Mr. Harry Clark, a son, declared that he was aware that his mother was

having poison given her and obtained possession of some of the powder

and had it analysed by a surgeon, who said it was a “slow poison.” His

mother had told him that she would be poisoned, and he tried to persuade

her to go away with him, but she refused, without giving any reason.

Major O’Meara, a civil surgeon in Agra, who examined the body of Mrs.

Clark, was of the opinion that she had been attacked with a heavy weapon

and that the blows had been deliberately given by a man. A second son of

the accused stated that his father had told them that their mother had

been given more than one dose of arsenic, but she proved poison-proof,

so that he made no secret before his own family of his intention to get

rid of his wife at the first opportunity.

In one of the letters discovered, written by Mrs. Fulham to Clark, which

was dated April 22, 1911, was the statement:

“You are very thoughtful in sending me more powders; I was going to ask

you for more, as I have only three left. I do not think these powders

are having any effect. You say they must be given regularly and then you

say you cannot administer them to ‘Mrs. C.’ as regularly as you would

like to. She will need much more than that. Tell me plainly what you

think.”

An Assistant-Surgeon named Linton told how, when visiting Clark’s

bungalow one evening, Harry Clark showed him a white powder and asked

him whether it was poison. He tasted it and concluded it was a compound

of arsenic, and told young Clark it was a poison and would be fatal in

about twenty minutes.

In a statement made by Mrs. Fulham that was read she explained her

friendship with Clark, and said:

“I believe Clark must have the power of hypnotism. He made me and my

husband do whatever he wished. He won my affection completely from him.

On arriving at Agra my husband was suddenly taken ill. Clark went on his

bicycle and fetched Captain Dunn, who arrived just in time to see my

husband expire. Clark once told me he had given his wife enough arsenic

to kill ten men, but she recovered. My husband became very ill and

paralysed and helpless, and died on October 10, 1911. Clark gave him

several injections before fetching Captain Dunn, and used a hypodermic

syringe filled with something from a small bottle.”

From the evidence of these letters it was apparent that both the accused

conspired in April, 1911, first to poison Mr. Fulham, the poison being

sent to Meerut from Agra by Lieut. Clark, and that Mrs. Fulham wrote to

Clark duly acknowledging the receipt of the poison, and sending him

reports of its effect upon her husband. In one of her letters she

alludes to an attempt to poison her husband with “Tonic Powders,” which

were believed to be a name for a deadly alkaloidal poison which Clark

had brought from Calcutta. Another preparation was twice tried

previously, but was unsuccessful because Fulham refused to drink the tea

in which it was placed because of its peculiar taste.

Mrs. Fulham wrote to Clark on the subject, “This will take a hundred

years to kill him.” Mr. Fulham became very ill and was taken to

hospital, but recovered, and his wife wrote to Clark telling him how the

attempts had failed and they must try to find another way.

Fulham then went on a visit to Agra, where he was taken very ill after

dinner and died shortly afterwards. Clark himself wrote the death

certificate, stating that he died of “general paralysis of three months’

standing.”

In another letter from Mrs. Fulham to Clark on May 20, 1911, she stated:

“I administered the powder you left. There was no result. I shall begin

in earnest on Monday and inform you of the results.”

On May 23 she said:

“I again have news for you. I administered a full dose yesterday. Hubby

returned the tea untasted. He said there was bad medicine in it. This

shows that jalapine is readily tasted. The fates are against us. All our

attempts are bitterly frustrated. I feel so disappointed, not so much on

my account as on yours. What is the best plan of operation in the

future?”

On May 27 she wrote:

“You assure me you are determined to win me at any cost. Come what may,

I will help you to achieve that end.”

On June 11 she said:

“Hubby is very ill with symptoms of cholera. All blame masonic dinner,

but you and I know. I cannot bear to see his suffering.”

On June 27 she wrote:

“A powder is hard to administer, as my husband takes no food prepared by

me, and makes his own cocoa; but I am still doing my best.”

Mr. Fulham’s little daughter, a child of ten, told the Court a pathetic

story of how her father became ill after dinner on the day on which he

died. He was previously quite well, but had dinner in the garden, her

mother and herself taking the meal out to him. Afterwards her father

complained of illness and went to bed. Lieut. Clark was there at the

time. She went to see her father in his room later on and going into the

dining-room afterwards, she saw Clark take a red box off a shelf and

take out a glass needle. He opened a paper and poured out a white powder

into a wineglass of water and filled the needle. She watched him then go

into her father’s room and seem to push the needle into his heart, arm

and shoulder. Shortly afterwards there was a funny gurgling noise from

her father. She went to the bedside wondering what it could be, and

found him lying on his back and the noise continued. He was breathing

heavily and then he died. Clark came in and felt her father’s heart, but

returned immediately to the dining-room and said to her mother, “Gone.”

After that he went out on a bicycle to fetch Captain Dunn. When the

latter arrived Clark pretended he did not know her father was dead and

said he brought Captain Dunn to see how Fulham was.

Lieut. Clark volunteered a statement in which he said that Captain Dunn

was consulted when Mr. Fulham was brought to Agra and advised the

injection of ether, digitalin and strychnine, which was to be kept handy

and used immediately an attack was coming on. The injection he gave Mr.

Fulham as described by the child was ten minims of this mixture. Half an

hour later he made a second injection and then went off on his cycle to

fetch Captain Dunn. The bottle was labelled “Hypodermic injection” with

the prescription fully inscribed and it was kept in Mrs. Fulham’s room,

where it remained until the time of her arrest. It had been stated that

he purchased arsenic, atropine and cocaine from different chemists in

Calcutta in 1911. He admitted he made these purchases to treat a patient

suffering from rheumatism and neuralgia, and as they did not prove

effective, he sent to Calcutta for five grains of gelsemine for another

preparation which was harmless. This accounted for the whole of the five

grains of gelsemine which he purchased in 1911. He bought fifty-four

grains of gelsemine and other drugs in 1912, which he had used, and gave

the names of the patients whom he had treated with the medicines in

order to prove he habitually prescribed it for certain diseases.

He also stated that he purchased 118 grains of cocaine in 1911 and

described the disposal of it and also of the thirty grains of atropine,

which he said he had used in a liniment.

A letter from Mrs. Fulham to Clark was read, asking if the “new powders

were tasteless?” since Mr. Fulham refused his food with the other

powders. In a former letter she describes her husband’s frequency of

vomiting and, after stating what the hospital doctors thought about his

case, she added “but you and I know.”

Mrs. Fulham, on being asked by the Court whether she wished to say

anything about this matter, declared that she did not know what the

powders she gave to her husband were composed of, but that Lieut. Clark

told her that they would make her husband slightly ill, otherwise she

would not have given them to him.

Dr. Gore, Assistant-Chemist and Bacteriologist, stated that Clark came

to his laboratory in October and asked him for some cholera cultures,

saying that he wanted to use them on animals in order to test a cholera

specific. He told Clark that animals did not get cholera, and therefore

he did not give him any of the cultures. Finally he put him off with

some harmless water organisms, as he thought to place cholera cultures

in Clark’s inexperienced hands would be a most risky proceeding.

On the Saturday before his wife’s death, Clark came to the laboratory

again and asked for more cultures and said that he had tried them on

fowls, cats and dogs which had contracted cholera and they had been

cured by his specific.

Major O’Meara, who made the autopsy on Mr. Fulham, stated that he found

the remains in a remarkable state of preservation; it was well known

that certain poisons, especially arsenic, assisted in the preservation

of the body. He was certainly of the opinion that Mr. Fulham’s symptoms

were compatible with chronic arsenical poisoning, probably given in

small doses over a long period. Taking Mrs. Fulham’s statements in her

letters to Clark into consideration, describing her husband’s condition,

it would appear his whole nervous system and brain were wrecked, and

following the administration of a powder, paralytic symptoms developed.

Asked if a dose of any poison would produce such symptoms, Major O’Meara

replied, “Yes, a certain group of poisons, one of which is atropine.” A

mixture of atropine and cocaine would also produce symptoms of

heat-stroke; he considered the fatal dose of gelsemine to be one-sixth

of a grain, or less, if administered hypodermically, and would cause

rapid death.

According to the evidence of the analyst, he failed to find any alkaloid

in the remains after making tests for strychnine, gelsemine and

atropine, but he found slight traces of arsenic in the thigh bone.

The investigation of Mr. Fulham’s death having been completed, two

natives named Sukhia and Ram Lal were placed in the box and charged

along with the other three prisoners.

Buddhu, the native servant of the Clarks, then made a confession. He

said that he had first worked for four months with Mrs. Fulham, when one

day she spoke to him at her bungalow and said she would give him

something to put in Mrs. Clark’s food and would pay him fifty rupees. He

had refused to do it. Later on Lieut. Clark came into the lamp room in

the hospital and took a lamp chimney from him, from which he made

powdered glass. He made it into three powders and told him to give it to

Mrs. Clark, for which he was promised fifty rupees. When Mrs. Clark

became very ill Clark warned him to be careful not to put the powder in

the children’s food. Ten days later Clark gave him a bottle and told him

if he did not give it to Mrs. Clark he would drive him from the

hospital, and on that day he poured the contents into his mistress’s

tea, after which she was sick.

Later Clark asked him to come to Mrs. Fulham’s bungalow, where he also

met him, and after sending the other servants away, they both asked him

if he would arrange to kill Mrs. Clark. Buddhu said he would tell them

later and afterwards saw Sukhia and asked him if he could do anything.

Sukhia replied, “I cannot do it for a hundred rupees, I want more.” He

then took Sukhia to the Fulhams’ bungalow, where Clark was, and he and

Mrs. Fulham conversed at length with Sukhia, who asked for payment

before he did the work. Clark replied: “You will get the money when the

work is done.”

Eventually it was arranged to give Buddhu the money and let him pay

Sukhia.

At ten o’clock on the same night, Clark came to the hospital and showed

Buddhu six sovereigns and ten rupees and asked if his fellows were

coming to the bungalow. Buddhu replied, “When the moon goes down.”

He met Sukhia and Ram Lal that night, together with another man named

Mohan who brought a large knife, which Ram Lal took. Mohan kissed and

worshipped the knife and then sharpened it on a stone.

About one o’clock they all went to Clark’s bungalow. Buddhu waited on

the verandah while the other four went in at the back door, which they

tried to open, but a dog barked. They returned to the verandah, and

again went towards Clark’s bedroom, but the dog was still barking. Just

at that moment Clark rode up on his bicycle. The four men told him to

look after the dog, and they would at once finish the work. Ram Lal

opened the door, and Clark entered and took out the dog, which was shut

up in the outhouse. Clark then rode off, telling the men to enter the

house when he had gone. About half-past one the four men went in, Buddhu

waiting outside. Shortly afterwards Ram Lal came out, saying he did not

know which was Mrs. Clark and which was the daughter. Buddhu pointed out

Mrs. Clark’s bed, and then the other two men brought in the lamp. Ram

Lal and Sukhia stood behind the curtain, near the daughter’s bed, and,

while Budhakanjore took the lamp, the other man gave the memsahib a

heavy cut. Directly she shrieked, the man gave another cut, and she

writhed and rolled over the bed.

All the four men then left. Buddhu heard the daughter cry out, and then

ran off. When he reached the main road the other four men demanded

money. Buddhu took them to the hospital and told them to wait. He then

went back to the bungalow, where he saw the daughter crying and Clark

standing by. Buddhu told Sukhia not to worry about the money, as Clark

would pay next morning. Ram Lal came to the hospital eight times in the

morning for money. Buddhu told Clark, who asked him to take the men to

Mrs. Fulham’s bungalow, but the same evening Sukhia still complained of

not having been paid. Buddhu did not know what happened after that, as

he was arrested.

The trial of this extraordinary case took place at Allahabad, on March

1, before the Chief Justice. Clark confessed that he was wholly and

solely to blame, and that Mrs. Fulham was acting under his directions.

He sent her the drugs and she gave them, under his influence.

With respect to Mr. Fulham’s death he said:—

“At first I intended making him sick by giving him small doses, so that

he should have to leave the country. The last dose made him very ill and

he was brought to Agra in a dying condition. I was sorry for his

condition, that is why I killed him. I simply administered four drachms

of antipyrine before dinner and this killed him. The injections I gave

him after dinner were ether, digitalis, and strychnine, but the dose was

too small to counteract the effects of the antipyrine. I gave him

antipyrine because Fulham was a wreck and I wanted to finish him off.

The injections were given only on the pretence of doing something for

him. I knew they wouldn’t do any good.”

The Chief Justice.—“I understand you intended to kill him. Did you kill

him?”

Clark.—“Yes, I took pity on his condition.”

Mrs. Fulham was next questioned. In reply to the Chief Justice regarding

the administering of the poison to her husband she said, that Clark

suggested making him ill. She gave half or quarter doses because she

dared not give the fatal dose. The heat-stroke suggestion came from

Clark. Mrs. Fulham further said that she had no explanation to offer

regarding her letter suggesting that Mrs. Clark must also be removed.

Questioned regarding the incidents on the day Mr. Fulham died, she said

she put nothing in his dinner, but saw Clark administer a dose of

medicine before dinner. She also saw Clark give injections.

At the conclusion of Mrs. Fulham’s statement, counsel for the

prosecution said that Clark had admitted that he was criminally

responsible for the death of Mr. Fulham, and it was for the jury to

decide whether his story was true, or whether he had made the statement

with a view to saving Mrs. Fulham. Regarding the latter, counsel

reminded the jury of passages in her letters. The prosecution did not

wish unduly to press the case against her, and he only asked the jury to

act on the plain English wording of the letters. If the jury were

satisfied that she had been a consenting party to the murder of her

husband, they must also convict her.

The four Hindus were found guilty of the murder of Mrs. Clark; Lieut.

Clark and Mrs. Fulham were found guilty in both cases and were sentenced

to be hanged. Mrs. Fulham’s sentence, however, was eventually commuted

to penal servitude for life.

CHAPTER XXI

A CORNISH POISON MYSTERY

Towards the close of the year 1921 a man named Edward Black was living

with his wife and stepdaughter, Marian, a girl of seventeen, at the

village of Tregonissey, near St. Austell in Cornwall. Mr. and Mrs. Black

were married in 1914, the latter being her husband’s senior by twenty

years, and they had lived together fairly happily, though quarrels about

money matters were frequent. Black carried on business as an insurance

agent, and his affairs at this time were the reverse of prosperous.

Mrs. Black had for some time been suffering from gastritis, for which

Black had often given her medicine and was very insistent on her taking

it. She complained more than once to a neighbour, that the medicine

given by her husband always upset her and burned her throat.

On October 31, 1921, Black, as was his custom, prepared the breakfast

which consisted that morning of cake and bread-and-butter, and made the

tea. Within an hour after partaking of the meal Mrs. Black was seized

with vomiting and pain and was obliged to take to her bed. As her

condition did not improve, a doctor was called in, but in spite of his

efforts she died after an illness of eleven days.

Before this happened, Black’s money troubles had come to a crisis, and

following on discoveries made by the company for which he acted as

agent, a warrant was issued for his arrest on a charge of issuing

non-existent insurance policies.

Three days before his wife died, Black disappeared, and after a search

by the police he was finally traced to Liverpool. When arrested in that

city he attempted to commit suicide by cutting his throat, and had to be

taken to a hospital.

Meanwhile, the circumstances under which Mrs. Black had died appeared so

suspicious that a post-mortem examination was ordered, followed by an

analysis of the organs of the body. As a result of the investigation

Black was charged at the inquest, which was deferred until he was

sufficiently recovered to be brought from Liverpool, with the murder of

his wife by the administration of arsenic.

The trial took place at Bodmin Assizes on February 2, 1922, before Mr.

Justice Rowlatt, Mr. Holman Gregory appearing for the prosecution and

Mr. Pratt for the defence.

Evidence was given by an assistant in a chemist’s shop in St. Austell,

that on October 29, 1921, Black purchased two ounces of white arsenic,

saying he wanted it to kill rats, and that although he was offered other

preparations for this purpose, he insisted upon having the arsenic, and

duly signed the poison register. Asked by the judge how much two ounces

of arsenic would make, the witness replied, “About a heaped teaspoonful;

it would be 960 grains,” upon which the judge observed that would amount

to nearly five hundred fatal doses.

Counsel for the prosecution said that the fatal dose of arsenic, which

was about two grains, would just cover a threepenny bit. The effect upon

a person who had swallowed arsenic would depend upon whether it was

taken in a dry or liquid state; in liquid form on a empty stomach its

effect would be very rapid.

The doctor who attended Mrs. Black during her last illness stated that

at the post-mortem examination, it was found that the heart was normal

and that there was nothing to account for the rapid action he had

noticed during her illness. Questioned as to the presence of arsenic in

some empty medicine bottles which had been found in the house, he

replied that it was a common thing to find arsenic in bismuth in spite

of every precaution against impurity. The amount found in the bottle,

however, was ¹⁄₂₀th of a milligram, a milligram being ¹⁄₆₅th of a grain.

Mr. Webster, analyst to the Home Office, said he examined the stomach,

intestines, liver, and one kidney of the deceased woman, together with

6¾ fluid ounces of blood. He found arsenic in all the organs, the total

amount being ¹⁄₁₇th of a grain, equivalent to ⅙th of a grain in the

whole body. Slight traces of arsenic were found in the bottles and other

articles found in the house and brought to him by the police, but that

could not possibly account for the amount of arsenic found by him in the

organs of the deceased woman. The traces of arsenic in these things were

so small that they would not affect the system at all; to get a fatal

dose from medicine containing that proportion it would require 1,300

bottles.

The amounts found were consistent with the taking of a poisonous dose,

or a series of small doses which might produce poisonous symptoms. If

such doses had been taken they had probably been well diluted. There was

no direct evidence of an irritant poison to be seen in the walls of the

stomach or the intestines. It was possible, however, for all the arsenic

to have disappeared, even if a fatal dose had been taken. It would

depend upon the time the patient lived, and a considerable quantity

might have been vomited. He did not agree with the counsel for the

defence, who urged that arsenic remained in the body indefinitely. In

his opinion that was not the case; it was got rid of very quickly.

Arsenic would remain in the hair and nails for a considerable period,

but after a comparatively short time it could not be detected in the

organs.

Sir William Willcox, Consulting Medical Expert to the Home Office,

described the symptoms of arsenical poisoning. He said that when a big

dose was taken, death usually occurred in three days, but in some cases

the arsenic damaged the organs of the body, and death might occur

several days after the taking of the last dose. He had known cases in

which some months had ensued before death. In his opinion the cause of

death in this case was arsenical poisoning. He based his opinion not

only on symptoms but on the analysis. He believed that no arsenic had

been administered to Mrs. Black within five days of her death. She had

not died from the direct effects of arsenical poisoning, but the cause

of death was exhaustion coupled with poisoning of the vital organs.

At the suggestion of the judge, Mr. Webster made three cups of tea, one

with two grains of arsenic in it, one with one grain, and one with none,

and these cups were handed to the judge and jury for their inspection.

Evidence was given by Mrs. Black’s daughter, Marian, and by the

neighbours, showing that Black had on different occasions administered

medicine to his wife, and that she had frequently complained of it being

“peppery” and of her dislike to taking it.

Counsel for the defence urged the lack of motive for the crime, and

suggested that death was due to gastritis, from which disease Mrs. Black

was known to have suffered.

On the second and last day of the trial, Black himself went into the

witness-box, and denied, as he had previously done at the inquest, that

he had ever had arsenic in his possession, or that he had purchased it

at St. Austell on October 29. He also added that on October 31 his wife

was not present at breakfast, but that it was taken up to her by Marian,

the girl.

The judge, in summing up the case, said that it was one of

circumstantial evidence. As a rule in such cases one found motives

included, but in this case there was none. There was no doubt that

Black’s behaviour all through his wife’s illness was that of attention

to her, and not either neglectful of her or hostile to her.

The jury, after an absence of forty minutes, returned with a verdict of

“Guilty.” Black was sentenced to death, and was executed at Exeter Gaol

on March 24, 1922.

In commenting on this case, in an address before the Harveian Society,

Sir William Willcox stated:

“it is interesting from the fact that although arsenic was present in

appreciable amount in all the organs, the total amount found in them was

considerably less than a possible fatal dose. The explanation of the

small amount of poison in the body was clearly shown by the clinical

history. The case was one of delayed arsenical poisoning, a considerable

proportion of the arsenic having been got rid of by excretion in the few

days which elapsed between the administration of the poison and the time

of death.”

CHAPTER XXII

THE ARMSTRONG CASE

In 1921 the little town of Hay in Breconshire became the centre of one

of the strangest poison dramas of modern times. There were practising in

the town two firms of solicitors, the head of one being Mr. Robert Rowse

Armstrong, M.A., who had held a temporary commission as major during the

war, and was Clerk to the Bench. The principal of the other was a Mr.

Oswald Norman Martin, who, after demobilization had entered into

partnership with Mr. Robert T. Griffith, who died in November, 1920,

leaving Mr. Martin to carry on the practice.

Mr. Martin was married on June 14, 1921, to Miss Davies, the daughter of

a local chemist, and Major Armstrong was invited to the wedding

reception and sent a present. Towards the end of September a parcel

arrived at Mr. Martin’s house addressed to him in block letters,

apparently to disguise the handwriting. It contained a box of Fuller’s

chocolates that had come apparently direct from the makers. It was

noticed, however, that the ribbon securing the box had been untied and

retied in a different way, and anything that could lead to the

identification of the shop where it had been bought had been taken away.

The box was put on one side until October 8, when after a dinner party

given by Mr. and Mrs. Martin, it was handed round the table, but only

one person, Mrs. Gilbert Martin, a sister-in-law of the Martins, took

anything from it. Later that evening she was taken ill with vomiting,

and suffered from palpitation of the heart. After dinner, the box of

chocolates was again put away and nothing more thought about it, until

they were suspected of being the cause of the lady’s sudden seizure. The

chocolates were then handed over to Dr. Hincks, of Hay, who sent them to

London to be analysed. According to the report returned to him it was

found that in two of the chocolates in the upper row some holes had been

drilled about half an inch long, into each of which several grains of

white arsenic had been placed and an attempt had then been made to fill

up the ends of the holes with pieces of chocolate.

About this time, it appears, Major Armstrong began to press Mr. Martin

very frequently to come and have tea with him, and at length Mr. Martin

agreed and went to Armstrong’s house about five o’clock on Wednesday

afternoon, October 26. When he entered the drawing-room he noticed a

three-tier cake-stand on which were apparently some buttered scones.

Major Armstrong called for a cup of tea for him and handed to his

visitor one of the buttered scones from the plate himself. He also had a

piece of currant bread and butter which was on a plate and left the

house at half-past six, but shortly after arriving home began to feel

unwell. Towards evening he got worse and about nine o’clock violent

vomiting set in which continued at frequent intervals throughout the

night. He also had attacks of palpitation and diarrhœa. On Thursday

morning the doctor was called in and he did not recover sufficiently to

return to business until November 1. The following day he met Armstrong,

who asked him if he was feeling better, and remarked, “It may seem a

curious thing to say, but you will have another attack,” to which Mr.

Martin replied, “I hope not.”

During the following three or four weeks, Armstrong again repeatedly

asked Mr. Martin to come to his house to tea and extended the invitation

also to his office, and seemed particularly anxious that he should

accept. About this time there was some business between the two

solicitors about a sale of land, Mr. Martin acting for the purchaser and

Mr. Armstrong for the vendor. There had been very considerable delay in

completing the purchase and Mr. Martin had written, that unless the

completion took place, his clients would have to rescind their contracts

and demand the return of their deposits in each case.

The completion had not taken place on October 20, and Mr. Martin wrote

formally giving notice to rescind the contracts and demanding the return

of the money paid on deposit and expenses, which amounted to about £456.

Armstrong asked as a personal favour if this could not be postponed. Mr.

Martin’s clients decided not to consider the suggestion, and thus the

matter stood at the time.

On December 5 Mr. Martin wrote on behalf of his clients to Armstrong’s

firm, threatening that, unless he received a cheque for his clients’

deposit by December 12, he would have to take proceedings.

During Mr. Martin’s illness the doctor attending him took certain

samples for analysis which were sent up to Dr. Willcox, who found in the

specimens one-thirty-third of a grain of arsenic. Mrs. Martin, having

mentioned to her mother about her sister-in-law’s illness after eating

one of the chocolates, gave the remainder of the box to her, and she

showed it to her husband, Mr. Davies, the chemist. In examining them he

noticed that one had a little white powder scattered over one end, and

that two of them certainly had been tampered with. He thought that they

looked very suspicious and so he took them to Dr. Hincks, who sent the

box with the remainder of the chocolates to London to be analysed, the

result of which has been already stated.

The police were then informed and commenced to make inquiries, with the

result that detectives were called in from Scotland Yard and Armstrong

was arrested.

It was then found that Mr. Davies, the chemist in Hay, had sold

Armstrong arsenic in considerable quantities in 1913 and 1921, which he

said he required for making weed-killer, and following on what the

police discovered they were led to investigate the cause of the death of

Armstrong’s wife, which had occurred about twelve months previously.

An order for exhumation of the body was given by the Home Office and the

internal organs were sent to London for analysis. They were found to

contain arsenic to the extent of three and one-fifth grains.

While the charge of attempting to poison Mr. Martin was in process of

being heard before the magistrates, Armstrong was charged with the

murder of his wife.

Mrs. Armstrong was forty-seven years of age when she died and had been

married for about fifteen years. In 1919 she had first consulted Dr.

Hincks, being troubled with neuritis in her left arm. After treating her

for this complaint the doctor did not see her again for nearly twelve

months, when he received a message from Armstrong to the effect that his

wife was suffering from pneumonia. A day or two later he found she was

suffering from delusions and that her mental condition was apparently

bad. He called in a colleague and it became apparent to them that there

was something additional to the mental trouble, as Mrs. Armstrong had

been taken ill with vomiting and complained of severe pains and heart

trouble. The doctors concluded she had better be removed to an asylum

and she was taken to Barnwood, near Gloucester. She was there confined

to bed and developed a sort of paralysis; she was treated with tonics,

and one of these contained a small amount of solution of arsenic. Her

condition improved and the doctor told Armstrong that she would be able

to go home on January 11, and Armstrong went to the asylum and brought

his wife back to Hay. On that day it was found that Armstrong had

purchased a quarter of a pound of arsenic, and at one time in

conversation with the doctor had asked him how much arsenic constituted

a fatal dose. He also asked Dr. Hincks to visit his wife occasionally

and a nurse was engaged to look after her.

For about a month she seemed to be getting better, then in February the

sickness and vomiting commenced again. The doctor thought it was a case

of severe biliousness, but towards the end of February she got worse and

died on the 22nd of that month. The doctor certified that she died from

gastritis and heart disease and at that time had not the slightest

suspicion of foul play.

In 1919 Mrs. Armstrong made a will leaving some £2,419, which was drawn

up by her husband and witnessed by two servants in the house.

In a previous will made in 1917, Armstrong was to receive an annuity of

fifty pounds a year, while the property was to be divided equally

between his children, but two years later in the fresh will drawn up by

her husband, she left all her property to him. It transpired afterwards

that the second will was drawn up in Armstrong’s own writing and

purported to be signed by two witnesses. Mrs. Armstrong was not present

and the two servants who signed it at the request of Armstrong stated,

that they did not know it was a will they were witnessing.

To all appearances and in the opinion of her medical adviser Mrs.

Armstrong had died a natural death, but on exhumation some ten months

afterwards a sufficient amount of arsenic was found in the remains to

poison her. Almost directly after his wife was buried and he had got the

property in his possession, Armstrong went to the Continent, and

immediately on his return at the end of April was talking about marriage

to another lady. It was noteworthy that a packet containing white

arsenic, not coloured, which chemists are bound by law to do before

selling it, was carried by Armstrong in his pocket on the day on which

he was arrested. Also that Mr. Martin was nearly fatally poisoned after

taking tea with Armstrong, and that the amount of arsenic, one

thirty-third of a grain, which was found in the specimen submitted for

analysis pointed to the fact, that the amount he had taken a few days

before was a little over three grains. It was also remarkable that after

Armstrong had asked Dr. Hincks “What is sufficient arsenic to cause

death?” and was told three grains, that was the exact amount that was

found in a packet in his pocket.

Chief Inspector Crutchett, of Scotland Yard, saw Mr. Armstrong at his

office on December 31, and told him that he was investigating the sudden

illness of Mr. Martin after taking tea with him on October 26. He also

told him about the chocolates which were found to contain arsenic, and

it was known that he had purchased arsenic on January 11, 1921. He asked

him if he could account for his movements on October 26, and what became

of the arsenic that was in his possession. Armstrong then made a

statement that was taken down in writing, and which he signed. In it he

stated, that he also partook of the buttered currant loaf and scones

which he handed to Mr. Martin, who he knew had not been well before he

paid the visit to his house. He acknowledged that he purchased arsenic

in 1914, which he used for making a weed-killer consisting of caustic

soda and arsenic which he found to be cheaper than what he could

purchase. He was unable to throw any light on the finding of arsenic in

Mr. Martin’s tests or on the cause of his illness after visiting his

house. After signing the statement, Armstrong was arrested and was asked

to empty the contents of his pockets on to a desk. Among the articles

found in his possession was a small packet containing a white powder and

two or three little pellets, rather heavy, which were in a small

envelope, which also had the remains of some white powder. The small

packet was found to contain 3¾ grains of white arsenic.

At the magisterial inquiry, Mrs. Armstrong’s sister said that her sister

was a believer in homœopathic medicines, and among them were arsenicum,

nux vomica and liquorice, which she not only used for herself, but the

household generally. The doctors who saw Mrs. Armstrong at the asylum

and prescribed for her, had ordered her a mixture containing solution of

arsenic, iron and ammonia citrate and nux vomica, the solution of

arsenic being in five-minim doses. She had taken that medicine as a

tonic up to October 4, but after that date had taken nothing which

contained arsenic.

Dr. Hincks, who had attended Mrs. Armstrong from 1919, described her

complaint and condition; it was owing to her mental trouble that he

advised her removal to the asylum, and at Armstrong’s request he

consented to her return home. He saw her several times afterwards, but

her physical condition grew worse and she became weaker every day. On

February 16 he told her husband that her case was quite hopeless and

later he heard she was dead. He gave a certificate that death was due to

gastritis and heart disease. His opinion now was that all these

conditions were due to the presence of chronic arsenical poisoning, and

he thought the cause of death was due to the administration of arsenic.

Dr. B. H. Spilsbury, who made the post-mortem on the body of Mrs.

Armstrong after exhumation, said he found it in an unusually good state

of preservation, allowing for the time which had elapsed since her

death. It was a condition which was found in certain cases of arsenical

poisoning, to which in his opinion her death was due. With reference to

the mixture which was prescribed for her at the asylum and taken as a

tonic for a period of some months, he stated that in that small quantity

he would not expect to find any traces of arsenic in the body, with the

possible exception of traces in the nails and hair.

The official analyst to the Home Office, who had analysed the chocolates

sent to Mr. Martin, said that he found the box contained thirty-two

chocolates, two of which had the appearance of having been tampered

with. A cylindrical hole nearly half an inch long had apparently been

bored and filled with a white powder, and attempts had been made to seal

it up with a covering of chocolate. The white powder was found on

analysis to be arsenious oxide. He estimated that the amount in one

chocolate was slightly more than two grains. The rest of the chocolates

showed no trace of having been tampered with. He found arsenic in all

the organs of Mrs. Armstrong’s body, the total being equivalent to 3·2

grains, which led him to believe that she must have had a considerable

amount of arsenic during the last few days of her life, and that her

death was due to acute arsenical poisoning. A quantity amounting to a

fatal dose must have been taken within twenty-four hours of her death.

The analyst also made an examination of a number of bottles and packets

found in Armstrong’s house, most of which contained arsenic either in

solution or powder.

Sir William H. Willcox, medical adviser to the Home Office, said the

mixture that contained arsenic prescribed for Mrs. Armstrong at the

asylum, could not have accounted for the arsenic found in her body.

Arsenic taken thus for a month would be entirely eliminated, usually in

ten days. The symptoms described in the illness of Mrs. Gilbert Martin

after eating one of the chocolates, and those of Mr. Oswald Martin, were

all consistent with acute arsenical poisoning. He was of the opinion

that Mrs. Armstrong was suffering from the effects of an irritant poison

when she was taken to the asylum in August, 1920, and on her return home

the reappearance of these symptoms showed she was again suffering from

arsenical poisoning. With respect to the distribution of the arsenic in

the organs taken from the exhumed body, he had no doubt that a possibly

fatal dose of two grains or more must have been taken within twenty-four

hours of death. He had known of cases of suicide where a large dose or

possibly two had been taken, but in this case there were obviously

successive doses, giving rise to very painful symptoms, which were not

in the least indicative of suicide. He did not believe it possible that

she could have taken the doses herself within twenty-four hours of

death, and he was confident that she was suffering from acute arsenical

poisoning when she died.

On this evidence Armstrong was committed to the Assizes on the charge of

murdering his wife and of the attempt to murder Mr. Oswald Martin.

Armstrong’s trial took place at the Hereford Assizes before Mr. Justice

Darling, on April 31. The case for the Crown was conducted by Sir Ernest

Pollock, K.C., and others, and Armstrong was defended by Sir Henry

Curtis Bennett, K.C.

The nurse attending Mrs. Armstrong said, that her husband frequently

came into the bedroom the last few days of her illness when she was

confined to bed. He was alone with her on several occasions and sat in

the room when she went to her meals. She noticed that sickness occurred

about twenty minutes after her patient had taken food. Mrs. Armstrong

kept a chest of homœopathic medicines in the bedroom, but up to the

Sunday before she died she was unable to get out of bed. She said she

did not think it was possible that Mrs. Armstrong on February 13 could

have got out of bed and got a packet or bottle out of the cupboard in

the room; she had been told by the nurse who was previously in

attendance on Mrs. Armstrong, that she was afraid that she might some

time commit suicide, as she was certainly suffering from delusions.

Chief Inspector Crutchett, who was present at the arrest of Armstrong,

said he had no opportunity after December 31 of going back to the house,

but the house had been searched and he was aware of a little drawer in

the cupboard in the study. Sir Henry Curtis Bennett then told him that a

small paper packet of white arsenic was found in that drawer by Mr.

Matthews, Armstrong’s solicitor, his managing clerk and Dr. Chivers. The

inspector declared there was no packet of white arsenic there when he

searched the drawer. Counsel remarked that there were actual traces of

arsenic in the drawer itself. In reply to the judge the inspector said,

that had the packet been in the drawer when he searched he would have

seen it.

A feature of the scientific evidence given by Mr. Webster was the

statement that he had never, in his experience of making analyses of

organs taken from three to four hundred bodies, discovered such a

quantity of arsenic as he did in the case of Mrs. Armstrong.

Superintendent Weaver, who searched Armstrong’s study at his house, said

that he had examined the little drawer of the bureau in which it was

stated a packet of white arsenic was found after the police search. He

distinctly remembered pulling out the drawer and placing it on the desk,

and was positive there was no packet of white powder there.

The counsel for the prisoner in addressing the jury, asserted that the

suggestion that Mrs. Armstrong took arsenic herself, was infinitely

stronger than the case made out against the prisoner, and called

Armstrong as a witness to give evidence in his own defence.

Armstrong gave a detailed account of his career and war service. He took

his degree as Master of Arts at Cambridge University, and had held

important and responsible positions, including that of Justices’ Clerk

of Hay. He was a partner in the firm of Cheese & Armstrong until 1914,

when Mr. Cheese died. He married in June 1907 and had three children. He

held a commission in the Volunteer Forces of the R.E. until 1914 and was

then gazetted captain. In June, 1918, he went to France, where he

remained until October of that year and was demobilized in the spring of

1919.

Questioned about the second will in his own handwriting, he said the

reason for his wife’s deciding to make a second will was, that she had

come into some further property since the first will, owing to the death

of her mother, and she wished to make a shorter and simpler one. He drew

up the document at her request and with her full knowledge. He stated

that he first became aware that there was something wrong with his wife

on August 9, but he left her apparently in normal health when he went

out in the morning; on coming back for lunch she surprised him by saying

before the children she expected that he would have been arrested; she

had done something to cause his arrest and had told the children they

might never expect to see him again. This was the first time he had ever

noticed any active delusions, and as the delusions did not diminish he

saw Dr. Hincks and told him what had occurred. Discussing the matter

with a friend, he had made the suggestion that it would not be safe to

leave razors about near his wife, and as a matter of fact, he had

removed them from the room and also his service revolver. He denied

emphatically that there was any truth in the suggestion, that he had

ever administered arsenic to his wife prior to her removal to Barnwood

Asylum.

Sir Henry Curtis Bennett, K.C., in his speech for the defence said:

“This case is a most extraordinary one, because the prosecution set out

to prove that in August, 1920, Armstrong started to administer arsenic

to his wife; that in January, 1921, he continued, on her return from

Barnwood Asylum, to administer poison to her; and that finally she died

as the result of poison administered by him. They set out to prove that

and in doing so, they had not been able to make any suggestion as to how

Major Armstrong administered the poison, the time he administered it, or

in what it was administered.”

Dealing with the purchase of arsenic, counsel said Major Armstrong

bought half a pound of arsenic coloured with charcoal in June, 1919. Six

out of these eight ounces he had used for weed-killer, and the remainder

was discovered in the cupboard in the library. He bought some in 1921,

having forgotten that he still had a little left from 1919. He returned

from abroad in May and went to the cupboard and found the packet with no

string upon it, looking as though it had been opened. He divided it into

two parts. One he used by dividing it into a number of tiny packets like

the one found upon him. These little packets he used in a way advised by

a chemical company, and he carried them in his garden coat. It so

happened that on December 31, he had on that same garden coat and in one

of the pockets he had, together with his business and private letters,

that little packet of arsenic.

What happened to the other half of that arsenic? Having separated those

packets for safety, he put that other little packet, with the blue paper

round it, in a little bottom drawer in his bureau which was not a

key-drawer at all. On December 31 he was arrested. The next day he

remembered this little packet and told Mr. Matthews his solicitor about

it. Mr. Matthews went to the house and in the presence of the

housekeeper, Miss Penn, opened the drawer, but there was no packet to be

seen. They believed the police had found and taken it. Mr. Matthews then

pressed the police for a list of things found in the house, and when he

had got it, he found that the packet of arsenic was not mentioned. On

February 9, therefore, he again went to the house, and going to the

bureau pulled the drawer out bodily, and in putting his hand in to see

if there might be a secret drawer, he found the packet of arsenic, which

had been caught up at the back. “Thus,” said counsel, “the last quarter

of a pound of arsenic bought by Armstrong was accounted for.”

Armstrong, questioned as to what he did with the small packets of

arsenic he was said to have made up, declared that he made these little

packets simply by portioning out a small quantity with his penknife. He

had used them all for killing weeds with the exception of the one that

was found in his pocket with his letters when he was arrested. It was

his custom to drive an old file into the ground over the root and then

drop in the contents of the small packet of arsenic, so that it fell to

the bottom or stuck to the side, and he did this to any dandelion root

he wished to kill. He could not think how he used nineteen packets

instead of twenty, as he was under the impression that he had used them

all. When he was arrested and placed the contents of his pockets on the

table, he did not know the remaining small packet of arsenic was there

until he saw it and recognized it. When he saw it, he then remembered

about the two ounces that he had left in the drawer of the bureau. He

did not tell the police that they would find white arsenic in the

bureau, but he realized that the finding of the packet had placed him in

a awkward situation.

Mr. Justice Darling questioned Armstrong very closely about the

purchase, use and discovery of the white arsenic. He replied that

previous to buying this quantity which he used for killing dandelions,

he had never had white arsenic in his possession. He had used nineteen

of the little packets on nineteen dandelion roots.

“Did you notice what became of the dandelions, did they die?” asked the

judge.

“They did,” replied Armstrong.

“That was very interesting, was it not?” remarked Mr. Justice Darling.

“It was an interesting experiment to you who wanted to get rid of the

weeds?”

“When you saw the little packet and realized you had arsenic in your

pocket, did you realize it was a fatal dose of arsenic not for a

dandelion but for a human being?”

“No,” replied Armstrong, “I did not realize that at all.”

“But you had been making rather a study of arsenic?”

“No.”

“It appears now,” said the Judge, “that if every one of these little

packets was the same as that found in your pocket it contained a fatal

dose of arsenic.”

Armstrong replied that he realized that now but did not do so at the

time. He had not disclosed to the police that he knew the arsenic was in

the drawer, as he thought it was certain they would find it.

Dr. F. S. Toogood, who was called for the defence, said he was of the

opinion that Mrs. Armstrong was suffering from chronic indigestion. He

thought that up to the time of her removal to the asylum, she was not

suffering from arsenical poisoning, and up to February 16 there was no

evidence of anything consistent with it. In his opinion death was caused

by arsenic taken about February 16, and if a dose was taken on that date

it would account for the amount found in the body.

Dr. Ainslie, of Hereford, who was present at the post-mortem, said that

judging from the evidence of her last illness and that of the

post-mortem, he was perfectly satisfied that Mrs. Armstrong had died

after a large dose of arsenic which was taken about February 16 or 17.

He expressed dissatisfaction over the preliminaries in the case of the

test for Mr. Martin, and said that there might have been arsenic in the

glass of which the bottle was made, as well as in the medicines with

which Mr. Martin had been treated by Dr. Hincks. He was questioned on

the subject of arsenic being found in bismuth, and agreed that two parts

in one million was the amount allowed. He referred to the possibility of

impurity in the supplies of bismuth from America available during the

war.

Dr. J. Steed, the last witness for the defence, said he believed that up

to the time she was taken to the asylum, Mrs. Armstrong’s condition was

undoubtedly due to some internal trouble, such as indigestion or a form

of neuritis. He believed the cause of her death was the taking of one

large dose of arsenic on February 16.

Sir Henry Curtis Bennett, in his final address, alluded to the important

point that had been made of the finding of the white arsenic in the

bureau after Armstrong’s arrest. The evidence for the prosecution had

been that Armstrong had always purchased coloured arsenic, and this

discovery of white arsenic was of the highest importance. Supposing that

packet of white arsenic, which undoubtedly was bought from Mr. Davies,

the chemist in Hay, had not been found, the case would to a very large

extent have been made to turn upon how Armstrong came to be in

possession of white arsenic. He would have said: “I purchased it from

Mr. Davies.” And the Attorney-General would have said: “That cannot be

true, produce some of it. Davies has sworn that all the arsenic you

purchased was coloured, and all we have found was coloured.” It would

have been said: “It is all very well for you, Armstrong, to say that you

were buying your arsenic openly in your own town. You must have gone

outside to make a secret purchase of arsenic.” “And this is the

important part of the discovery of the white arsenic,” concluded Sir

Henry.

The Attorney-General, replying on behalf of the Crown, admitted that the

case for the prosecution had changed. This, he affirmed, was a poisoning

case, and he doubted if in the history of the world the poisoned cup had

been seen to be poisoned, and when administered had been known to have

been poisoned. In the case of poisoners they would always find subtlety

and an endeavour to cover up things that were sinister. He claimed that

this case depended upon circumstantial evidence; the prosecution had

endeavoured to be fair to the prisoner. The changes in the case were due

to the fact that they now knew, as they did not know at the start, the

defence would admit that Mrs. Armstrong died of arsenical poisoning; and

they knew now, as they did not know before, that the defence was placing

no reliance upon her having taken homœopathic medicines. He did not know

before, as he now knew, that in August, 1920, Armstrong was possessed of

two ounces of white arsenic, the balance of what he had bought in 1919.

He was also unaware before, that in addition to the small packet that

was found, he had some arsenic, approximately two ounces, which he had

bought in 1920.

The central feature of the case was the defence of suicide raised by

Armstrong himself. One person, and one person alone, was constantly

about Mrs. Armstrong in August, 1920, and again in January and February,

1921. “Let me,” said the Attorney-General, “note a remarkable piece of

evidence. When Armstrong was asked if he was alone with his wife, he

replied, ‘Yes, I was alone with her. There was milk and soda in the

room,’ and when asked ‘Did you ever put a cup to her lips, did you ever

minister to her, you the devoted, loyal, faithful, loving husband?’ his

reply was ‘No.’ Can this be believed?”

With regard to the Martin case, the Attorney-General scouted the

suggestion that the arsenic taken from Martin came from a dirty bottle

or cork or from impure chemicals in his medicine. He believed the story

of the twenty little packets made up to kill dandelions on the lawn was

a falsehood.

The judge, in summing up, carefully sifted the whole of the evidence

that had been given. He stated that the question to be decided was, had

the prosecution proved that Armstrong gave his wife the poison. “The

case was a deeply interesting one, and he doubted if anyone had any

recollection of so remarkable a case in its incidents. It had been said

that this case depended upon circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial

evidence was as good as any other, provided it was relevant and true.

Circumstantial evidence going to prove the guilt of a person was this:

‘One witness proves one thing and another witness proves another thing,

and all these things prove to conviction beyond all reasonable doubt,

but neither of them separately proves the guilt of the person.’ It

should be remembered that Armstrong was arrested not on the charge of

murdering his wife, but of attempting to murder Mr. Martin. Having been

arrested for an attempt to murder Mr. Martin on December 31, only then

was some one or other led to think ‘What about Mrs. Armstrong, what did

she die of?’ The symptoms were very similar, so an order was obtained

and the body was exhumed on January 2, and it was then found that there

was still in that body a large dose of arsenic, more arsenic than those

who were accustomed to dealing with these things had known in any

exhumed body before. There was no proof that there was any arsenic in

the cupboard in the bedroom, and there was evidence there was arsenic in

the cupboard in the room downstairs. It was incredible, therefore, that

a woman who was anxious to get better committed suicide, and had taken a

large dose of arsenic two days previously. It was incredible that a

woman in the condition in which she was, could get up with the intention

of taking a dose of arsenic. Where had she got it from? She could not

have taken the arsenic herself within twenty-four hours of death. If Dr.

Spilsbury’s evidence was true that was practically impossible.”

The jury after retiring for forty-eight minutes found Armstrong guilty

on the charge of wilfully murdering his wife, and sentence of death was

passed.

The trial lasted ten days, and the dramatic production by Armstrong’s

counsel of the packet of two ounces of white arsenic found by

Armstrong’s solicitor, wedged at the back of the drawer of the bureau in

Armstrong’s study six weeks after the police had searched and found

nothing in that drawer, was very unexpected. This packet of arsenic

became one of the outstanding features of the trial, and by the judge’s

order the bureau was brought to a room adjoining the Court, where a test

was made. Armstrong was instructed to place the packet of arsenic in the

drawer where he stated it had been, and afterwards Mr. Matthews, the

solicitor, demonstrated where he declared he had found it.

An appeal was made to the Court of Criminal Appeal, when Sir Henry

Curtis Bennett said that both Mr. Justice Darling and the

Attorney-General had ridiculed the statement that Armstrong had made of

his method of destroying dandelions. He would produce five witnesses to

prove that, far from being incredible, it was not an uncommon custom to

give dandelions arsenic in small doses in the same manner as Armstrong

had described, when asked to account for the packet containing three and

three-quarter grains that was found in his pocket. The court, however,

ruled out any further evidence.

The Lord Chief Justice remarked that a packet containing 3¾ grains of

white arsenic was a very unusual thing to find in a solicitor’s pocket.

Counsel observed that arsenic sufficient to kill three thousand persons

could be bought for 2_s._ 6_d._

Sir Henry Curtis Bennett’s speech in support of the appeal lasted twelve

hours, and in the course of his argument he said: “Mrs. Armstrong went

downstairs to get the arsenic; she knew where it was kept, and on

February 16 she had gone downstairs and was teaching her little boy.”

Both packets were in the cupboard in the room in which the boy was being

taught. Armstrong stated that in May he went to the cupboard and found

the packet in such a condition that it appeared to have been tampered

with. He suggested that on the day and in the room where she was with

the little boy, she took a fatal dose of arsenic from the cupboard. From

the point of view of the defence, he argued, the finding of the arsenic

in the bureau was extraordinarily lucky, for there was till then no

evidence that Armstrong had any white arsenic at all. The purchase on

January 11 was believed to be coloured arsenic, and if this had not been

found with the chemist’s label, there would have been a stronger case,

that in addition to the quarter-pound of coloured arsenic in January,

Armstrong, from an unknown source and for an unknown purpose, had got

white arsenic as well.

The Lord Chief Justice consulted with his colleagues and said they were

unanimously of the opinion that the appeal must be dismissed. Armstrong

suffered the extreme penalty of the law and was hanged at Hereford.

CHAPTER XXIII

SOME POISON ASPECTS OF THE ILFORD MURDER CASE

The mystery surrounding the murder of Percy Thompson at Ilford caused

considerable interest in this country towards the end of 1922. On the

night of October 3rd, Percy Thompson, a city clerk, when returning from

the theatre with his wife, was stabbed to death in a dark street near

his home in Endsleigh Gardens, Ilford. His body was found propped up

against a wall and by his side in a state of hysteria stood his wife. It

was first thought by the doctor who had been called and made a brief

examination in the street by the light of a match, that death was due to

internal hæmorrhage. It was only when the body was taken to the mortuary

that it was discovered that there were twelve or fourteen wounds in the

neck and arms, and that the man must have been killed by an assailant

armed with a knife or a stiletto. A few days later Frederick Bywaters, a

young ships’ writer, was arrested and charged with the murder, together

with Mrs. Thompson, the widow of the murdered man.

The youth of both—the man was only twenty, and the woman twenty-seven

years of age—who had apparently conspired together to carry out the

crime, impressed the imagination of the public to an unusual degree.

When the case came before the magistrates, the police produced an

alleged confession made by Bywaters, according to which he stated he had

become deeply attached to Mrs. Thompson, and attacked her husband

“because he never acted like a man to his wife.”

From a long series of letters which had passed between Bywaters and Mrs.

Thompson which were produced in Court, the coroner, after consultation

with the Home Office, decided that the body of Mr. Thompson should be

exhumed and a post-mortem examination made. From the contents of the

letters it appeared that Mrs. Thompson had for a considerable period,

with the connivance of Bywaters, been attempting to put an end to the

life of her husband.

These extraordinary letters, which were read in court, contained

allusions to several poisons and are noteworthy from a toxicological

point of view, as there is mention of the use of powdered glass, which

has rarely been employed for criminal purposes in this country.

Bywaters and Mrs. Thompson were brought to trial at the Old Bailey, the

man being charged with murdering Percy Thompson and conspiring and

agreeing between June 1, 1921, and October 4, 1922, to murder him. Mrs.

Thompson was further charged with administering poison to her husband

between June 1, 1921, and October 4, 1922, and inciting to murder, also

with soliciting and proposing to Bywaters, her fellow prisoner, to

murder her husband and agreeing with him to murder her husband.

According to the Solicitor-General, who opened the case for the Crown,

although Bywaters’ was the hand that struck the blow, Mrs. Thompson’s

was the mind that conceived the crime, and it was under her controlling

influence that Bywaters murdered the man.

The story as revealed at the trial was one of love and passionate hate,

recorded in the letters of Mrs. Thompson to her lover, who, strangely

enough, had preserved them, and thus stored up indisputable evidence

against them both, of their nefarious plot against the life of the

unfortunate man.

“He complained that it tasted bitter, as if something had been put into

it,” is an extract from one letter of Mrs. Thompson to Bywaters.

“I am going to try the glass again occasionally when it is safe. I have

an electric light globe this time” is from another.

Again she wrote “I used the light bulb three times; the first time he

found a piece, so I have given it up until you come home.”

That Bywaters had been aiding her was evidenced in another letter in

which she remarks, “I do not think we are failures in other things and

we must not be in this. The dose was enough for an elephant, but you did

not allow for the taste making a small quantity to be taken. I was

buoyed with the hope of the light bulb and I used a lot of big pieces,

but it had no effect.” ... “Would not the stuff make small pills coated

with soap, and dipped in liquorice. Try while you are away.”

In other letters many suggestions were made by the woman to encompass

her husband’s death, and in one which is worth noting she alludes to a

novel entitled “Bella Donna,” and quoted a passage which says

“Digitaline is a cumulative poison, harmless if taken once; frequently

repeated, it becomes deadly.” She referred constantly in other letters

to this book. In another she asks “Have you thought of bichloride of

mercury?”

In a later letter allusion was made to aromatic tincture of opium which

she said her husband had in his possession.

In the cross-examination of Bywaters he stated that what Mrs. Thompson

alluded to in the letter was simply quinine, and it was that to which

she alluded when referring to the dose being enough for an elephant.

Mrs. Thompson, giving evidence on her own behalf, denied ever having any

of the poisons mentioned in her possession or using them.

Mr. Webster, analyst to the Home Office, said he had examined the organs

from the body of Percy Thompson which was exhumed and found traces of an

alkaloid giving a reaction for morphine in the liver and kidneys, but no

other poisonous substances whatever.

Counsel recapitulated a remarkable list of the chemical substances that

had been mentioned in this case which included hyoscine, cocaine,

potassium cyanide, antimony tartrate, bichloride of mercury, digitalin

and aromatic tincture of opium, all of which Mr. Webster had defined as

poisons. Counsel, when referring to the allusion to ground glass, asked

the analyst if he called that destructive and injurious, to which he

replied in the affirmative if the powder was in fragmentary form.

Administered as such it had been known to cause death. He further added,

that ground glass if taken in any quantity might have a serious effect

on the linings of the stomach and intestines. He found no evidence of

any quantity having been taken in this case. Aromatic tincture of opium

contained morphine and was used as a sedative to relieve pain.

Dr. Spilsbury, who made the post-mortem examination, said he found no

signs of poisoning or scars in the intestines. Asked “If glass was

administered, would you necessarily expect to find indications of it in

the organs?” he replied that he would not, and went on to explain that

the administration of broken glass and powdered glass produced different

results. Large fragments of glass might produce injury by cutting the

wall of the gullet or intestines, and if not fatal, scars might be found

afterwards.

Given in powdered form, the immediate effect of powdered glass would be

to produce innumerable minute injuries to the delicate membranes of the

stomach and would result in illness. If the person recovered, the glass

would disappear entirely, with the possible exception of the appendix,

where it might lodge and remain for a long time. He found no indication

of ground glass in the appendix in this case.

The Solicitor-General asked: “Is the negative result of your examination

consistent with glass having been administered?”—Dr. Spilsbury replied:

“Some time previously, yes.”

“Is it possible that large pieces would have passed through the system

without injury to the organs or without leaving any signs behind?”—“It

is possible,” was the reply.

“Is the negative result of your examination also consistent with

powdered glass passing through the system?”—“Yes.”

Regarding the poisons, Dr. Spilsbury said he would not expect

necessarily to find indication of them if they were administered a

considerable time ago. Some poisons left no trace at any time; others

produced an effect that might last a few days, or even a few weeks, but

after that, there were few poisons which would leave indications, except

those that were corrosive or irritant. Hyoscine and cocaine were not

irritant poisons. Cyanide of potassium was irritant, but he doubted if

it would leave any permanent damage.

Counsel for the prisoner asked: “All that comes to this, that there is

no trace whatever, post-mortem, of any glass having been

administered?”—“That is so,” replied the witness.

The judge, in summing up the case, said the question the jury would have

to consider was, was it arranged between Bywaters and Mrs. Thompson that

the murder should be committed. “If you think,” he continued, “that the

letters of this woman are genuine and mean what they say, that would

mean that she was inciting the man Bywaters to assist her in poisoning

her husband. It might be that they found poisoning was no longer

possible, and they might naturally turn their minds to some other means

to effect their object. These letters form a very strong case, that the

woman was writing to this man, asking him to assist her to remove her

husband by the administration of poison. If they are accurate, she

administered it, but the important part is that she was plotting and

planning.”

The jury returned a verdict of “Guilty,” and both prisoners were

sentenced to death.

This case is noteworthy from the fact that the evidence of attempted

poisoning was entirely circumstantial. No one had ever seen Mrs.

Thompson in the possession of the poisons mentioned in her letters, with

the exception of the aromatic tincture of opium, and there was no

evidence to prove that she had ever purchased them or administered them

to her husband, beyond that contained in her letters.

From this study of some of the more famous poison trials of the past

hundred years, it is clearly demonstrated that the toxicologist and

scientific chemist are the most formidable enemies of the criminal

poisoner.

It may be safely said, that the days have gone by when a person could

administer a poison with intent to kill, without much fear of detection.

In the course of the past century, as science has advanced and new

poisonous substances have been discovered, the chemist has been able to

find a means of detecting nearly every poison known to science. Even in

those cases where the poisoner has been one with skilled knowledge, and

had the means of choosing the most subtle weapon of its kind and

selected it with the greatest cunning, chemical experts have yet been

able to find and reveal the cause of death.

The criminal poisoner, like other murderers, generally leaves some

indelible traces that eventually prove his guilt. Such traces, as

instanced in many cases, remain detectable even after the lapse of

years. Thus the chance of successfully evading detection is gradually

being reduced to a minimum, and as time goes on it is hoped that it will

be brought to a practical impossibility.

INDEX

Abano, Petri de, 52

Aconite, 70

— how gathered, 72, 73

Act passed making poisoning high treason, 186

Agra poisoning case, the, 372

Agrippina, 35

Ainos of Japan, 22

Albany, Duke of, poisoned, 142

Alexander, Prince, mysterious death of, 108

Alexander the Great, 37

Alexander VI, Pope, death of, 133, 134

Alexipharmica, 42

Alfonso, Duke of Bisceglie, 129

Algaroth’s powder, 98

“All Hallow E’en,” superstitions connected with, 214

Alraun, 67

American poison mysteries, 329

Andrew, Sir Euseby, strange case of, 171

Antidotes to poison, 41, 42

Antimony, 98

— cups, 99

— in human beings, 99

— preservative properties of, 342

Aqua Toffana, composition of, 125

Aquetta di Perugia, 126

Armstrong case, the, 385

Arrow poisons, 16

Arsenic, history of, 88

— against plague, 90

— as an amulet, 90

— contamination, risk of, 222

— eaters, 94

— — investigation of, 94

— for cosmetic purposes, 93

— in sweets, 94

— in wall-papers, carpets, and fabrics, 93

— use of in India, 89

— white, 89

Assay cups, 59

Atholl, Earl of, poisoned, 143

Bacon, Lord, on poisoning, 186

Bacteria, criminal poisoning with, 230

Banes, 16

Baroda, Gaekwar of, charged with poisoning, 108

Bartlett, Adelaide, trial of, 303

Bezoar stones, 60, 61, 62

Bhang, 248

Black case, the, 381

Blessis and his death mirrors, 199

Boiling alive, penalty for poisoners, 188

Borgia, Cesare, 129

— family, 128

— Lucrezia, 129

— poison, composition of, 140, 141

Borri, Giuseppe Francesco, 178, 179

Botulism, 219

Boughton, Sir Theodosius, poisoned, 265

Bouillon, Duchesse de, 160

Boyle, Robert, 97

Bravo case, the, 282

Brinvilliers, Marquise de, life and career of, 150

— — arrest and trial of, 156

Brittannicus poisoned, 35

Bull’s blood, 32

Bushmen, Australian, arrow poisons, 17

— African, arrow poisons, 17, 18

Calabar bean, 24

Canaby case, 318

Cantarella, La, 140

Carlyle and “Grey Powder,” 246

Carr, Robert, 104

Catharine de’ Medici, 146

Celts, poison used by the, 17

Cesare Borgia, 129

— — crimes of, 130

— — death of, 138

— — prepares a poison, 131, 132

_Chambre Ardente, La_, 149, 159, 160

Chapman, or Klosowski, case of, 337

Charms against poisons, 53

Chatillian, Cardinal, poisoned, 106

Chinese, poisons used by the, 38, 39

Chloral hydrate habit, the, 246

Chlorodyne habit, the, 242

Chloroform taking, 240, 241

Chlorpicrin, 225

Christison, 95

Cicuta, 31

Clark, Lieut., case of, 372

Cluny, Prior of, 145

Cocaine habit, the, 242

— and morphine, wholesale smuggling of, 245

— smuggling, 243

— — cunning methods employed in, 243

— traffic, 245

Condorcet, suicide of, 205

_Conium maculatum_, _see_ Cicuta

Cornelia and Serpi, 34

Corneto, Cardinal de, 132

Cornish poison mystery, A, 381

Cotta, Dr., 171

Council of Ten, 121

Cream, Neill, 314

— — his stethoscope and medicine case, 316

Crippen case, the, 350

D’Albret, Jeanne, 145

Dalkeith coffee poison case, the, 369

D’Annunzio and his “Pharmic Liberator,” 126

D’Astrées, Gabrielle, death of, 146

Devereux case, the, 347

Di-chlorethyl sulphide, 225

Dioscorides, poisons mentioned by, 32, 33

Di-phosgene, 225

Donellan, Capt., executed, 271

Draconites, 62

Dri, a Romany poison, 87

Dumas, his description of poisons, 255, 256

Dunbar, Earl of, poisoned, 144

Egyptians, poisons used by the, 28

Electrum, 62

Elizabeth, Queen, attempt to poison, 116

— — and Amy Robsart, 165

English surgeons experiment on criminals, 111

Essex, Earl of, poisoned, 106

Ether drinking, 242

Exali, 148

Fallopius, tests on criminals, 110

Fenning, Elizabeth, case of, 271

Fiction, poisons in, 254

Francis II, 145

Fresenius’ work on arsenic, 95

Ganja, 248, 249

Gas helmets, 224

— mustard, 225

— shells, 224

Geber, _see_ Jábir ibn Háyyan Gherian ware, 60

Gilbert, Jeanne, case of, 321

Ginseng root, 215

Girard, Henri, case of, 322

Glaser, 148

Gold leaf, suicide by, 38

Goldsmith and “James’ Powder,” 247

Greeks, poisons used by the, 28, 29

Gula, Babylonian poison goddess, 26

Hashish, 248

— antiquity of, 249

— effects of, 250, 251

— smoking, in India, 248

Hebrew poisons, 28

Hellebore, black, 74

Hemlock, 31, 74

Henbane, 75

Henrietta Anne of England, death of, 146, 147

Henry VIII apprehensive of poison, 103

Hermes Trismegistos, 28

Hewitt case, the, 280

Hindus, poison used by, 37

Hofrichter, Lieut., charged with poisoning, 193, 194

Horsford case, 291, 325

Hyoscine hydrobromide, 357

Hyoscyamus, 75

Ilford murder case, 401

Indians, North American, poisons used by, 21, 22

— Californian, poisons used by, 22

— Jivaro, of the Amazon, poisons used by, 21

— South American, poisons used by, 21, 22

Inoculation with tuberculosis bacilli, 227, 228

Irish poison mysteries, 345

Italian school of poisoners, 120

Jábir ibn Háyyan (Geber), 89

Japanese, poisons used by, 38, 39

Jean Douglas, Lady Glamis, charged and condemned, 142

John, King, and Maud FitzWalter, 101

John of Ragusa, a professional poisoner, 121

Kermes Mineral, 98

Kwang Su, Emperor, death of, 38

Lafarge, Madame, case of, 273

Lambeth poison mysteries, 314

Lamson, Dr., case of, 298

Laudanum, 81

La Vigoureux, 160

La Voisin, 149, 160

Lawford Hall, mystery of, 265

Leicester, Earl of, 105

“Leicester’s Cold,” 107

Leopold I, Emperor of Austria, attempt to poison, 178

Le Sage, 160

Locusta, 35

Louis XVIII, attempt to poison, 162

Love charms, 215

— philtres, 211

— — danger of, 212

— — native, 215

— — plants used in, 214

— — poison in, 215

— — strange ingredients composing, 213

Lucrezia Borgia, 129, 130

— — death of, 140

Luxembourg, Marshal de, 161

Macchiavelli, death of, 117

— his magic potion, 117

Malay poisons, 19

Mandrake, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68

Mantua, Marquis of, letters, 135

Mark Antony, 36

Marsh’s test for arsenic, 95

Maybrick case, the, 308

—, Mrs., her statement in court, 310

Mayerne, Sir Theodore Turquet de, 97

Medicine-men, 16, 24

Melampus root, 74

Mercury, history of, 96, 97

— as a charm, 98

— first used in treatment of syphilis, 97

Mescal buttons, 82

Methods employed by secret poisoners, 198

Molineux, Roland B., case of, 329

Moray, Earl of, poisoned, 142

Morphine taking, 239

Moulton, Lord, on the Maybrick case, 313

Muavi, 23

Nicander of Colophon, 42

— — — poisonous substances mentioned by, 43

Nigger Caeser’s cure for poison, 48

Opium, 76, 77

— eating, 79, 238, 239

— introduction into India of, 78

— smoking, 80

— use of in India, 80, 81

Orange, Prince of, attempt to poison, 205

Ordeal poisons, 23

Orfila, 95

— and the Lafarge case, 277

Orkney, Earl of, poisoned, 144

Orpiment, 88

Ovambos, arrow poison used by the, 18

Overbury, Sir Thomas, poisoning of, 103

Oxford, Vice-Chancellor of, 195

Palmer, execution of, 291

Parysatis, Queen, 36

Pearson and Black, case of, 345

Persians, poisons used by, 36

Petrograd case, 230

Phocion, 29

Phosgene, 224

Pigmies, Central Africa, arrow poison of the, 18

Pimlico mystery, the, 303

_Pocula emetica_, 99

Poison, definition of, 15

— duel between Court physicians, 36

— from a ceiling, 346

— gas, 223

— — attempted murder with, 229

— habits, 238

— in a wooden leg, 208

— in beer, 216, 217

— in chocolates, 222

— in cocoa, 221

— in foods, 219

— in glass, 222

— in honey, 220

— in the chalice, 114

— laws in ancient times, 40

— — in Italy, 40

— mysteries, in France, 318

— plots, 186

— — against Austrian officers, 193

— — against cavalry horses, 228

— — against Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, 186

— — against Ministers of State, 189

— — against the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, 195

— — in Lima, 189

— — in Malta, 188

— rings, 203, 204, 207

— — a cardinal’s, 207

— — Cesare Borgia’s, 206

— — stories of, 207

— symptoms and signs of, 35

Poisoned bed, 209

— boots, 199

— candles, 182, 200

— chocolates given to ’bus girls, 228

— coins, 146

— court plaster, 227

— cup, 199

— flowers, 209

— lavender, 208

— robe, 201

— shirts, 200

— — test by Dr. Nass, 200

— slipper, 201

— soup-powder dropped by enemy aircraft, 226

— sweets dropped by enemy aircraft, 225, 226, 227

— torch, 208

— wine, 198

Poisoners of Rome, 122

Poisoning, dread of wholesale, 186

Poisonous grass as a defence, 87

— boot-blacking, 203

Poisons used by ancient and primitive races, 15

— concealed in flowers, 194

— dropped by aircraft, 225, 226

— in mythology, 27

— in warfare, 223

— preventive methods against, 49

— tried on criminals, 109

— used in France in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 162

Pontæus, a quack, challenges the physicians of Oxford, 111

Porta, Baptiste, on poisons, 122

_Poudre de succession_, 161

Pritchard, Dr., case of, 293

Raspail and the Lafarge case, 276

Ravenna, Cardinal-Archbishop of, 110

Reinsch’s test for arsenic, 95

Rhinoceros horn, 58

Robsart, Amy, mystery of the death of, 164

— — burial of, 166

— — inquest on, 167

Roman Poison Laws, 40

Rome, mysterious deaths by poison in, 34

Royal and historic poisoners, 101

Rugeley mystery, the, 287

Sainte-Croix, 150, 151

— — casket found after death of, 154

— — contents and letter in casket, 154

— — death of, 153

— — poisons used by, 155

Sassy bark, 23

Scotiney, Sir Walter de, 102

Scottish poison mysteries, 142

Scythians, poisons used by the, 17

Seddon case, the, 362

Seneca, 29

Sentence for poisoning, revision after twenty-five years of a, 91

Sheffield, Lord, 107

Signs of death from poison, 41

Sirani, Elisabetta, death of, 118

Slow poisons, 15

Slow and time poisons, 113

— — — — origin of the tradition about, 113

Smith, Madeline, case of, 279

Socrates, death of, 29

Soissons, Comtesse de, 160

Somali, poisons used by the, 18

Somerset, Countess of, 103

Southwark poison mystery, the, 337

Spara, Hieronyma and her crimes, 115, 126

Spiders, poison lore of, 87

Stas’ process, 95

State poison of the Greeks, 29

Stevenson, Dr., proves the presence of aconitine, 299

Suicides by poison, would-be, 92, 93

Superstitions connected with poisonous plants, 53

Sussex, Earl of, 107

Tariff for poisoning, 121

Tartar emetic, 99

Terra Sigillata, 49

— — how it was tested, 50

Theophrastus, poisons mentioned by, 33, 34

Theriaca, 42, 43, 44

— ceremony of compounding, 46

— Galen’s test of, 45

— importation to London of, 47

— Mithridates’, 44

— Philonium, 45

— of Andromachus, 45

— of Bologna, 46

— of Cairo, 47

— of Damocrates, 46

— of London, 47

— of Montpellier, 48

— of Venice, 46

— Zopyros’, 44

Thoth, 28

Throgmorton, Sir Nicholas, 106

Toads, poison lore of, 84

— poisonous, principles extractedfrom, 84

Toadstone rings, 54

Toadstones, 54

Toffana, 122

Trial of venoms in 1432, 110

Trigg, Mr., and Miss Loeser, the mysterious case of, 332

Unicorn’s horn, 55, 56, 57

— — Coronation Chair of, 58

— — cups made of, 56

Upas-tree, 20

Visconti, Primi, 159

Westminster, Abbot of, poisoned, 102

Wheeldon trial, 190, 191

Willcox, Sir William H., on the Seddon case, 368

— — — — Black case, 384

Witch-doctors, 24

Witches’ hallucinations, 63

Women poisoners, 198

Wondreton’s commission to poison, 120

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

Page Changed from Changed to

88 in Greece and Hungary. in Greece and Hungary.

Dioscorides knew it in its later Dioscorides knew it in its

form latter form

224 poisons vapours, and they poisonous vapours, and they

introduced the gas shell, of introduced the gas shell, of

which which

322 become popular among a wide became popular among a wide

circle in the district in which circle in the district in which

● Fixed typos; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.

● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.