medical and analytical evidence in the case of Mrs. Pritchard, that
she died from slow antimonial poisoning, he said, did not appear to
have been contested by the prisoner’s counsel, and, upon the evidence,
he did not think it admitted of a doubt. As the evidence showed that
it was not from a large dose of antimony taken lately before death
that she had died, the idea of accident or mistake was excluded. That
it might have arisen from unskilful treatment by the prisoner was
negatived by his assertion that he had never administered antimony to
her, except once externally in October last, which could have nothing
to do with the state in which the intestines were found in March. The
idea of suicide by slow poisoning, even if there had been any hint of a
suicidal tendency on Mrs. Pritchard’s part, was equally inadmissible:
she must, if killed by antimony, have had it administered to her for
that purpose. In Mrs. Taylor’s case, into the details of which he
fully entered, one was almost forced to the conclusion that her death
was brought about by the combined action of aconite, antimony, and
opium. As to the idea of accident in her case it was inconsistent with
the fact that the Battley’s solution was pure when bought. “Was it
then,” he added, “by accident that these two subtle poisons, aconite
and antimony, found their way into her medicine-bottle: if not by
accident, did she put them there herself, or had she any knowledge of
such things as to enable her, if she were willing, so to poison herself
by using her own medicine? There was no appearance of that, and the
character and conduct of the old lady, her natural condition both of
body and mind as you heard it described by the witnesses, is such as
not to suggest the idea of suicide in her case as a possibility at all.
Consider, then, with reference to both deaths, whether you can arrive
at the conclusion, or whether you can resist the conclusion, that the
poison by the means of which they were deprived of life was wilfully
given to them for the very purpose of destroying life.”
Passing then to the third question, “Was the poison of which these
ladies died administered to them by the prisoner?” the Lord Justice
Clerk went with great minuteness through the painful details of
Mrs. Pritchard’s long and lingering illness, the symptoms which it
exhibited, the prisoner’s misrepresentation of it as gastric fever,
when the medical men proved that there was no fever in the case, but
clear signs of antimonial poisoning, and the various acts of the
prisoner during it which were put forward as showing that he had,
and that he used, the opportunities his position offered, for the
purpose of administering the poison. The interest of this portion of
the charge, as well as of that relating to the symptoms and death of
Mrs. Taylor, and the prisoner’s conduct in relation to it, depends so
entirely on the judge’s method of marshalling the evidence, already
reported, that it could not be satisfactorily given except verbatim.
Many of the remarks of the learned judge, on these points of the
evidence, have already been reported in the notes. It will therefore be
sufficient to give, here, his remarks on the question of motive, and on
the suggestion of the prisoner’s counsel with regard to Mary McLeod.
“In regard to the matter of motive, I would suggest to you that the
motive that his pecuniary difficulties would be relieved by the death
of Mrs. Taylor, does not seem to have been made out satisfactorily.
You will consider the evidence, but I confess I do not think it worth
while to set it before you again. Then, the question comes to be, was
there a motive? What is there in the shape of a motive that may be
supposed to account for the perpetration of two such horrid crimes?
That is the way it was stated, and ably stated, by the prisoner’s
counsel. But there are some considerations applicable to that part
of the case which I am bound to suggest to you. The absence of
motive, in the ordinary sense of the word, is not a very uncommon
thing in the experiences of a criminal court. In truth, the existence
of any adequate motive for the perpetration of a great crime is a
thing impossible. Still there may be what is called an intelligent
motive—the existence of some foul passion, or some immediate and
strong excitement, which, in a moment of half frenzy, drives a man to
the commission of murder. These are all very evident and intelligible
incentives to crime. But when we find that, in the opinion of the
prisoner’s counsel, there is no motive, it means no more than this,
that the motive has not been discovered. There must have been a motive
or incentive, and yet we may never discover what it was. You are never
in a condition to say that there was no motive, but only that the
motive was not discovered; and the motives of human action, we know
from history and experience, are often inscrutable. Another motive or
incentive has been suggested—the illicit relation between himself and
Mary McLeod. This is a very important part of the case undoubtedly,
and one to which you are bound to give due attention. The prosecution
suggests that the existence of that intercourse was the reason or the
desire that led him to get rid of his wife. If that was the incentive,
I do not think there will be much difficulty in explaining the
incentive to the commission of the other murder; because her presence
in the course of the chronic poisoning of his wife would have been a
great obstruction and interference with his plans.[167] But it is for
you to say whether it is a sufficient motive. It is a fair question
for your consideration, and I should desire you to turn your minds to
it very seriously; keeping only in mind this view, that even supposing
you find it impossible to assign an intelligible motive for the
commission of one or both of these murders, the absence of evidence of
motive is not sufficient reason for acquitting the prisoner, if you
are satisfied from the other evidence in the case that he was guilty.
Motive, after all, can but create a presumption one way or another.
It is not evidence of the fact of murder, that a man has an obvious
motive to commit it; and just as little can the absence of proof of
the existence of a motive be a reason for finding the prisoner not
guilty, if the evidence of the fact of the murder be satisfactory
against him.”
Again, after having shown how no imputation could rest on the servants
Lattimer and Patterson, the learned judge thus dealt with the
imputation thrown out by the prisoner’s counsel against Mary McLeod:—
“He has said that there was another girl there who stands in a very
different position, and that it appears, singularly enough, that
whenever an article of food was to be carried to Mrs. Pritchard, Mary
McLeod’s is the hand that bears it. In short, if I understand aright
his theory, it is Mary McLeod who caused these murders, and he invites
you to choose between her and the prisoner, and to pronounce upon
a balance of probabilities which of the two it was. This is a very
painful position for you to be placed in. If it be necessary that you
should decide absolutely between the two it must be done. _At the
same time the prisoner’s counsel did not seem sufficiently to advert,
in considering the point, to the possibility that both might have
been implicated, and, if that was so, I suppose we should have little
doubt which was the master and which was the servant; and, although
the one might be the active hand that administered the poison, if two
were concerned, you would have very little doubt who was the actor,
and who set on the other. And, in fact, if you should arrive at this
conclusion, every article that the prisoner’s counsel alluded to for
the purpose of throwing the guilt on Mary McLeod would be an article
of evidence to implicate the prisoner at the bar._ But I do not desire
you to take this theory. On the contrary, I think it quite right that
you should consider on the balance of probabilities, as has been very
well said, which of the two is the perpetrator of this crime; and in
considering this, it is necessary for you to advert to this—that
the poison was administered in doses—in doses any one of which was
insufficient to kill, but which was quite sufficient, in the agony it
produced, and by the gradual reduction of the strength of the patient,
at length to lead to a fatal termination. Is it conceivable that a
girl of fifteen or sixteen years of age, in the position of a servant
maid, could of herself have conceived and executed such a design,
within this house, under the eye and subject to the vigilance of the
husband of her victim, himself a medical man? That is very hard to
believe. On the other hand, if you can suppose that the prisoner was
the person who conceived and executed this wicked design, it is not
so difficult to believe that Mary McLeod may have been the perfectly
unconscious instrument of carrying out his purpose—suspecting
nothing, knowing nothing of what was being done, and seeing nothing
but great kindness on the part of the prisoner to her mistress, and
seeing them dying, not rapidly as in the case of Mrs. Pritchard, and
though rapidly in that of Mrs. Taylor, still in a way the prisoner
accounted for as a medical man. You may understand easily enough that
a girl in the position of Mary McLeod might be made the unconscious
means of carrying out these designs, and perfectly innocent on
her part. But there is no difficulty in this question. If you are
satisfied that murder was committed, somebody did it. Some of them are
plainly innocent, and therefore the probability of guilt is reduced to
two. Of these two, one or both of them are guilty of this deed.”
Then with a remark on the suggestion of the prisoner’s counsel, that
Mrs. Taylor died of an overdose of opium in the Battley’s solution, the
learned judge left the case to the jury, who, after about an hour’s
deliberation, found the prisoner “Guilty,” and he was sentenced to
death.
After his conviction, in the hopes of exciting commiseration, Pritchard
drew up a confession implicating Mary McLeod, but the transparent
falsehood failing to gain for it any credence, he was induced to
put forward a second, and, subsequently, a third and apparently
full confession of his guilt. In this last he made the following
statements: “I am guilty of the death of my mother-in-law, Mrs. Taylor,
and of my wife. I can assign no motive for the conduct which actuated
me, beyond a species of ‘terrible madness,’ and the use of ‘ardent
spirits.’ I hereby freely and fully state that the confession made on
the 11th of this month (implicating McLeod) was not true, and I confess
that I alone, and not M. McLeod, poisoned my wife in the way brought
out in the evidence at the trial. Mrs. Taylor’s death was caused
according to the wording of the indictment and the main facts brought
out at my trial. I hereby fully acknowledge and now plead wholly and
solely _guilty thereto_, and may God have mercy on my soul.” He was
executed on the 27th of July, at Glasgow, in the sight, it was reported
at the time, of nearly one hundred thousand persons.
THE RICHMOND POISONING CASE.[168]
_Before_ THE LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK, _at the_ CENTRAL CRIMINAL
COURT, _July 7 and 8, and August 15 to 19, 1859_.
_For the Prosecution_: Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Clerk,
_and_ Mr. Mereweather.
_For the Defence_: Mr. Serjeant Parry _and_ Mr. Giffard.
FIRST TRIAL—_July 7 and 8._
Thomas Smethurst, æt. 48, surgeon, was indicted for the wilful murder
of Isabella Bankes. The prisoner was a person of small stature and
insignificant appearance, with reddish-brown moustaches, probably
older than he stated, and, though appearing careworn, maintained great
self-possession throughout the proceedings, and especially during the
second trial.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
Serjeant Ballantine, in stating the case to the jury, said it was
alleged that the prisoner took away the life of a fellow creature by
poison, and likewise contrived to throw around the means employed to
destroy life some more than ordinary difficulties in the way of the
detection of the crime; that in order to effect this purpose he had
availed himself of the knowledge he possessed, and made use of a slow
irritant poison, which he had administered with his own hands, until,
by the accumulation of poison and irritation, she died.
The prisoner was represented to be a member of the medical profession:
he had considerable knowledge of medicine, and was known as Dr.
Smethurst. He was a married man, and had a wife considerably older
than himself now living. At the time when he should first refer to Dr.
Smethurst, he was living with his wife in a respectable lodging-house
in Bayswater. While they were living there, in the autumn of 1858, Miss
Isabella Bankes also came there to reside. She was a lady of delicate
constitution,[169] and possessed of property under her own control of
between £1,700 and £1,800, and a life interest in £5,000, which, at
her death, went to other members of her family. The result was that
an intimacy sprung up between the parties. In November of that year,
the landlady, considering that there was too great intimacy between
Miss Bankes and the doctor, spoke to her, and, in consequence, she
left the house. On the 9th of December, Miss Bankes and the prisoner
went through the form of marriage at Battersea Church, and, two days
after, commenced to reside at Richmond. From a letter to his wife
found on him when in custody, it was evident that the doctor did not
intend this to be a permanent marriage. Until the 28th of January,
1859, nothing was heard of them; then Miss Bankes’s sister Louisa
received a letter from her, but not dated from the place where they
were living. On the 15th of February, the sister received another
letter from her. At that time they were living in Old Palace Gardens,
Richmond. Miss Bankes was then in good health, but, about the 28th
of March, her illness commenced. On the 3rd of April, Dr. Smethurst
determined to have medical advice. The landlady advised Dr. Julius, as
he and his partner, Dr. Bird, were the most eminent practitioners in
Richmond. They were accordingly called in. The former treated her for
diarrhœa, in the usual way, the complaint from which he understood she
was suffering, taking his account of her symptoms from Dr. Smethurst.
Dr. Julius all through consulted with the prisoner, who took a most
active part in the matter, and sometimes pressed upon him the use of
various medicines. He, however, was only on two occasions allowed to
be alone with his patient. On the 15th of April, on the landlady at
Old Palace Gardens asking a few shillings more rent, they removed to
Alma Villas—Miss Bankes so weak that she had to be taken in a cab and
carried upstairs. Dr. Julius, when he found that his remedies had a
contrary effect to what was intended, asked Dr. Bird to see her, but
did not mention his own suspicions, though they were very strong. On
the 18th of April Dr. Bird saw her, prescribed for her, but with the
same result as his partner. At this time she was sinking, and becoming
continually weaker. On that day the prisoner wrote a letter to her
sister Louisa marked “private and confidential.” It stated that her
sister was very ill, and wished to see her: she was to ask for Dr.
and Mrs. Smethurst, and not to breathe a word of the contents of the
note to anyone. The sister was not at this time aware of the marriage,
and had her own views of her sister’s conduct. She went, however, and
found her sister in a very feeble state. The deceased said to her, “Oh,
don’t say anything about it; it will be all right when I get well,
won’t it dear?” turning to Dr. Smethurst, who said, “Yes, it will be
all right soon.” Dr. Smethurst showed every kindness and attention to
the deceased during her illness, and to the time of her death she
treated him with love and affection. Miss Louisa, however, was never
allowed to be for a moment alone with her sister. Whilst she was
there the prisoner gave the patient a saline draught, and she vomited
immediately, and complained of its bad taste. Miss Louisa offered to
make some tapioca, but the prisoner objected on the ground that there
was not any milk. She then offered to make some arrowroot, but again
he objected on the ground that the landlady might not like it. That
evening the sister left, and next day wrote to the deceased, to which
letter she received the following reply from the prisoner:—“After
your departure, dear Bella had a very bad evening and night of it,
purely from the excitement of seeing you, and the fatigue consequent
thereon. Vomiting and purging set in at a fearful rate, which of course
prostrated her greatly. The doctor at once forbade any visitors for
the present, or he would not be responsible for the effects attendant
thereon.” The prisoner had no doubt made such representations to Dr.
Bird as induced him to say that she had better not receive visitors
for the present. On subsequent days the sister received other letters
from the prisoner postponing her intended visits from time to time;
describing her sister’s condition, and mentioning that he had insisted
on having a consultation with “Dr. Todd, the first physician of the
day, and the two regular attendants who were the first doctors in the
place.” One of these letters was dated April 30, but made no mention
of his having on that day instructed an attorney in Richmond to draw
up a will upon what he said was a draft by a barrister in London,
but was really entirely in his own handwriting. On the following day
(Sunday) he called on the attorney, and, representing that the case
was urgent, induced him to come to the lodging, where the will was
formally executed. By this will the whole of her property was left to
the prisoner.[170] The consultation with Dr. Todd took place, and he
agreed with other medical attendants that the patient was suffering
from unfair treatment. The prisoner, however, on the 29th, wrote to the
sister that Dr. Todd not only acquiesced in what was being done, but
recommended a perseverance of the treatment, with some slight additions
of his own. This was not the fact, but the prisoner was not made aware
of the suspicions entertained by the medical attendants. They, however,
caused the evacuations of the deceased to be tested, and the result was
so confirmatory of their views, that they communicated with the police,
and the prisoner was arrested. A number of bottles containing drugs and
medicines were taken possession of, and on his person was found the
following letter to his wife, sealed and stamped for post:—
_Monday, May 2, 1859._
“MY DEAR MARY,—I have not been able to leave for town as I expected,
in consequence of my medical aid being required in a case of illness.
I shall, however, see you as soon as possible. Should anything
unforeseen prevent my leaving for town before the 11th, I will send
you a cheque for Smith’s money and extras. I will send £5. I am quite
well, and hope you are the same, and that I shall find you so when
I see you—which, I trust, will not be long first. Present my kind
regards to the Smiths and old friends in the house. I heard from
James the other day, who said he had called on you, but that you had
gone out for a walk. With best love, believe me,
“Yours affectionately,
“THOMAS SMETHURST.”
The case not being, in the opinion of the Richmond magistrates, strong
enough to justify his committal, the prisoner was discharged. On the
following day, the 3rd of May, Miss Bankes died, a coroner’s inquest
was held, and the result was the re-arrest of the prisoner, and his
subsequent committal for wilful murder, for which he was put on his
trial on the 7th of July.[171]
EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL ATTENDANTS.
_Dr. Julius_ said:—
“He was called in on the 3rd of April to the deceased, who was
represented to be suffering from vomiting and diarrhœa. The prisoner
said he believed that her liver was overloaded with bile. The witness
prescribed accordingly, but without any abatement of the symptoms.
There was no appearance of bile in the evacuations after the third or
fourth day that he saw her, yet the symptoms of diarrhœa and vomiting
continued, with a burning sensation in the bowels and soreness of
the mouth. She complained of a parching throat and a burning thirst.
He could not account for any of these appearances from any natural
disease, and began to entertain an opinion that something of an
irritant character was being administered, and in consequence desired
that his partner, Dr. Bird, should see her. Did not communicate his
suspicions to Dr. Bird, who, taking the prisoner’s account of the
symptoms, and knowing the witness’s prescriptions, adopted his mode
of treatment, but with the same want of success. The medicines were
varied, but the symptoms continued the same. On this the witness
communicated his fears to Dr. Bird, and he on further observation
agreed that the patient was suffering from some irritant, of the
administration of which they knew nothing. During this period the
prisoner always saw the medical attendants, and was always present in
the room when they were with the patient, and recommended or dissuaded
the use of various medicines. He displayed a considerable knowledge
of medicine. On the 28th of April the patient was very ill, and she
repeatedly said to Dr. Bird in the prisoner’s presence that she should
like some one else to be called in. On the same day the prisoner (who
had always expressed a desire that the best medical advice should be
obtained) suggested that Dr. Todd should be called in. On Dr. Todd’s
arrival, witness gave him an outline of the case and treatment, but
did not say anything of the suspicions that had arisen in his mind.
Subsequent to Dr. Todd’s attendance witness procured some of the
evacuations, and in consequence of the examination of them, thought
it his duty to communicate with the magistrates, and the prisoner
was arrested, but released on his own recognizances. Witness was
unable to ascribe the symptoms to any natural cause, but if small
doses of some irritant poison were administered from time to time,
it would have accounted for all the appearances that had exhibited
themselves. Antimony and arsenic would be the character of poisons
likely to produce such results. _There was neither antimony nor
arsenic in any of the medicines he prescribed for her._ The prisoner
told him that she was not in the family way. Dr. Todd had prescribed
a pill containing a quarter of a grain of sulphate of copper and a
quarter of a grain of opium, to which the prisoner objected, as the
copper often produced symptoms of poisoning. On the Saturday the
prisoner said this medicine had produced intense burning in the mouth
and throat, constant vomiting, and fifteen bloody motions—that the
burning was from the “mouth to the anus.” In my judgment it could
not have produced these effects. The evacuation which I obtained was
previous to her taking any of these pills, as they did not arrive
until afterwards. When in prison Dr. Smethurst wrote to me three
letters for the particulars of the medicines that had been given,
which I answered. In the first he also wished to know what solutions
of arsenic were kept in our surgery, _and in the third letter ashed
for the date of the prescription for antimony, which had never been
prescribed_. He also told me that she had been ill just a week—that
previously she had been in very good health, able to take long walks,
in fact out a good deal.”
On his _cross-examination, Dr. Julius_
“Admitted that Smethurst’s communications to him of the symptoms
were made in the clearest and plainest manner, and tallied with his
own observations—that twice he believed he saw the patient without
the prisoner being present; that previous to the 15th of April the
prisoner had suggested to the witness that Drs. Hills or Hassell
should be called in, and a different treatment—one of a very
sedative character, which the witness considered as too powerful,
and, therefore, gave in a more diluted form; that witness had not,
whilst in attendance on Miss Bankes, the slightest suspicion of her
pregnancy, but that, if he had known of it, he should not have made
any difference in his treatment, and now that he did know of it, it
made no difference in his opinion as to the cause of her death. Whilst
admitting that the delivery of a woman who had a first child at the
age of forty-three would be very critical, he stated decidedly, as
the result of his experience, that the period of pregnancy would be
far less critical than in a younger woman. Vomiting was well-known to
be an early—the earliest—sign of pregnancy, but diarrhœa was not;
and though he had heard of a case in which it was accompanied with
diarrhœa, he had not heard of one in which the diarrhœa would not
yield to any ordinary treatment, and the life of the mother was only
saved by the destruction of the fœtus.”[172]
On _re-examination Dr. Julius_ stated that “vomiting in early
pregnancy had nothing to do with the burning sensation in the mouth
and throat; _that the sickness of Miss Bankes was decidedly not of
the same character as that of pregnancy, nor was the diarrhœa such as
pregnant women sometimes suffer from_.” Dr. Bird, and not the witness,
prescribed bismuth, acetate of lead, and nitrate of silver.
_Dr. Bird_, who from service in the Crimea in 1855 had had great
experience and opportunity of studying bowel complaints, confirmed the
evidence of his partner.
“None of the symptoms were in his opinion reconcileable with any
known disease, but were such as could be accounted for from the
administration of small doses of antimony or arsenic. The prisoner,
he said, told him, on one occasion, that the deceased had seen her
sister, and that it had very much excited her, and in consequence
witness told him that it would be better if she did not come again.
On the 30th he told the prisoner that he wished to take away a
portion of one of her evacuations, that it might be examined under
the microscope to see if any purulent matter was in it, that we might
judge if there was any ulceration of the bowels—that the prisoner
poured out a portion into a tumbler, which he tied over with an old
newspaper, and that the witness took it to his surgery, marked it
No. 2, sealed it with his own seal, and preserved it intact until
delivered to Dr. Taylor with the bottle No. 1 which Dr. Julius had
obtained. A third portion of an evacuation was shown to him by the
prisoner, which he put into a white jam-pot, and marked No. 3. He was
downstairs at the moment Miss Bankes died, but saw her every minute or
two before that. He gave an ample quantity of every ingredient used
in his prescriptions so as to afford a sufficient opportunity for
analyzation.”
On _cross-examination_, he described the various remedies he
prescribed, none of which would account for the symptoms, and stated
that he formed his opinion that it was a case of slow poisoning by an
irritant, not only from what Dr. Julius and the prisoner told him, but
from the vomitings, the motions, and the lady’s own account of her
symptoms.
_Mr. Caudle_, the assistant of Messrs. Julius and Bird, described the
medicines he compounded, and _Dr. Buzzard_ detailed the transmission of
the bottles of evacuations to Dr. Taylor.
_POST-MORTEM_ EXAMINATION.
_Mr. Barwell_, Assistant-Surgeon of the Charing Cross Hospital, who,
with Mr. Palmer, of Mortlake, made a _post-mortem_ examination of the
body on the 4th of May, said:—
“I found the back part of the body externally of a dark purple, being
full of blood from the position in which the body lay: I gathered from
that that the blood was more fluid, I should say, than usual. The arms
were perfectly flexible; legs very rigid; feet bent downwards and
turned in, and the muscles at their bottoms very rigid, indicating
cramp or spasm in the lower extremities; the abdomen drawn in and the
muscles tense and hard; the tongue rough, and the _papillæ_ more
elevated than usual. There were no signs of what I could call aphthœ;
the face was much emaciated and of a dull earthy colour; lower lip
drawn in under the upper teeth; front of the body generally of this
dull earthy colour; brain perfectly healthy; nothing wrong about the
lungs—they were healthy. I saw that the liver was firm, full-sized,
rather large, but did not then cut into it. I examined the uterus, and
found the common signs of pregnancy and a fœtus of somewhere between
the fifth and seventh week; the heart and great vessels connected with
it were perfectly healthy. _I examined the liver subsequently; it was
slightly fatty, rather fatty; the remainder hard. The liver when it
becomes fatty is usually soft, but in this instance it was hard, and
it was coloured in the usual manner—speckled._ Gullet healthy, no
signs of inflammation on it. The outside of the stomach, the smaller
end, that nearer the intestine, was red; the larger end, that where
the gullet enters, was of a dark colour; in the centre it was pale. On
examining the inside of the stomach, the narrow part or small end was
also red; at the larger end was a black patch of effused blood; near
the small end the mucous membrane was congested, that is the other end
from the black spot and near where the red was. The contents of the
stomach were a brown mucus mixed with blood and some bile, I should
say. There were no ulcers in the stomach, nor appearance of acute
inflammation. On the outside of the intestine I noticed on the 4th of
May (the first examination) that its commencement was very red, the
small intestines generally were inflated and minutely injected with
blood, and in certain spots they were roughened by lymph, the result
of inflammation, and glued together at certain turns where this lymph
or glutinous inflammation was effused; they were coherent together
from that cause; that did not apply to the entire length of the
intestines, only to a few parts, and chiefly quite the lower parts.
Those are the external symptoms. Internally, the first part of the
intestine (the _duodenum_) was inflamed for about three inches from
its commencement, but the mucous membrane was quite firm, and there
was no ulceration. From that point the rest of the mucous membrane
was only slightly injected, not inflamed. In the next intestine, the
_jejunum_, the mucous membrane was still firm; in places the vessels
were injected with its own blood, but this only in spots. In the
_ilium_, or lower intestine, there was much the same appearance at the
commencement as in the last, _except that approaching the lower part
the injections increased very much, and at last, about 3 feet from
its end, the mucous membrane was greatly altered; there was a deposit
of lymph therein, and a thickening of the membrane; an ill-organized
granular lymph; the membrane at the same time was roughened, and the
glands, which are in the intestine there, were less visible than
usual_. This deposit of lymph did not begin in the glands, but went
over the whole surface of the intestine, and concealed the glands
instead of rendering them more prominent—instead of being deposited
in the glands, was rather around them at first. _This brings me to
the_ cæcum. _On its mucous membrane were many very large spots.
The appearances within the_ cæcum _indicated very serious disease
indeed—inflammation, sloughing, ulceration, and suppuration._ Those
appearances diminished as I went lower down the intestines. _When I
reached the termination, the_ colon, _there was still ulceration,
but in a minor degree. In the_ rectum _there were three ulcerations.
I should also say that in the_ cæcum _were black spots of effused
blood, which were also found along the rest and in the_ rectum. I
have heard the evidence given of the symptoms exhibited during life,
and the treatment adopted. Taking those into consideration, and the
_post-mortem_ appearances, they are not reconcileable with any natural
disease with which I am acquainted.”
_By the Court._—“What is the conclusion you have formed?”
_Witness._—“_That the symptoms and appearances together have resulted
from some irritant, administered frequently during life._”
In his _cross-examination_, the earlier portion of which was occupied
with questions to test the accuracy of the notes of his report, the
witness explained that the hardness of the liver, which he observed,
was not a stage of _Cirrhosis_, as he had at first written in his
memoranda, “but a normal hardness, nothing extraordinary;” that the use
of the term “hard” did not imply that the liver was diseased, but that
the term “fatty” does.
_Sergeant Ballantine._—“I think I understood you to convey that there
were no signs of disease about the liver, except this fattiness?”
_Witness._—“No signs at all except that. That is not a disease of a
nature to affect the _cæcum_ and the intestines in any way.”
_By the Court._—“Is it in any way connected with diarrhœa and
vomiting?”
_Witness._—“No.”
_Dr. Samuel Wilks_, who had subsequently examined the intestines with
_Mr. Barwell_, confirmed his statements as to their condition and that
of the liver, and “should think Miss Bankes’ death was most probably to
be attributed to an irritant.”
On _cross-examination_, he allowed that “severe dysentery produces
great inflammation of the intestines, particularly of the larger; that
inflammation, if continued, results in ulceration and destruction of
the tissues; that the _cæcum_ and _rectum_ would be affected in that
way by dysentery, and that dark spots of effused blood are also a
consequence of severe dysentery.” His admission, however, rested on his
reading, and not from his experience of cases of acute dysentery, as he
had seen only “two cases, which they were obliged to call by that name,
not being able to arrive at any other conclusion as to the cause of
death.”
MEDICAL EXPERTS FOR THE PROSECUTION.
_Dr. Todd_, Physician to King’s College Hospital, was then called.
“Dr. Julius,” he said, “told him the nature of the case before he
saw the deceased, but not his suspicions. When he saw her he noticed
a peculiar expression of countenance—an expression of terror, as
though she were under the influence of some one, and that was not
in accordance with the appearance of a patient suffering under
an ordinary disease. The abdomen was very hard—an indication of
extensive inflammation in the stomach—and he was at once under the
impression that she was suffering from some irritant poison. By
witness’s desire an evacuation was obtained, and he directed Dr.
Julius to make up the sulphate of copper and opium pills to allay
irritation. He had never known any bad effect produced by these
medicines, and did not think it could produce a burning sensation
in the throat and stomach. If the disease had been diarrhœa, the
medicines administered by Dr. Julius were the proper ones.”
_Sergeant Ballantine._—“From all you have heard of this case, what in
your opinion was the cause of this lady’s death?”
_Dr. Todd._—“_I believe that her death was caused by the
administration of some irritant poison, such as arsenic, antimony, or
corrosive sublimate. The only natural disease that would account for
the symptoms is what would be called acute dysentery._”
On _cross-examination, Dr. Todd_ said:—
“I have never known any case or cases of early pregnancy of a woman of
about forty to forty-five years of age in which there has been violent
vomiting, violent diarrhœa, and severe dysentery, which no ordinary
medicines would stop, and in which the life of the mother has only
been saved by the abortion of the fœtus. No such cases have come under
my cognizance. I think it possible that excessive vomiting and great
diarrhœa may be caused by the early stage of pregnancy, and symptoms
somewhat allied to those under which this lady died; _but I think it
quite impossible that pregnancy alone, in an early stage, or in any
stage, could, produce extensive ulceration of the bowels_. _I think,
where it is a doubtful case, it is conclusive evidence against the
theory that the symptoms were caused by early pregnancy that you found
such extensive ulceration as existed in this case._”
_Dr. Buzzard_, who had been a staff-surgeon in the Crimea, _Dr.
Copland_, and _Dr. Bowerbank_, who had had great experience of acute
dysentery in tropical climates, gave it as their opinion that the
symptoms were not reconcileable with that disease, but were those
of the presence of irritant poison. _Dr. Babington_, Physician to
Queen Charlotte’s Lying-in Hospital, who had attended more than 2,000
women in their confinement, did not consider that the death was in
any way attributable to the fact of her being in an incipient state
of pregnancy. On _cross-examination_, whilst admitting that cases
of violent vomiting and diarrhœa in early pregnancy are recorded,
said that he did not remember any one of so severe a character as to
endanger life; that he did not think that the lady’s advanced stage of
life had anything to do with it; that it was a complication generally
at a later period of pregnancy; and that a first pregnancy between
40 and 45 years of age was not more critical in the early stage. On
_re-examination_, with reference to six cases of dysentery, in 1841, in
which he had made _post-mortem_ examinations, he said:—
“There was not the same amount of sloughing of the _cæcum_ as in this
case, nor destruction of the mucous membrane. The glands were in a
different condition. In the dysentery cases, the glands were quite
destroyed, and in three of the cases there was perforation of the
intestine. The symptoms in all six were different to those in this
case; there was no burning sensation of the throat.”
ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.
_Dr. Alfred Swaine Taylor._—“On the 1st of May,” said the witness,
“Mr. Buzzard called on me, and brought me two bottles, which he said
contained matters he wished me to examine. I took about two drachms
from one of these bottles (No. 2), and having first examined the
test and the vessel to be employed, and ascertained that they were
pure, I then made the test, and discovered a metallic deposit on the
copper wire, which, in my opinion, indicated the presence of arsenic
or antimony; but I could not speak to the exact metal. I did not
proceed further at that time, as I desired to have the authority of
a magistrate. Bottle No. 2 was then resealed in my presence by Mr.
Buzzard, and taken away by him with bottle No. 1. After he left, as I
was told that it was necessary to do something to save the life of a
living person, though it was Sunday, I proceeded with my experiment by
boiling copper gauze in the remainder of the liquid in the tube, and
on examining it with a microscope, saw appearances closely resembling
metallic arsenic; and I then heated a portion of the gauze covered
with metal in a tube, and obtained crystals of arsenic (wire gauze
with the crystals on it produced). If you take the tube out, under the
microscope the crystals are perfectly clear; in this little sediment,
if you put it against a dark cloth, you will see a little ring of
crystals—it is quite plain in the sun light. I subsequently applied
the test of nitrate of silver and nitric acid to crystals obtained
in the same way, and the result convinced me that they were composed
of arsenic. Next day Dr. Buzzard brought back the bottles with the
magistrate’s order. I then proceeded with the examination of both
bottles, and the result perfectly satisfied me that I was correct in
discovering arsenic in bottle 2. My calculation was that there must
have been at least a quarter of a grain mixed with the four ounces of
matter in bottle 2.[173] There was no trace of mercury, bismuth, or
antimony, but I did discover the presence of copper by a subsequent
test; but only such a trace of it as might be accounted for from the
copper pill taken on the 29th. I examined the evacuation, and came to
the conclusion that it was such as would pass from a person who had
taken arsenic, and I immediately advised that the antidote for arsenic,
hydrate of magnesia, should be administered. I subsequently examined
the other bottle, and found that it did not contain any poison or any
metallic matter whatever.
“On the 5th and 7th of May Inspector McIntyre brought me a portion
of the viscera of a human being, which I subsequently submitted to
chemical examination. The officer also gave me a number of bottles, and
several pill boxes which I numbered, and subsequently some more. There
were altogether twenty-eight; and on the 14th of May others which I
also numbered. In none of the twenty-eight, omitting Nos. 5 and 21, did
I discover anything at all necessary you should be acquainted with. I
examined them for arsenic. I then examined the bottles containing the
viscera:—first, the _uterus_, which I did not analyse, but agree with
Mr. Barwell as to its impregnation; then the _œsophagus_, or gullet,
in which there were indications of some cause of irritation, but no
arsenic or antimony; _then the_ stomach, _containing yellowish fluid
with blood, and found antimony in two distinct places in the small
intestines; the middle portion of the small intestines contained the
largest quantity, the other part was above and below; some was found
above and below that and some in the_ cæcum; _altogether the amount
found in the stomach was very small. In one kidney and in the blood
of the heart there were traces of antimony, and in the blood in the
jar_. I was assisted by Dr. Odling, and we came to the conclusion that
the quantity did not exceed from a quarter to half a grain. I found
the appearance of the stomach and _cæcum_ such as Mr. Barwell has
described. I then examined the medicines prescribed by Dr. Julius, and
found them to contain the ingredients of which they were represented
to be composed. I then examined bottle No. 5, and found it to contain
355 grains of chlorate of potash, and free from anything else. That
bottle has been accidentally broken in half. I then examined another
bottle, No. 21, which appeared to contain a clear watery liquid of a
saline taste, and I tested a portion of the contents by Reintsch’s
test, and upon first trying the copper it was entirely consumed.[174]
I made a further examination which led me to conclude that there
was arsenic in the solution, but it turned out that I was mistaken,
and that it did not contain either arsenic or antimony, and that the
arsenical appearances originally produced came from the copper gauze.
By the destruction of the gauze the arsenic in it was set free, and
this destroyed the effect of the experiment. _The quantity of arsenic
that I discovered, I should say, was less than half a grain._ In the
experiment I made with this bottle, the arsenic was deposited by
myself. Dr. Odling also came to the same conclusion—that the bottle
contained arsenic, and we both stated that fact in our examination
before the magistrates and the coroner, but we were, of course,
mistaken. We believed, no doubt, at the time, that the arsenic we
found was in the bottle which contained chlorate of potash—a cooling
mixture. I have used the same description of gauze for many years, and
have never before found arsenic in it. I shall certainly continue to
use it, but shall take care not to do so with chlorate of potass.”
_Serjeant Parry_ here called for the deposition of Dr. Taylor made
before the magistrates, a portion of which was read. It stated that he
had discovered arsenic in bottle No. 21, in which there was chlorate
of potass; that the latter was a harmless saline mixture acting upon
the kidneys, and that if poison had been given in it, its effect would
probably be to carry off the noxious ingredient from the body very
quickly, but that by repetition constantly of such a proceeding chronic
inflammation would be created which would yield to no treatment, and
would end in the death of the patient from exhaustion.
_Dr. Taylor_ then continued:—
“At the time I gave this evidence I firmly believed that arsenic was
contained in the mixture and that it had not come from my test, but
had been placed there by some one. When before the coroner I expressed
my opinion that the death was referable to antimony and arsenic.
_The finding of the arsenic in the bottle did not have any effect
upon the opinion I subsequently formed with reference to the case._
The moment I discovered the mistake I had made I informed Serjeant
Ballantine. No arsenic was found in the body of deceased. I did not
form my theory to account for the absence of arsenic from the tissues
of the body, that it had been carried off by the chlorate of potass.
It did not enter into my consideration beyond this, that it acts
generally as a diuretic. After Dr. Odling and myself had given our
evidence relative to finding the arsenic in the bottle of chlorate of
potass, we thought it was possible there might be some mistake, and
we made other experiments to satisfy ourselves. We made seventy-seven
experiments with the same kind of gauze, and in seventy-six no arsenic
was discovered: and the only instance in which it was found was in
the evacuation in bottle 2.” The witness also said that he could
not, after hearing the symptoms and the treatment of the deceased,
attribute the death to any other cause than the administration of some
irritant poison.
This witness was also cross-examined at considerable length as to the
symptoms of slow poisoning by arsenic and by antimony, in which he
agreed with the previous witnesses, adding to their evidence the fact
of its operation in causing enlargement of the liver, and the deposit
of fat in it. Hence the use of sulphide of antimony to fatten the geese
used in Strasburg, in the manufacture of Perigord Pies. On the subject
of dysentery he could not speak, having ceased to practise as a medical
man, and confined his attention to analyses.
On _re-examination, Dr. Taylor_ said that “the half grain of copper,
given in the pill during life, would not by any action of any acid
in the stomach account for the quantity of arsenic found in the
evacuation; that he had examined and found no arsenic in the copper
pills; and that though arsenic was found in the sulphate of copper
taken from the surgery, there was not a quantity to be seen; there was
no arsenic in the bismuth, and no antimony in the medicines. Arsenic is
sometimes found in bismuth.”
_Dr. Odling_, Professor of Practical Chemistry at Guy’s Hospital, who
had assisted Dr. Taylor in his experiments, 2ì”confirmed Dr. Taylor’s
account in every respect, and expressed himself satisfied that there
was antimony in the body of the deceased. He agreed also in attributing
the death to the administration of some irritant poison, and did not
know any natural disease that would account for the symptoms spoken
of.”
_William Thomas Brande_, formerly Professor of Chemistry to the Royal
Institution, and for fifty years engaged in the practice of chemistry,
“had examined a portion of the liquid (the chlorate of potass), and
come to the conclusion that it did not contain arsenic. Reinsch’s test
for arsenic was reliable where chlorate of potass was not present.”
“Our first object,” said the witness, on cross-examination, “was to get
rid of the chlorate of potass, or to decompose it so as to render it
inert, which we did; and we then examined the liquid in question, and
found no arsenic in it.”
_To the Court._—“I was not aware that Reinsch’s test would be
inapplicable to such a compound, and if I had applied it, and the
result appeared as it did to Drs. Taylor and Odling, I should have
come to the same conclusion, that there was arsenic in the substance.
_The matter that has appeared since is to a certain extent new to the
chemical world. We have always been aware of the presence of very
minute quantities of arsenic in copper, but we have never considered
it as interfering in any way until this particular case._”[175]
MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.
It will be convenient, as in the previous trials, to report at this
period the medical and analytical evidence offered on the part of the
prisoner, subsequent to the address of Serjeant Parry. This was devoted
to the following points: (1), the absence of some of the well-known
symptoms in slow poisoning by arsenic or antimony, or by both; (2), the
similarity of the symptoms in this case to those exhibited in cases of
acute dysentery; (3), the occurrence of severe diarrhœa, with vomiting
in the _early_ stages of pregnancy; (4), that the non-discovery of
either arsenic or antimony in the tissues of the body could not be due
to its being given in, or with chlorate of potass; (5), the probability
that both the arsenic and the antimony found in the evacuations and
intestines might be due to the presence of arsenic in the bismuth, and
of antimony in the grey powders administered as medicines. In support
of these opinions four doctors and analysts, all belonging to what
was known as the Grosvenor School of Medicine, were examined, two of
whom (Dr. Richardson and Mr. Rodgers) had given evidence for Palmer at
his trial, Dr. Richardson then suggesting that Cook’s symptoms were
reconcileable with an attack of _Angina pectoris_, and Mr. Rodgers
supporting the view that if strychnia had been given to Cook, it must
have been discovered in his body by chemical analysis.
_Dr. Richardson_, after generally asserting that the symptoms in Miss
Bankes’ case were not in the main reconcileable with either slow
arsenical or antimonial poisoning, or both, enumerated the following as
absent if it was a case of slow antimonial and arsenical poisoning:—
“1st, the inflammation of the conjunctival membrane of the eye; 2nd,
soreness of the inner surface of the nostril; 3rd, a skin disease
peculiar to arsenical poisoning; 4th, excoriation, amounting to
absolute destruction, possibly, of the surface at the orifice of the
mucous tracts, the mouth, the anus, the lips, and the vagina—and,
lastly, and, in his opinion, the most important, the absence of
the peculiar nervous symptoms which he should expect to find
which characterise arsenical poisoning—frequent convulsions of a
violent kind, in many cases; or in others, where the symptoms may
be prolonged, tremor of the whole limbs, a suppressed convulsion in
fact. _Although he should not expect to find all these symptoms in a
case of arsenical poisoning, he believed it to be quite impossible
that a case of arsenical poisoning could exist from which they would
all be absent._—The results of the _post-mortem_” he said, “were
inconsistent with arsenical poisoning, because the inflammation that
would establish it was most demonstrated in the part ordinarily
most free in such poisoning—that, had it been a case of arsenical
poisoning, arsenic must have been found in the tissues, and, had it
been given in chlorate of potass, the whole of it would not have been
eliminated. He based this opinion on an experiment he had lately made
on a large dog, to which in sixteen days he had given 18 grains of
arsenic and 365 of chlorate of potass, in small doses, two or three
times a day, and then killed and examined and chemically analysed in
conjunction with Dr. Thudichum and Dr. Webb, two of the witnesses for
the defence. In this animal he found arsenic in the liver, lungs, and
heart, a trace in the spleen and in the kidneys, but the greater part
in the liver. He could venture to say that he found half a grain.”
_The Judge._—“_Give me leave to say, that the value of this
experiment is nothing if you give a dog arsenic day by day for sixteen
days, and then it is killed, and some arsenic is found left in it; is
that all it proves?_”
_Witness._—“_No; it was done to prove whether the chlorate would
eliminate the arsenic as fast as it was given._”
_The Judge._—“_All that the experiment proves is, that chlorate
of potass does not eliminate the whole of the arsenic, because it
eliminated all but half a grain._”
The witness then went on to show, by experiments on two other dogs,
that the administration of chlorate made no difference either as
regards symptoms, pathology, or the chemical result. Speaking again of
the sweating as one of the symptoms in antimonial poisoning absent in
Miss Bankes’ case, _he admitted that he had seen it only in one case,
and that, where it had been given in excess, for a long time, and in
large doses medicinally, and that in two other cases of acute poisoning
by antimony there was no particular eruption, because, as he said, the
attack was not long enough_. Such was all the experience he had had in
cases of slow poisoning. As to the effects of antimony on the liver,
he could only speak from some experiments on animals in 1856-7, and
that, in reality, he had no experience at all in slow poisoning, except
from experiments on animals. Of dysentery, too, he knew very little;
had seen two or three cases, _but had never met with it in the early
stage of pregnancy; he had met with one between the third and fourth
month, but not between the fifth and seventh week_. He had analysed the
bismuth usually administered in medicine, and had found nearly half
a grain of arsenic in an ounce, and, in a case in which 90 grains of
that drug had been given at the rate of 5 grains three times a day—for
dyspepsia—with Drs. Thudichum and Webb he found about the fiftieth of
a grain of arsenic in the urine.
The _cross-examination_ of this witness was mainly occupied by
questions about his evidence on Palmer’s trial, and in trying to
elicit from him that these canine experiments had been made for the
purposes of the present case. The latter he denied, but admitted that
he had made them after reading the examinations before the magistrate
and the coroner, and that though he did not communicate them to the
prisoner, he talked about them so frequently to his colleagues at
the Grosvenor School, that he was not surprised at being interviewed
by the prisoner’s solicitor and asked to give evidence for his
client. As to his evidence on Palmer’s trial, he maintained that
he did not endorse the theory that Cook died of _Angina pectoris_;
that he did not negative the idea of strychnia, but at last admitted
that he could not deny that he went there to support the theory of
_Angina pectoris_.[176] In the cases of the dogs his analysis was
not quantitative: he was content with the fact that the arsenic was
present. He negatived the idea that the ¼ of a grain of copper in the
pill would produce a burning sensation from the mouth to the anus, _but
admitted that any irritant given for a long time would unquestionably
produce that effect_. The form of dysentery to which a lady with such
a liver as Miss Bankes’ would be subject, would be subacute, not that
arising from poison, but which is prolonged over a very considerable
time: not chronic, but something between chronic and acute, but too
severe to be strictly chronic; that would not harden the coats of the
stomach; would produce a great deal of mischief in the bowels; would
not thicken them, but probably lead to a deposit of false membrane:
it would not harden them, but a false membrane would; if there was
great congestion, the wall would be thicker. He had not acted as an
accoucheur since 1854, but was of opinion that sickness accompanied by
dysenteric diarrhœa, in the early stage of pregnancy, might have been
the cause of all the appearances exhibited in this case. Diarrhœa was
sometimes an incident of and caused by pregnancy; the opposite effect,
constipation, was not more usual.
On _re-examination_, the witness qualified his admission as to the
effect of the copper pill to this extent, that, “in a patient suffering
from violent irritation, arising either from a natural or mechanical
cause, sulphate of copper would have a tendency to increase that
irritation; and he justified his reliance on the experiments on animals
on their forming the great bulk of scientific knowledge in Europe on
the subject of poisons and their operation on the human frame, and
by the fact that the materials for forming a judgment of the effects
of slow antimonial poisoning on the human subject were very bare,”
and concluded by saying, that, “after his cross-examination, and his
attention having been called to all the points deemed important, he
still adhered to his opinion that the deceased lady might have died
from natural causes.”
_Dr. J. E. D. Rodgers_, Professor of Chemistry in Knowle College, but
for seventeen years at the Grosvenor School, agreed with Dr. Richardson
that chlorate of potass would have no effect in eliminating arsenic or
antimony from the human system; that the absence of arsenic or antimony
from the tissues, and especially from the liver, would cause him to
doubt whether the allegation of poisoning was correct, and that he did
not think it possible to find it in the blood and not in the liver,
“as the blood in the heart must be regarded as a sample of the whole
28 lbs. circulating in the system, and, if you find the poison in one
small portion, you must find it wherever the blood flows.” He confirmed
the amount of arsenic said to be in bismuth, and had found antimony
in grey powder: should expect to find, in a case of slow poisoning,
the symptoms spoken to by Dr. Richardson, and, if he did not find any
arsenic in a body from which an evacuation containing one-sixth of a
grain came, it would lead him to doubt whether the experiment had been
correct.
_Dr. J. L. W. Thudichum_, Lecturer on Chemistry at the Grosvenor
School, and a pupil of Liebig’s, attributed the death to what he
called _diphtheritic dysentery_, of which he had seen two cases,
and, on opening the body in one case, found the false membrane from
which the disease takes its name. The only medical work in which he
had seen this form of dysentery described was _Rokitansky’s Morbid
Anatomy_.[177] It was not, however, at all necessary to find the false
membrane, as it might be broken up and discharged, and hearing that
shreddy matters were found in the evacuations, would confirm his view.
He quite concurred with the previous witnesses as to the symptoms
they would expect to find in a case of slow arsenical or antimonial
poisoning. He had analysed grey powder and bismuth. In the former he
found caustic and carbonate of lime, mercury partly oxidised, silica,
with phosphate of iron, arsenic and antimony—more arsenic than
antimony; in the bismuth he found both arsenic and antimony—more than
a trace—enough to answer the test two or three times—an appreciable
quantity. “I dare say,” he said, “there was half a grain in 20 grains.
It is almost necessary, from the mode of its preparation, that it
should contain arsenic.”
On _cross-examination_, the witness admitted that he had not made any
quantitative analysis, because they were so laborious; had used in his
experiment about one-sixteenth of 2 ounces of the grey powder, which
he dissolved; neither the grey powder nor the bismuth had anything to
do with the death of Miss Bankes, but the fact of bismuth containing
arsenic might account for the traces in the evacuation, and if antimony
was taken in a medicine it might account for the analysis, but this
would depend upon the quantity in the medicine.
_Dr. Cornelius Webb_, Lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
at the Grosvenor School, and Physician to the Great Northern Hospital,
said:—
“From all he had heard deposed to in court he was of opinion that the
deceased died from natural causes that might be accounted for—that
the fact of her being in an early state of pregnancy ought most
decidedly to be taken into consideration; _though he did not know
of a case, he was of opinion, founded on practical experience and
general knowledge, that severe vomiting and severe diarrhœa which
would not yield to ordinary treatment may arise from an early state
of pregnancy—that Miss Bankes died from dysentery, made worse by the
condition of early pregnancy, and that a burning sensation in the
mouth is consequent upon dysentery, and the diarrhœa and vomiting
of pregnancy. All the symptoms in her case might arise from the
vomiting and diarrhœa of pregnancy_. The ulceration in the stomach,
obliteration and partial destruction of the mucous membrane, the
effusion of blood under it, and the dark patchy spots and ulcers and
injection generally of the membrane might, as Dr. Wilkes said, arise
from dysentery. If the deceased at one time had an affection of the
womb, for which she used nitrate of silver (a pint bottle of this
was found in her room), it would indicate ulceration of the neck
of the womb; and if there had been such a condition of the womb an
appreciable time before pregnancy, it might add to the irritation of
pregnancy. Unless he found other symptoms, the vomiting, diarrhœa,
sensation of the throat and the intestinal canal, accompanied by
ulcerous appearances in parts of the body, would not, in his judgment,
necessarily lead to the conclusion that she must be the subject of
irritant poisoning—unless he found other symptoms, it would not enter
his head. In a case of antimonial poisoning he should expect to find a
clamminess and cold perspiration of the skin. In arsenical poisoning
he should expect to find arsenic in the kidneys and the spleen, as
well as the liver; should expect to find it in the liver first—it
is the great criterion. And from the absence of these symptoms and
appearances in this case, he was fortified in his opinion that she
died from natural causes.”
The _cross-examination_ of this witness was mainly directed to his
assertion that, “in such a case as this, had he been called in at its
early stage, notwithstanding he was told that she was not pregnant, and
that her courses were in order, he should have examined the patient for
pregnancy, especially if he found that the remedies were useless in
stopping the vomiting and diarrhœa.”
“Dysentery,” he said, “was a most common disease, and in such a state
as Miss Bankes was, the quarter-of-a-grain copper pill might increase
the irritation. Diphtheritic dysentery was a form of idiopathic
dysentery, that is, occurring without any particular poison—the
Eastern form; there is a dysentery that arises from natural poison,
just the same as fever. If I had been acquainted with all the symptoms
I have heard described in court, I should not have dreamt of poison.”
_Dr. G. F. Girdwood_, who had delivered upwards of 3,000 women,
strongly supported the view of the death being due to the effects of
dysentery, combined with pregnancy. “Idiopathic dysentery would be
its proper name—a special disease originating in itself, one single
malady, one single suffering. He had had several cases of dysentery
at early stages of pregnancy, one of them very severe, in fact,
contemporaneous with it—he should say symptomatic of pregnancy: this
would be much aggravated by a bilious temperament, and any affection of
the liver.”
On _cross-examination_ the witness explained that “in this country
idiopathic dysentery assumed a less severe form than in warm
climates—was what is called subacute or chronic, and that the state
of the cæcum indicated a case of _subacute, not of severe dysentery,
of prolonged dysentery_, and that it did not necessarily follow that
such a case should commence with febrile symptoms.” On re-examination
he stated, that “in early pregnancy the dysenteric motions have become
bloody, the sign of dysentery which may come on immediately or not;
in a day or two in acute dysentery, the result of neglected diarrhœa.
_Subacute dysentery_ is frequently the result of neglected diarrhœa,
or chronic dysentery—you have acute, subacute, and chronic.”
_Mr. James Edmunds_, Surgeon to the Royal Maternity Charity, cited
a case in his own practice of a woman of about forty years of age,
who had been married ten or twelve years, and who in her pregnancy
suffered from vomiting, purging, and severe pain in her abdomen,
and who, from the _post-mortem_ examination which he made, he was
convinced died of dysentery, complicated by vomiting and irritability
of the stomach attributable to pregnancy, and purging attributable to
dysentery. “Purging,” he said, “was often a symptom at an early stage
of pregnancy, and often of impending labour.”
On _cross-examination_, however, he admitted that when he first
attended this woman, _when the symptoms first began, she had been
pregnant five or six months_.
_Dr. Tyler Smith_, the last medical witness called for the defence, in
practice for fifteen years as an accoucheur, said that
“He was acquainted with cases in which excessive vomiting in pregnancy
had caused death—where it went on after pregnancy had commenced,
sometimes during the whole period, but these were exceptional cases.
It would require considerable skill to determine accurately the age
of a fœtus, as you may have a case in which it may die and remain _in
utero_ without development, though no decomposition takes place. He
had known one case in which there was a great amount of vomiting and
some amount of purging, in which the friends of the lady could not
be brought to believe that her husband was not poisoning her. These
symptoms might become so violent as to be mistaken for a case of
poisoning; the expression on the face in such cases was that of death
by starvation.”
On _cross-examination_, he admitted that though he had seen cases of
death in pregnancy from vomiting conjoined with purging, he believed
the vomiting to be the great cause of death, and that ordinarily, if
dysentery is excessive, abortion is produced. On _re-examination_, he
said “that in the case of a woman of from forty to forty-five years
of age, doses of irritant poison were more likely to procure abortion
than idiopathic disease.” To a question by a juryman, he said, “any
irritating medicine would tend to keep up dysentery.”
With the evidence of a dentist (Pedley) who had attended the prisoner
about the middle of February last, and recommended the use of chlorate
of potass for foulness of breath, the evidence for the defence was
closed.
THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.
_The Lord Chief Baron_, in his address to the jury, which occupied
eight hours and a half, and of which, therefore, only the leading
points can be given, said:—
“As to the marriage of the prisoner and the deceased—though in
itself a breach of the law and a felony—the jury ought not to allow
it to have any weight, excepting so far as it operated, with the
other facts in the case, upon the question whether the prisoner was
guilty or innocent of the more serious crime laid to his charge.
It appeared to him that it was a most important subject for their
consideration—the position of the deceased at the time the fatal
event occurred, and also what she believed to be her position with
the prisoner. In the letter she wrote to her sister she stated she
was happy, and she also told her sister when she first saw her during
her illness, that when she got well all would be right. What did she
mean by that expression, and what would have become of the prisoner
if she had got well, he having a wife living? In the will that had
been made by the deceased, she appeared to have been studiously called
‘spinster,’ and she signed her name, ‘Isabella Bankes,’ and how she
could have done this, knowing that she had gone through the ceremony
of marriage with the prisoner, and might, therefore, naturally have
supposed herself entitled to the name of ‘Smethurst,’ was certainly
a very mysterious and extraordinary circumstance.[178] He could not
help observing on the circumstances under which the will was made. The
prisoner had certainly told Mr. Senior a falsehood, and he did not
appear to scruple to degrade most seriously the unhappy lady for the
purpose of having the will prepared in the form he required. If he
had told the attorney the truth, he would never have drawn the will
in the form in which it appeared. Again, at the very period when this
unhappy woman was lying in agony on her death-bed, and according to
the prisoner’s statement unable to bear the excitement of seeing her
sister, he took into her room on the Sunday an entire stranger, and
there a will prepared by himself was read to her, and executed by her
under the circumstances of degradation to which he had alluded. Thus
this poor dying woman, from whom all her relations had been excluded,
had a stranger thrust into her presence, and was allowed to pass into
the other world without one word of religious consolation, as if she
had been a beggar and an unbeliever in a heathen land. Again, as to
the pecuniary motive, on the supposed inadequacy of which counsel
had commented because she would have been entitled to receive the
interest of the £5000 (£150) only during her lifetime, it should not
be forgotten that by her will he would be at once in the possession of
a sum equal to twelve years’ purchase of that dividend.”
“The illness of the deceased appeared to have commenced very soon
after the parties arrived at Richmond; the prisoner appeared to have
described it as a bilious attack; he undoubtedly appeared desirous
to have additional medical aid, and Dr. Julius was in consequence
called in. In both the lodgings he appeared to have performed all the
offices that were necessary in connection with the patient, although
it was perfectly clear that he had ample means for providing the
necessary attendance. The jury would consider what bearing this had
on the case. Did he refuse to have a nurse because he did not wish to
have a witness in that bedroom? He not only refused to have a nurse,
but he wrote to the deceased’s sister to prevent her from visiting
her sister. He said that he could not afford a nurse, yet at this
very time the deceased had an income of at least £220 a year. It also
appeared that no portion of any of the food given to the deceased
was allowed to remain; it was always thrown away, so that no person
ever had an opportunity of tasting it. This was one of the facts of
the case, from which the jury would draw their own inference. It was
a fact in favour of the prisoner that neither arsenic nor antimony
was found at his lodgings or on his person. He had, however, ample
opportunity between his discharge on the Monday and his re-arrest
on the following day, of getting rid of any poison, and if the jury
thought that the deceased really died of poison, the fact that none
was found in the prisoner’s possession would not have much weight.
“After the first interview, the prisoner had taken every means in his
power to prevent the deceased from seeing her sister, on the ground
that the doctor forbade it[179]—which was not true. Why was not the
sister informed on the 30th, when she was allowed to see the deceased
again, that she had made a will, and what could be the object of the
prisoner in wishing that the young woman who was to witness the will
should be told it was a ‘Chancery paper’ and not a will? The fact of
the sister having been sent away on the day before the death, was
probably more in connection with the will, and from fear lest the
deceased should, at the last moment, revoke it in favour of a beloved
sister, than with the actual death—but it was a fact in the case. It
was also a fact in the case, that after the prisoner ceased to attend
on the deceased she ceased to vomit, and that the prisoner said that
as the parties about the deceased had interfered, he should take no
further responsibility, nor pay for anything, though at that time
he had money of the deceased’s at his bankers.[180] It was another
fact to be considered that the draft of the will was entirely in the
prisoner’s handwriting, and that there was no evidence that it was
drawn by a barrister as he represented.”
On the medical testimony, the _Chief Baron_ said:—
“The medical witnesses called for the defence thought the symptoms of
this case inconsistent with slow poisoning, and that had arsenic or
antimony been the cause of death, some portions of those substances
would have been found in the body.[181] These statements were,
however, the opinions of scientific men, the result of reading
and study, and the jury would have to consider how far it weighed
against the evidence of those scientific witnesses who had seen the
patient when living, and had observed personally all the symptoms
that manifested themselves. The medical men first called in found
themselves baffled by the disease; the medicines not only did not
alleviate the symptoms, but did not produce even their natural
effects. They, therefore, came to the conclusion that something was
being administered which counteracted their medicines. Dr. Todd, one
of the most eminent physicians of the day, was called in, and came to
the same conclusion. These gentlemen, and other competent witnesses,
who had not seen the patient while living, were equally of opinion
that the symptoms were not ascribable to any natural causes; but were
those which would arise from the administration of an irritant poison.
The counsel for the prisoner had laid much stress upon the mistake
made by Dr. Taylor in one of his tests, and asked them to dismiss Dr.
Taylor’s evidence from their consideration. He did not agree with
this. The failure of Dr. Taylor’s analysis in one instance arose
from a new and hitherto unknown fact in science, and did not in any
way invalidate his testimony.[182] It appeared to him that no answer
had been given to the main point urged by the prosecution—that no
medicine whatever had the slightest effect upon the malady under which
the deceased was suffering. _He did not agree with the prisoner’s
counsel, that the real question for the jury was to consider which set
of medical witnesses were entitled to credit. The medical evidence was
important, but the jury must, in addition, look at all the other facts
of the case, and particularly to the conduct of the prisoner and the
motives for his crime._ They must, after all, be guided by those rules
of common sense that would operate on the minds of reasonable men
with regard to the more important actions of their lives; _and even
supposing that there were no medical testimony at all in the case,
they would still have, as it appeared to him, a very grave question to
decide with reference to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner_.”
The jury, after deliberating for twenty minutes, returned a verdict
of “Guilty.” When the prisoner, who appeared thunder-struck at the
verdict, was called upon to say why sentence of death should not be
passed on him, he speedily recovered his self-possession, and addressed
the Court in a powerful, though rambling speech, in which he attempted
to explain away some portions of his conduct, strongly asserted his
innocence, and denounced Dr. Julius, against whom he appeared to
entertain a bitter animosity. Again, when the usual sentence had been
passed upon him, which he heard without emotion, he denounced Dr.
Julius as his murderer, and declared that “he was innocent before God.”
No sooner was the verdict given than its correctness was questioned
alike by the legal and the medical profession, each discussing it
within its own domain, the doctors confining themselves too exclusively
to the conflict of medical testimony, the lawyers confining their
disputes too exclusively to the collateral facts of the case. Such,
however, was the discussion between the two professions, that the Home
Secretary (Sir G. Cornewall Lewis) deemed it advisable to reprieve the
culprit until the case had undergone deliberate revision.
By the account given by Mr. Justice Stephen, based on the notes and
papers of the late Lord Chief Baron, it would appear that, in addition
to the numerous letters (some very foolish on both sides) sent to him,
and transmitted by him to the Home Secretary, two communications,
described as “somewhat hastily prepared,” were forwarded from _Dr.
Baly_ and _Dr. Jenner_. These urged that “sufficient weight had not
been given to the fact of the pregnancy and the ambiguous character of
the symptoms,” and, some of the letters added, “their inconsistency
and incompatibility with poison.” As the reasons on which these
“somewhat hastily prepared communications” were based are not divulged,
it is impossible to judge of their value. The learned Judge, on the
contrary, called the Home Secretary’s attention to the statement in
the memorial to the Prince Consort (already quoted, note, p. 474), to
certain entries in Smethurst’s diary, not proved at the trial, and
not now given, showing that he had wilfully misstated the symptoms of
the patient, and to a statement in a letter of _Mr. Herapath_ in the
_Times_ that the quantity of arsenic extracted from the chlorate of
potass was larger than could have been released from the copper gauze.
(See Chapter IX. p. 509.) On receiving this report the Home Secretary
referred the whole of the documents, together with the copy of the
evidence, to Sir B. Brodie. His reply, which, it is reported, dealt
not only with the medical, but the moral evidence of Smethurst’s
guilt,[183] concluded in these words: “Taking into consideration all
that I have stated, I own that the impression on my mind is that there
is not absolute and complete evidence of Smethurst’s guilt.” Thus on
evidence not subjected to the searching cross-examination which it
could have received if produced at the trial, and the opinion of a most
eminent surgeon (not an analyst) merely on reading the papers submitted
to him, the prisoner was pardoned. “The responsibility,” says Judge
Stephen, “was thus shifted from those on whom it properly rested on
to a man, who, however skilful and learned as a surgeon, was neither
juryman nor judge.”[184]
THE LIVERPOOL POISONING CASE.
TRIAL OF THOMAS WINSLOW FOR THE WILFUL MURDER OF ANN JAMES.
_Before_ BARON MARTIN, NORTHERN CIRCUIT, LIVERPOOL, _August 20, 1860_.
* * * * *
_For the Prosecution_: The Attorney-General for the County Palatine
(Mr. Bliss, Q.C.), Mr. Aspinall, _and_ Mr. Temple.
_For the Defence_: Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C. for the County Palatine,
Mr. Fenwick, _and_ Mr. Little.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The prisoner, who had been an ironworker, was charged with the murder
of Ann James, by aggravating the disease of the _cæcum_, under which
she was suffering, through the administration of minute doses of
antimony. Mrs. James came to Liverpool from Devonshire, in 1854,
whither she was soon followed by her sister Eliza, her sister’s husband
a Mr. Townsend, an invalid, three nephews, and a niece, who was married
to a japanner of the name of Cafferata. Commencing business as a
grocer, she had subsequently kept an eating-house, which was eventually
turned into a night refreshment and registered lodging-house, of which
the prisoner, one of her lodgers, had taken the active management.
Between him and the Townsends it was evident that no good feeling
existed. They were jealous of his influence over their aunt, and
suspicious of the intimate relations that existed between them. One of
the nephews, Martin, who had caused her much trouble and expense from
frequently enlisting in and having to be bought out of the army, acted
as baker to the shop, but, with that exception, the Townsends had no
share in the business. Previous to the last illness of their aunt, her
sister, lately left a widow, and the other two nephews, died suddenly,
as it was found afterwards, under very suspicious circumstances. No
investigation, however, was made in their cases, until after the aunt’s
death.
Mrs. James had prospered in her business: according to her own account,
the prisoner had made it. Her stock-in-trade and the goodwill were
worth between £200 and £300: she had four gas shares, valued at £200,
and £130 in the savings bank, at the time of her death. An authority
for the withdrawal of the money from the savings bank, the holograph of
the prisoner, was found in a drawer, and during her last illness the
prisoner had gone to the gas company to try and get the shares entered
in his own name, and been told that it could not be done without a
proper transfer, or by will. On this he got the solicitor of the
gas company to see Mrs. James and draw her will. This the solicitor
did, no one but himself and his clerk being present, and by it the
business and stock-in-trade were left to the prisoner, and the rest
of the property divided equally between Mrs. Cafferata and her child,
and the nephew Martin, the prisoner being appointed sole executor. On
the 5th of February, Mrs. James was so ill that the prisoner called
in Dr. Cameron, Physician to the Liverpool Southern Hospital, who
found her in bed, suffering from bowel complaint, and a tumour in the
abdomen, which he believed to be cancer, and very weak and prostrate.
He prescribed for her, and desired to be sent for again if she became
worse. On the 26th of that month the prisoner wrote to Mrs. Cafferata
at Manchester to come at once if she wished to see her aunt alive.
She came and stayed with her for a fortnight, sleeping in the same
bed, in the back parlour, of which the prisoner had the key at night.
During Mrs. James’s illness her food was prepared by her servants, and
brought to her room generally at night by the prisoner, who was very
attentive, and showed great interest in her condition. On the 29th of
March, Dr. Cameron was sent for again, and found her symptoms similar
to those he had seen on his first visit. Again, on the 8th of May he
saw her, when she was suffering under a violent attack of purging and
vomiting, but, as regarded these effects, was convalescent by the 19th.
On the 25th, however, he found her again very ill, and for the first
time, from the symptoms, suspected that some foreign ingredient, some
irritating substance, such as antimony, had been given to her. Mrs.
Cafferata had again been sent for to attend on her aunt. Dr. Cameron
prescribed tannin as an antidote, and on the 6th of June Mrs. James
was again convalescent. Two days after, however, the same bad symptoms
reappeared, and she became exceedingly prostrate. Some of her urine and
excretions were obtained and handed to Dr. Edwards for analysis, and
its results communicated to Dr. Cameron, who, in consequence, went to
her house on the 10th of June with the police, took possession of all
the medicine bottles and some cups that were in her room, and had Mrs.
James taken to the Southern Hospital. More specimens of the excretions
were obtained, and instructions given that for the future they should
be, from time to time, preserved. On the evening of the 9th of June, if
Mrs. Cafferata was to be believed, a most suspicious incident occurred.
“On that evening,” she said, “I made my aunt a cup of sago from a
parcel on the kitchen shelf, which she took, and at three o’clock the
next morning took up to her a cup of tea and an egg, and, as she did
not eat them, I placed them on a chair by the bedside, went into bed to
her, and slept till nine o’clock, having locked the door, and placed
the key under it. When I awoke I found my aunt awake, and appearing to
want to go to sleep. I then saw two cups had been brought into the room
in the night” (the prisoner admitted that he brought one) “and the cup
gone from the bedside.”[185] In one of these cups was a little sago, in
which antimony was detected by chemical analysis. For some days after
her removal to the Hospital Mrs. James continued very ill, but ceased
to have attacks of vomiting and purging after the first or second day.
Afterwards, however, she improved in health until the 22nd of June,
when dangerous symptoms occurred, and she died in two days.[186]
MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.
_Dr. Cameron_, who attended the _post-mortem_ examination of the body
of the deceased, gave the following description of the appearances
presented.
“The body was greatly emaciated. The membrane of the gullet presented
a yellow appearance. At the entrance of the stomach there were two
patches of false membrane, but I could form no opinion how they were
caused. The stomach was distended, and contained sixteen ounces of
fluid. There were two small ulcers communicating with the cancerous
tumour, which might have been caused by the administration of antimony
or by disease. The bowels had been perforated and their contents
discharged into the cavity of the abdomen, which was the immediate
cause of death. My opinion is, that antimony was administered within a
very short time of her admission into the hospital—sometime between
the 9th and 10th of June. I do not think antimony was given to her
after her admission into the hospital. The vomiting was not of the
kind ulcers would produce, but of a kind which might be produced by an
irritating substance such as antimony.”
On _cross-examination_ by _Mr. Digby Seymour_, he said:—
“Hot food in a case like that of Mrs. James might produce vomiting,
and always occasioned more or less pain with ulceration of the
stomach. There was no redness of the small intestines. Vomiting was
one of the principal symptoms of ulceration of the stomach, as by
tending to starve and weaken the patient it produced emaciation and
prostration. Purging was not a usual symptom of an ulcerated stomach,
but occurred with cancer in the bowels. Witness agreed with Dr.
Richards as to there being no case in which slow antimonial poisoning
was accompanied with dysenteric evacuations. The alternation of
constipation and purging was one of the known symptoms of antimonial
poisoning. The intermitting condition of the patient was one of the
reasons which led him to the conclusion that she was the subject of
poison. Witness agreed with the opinion that in malignant diseases of
the stomach the symptoms remitted in a remarkable way so as to excite
a hope that recovery would take place; but the truce was not very
long; frightful disorganization was at length produced and inevitable
death at last. Softening of the brain had been noticed in some cases
of antimonial poisoning, but it was not a frequent or even an ordinary
indication. Antimonial poisoning sometimes produced enlargement of
the liver, but it did not in this case. Aphthous ulcerations in the
glands of the small intestines are also symptoms of the presence of
antimony—_there were none in this case_. Eminent writers on _Materia
Medica_ and pathology assert that some persons can tolerate the
presence of poison in their bodies without it having any effect upon
them. It is also an accepted truth among eminent scientific writers,
that there are conditions and circumstances of the human frame in
which antimony may not possess poisonous results.”
On _re-examination_, the _witness_ said:—
“This toleration of poison is common in certain cases of inflammation,
but it is my opinion that, in this case, the opposite to toleration
has been established. Aphthous ulcerations are not often observed
in cases of poisoning by antimony. The absence of these symptoms,
combined with the state of the liver and brain, in no way affect my
opinion as to the poisoning in this case. There were peculiar symptoms
in the vomiting of Mrs. James which induce me to believe that it was
not caused by the ulcer. Antimony would aggravate the ulcerous disease
and enfeeble the bodily powers, as well as affect the appetite. One of
the effects of slow poisoning by repeated doses is that the stomach is
prevented from receiving fresh nourishment.”
_To the Judge._—“I have never attended a human patient poisoned by
antimony. Persons suffering from sickness after food are relieved
by vomiting; but in the case of Mrs. James there was considerable
retching after the food was thrown off the stomach.”
_John Baker Edwards_, Analytical Chemist, said:—
“He analysed a bottle of urine which he received from Dr. Cameron
on the 6th of June, and informed him that he found in it slight
traces of antimony. On Saturday, June 9, he received two bottles
from Dr. Cameron, one of which contained fæces, analysed it and
found slight traces of antimony. The other bottle was marked
‘vomit.’ Analysed that, and found in it two considerable deposits
of antimony. Subsequently confirmed this analysis by other chemical
tests. He sublimed it by the application of heat, and obtained a
white sublimate, which, when examined under the microscope, had the
appearance of oxide of antimony. Afterwards dissolved this in tartaric
acid, passed sulphuretted hydrogen gas through it, and obtained an
orange precipitate—sulphuret of antimony. He could not scientifically
distinguish whether it was ‘free’ or ‘eliminated’ antimony.[187] On
Wednesday, the 13th of June, he received three bottles labelled ‘Mrs.
James, Tuesday,’ one of which was labelled ‘vomit.’ It had scarcely a
trace of antimony. The other two bottles contained fæces and urine,
in each of which was a trace of antimony. On the same day he also
received two cups, one of them containing about a tablespoonful of
sago. This he analysed and found in it two considerable deposits
of antimony on copper, which he sublimed and recognised under the
microscope as oxide of antimony. On Thursday the 14th he received
three bottles, one of them of vomit, containing no antimony; the
other two containing fæces and urine, in which was no antimony. On
the 15th he again received a bottle of vomit and also one of fæces,
and in the former he found two antimonial deposits, which under the
microscope he recognised as oxide of antimony, and in the latter a
trace of antimony. On the following day he found traces of antimony in
two bottles of urine. The day after he received two bottles, one of
urine, and found a trace of antimony in each. He also examined some
uncooked sago which contained no antimony. Subsequently (after Mrs.
James had been removed to the hospital) he received bottles labelled
‘Mrs. James.’ The vomit contained no antimony, but there were still
distinct traces of it in the fæces and urine. He subsequently received
four jars containing brain, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys, intestines,
stomach, and blood, labelled ‘Mrs. James,’ and four bottles containing
fluids. He analysed portions of these separately. From one half of the
stomach he obtained five deposits of antimony. He also obtained five
deposits of antimony from the intestines, four deposits of it from one
of the kidneys, and three deposits of it from one half of the liver.
He found no trace in the brain. In four ounces of blood he found a
distinct deposit of antimony, and also from the fluid of the stomach.
He also analysed six bottles of medicine and two of urine, and found
no antimony. On the 26th of July he took a portion of the spleen and
lungs of Mrs. James to London, and examined them there in conjunction
with Dr. Miller and Dr. Taylor, and also the deposits of the viscera.
He examined and tested them and found by the most approved tests
applied that they contained antimony.”
On _cross-examination_, the _witness_ admitted:—
“That the first satisfactory result which he obtained was on the
9th of June—that he had no doubt that the trace he found on the
7th was antimony, but it was not a satisfactory result—that he had
examined the body of a dog which died from antimony, and which had
been exhumed, and had not found a trace, and, that if the animal had
vomited after taking it he should not have expected to find any.”
_Dr. A. S. Taylor_ said:—
“That he received some jars at Guy’s Hospital from Inspector Horne,
containing portions of the stomach, cæcum, liver, one kidney, and
the heart, and afterwards from Dr. Edwards a portion of the spleen
and lungs. He divided them and gave a part to Mr. Miller. Dr.
Edwards showed him some sublimate on glass, and deposits on copper.
He examined them. The deposits on copper were metallic antimony, and
those on the glass were oxide of antimony. He was of opinion that
antimony had entered the body during life. Assuming the deceased to
have been labouring under the disease of the cæcum, and to have had
two ulcers in her stomach, the administration to her of antimony, by
depressing the bodily powers, would tend to accelerate death. Antimony
had a powerful depressing influence and lowered the pulse in strength,
produced great exhaustion of the system, and in a serious disease
affecting the body was likely to aggravate its effects. A person might
be able to bear a dose of antimony in health, who in a serious disease
would be destroyed by it. His opinion, in this case, was that antimony
had been administered at intervals in small doses. Antimony could be
found in the tissues three weeks after it was taken. It might during
that time be found, day by day and at intervals, in the secretions.
The tests which he had applied were the most approved known in
science.”
On _cross-examination_, the _witness_ said:—
“The disease which has been described as affecting the deceased must
have terminated fatally. The death had been caused by inflammation
arising from the passage of the contents of the diseased bowel
into the cavity of the abdomen. It was very difficult to draw the
line where a patient had rallied from the effects of poison, and
where she sank under disease. The medical man in attendance on the
deceased person would be the best judge of the influence of poison in
accelerating death. Small doses frequently repeated would have the
effect of irritating the mucous membrane of the bowels. In two most
marked cases of poisoning with which he bad been connected there had
been no change in the condition of the liver. _All the indications in
Mrs. James’s case were referable to natural causes._ If antimony were
found in the fæces, he should conclude that the purging was occasioned
by antimony. In vomiting caused by ulcers in the stomach, it was
confined to the relief of the stomach from its contents, and then
ceased. Antimony produced prostration of the nervous power.”
_Dr. Miller_, Professor of Chemistry at King’s College, confirmed the
opinion of Dr. Taylor so far as it related to the chemical analysis,
but gave no medical opinion.
_Dr. Clarence Pemberton_, House Surgeon at the Southern Hospital in
Liverpool, deposed that he attended Mrs. James and paid attention
to her symptoms. He made the _post-mortem_ examination. “Taking
the symptoms observed during lifetime, and the appearances shown
by the _post-mortem_ examination, and assuming the judgment of Dr.
Edwards to be correct, the cause of death, in his judgment, was the
diseased ‘cæcum,’ but the administration of antimony would undoubtedly
accelerate her death.”
On _cross-examination_, he admitted that, _judging from what he saw in
the hospital, all the symptoms might be attributed to natural causes_,
and, in answer to the Judge, said that _on the post-mortem examination
he could find no traces or symptoms which he exclusively attributed to
the administration of antimony_.
_Dr. Francis Ayrton_ said he saw the viscera and the other portions
of the deceased sent for analysation. He observed some redness at the
commencement of the small intestines, and some spots on the large ones,
and he formed his opinion from these spots that an irritant had passed
through the bowels. Antimony was an irritant, and would produce such
appearances. He had heard the evidence given, and his opinion was that
the deceased’s death was accelerated by antimony. He also admitted,
on cross-examination, that _what he observed in the viscera might be
attributable to other causes than antimonial poison_.
THE PRISONER’S STATEMENTS.
According to the evidence of Mrs. Cafferata, and the inspector of
police, the prisoner openly accused the Cafferatas of having poisoned
their aunt. He objected to their interference, and ordered them to
leave the house, calling Cafferata a second Palmer, because he carried
white powders about in his pocket, and saying, when the wife showed
him the soda powders in question, “You are not likely to show me the
right stuff.” When Mrs. Cafferata wanted to go to the hospital to see
her aunt, he threatened to put her under arrest. That the prisoner
had a great deal of drink when he spoke in this way was admitted by
the witness, but when he made the same accusation of the Cafferatas
to the inspector such apparently was not his condition. On the other
hand, a Mrs. Higgins, on cross-examination, spoke to a threat of Mrs.
Cafferata’s that “she would hang the orange dog (the prisoner), and
that after her evidence they would want no more.”
PURCHASE OF POISON BY THE PRISONER.
The proof of the purchase of antimony by the prisoner was most
unsatisfactory. A woman (Ann Foley) who used to work for Mrs. James,
remembered that during the previous summer, on one occasion, when Mrs.
James was sitting behind the counter and the prisoner was present, she
said to him, “Here is Mrs. Foley; she will go for it;” that they then
gave her twopence and told her to go and get antimony for the dog, and
that when she went to a chemist of the name of Miller for it he would
not let her have it, but told her to tell them to bring the dog over to
him. This chemist’s assistant (E. P. Rees) remembered a woman coming
for antimony some nine or ten months before, a second person coming
also for it on the same day, and a third about four months after for
the same drug, to poison a dog with. The third person, he believed,
but could not swear, was the prisoner. Another witness (Eliza Brennan)
told a strange story about the prisoner. She had been in Mrs. James’s
service, some two years ago, and spoke to him about leaving and going
to Dublin in the first week of her service. On this the prisoner, she
said, advised her to stay, but added that, “if she would go, if she
would buy him half-a-crown’s worth of antimony in Dublin, and send it
to him by the boat, he would give her £5.” Lastly, a newspaper boy
(Thomas Maguire), who slept at Mrs. James’s house, swore that
“The prisoner once sent him for a pennyworth of something for the dog,
he did not know its name, but what he got was a white powder, which
when given to the animal in water purged it violently—that within
half an hour the prisoner sent him again for the same, and now told
him its name was antimony. He got it, said the witness, from a young
man, name Coopland, at Miller’s the chemist. He declared it was taken
from a bottle six or seven from the window, and professed to point out
the bottle to the Inspector of police. He knew that the letters ANT.
on it stood for antimony. He had also several times since January last
seen the prisoner when making bread and butter for the mistress take
from his pocket a white powder in a paper and throw some of it on the
bread before he buttered it; when he asked him once what it was, the
prisoner had said it was salt. When the witness said ‘there was salt
enough in the house without that,’ the prisoner made no reply.”
To Inspector Home the prisoner admitted that “he knew the use of
antimony, and had given it to cattle, but had not had any in his
possession for many years.”
In his charge to the jury, _Baron Martin_ told them that, if they
believed that the prisoner administered the antimony with the intention
of killing, and that her death from a natural disease was thus
accelerated, that was murder—citing the dictum of Lord Hale “that if
a man be sick of some disease which might possibly end his life, and
another gave him a wound, which would hasten his death, this was murder
by the party giving the wound”—they were to guard against prejudice
because of the nature of the crime, and not to convict unless the
evidence affirmatively satisfied their minds of his guilt.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”