelier’s body. I saw
the coffin opened, and the portions of the body removed, which were
carefully preserved, in jars of which I never lost sight, and I
analysed the contents, and prepared the following
_Report._
“On Tuesday, 31st March last, I was present at a _post-mortem_
examination of the body of P. E. L’Angelier, made by Drs. Corbet,
Thomson, and Steven, in a vault in the Ramshorn Church, Glasgow.
“At my request, portions of the following organs were removed from the
body, and properly preserved for chemical analysis and examination:
(1.) Small intestine and contents; (2.) Large intestine; (3.) Liver;
(4.) Heart; (5.) Lung; (6.) Brain. These articles were taken direct
to the Laboratory of the Andersonian Institution, and were there
delivered to me by the parties named. I have since made a careful
analysis and chemical examination of all the said matters, with the
following results:—
(1.) _Small Intestine and Contents._
“The portion of the small intestine contained a turbid and
reddish-coloured fluid, measuring four ounces. On standing for
several hours in a glass vessel, this liquid deposited numerous and
well-defined octahedral crystals, which, being subjected to the usual
chemical processes for the detection of arsenic, were found to be
arsenious acid. Arsenic was also detected in the small intestine.
(2.) _Large Intestine._
“This organ yielded arsenic, but in less proportion than in the small
intestine.
(3.) _Liver, Brain, and Heart._
“Arsenic was separated from the liver, brain, and heart, but in much
less proportion than from the small and large intestines.
(4.) _Lung._
“The lung gave only a slight indication of the presence of arsenic.
_Conclusions._
“(1.) That the body of the deceased contained arsenic.
“(2.) That the arsenic must have been taken by or administered to him
while living.”
The witness then spoke of the examinations he had made into the arsenic
sold by the two chemists, _Murdoch_ and _Currie_, at whose shops
the prisoner had stated she had purchased it, for the purposes of a
cosmetic. In that sold at _Murdoch’s_, 91·1 per cent. was pure white
arsenic, and in that from _Currie’s_, 94·4 per cent., and the remainder
inorganic matter; in _Murdoch’s_ carbonaceous, in _Currie’s_ indigo
and carbonaceous matter. The quantity of indigo in this arsenic was
extremely small, and capable of being removed by peculiar and dexterous
manipulation, so that the arsenic would appear white to the unassisted
eye. If of this an amount sufficient to cause death had been given, and
prior to death great vomiting had taken place, the witness would not
expect to find any portion of the indigo: the quantity was so small,
that it would not colour wine of any sort. In the case of _Murdoch’s_
arsenic, however, as it was mixed with carbonaceous particles, if that
had been given and settled down from the contents of the stomach as
in this case, he should have expected to find such particles—not,
however, if it had been given a month before. Of the twelve bottles
and two packages of medicines, and the cake of chocolate found at
L’Angelier’s lodging, and submitted to him for analysis, none, except
a weak solution of aconite were poisonous, and that was so weak, that
had the whole two ounces in the phial been swallowed, it would not have
destroyed life. Of the use of prussic acid or arsenic as a cosmetic he
had never heard, and believed that both would be dangerous, and the
latter might produce constitutional symptoms of poisoning. He had heard
of its use as a depilatory, but then mixed with other matters, as lime,
and it was not arsenious acid, but usually the yellow sulphide, that
was used for this purpose.
On _cross-examination by the Dean of Faculty_, the witness said:—
“In the entire stomach and its contents there was arsenic equal to 82,
7-10th grains, exclusive of the white powder first examined, which,
after being dried, weighed 5, 2-10th grains, and was arsenious acid.
I did not determine the quantity of arsenic in the liver, heart, or
brain, and can give no notion of the quantity that might be in those
organs. In the small intestine it must have been considerable, because
when its contents were allowed to repose arsenious acid crystallised
out of that liquid and deposited abundantly on the sides of the
vessel,—which indicated that the liquid had as much arsenic as it
could hold in solution at that temperature. I can’t give any idea of
the quantity in the small intestine. It was decidedly appreciable.
It would be a mere matter of guess, and I should not like to guess
in so serious a matter. If the deceased, when attacked by symptoms
of arsenical poisoning, vomited often, and in large quantities, it
would depend on the mode of administration whether a quantity would
be carried off. If given in solid food, and in a solid state, a large
portion of the arsenic would be ejected from the stomach if all
the food were vomited; but if the arsenic were stirred up with the
liquid, and thereby thrown into a state of mechanical suspension, I
should not expect that so considerable a portion would be ejected by
vomiting. By solid food I mean bread and the like. In the case of
the arsenic being taken in a fluid, I could not say what proportion
might be ejected. I should not be surprised to find that as much had
been ejected as retained. Judging from what I found in the body,
the dose must have been of a very unusual size. There are cases on
record in which large quantities of arsenic have been found in the
stomach and intestines—larger than in the present. I think there
is a case where two drachms—120 grains—were found. In the cases I
refer to the arsenic was taken voluntarily, with the intention to
commit suicide. It would be very difficult to give a large dose in a
liquid. By a large dose you exclude many vehicles in which arsenic
might be administered. Nothing which I found indicated the time when
the arsenic must have been taken. The ordinary period between the
administration of the poison and the symptoms being manifested is
eight to ten hours in the cases on record: that is the extreme time.
There are some cases in which they show themselves in half an hour.
We have cases in which death resulted in a few hours, and cases in
which death has been delayed two days. As to the arsenic bought at
_Currie’s_ shop, the greater part of the colouring matter might be
removed. If you were to throw water on the arsenic, and agitate the
two together, and after the arsenic has subsided you throw off the
liquor, a portion of the colouring matter is thrown off, and if you
keep the vessel shaken in a particular way you may coax the greater
part of the colouring matter away. _Murdoch’s_ arsenic was coloured
with carbonaceous matter—it had the colour of coal soot. I cannot
tell from examination whether the arsenic found was given in one dose
or in several. It would be very dangerous to use arsenic externally
in any way. There are cases in which it has been rubbed on the whole
skin, and the symptoms of poisoning produced—vomiting, pain, but
not death. My impression is, from general reading, that it produces
eruption on the sound skin.[107] If cold water were used, I should not
like to wash in it. I cannot give any other answer.”
_To the Lord Justice Clerk._—“There are cases in which inflammation
of the intestines has been produced by the external application of
arsenic.”
_To the Dean._—“Arsenic is an irritant poison; it is absorbed into
the blood, I presume, with great rapidity, and through the blood it
reaches all the organs in which we find it.”
_To the Lord Advocate._—“In administering large doses of arsenic
many vehicles are excluded. Cocoa or chocolate is a vehicle in which
a large dose might be given. There is a great difference between
giving rise to suspicion and actual detection. I have found by actual
experiment, that when 30 to 40 grains of arsenic are put into a cup
of warm chocolate, a large portion of the arsenic settles down in
the bottom of the cup, and I think a person drinking such poisonous
chocolate would suspect something when the gritty particles came into
his mouth; but when the same and even a larger quantity were boiled
with the chocolate, instead of being stirred or mixed, none of it
settles down.[108] I could not separate the soot from _Murdoch’s_
arsenic, but a very large quantity of it might be separated. Supposing
a person subjected to repeated doses of arsenic, I have no evidence on
which to form an opinion whether the last dose would be more rapidly
fatal.”
_To the Dean._—“In the case of chocolate being boiled with arsenic in
it, a larger portion dissolves and does not subside. That is what I
find by actual experiment. Coffee or tea could not be made the vehicle
of so large a dose of arsenic.”
_To the Lord Justice Clerk._—“The period in which the arsenic
produces its effect varies in different individuals, and according to
the mode of administration. Pain in the stomach is one of the first
symptoms, and vomiting usually accompanies the pain, but it may be
very severe before the vomiting actually begins. Ten, fifteen, or
twenty grains might be given in coffee.”
_Professor Penny_, subsequently (on the fourth day), gave the following
account of experiments made by him with arsenic purchased from
_Murdoch’s_ and _Currie’s_ shops:—
“Some of the arsenic I purchased from _Murdoch’s_, which was mixed
with soot, I gave to a dog, and I had no difficulty in detecting the
soot in the stomach of that dog after death. I administered arsenic,
coloured by myself with indigo, to another dog, and had no difficulty
in detecting the indigo in that case by chemical tests. To another
dog I administered arsenic purchased at _Currie’s_, which it will
be remembered was mixed with indigo. After death I detected black
particles in the stomach of that dog, but I could not undertake to
identify the arsenic found with the arsenic given: I mean I found
carbonaceous particles, but that I could not undertake to say that
these particles were of themselves sufficient to identify any of the
particular poison administered. But as I administered it myself, it
must have been the same—at least, I know of no other source. I could
detect no arsenic in the brains of the dogs. I found solid arsenic in
the stomach, as well as in the texture of the stomach.”
_By the Court._—“Is it the fact that there is less arsenic found in
the brains of animals than of human beings?”
_Witness._—“I am not aware. In the one case I detected blue colouring
matter of indigo, in the other carbonaceous particles.”[109]
_By the Dean._—“Did you make yourself acquainted with the nature of
the colouring matter of _Currie’s_ arsenic before administering it to
the dog?”
_Witness._—“I did.”
_The Dean._—“Did the black particles you found correspond to the
constituents of the colouring matter?”
_Witness._—“They have a close resemblance to them, both in physical
appearance and in chemical properties.”
_The Dean._—“Were they not in physical appearance and chemical
properties, identical?”
_Witness._—“They were.”
_Professor Christison_, to whom, on the 11th of May, Dr. Penny had
delivered similar portions of the body to those on which he had
experimented, together with portions of the deposits from the stomach
and intestines, made a chemical analysis of the white powder, and the
fluids obtained from the stomach, and the small intestine, and of a
portion of the liver. As from these he obtained unequivocal proofs of
the presence of arsenic, he did not, at that time, proceed further.
Subsequently, however, on the 28th of May, he analysed a portion of the
great intestine, and was satisfied of the presence of arsenic; and in a
portion of the brain he found “traces of arsenic, but not satisfactory
evidence, which might be owing to the small quantity of material he had
to analyse.”
“The fluid from the stomach,” he said, “appeared to indicate a
considerable quantity in the system—more than sufficient to destroy
life. The symptoms of arsenic poisoning are variable. Sometimes
they pass off quickly, sometimes continue for weeks or months. When
they continue, they are indigestion, loss of strength, emaciation,
sometimes diarrhœa, lassitude of the limbs. If there appeared erosions
with elevated edges in the intestines, I should have been led to
suspect the existence of some affection of the intestines previous
to the final attack. The appearances exhibited by the _post-mortem_
examination were such as the witness would expect from arsenic.”
_By the Lord Advocate._—“If you had been consulted in a case of
this kind,—that on the 18th or 19th of February a person having
gone out in good health returns, is attacked during the night with
great pain in the bowels, severe vomiting of a green viscous fluid,
accompanied by intense thirst and purging, and after the lapse of two
or three days and partial recovery the patient is again seized with
the same symptoms, though in a somewhat modified form, and that after
the second attack he had continued affected with great lassitude,
change of colour, low pulse, and that after going from home for ten
or fourteen days, had again returned and been attacked the same night
with those symptoms in an aggravated form, and had died within eight
or ten hours of his return, and that on a _post-mortem_ examination
the results were found of which you are aware in this case:—I wish
you to give me your opinion, as a man of science and skill, what
conclusion you would draw as to the cause of the previous illness and
death?”
_Witness._—“I could have no doubt that the cause of death was
poisoning by arsenic, and such being the case, I should have
entertained a strong suspicion in regard to his previous illness,
because his death would have prevented me from taking the means of
satisfying my mind on the subject by a careful examination of all the
circumstances.”
_The Lord Advocate._—“Are the symptoms consistent with what you would
expect if continuous poisoning was taking place?”
_Witness._—“They are those which have occurred in parallel cases of
the administration of doses singly insufficient to cause death.”
Of the samples of _Murdoch’s_ and _Currie’s_ arsenic, which Dr.
Penny had delivered to him, “The former,” he said, “contained the
due proportion of soot; the latter was not coloured with the indigo
prescribed by the Act—was not of a bluish, but greyish black colour,
imperfectly mixed, and easily removeable by washing with cold water,
which cannot easily be done with good indigo. The proportion was a
thirty-sixth, and not a thirty-second, as the Act directs.”[110]
The _cross-examination_ of this witness was first directed to the
probability of the colouring matter in the arsenic being detected in
the portions of the body analysed.
“My attention,” said Professor Christison, “was not directed to
colouring matter in arsenic. I got only one article in which it might
have been found—the small intestine. The others had been subjected
to a previous analysis. I was not asked to attend to the colouring
matter. I did not see it, and did not search for it. Supposing soot
or indigo to have been given with the arsenic, I think it might have
been found in the intestines by careful examination. I can’t say it
would have been found: many circumstances go to the possibility of
its being found. Many component parts of soot are insoluble: it might
have been removed by frequent vomiting. It is very difficult to remove
soot from arsenic entirely. Indigo would have been found more easily
from the peculiarity of its colour, and the chemical ingredients are
so precise. _Currie’s_ arsenic is not coloured with true indigo; it
is waste indigo, or what has been used by the dyer. I don’t know how
it is prepared. I did not analyse the colouring matter of _Currie’s_
arsenic. I ascertained it was not the indigo directed by the Act to be
used, and I ascertained the quantity. I separated the colouring matter
from the arsenic, and subjected it to the action of sulphuric acid.
Charcoal (more properly—_carbon_) is one of the constituents of good
indigo, and necessarily of waste. The chief constituent of soot is
charcoal also.”
The remainder of his _cross-examination_ was directed to the amount of
arsenic found in the stomach, and the symptoms of, and the period at
which the effects are exhibited.
“I was informed by Dr. Penny that he had found more than eighty
grains in the stomach. There was also the white powder in addition.
If there was great vomiting and purging, the quantity of arsenic
administered must have been much greater than that found in the
stomach and intestines. Much would depend whether means were taken
to promote vomiting. If hot and cold water were freely given, that
would facilitate the discharge of the poison. It is impossible to say
the proportion ejected. I think it would be reasonable to suppose
that as much would be vomited as remained: it might, without any
extravagant supposition, be taken at four or five times as much.”
_Symptoms._—“There was nothing in the symptoms mentioned in the
last illness in this case inconsistent with death being produced by
a single dose of arsenic. The ordinary symptoms of this kind are
not unlike those of malignant cholera. _I think all the symptoms in
this case might have occurred from malignant cholera. If there was a
sense of choking and soreness of the throat, I think these are more
symptoms of arsenic._ I don’t think they have occurred in cholera. I
think the ulcers in the abdomen might indicate the previous existence
of inflammation in the duodenum, called duodenitis. It might be a
disease that would present the outward symptoms of bowel complaint
or cholera.” _Appearance of effects of arsenic._—“The ordinary time
that elapses between the administration of arsenic and death is from
eighteen hours to two days and a half. The exceptions to this are
numerous. Some of them are very anomalous as to the shortness of the
intervals. The shortest are two and two-and-a-half hours: these have
been ascertained; but it is not always possible to ascertain when it
has been administered. I had a case lately in which it was five hours.
There are also cases in which it was seven and even ten hours. It
does not appear that the size of the dose affects this; it does not
depend upon the amount taken, within certain bounds, of course; but
I speak of the case as arsenic is usually administered. There are a
good many cases of large doses. I think the dose in this case must
have been double, probably more than double, the quantity found in the
stomach. A dose of 220 grains may be considered a large dose. I can’t
say if, in cases of as large a dose as this, they are intentionally
administered: in great proportion of cases of suicide, the dose is
generally found to be large—easily accounted for by the desire to
make certain of death.”
_The Dean._—“In a case of murder no such large quantity would be
used? It is in cases of suicide that double-shotted pistols are used
and large doses given.”
_Witness._—“But murder, even by injuries, and also by poison, is very
often detected by the size of the dose. In all cases of poisoning
by arsenic there is always more used than is necessary. I cannot
recollect how much has been used, but I know very well that what
is found in the stomach in undoubted cases of poisoning by others
has been considerably larger than what is necessary to cause death:
because the very fact of poison being found in the stomach at all, as
in the case of arsenic, shows that more has been administered than is
necessary, as it is not what is found in the stomach causes death, but
what disappears from the stomach.”
_The Dean._—“But do you know any case in which so great a dose as the
present was administered?”
_Witness._—“I cannot recollect at the present moment. In cases
of charges of murder by arsenic it is scarcely possible to get any
information as to the actual quantity used.”
_The Dean._—“You have information here in this charge of murder.”
_The Witness._—“You have information as to what was in the stomach.”
_The Dean._—“And you are enabled to draw an inference.”
_Witness._—“Of course: my inference is drawn by a sort of
probability, but that is not an inference on which I am entitled to
found any positive statement.”
_The Dean._—“Well, let me put this question. Did you ever know any
person murdered by arsenic having 88 grains of it found in his stomach
and intestines?”
_Witness._—“I don’t recollect at the present moment.”
_The Dean._—“Or anything approaching to it?”
_Witness._—“I don’t recollect, but I would not rely on my
recollection as to a negative answer.”
_The Dean._—“You are not, at all events, able to give an example the
other way.”
_Witness._—“Not at present. As far as my own observation goes, I can
say that I never met with 80 grains in the stomach of a person who had
been poisoned by arsenic. I can’t say what is the largest quantity I
have found.”[111]
_The Dean._—“If a person designs to poison another the use of a large
quantity of arsenic, greatly exceeding what is necessary, is to be
avoided?”
_Witness._—“It is a great error. In some articles of food it is
easy to administer a large quantity of arsenic, and in others it is
difficult to do so. It is very rare for persons to take meals after
arsenic has been administered; but there is a case of a girl who took
arsenic at eleven A.M., and at two P.M. made a pretty good dinner. It
was a French case, and the words as translated are, that she made a
very good dinner, though it was observed she was uneasy previously.
The author who notices that case notices it as a very extraordinary
one. She died in thirteen or fourteen hours after the administration.
It was a rapid case.”
_By the Lord Advocate._—“The amount of matter vomited is sometimes
very little; and sometimes very large doses have been thrown off by
vomiting. There is one case in which half an ounce was taken and
no vomiting ensued. I think chocolate and cocoa would be a vehicle
in which a considerable dose might be given. Active exercise would
hasten the effect of arsenic; a long walk would do so. Exercise
accelerates the effects of all poisons except narcotic. That a man
should take poison at the Bridge of Allan, come to Coatbridge, walk
eight miles to Glasgow, and reach that in good health and spirits, I
should think very unlikely. Cases of protraction for five hours have
occurred in persons who had gone to sleep after taking it. From half
an hour to an hour is the usual time between administration and the
symptoms manifesting themselves. The administration of previous doses
predisposes the system to the effects of poison, and makes its action
more rapid and violent. If the individual had recovered entirely, this
would not be so much the case; but if he still laboured under the
derangement of the stomach, I should look for violent effects.”
On the fifth day Professor Christison was recalled, and gave the
following evidence as to the use of arsenic as a cosmetic, its taste,
and its supposed presence naturally in the bodies of human beings.
_By the Lord Advocate._—“With regard to the use of arsenic as a
cosmetic, do you think it possible to use it, by putting it in a basin
of water and washing the face with it?”
_Witness._—“It would be very unsafe indeed. I should expect it to
produce inflammation, probably, of the eyes and nostrils, and perhaps
of the mouth. It might get into the mouth, and it would be very
difficult to keep it out of the eyes and nostrils; and if it once got
in, as it is a rather insoluble solid, it would be difficult to wash
it out. A preparation made from common arsenic is sometimes used as a
depilatory. The old name is ‘Arasma Cacoran,’ because it is used by
the Turks. It is essentially a sulphuret of arsenic and a sulphuret of
lime. It is only used for removing hairs from the skin, and not for
the complexion.”
_By the Dean._—“The common arsenic of the shops, you say, is an
insoluble solid.”
_Witness._—“It is said in general terms to be so. _It is sparingly
soluble in cold water._ It is not absolutely insoluble, however, in
cold water. _About the 500th part might be dissolved in cold water by
violent agitation, and if the arsenic were to be boiled in the first
instance, about a 32nd part would remain in cold water. Cold water is
the worst of all things to hold arsenic in suspension. Only the fine
parts of the powder would be held in suspension. The coarse arsenic
sold in the shops would fall to the bottom._”[112]
_The Dean._—“Suppose water were used to wash the face and hands
without drawing up the arsenic from the bottom, you would not expect
any serious consequences to result?”
_Witness._—“I can only say, that I should not like to do it myself. I
do not know absolutely what would follow; but, on account of the risk,
any person who would do so would do a very imprudent thing.”
_By the Lord Advocate._—“Arsenic, though strictly heavier than water,
would remain in suspension?”
_Witness._—“The finer parts of the powder would, but not long. I
never made any experiment, but should say it would be for a very short
time. I should say, speaking on mere hazard, in the course of three
or four minutes there would be scarcely any of the arsenic remaining
in suspension, and there would only remain what had dissolved. I am
speaking, as I said, without having experimented.”
_By the Court._—“_Has arsenic any taste?_”
_Witness._—“Your lordship is aware that there is a great deal of
dispute about that. After the strong affirmative of its having no
taste which I published, a greater authority than I—_Professor Orfila
of Paris—still adhered to the description that it had a taste._
All I can say about that is, that experiments were made by myself
and two other medical gentlemen, as far as it was possible to make
them with so dangerous a substance, and we found the taste to be
very slight indeed; _if anything it was rather sweetish, but all but
imperceptible_.”
_To the Court._—“Then there can be no doubt that large quantities of
arsenic have been swallowed repeatedly by persons without observing?”
_Witness._—“The experiments were made by myself and two other medical
gentlemen, and so far as we went we all agreed as to the result.
Professor Orfila maintained that it had a taste, though he referred
to my experiments. But I think I may add, that it has struck me as
very strange, that neither Orfila nor any others who have doubted
these observations of mine on the matter, said that they had made any
experiments themselves. Orfila does not say so. He merely expresses
his belief, notwithstanding what I have stated.”
_By the Court._—“If taken in coffee or cream, then, the arsenic,
having, if any, a sweetish taste, would not be perceptible?”
_Witness._—“Not at all. I could put that in a clearer point of view
by a preliminary observation, namely, that several persons who have
taken arsenic largely without knowing at the time what they were
taking observed no taste; some observed a sweetish taste, and others
what they called an acrid taste. With regard to acrimony, however,
there were two fallacies. One was that they confounded the acrimony
with the roughness of taste in the mouth, and secondly with the
burning effects slowly developed by the poison afterwards.”
_By the Dean._—“In these cases you have spoken of, in what medium was
the arsenic given?”
_Witness._—“Sometimes in simple vehicles, such as coffee and water,
and sometimes in thicker substances, such as soup. I think there
are some instances where some roughness was observed in the case of
porridge, but I cannot speak exactly as to the vehicles. I do not
think the vehicle had much effect on the different tastes. I cannot
state the quantity administered.”
_The Dean._—“Are these cases in which you were personally concerned?”
_Witness._—“Strange to say, I have only been personally concerned
in two cases of poisoning by arsenic. I have of course been often
in cases like the present. It only came twice under my personal
observation. It is the opinion of Orfila that the taste of arsenic is
an acrid and not a corrosive taste.”
_The Dean._—“Exciting salivation, is it not?”
_Witness._—“Yes, that is a pretty correct translation of the French
word. The word acrid is a professional word, but Orfila uses the word
_âpre_, which rather means rough.”
_The Dean._—“Yes, in his 1st vol., p. 377, he uses the word, but at
p. 357 you will find he says the taste is _âcre et corrosive_.”
_Witness._—“I was not aware of that. ‘Notwithstanding the experiments
of Dr. Christison,’ I think he says, ‘the taste of arsenic is acrid.’
He did not say he made the experiments himself, or give his authority.
Orfila is a high name in the medical world; none higher of modern date
in the department of medico-legal chemistry.”
_The Dean._—“Will you tell me the nature of the experiments you made
with the two other medical gentlemen?”
_Witness._—“We tasted the arsenic both in a solid and a liquid state,
and allowed both kinds to pass as far back along the tongue as it
was possible to do with safety, so as to spit it out afterwards. We
allowed it to remain on the tongue about two minutes, and washed the
mouth carefully.”
_The Dean._—“Can you give me any idea how much arsenic there was in
your mouth on that occasion?”
_Witness._—“About two grains. One of the gentlemen, the late Dr.
Duncan, kept two grains in his mouth a long time. We allowed it to
remain on the tongue generally two minutes, a time quite sufficient to
ascertain the taste.”
_By the Lord Advocate._—“Is it a common thing in cases of this sort
to ascertain the quantity of arsenic?”
_Witness._—“No. In the great majority of criminal cases it is not
ascertained within presumption.”
_By the Lord Justice Clerk._—“Are you aware that a great chemist
maintained that there was arsenic naturally in the bodies of all human
beings?”
_Witness._—“I have heard that; but he afterwards surrendered his
opinion.”
_By the Dean._—“There has been a great shifting of opinion among
medical men as to the probable effect of arsenic, has there not?”
_Witness._—“Not during the last 35 years. Prior to that our
information as to the effects of arsenic was very vague.”
_By the Dean._—“Was it not generally thought at one time that there
was naturally arsenic in the human stomach?”
_Witness._—“It may be so, but it is quite new to me.”
_Robert Telfer Corbett_, physician in Glasgow, and senior surgeon in
the infirmary, who had assisted at the _post-mortem_ examination
and joined in the report, was called on the fourth day, and gave the
following evidence.
“So far as he could judge without analysis the deceased had died from
the effect of poison. The morbid appearances presented were of two
kinds—one showing the result of recent action, the other of action
at a period antecedent to it. The last of these appearances consisted
of several ulcers, each about the 1/16th of an inch in diameter, with
elevated edge, on the upper part of the duodenum. They might have been
characteristic of the effect of irritant poison at the distance of a
month, but it is impossible to fix any date. I think they were such
as irritant poison, administered a month before, would have produced.
They were of longer standing than immediately antecedent to death. In
the duodenum and intestines the body had in colour and otherwise the
appearances characteristic of arsenical poisoning. Inflammation and
ulceration are the effect of inflammation; jaundice, I mean the yellow
tinge of the skin, is an occasional, but not a necessary symptom of
death by arsenic, but not a common one. Extreme thirst is one of
the symptoms, and shows itself very early. It is not characteristic
of British cholera in its earlier stages. The exact time a dose of
arsenic takes to exhibit its symptoms is from a half to one hour—that
is the average time. Longer periods have been known but are very
unusual. They depend more on the mode in which the poison is given,
and the state of the stomach, than on the quantity administered. If a
person had been the subject of repeated doses, the irritability of the
stomach would make it more likely to operate quickly. I have read of
cases of murder where large quantities of arsenic have been found in
the stomach. I can refer to cases in which details were not given, but
the quantity was said to be large.”
The _cross-examination_ of this witness was mainly directed to his
assertion that the yellowness of the skin seen in jaundice, and, as
he added, of the conjunctiva of the eye also, was a known symptom in
arsenical poison, but he admitted that the statement in Dr. Taylor’s
book was his only authority: he only “knew it to be a secondary symptom
from arsenical poisoning in his routine.” He admitted also that the
ulcers on the duodenum might arise from some enteric fever, and that
any cause of inflammation might produce them.
On _re-examination by the Lord Advocate_, he repeated that from his
reading and study he knew jaundice to be an occasional symptom of
arsenical poisoning. To a question whether “in a person during life
who immediately after taking food had been seized with severe pain and
intense thirst, he should think, because he had a yellow colour, that
might not be the effect of arsenical poisoning?” he replied “that might
or might not be,” and “that the appearance of jaundice would not sway
him materially one way or the other.” This witness, though he had made
many _post-mortem_ examinations, had only once before done so in a case
of arsenical poisoning. With this witness the medical evidence for the
prosecution was closed.
It will be convenient, as in Palmer’s case, to give in this place the
evidence of the medical witnesses, called, at a subsequent period, for
the defence.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.
Two physicians were called for the prisoner, with the object of proving
(1), that arsenic could be used without danger as a cosmetic; (2), that
the symptoms in L’Angelier’s last illness were consistent with the
suggestion that he died of some form of cholera.
_Dr. James A. Lawrie_, a physician of Glasgow, many years in practice,
who was first called, said—
“He had taken a quarter or half-an-ounce of arsenic, bought at
_Currie’s_, and washed his hands freely with it, and on the previous
Saturday had tried the same experiment with a half-an-ounce on his
face, but washed his face afterwards with cold water. The effect
was the same as using a ball of soap with sand—it softened the
skin. He filled the basin with the usual quantity of water, and
mixed the arsenic with it. It was a practice he should have no fear
of repeating, and would not hesitate in using, if he had a case
that required it, such as vermin on the skin. In consequence of the
insolubility of arsenic, he did not think that increasing the quantity
of arsenic would make any difference in the effect.”
On the second point this witness said:—
“I treated one case of poisoning by arsenic. Some years ago during the
prevalence of cholera, I was asked to see a gentleman about seven or
eight in the evening, and the account was that he had been ill since
three or four in the morning. I found him labouring under premonitory
symptoms of cholera, and I prescribed for him. I returned about ten,
and found the symptoms very much aggravated, and the vomiting and
purging still continued. His voice was not affected, and the vomiting
was not the same as in cholera. It was a reddish yellowish matter,
and I requested it to be set aside. I thought it was not a case of
cholera, and asked him what he had taken. He said only his ordinary
food, wine, &c., but nothing else. The symptoms went on still further,
and I called a consultation of other medical men. He still said he had
taken nothing. I was satisfied from the aggravation of the symptoms
that something else was the matter, and at last he died about three in
the morning. I next day learnt that he had purchased half-an-ounce of
arsenic the day of his death. I had the vomit and contents of stomach
analysed, and discovered arsenic in great quantities. Extreme thirst,
as far as I know, is an early symptom in poisoning by arsenic—but not
equally so in cholera, it belongs to a later stage in cholera.”
_Dr. Douglas Maclagan_, of Edinburgh, who had had some experience in
arsenical poisonings, and devoted much of his time to chemistry, had
the same opinion as Dr. Lawrie of the innocuousness of arsenic as a
cosmetic (mainly from its insolubility).
“Unless there was some ulceration or abrasion of the skin, or it was
kept long in contact with it. In warm water it would dissolve to a
greater extent than in cold—in which some such proportion as only one
400th part would dissolve, and if you required to dissolve any great
quantity it must, according to Dr. Taylor, be boiled violently for
half-an-hour, and then it retains about 1-40th of its weight after the
water cools.”
_The Dean._—“Will the presence of organic matter in a fluid interfere
with its solvent power upon arsenic?”
_Witness._—“As a rule, it generally will. There does not appear to
be any difference between tea, coffee, or water when poured upon
arsenic. They dissolve but a very small quantity, I do not know how
you can determine whether cocoa or chocolate is a sufficient solvent
or not. You cannot filter them so as to determine the quantity.
There is a great deal of organic matter in the ordinary chocolate
or cocoa, it ought to be entirely organic matter, except so far as
it is water.” (The Witness then gave an account of a case of a girl
whom he attended, who took arsenic by accident, mistaking it for an
effervescing powder.) “We all know the ordinary symptoms of arsenical
poisoning. Most of them are very similar to, almost identical with,
the symptoms of cholera. In the case of slight quantities of arsenic,
it would appear that the symptoms very closely resemble those of what
are called bilious or British cholera. In fatal cases they are more
like malignant or Asiatic cholera.”
_The Dean._—“Can you diagnose a case of arsenical poisoning by the
symptoms?”
_Witness._—“I believe you may. In the first place the vomiting
would be bloody, from the violent irritation and the pouring out of
a bloody mucus into the stomach—after that has been emptied of all
its contents. I suppose there would be more affections of some of
the mucous membranes, an unaccountable occurrence of an extensive
inflammatory redness about the eyes, and the occurrence of nervous
symptoms, such, for instance, as paralysis of the limbs. But these are
not necessary symptoms. A person may be suffering from the effects of
arsenic without these being produced if the quantity is small.”
_The Dean._—“You never saw jaundice as a symptom of arsenical
poisoning?”
_Witness._—“I am not entitled to speak on my own experience, as I
never saw it. There is a single line in Taylor’s book, which says,
that it has been observed, and which refers to the remarks of Dr.
Marshall on Turner’s case.” (Extract read.)
_The Dean._—“Is that a description of jaundice?”
_Witness._—“It is a description of at least one symptom of jaundice,
yellowness of the skin; but it is rather strange that it does not
mention the most common of all signs of jaundice, yellowness of the
eyes. One looks to the eye first in a case of jaundice, because you
see it best there.”
_The Dean._—“Do you think that a sensation of choking and a feeling
of irritation of the throat are symptoms of arsenical poisoning?”
_Witness._—“Certainly.”
_The Dean._—“Would that occur in a case of British cholera?”
_Witness._—“I have seen persons who are affected with choleraic
symptoms complaining of being sore about the throat, but it is
generally the soreness arising from what they first vomit, and after
that it is the muscular soreness.”
_Cross-examined by the Lord Advocate._—“What is it that causes the
yellow outline of the eyes and skin?”
_Witness._—“The absorption of the choleraic matter into the blood.”
_Lord Advocate._—“I presume there is nothing in a case of arsenical
poisoning that produces that?”
_Witness._—“It is certainly very remarkable that we have so many
cases of arsenical poisoning where the jaundice shows itself: we have
eruption of those same parts of the duodenum according with arsenical
poisoning. I am not so certain that jaundice is a symptom of arsenical
poisoning.”
_The Lord Justice Clerk._—“But if you saw the appearance of the eye
was much darker than usual, would that lead you to think there might
be jaundice?”
_Witness._—“Oh, certainly.”
_The Lord Justice Clerk._—“I knew a case of apparent jaundice arising
from a cake of yellow soap.”
_The Lord Advocate._—“Suppose you were told that in a case the body
after death had a yellow appearance, and it was found to be the effect
of arsenical poisoning, would you not be surprised at that?”
_Witness._—“No, not at the yellowish aspect of the skin, but I would
not expect that there would be marked jaundice.”
_The Lord Advocate._—“And if you found any symptom of that kind,
where repeated doses of poison had been taken during the period from
the time when the patient took ill, what would you say?”
_Witness._—“If such a case did occur, I should say that there would
be some connection between the cause of death and the occurrence of
the jaundice.”
_Lord Advocate._—“In regard to the vomiting, is there not a great
difference in different kinds of arsenical poisoning?”
_Witness._—“Generally the vomiting is severe.”
_Lord Advocate._—“You state that the presence of organic matter
detracts from the power of holding arsenic in solution: would you say
the same as to holding it in suspension?”
_Witness._—“Certainly not.”
_Lord Advocate._—“Is great thirst a symptom of arsenic?”
_Witness._—“Generally it is, and generally an early and persistent
symptom.”
_Lord Advocate._—“Is it so in cholera?”
_Witness._—“I should say that I have seen thirst very early in
cholera. I think it is usually so. I do not know any injurious effect
that would result if the face were washed with water containing
arsenic, if you kept your mouth and eyes shut, but I do not recommend
it.”
_To the Dean._—“I cannot say how much arsenic would be held in
suspension by an ordinary cupful of chocolate and cocoa. It must
depend upon the kind of chocolate. Cocoa in this country is generally
thin, but chocolate in France is generally as thick as porridge. It is
not so in this country.”
EVIDENCE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF POISON.
On the _first_ charge, that of administering poison on the 19th or
20th of February, it was urged on the jury that there was no reliable
evidence that the lovers had met on either of these days, that
Madeline Smith had at that time poison in her possession, or that the
illness which L’Angelier was supposed to have had at that time showed
arsenical symptoms. On the 17th of February L’Angelier told Miss Perry,
the confidante of their loves, that he expected to meet Madeline on
the 19th, and, from some other circumstances—what they were is not
stated—when on the 2nd of March he told her how ill he had been,
falling on the floor of his room, she said that “she knew that he
referred to the 19th of February.” Mrs. Jenkins, however, could not fix
the date of this attack: it might have been eight or ten days before
the second illness (February 23), and, like his illness in January, she
believed it to be due to bile, the symptoms being something the same
as her own but more violent, on both occasions accompanied by a good
deal of purging and vomiting. From Dr. Thomson’s evidence, however, it
appears that his first illness in that year, which Dr. Thomson places
on the 3rd of February, was due to a cold, with cough and boils, for
which he prescribed. The only attempt that Miss Smith made to purchase
poison before that date was that of sending the page boy to Dr.
Yeaman’s to buy some prussic acid, which the doctor refused to sell
to her. The Lord Advocate admitted that he could not prove that she
had arsenic in her possession before that illness. “It would not do,”
said the Lord Justice Clerk in his charge, “to infer, from her having
arsenic afterwards, that she had it also on the first occasion.”[113]