“The most common causes are (_inter alia_), all emotions of the
mind which excite the nervous power, and determine the blood to the
head, as joy, anger, religious enthusiasm, excessive desire, &c.,
or those which greatly depress the nervous influence, as well as
diminish and derange the actions of the heart, as fear, terror,
anxiety, sadness, distressing intelligence, frightful dreams,
&c.--the syphilitic poison and repulsion of gout or rheumatism.”
Do you believe, if Dr. Taylor had read that before the inquest, that he
would have dared to say that the man died from strychnine? Is there one
single symptom in the statement made in the depositions by Elizabeth
Mills and Mr. Jones which may not be classed under one of the varieties
of convulsions which Dr. Copland describes? It is not for me to suggest
a theory; but the gentlemen whom I shall call before you--men of the
highest eminence in their profession, and not mere hospital surgeons,
who have seen nothing of this nature but traumatic tetanus--will tell
you that Mr. Cook’s symptoms were those of general convulsions, and not
of tetanus. My belief is--and I hope you will confirm it by your
verdict--that Mr. Cook’s complaint was not tetanus at all, although it
may well have been--according to the descriptions to which I shall call
your attention--some form of traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, there
being no broad, general distinction or certain confine between
idiopathic, or self-generating tetanus, and many forms of convulsions.
The tetanic form of convulsions is pretty much the same thing as
idiopathic tetanus; and when we are told by medical witnesses that they
never saw a case of idiopathic tetanus, my answer to that is that they
must have had a very limited experience. It is not a disease of very
frequent occurrence, it is true; but there are gentlemen here who have
seen cases of idiopathic tetanus, and they are by no means of that rare
occurrence which has been represented to you by the witnesses for the
prosecution. There is one gentleman here, of very large practice at
Leeds, whom I shall call before you, who attended at the bedside of Mrs.
Dove, who has himself seen four cases of idiopathic tetanus. Traumatic
tetanus very frequently occurs in hospitals--in fact, it often
supervenes upon the operations of the surgeon; but the persons to give
you correct information upon idiopathic tetanus are the general
practitioners who enjoy the confidence of families, and who have the
opportunity of visiting at their dwellings, both rich and poor, when
they are attacked by any of those convulsive diseases or fits which
heads of families and brothers and sisters are so careful not to
disclose to the world at large. Dr. Watson is a general practitioner,
and he says in his _Lectures on the Principles and Practice of Physic_,
that most cases of tetanus may be traced to one of two causes--which
are, exposure to the cold or sudden alternations of temperature, and
bodily injury. “It has been known to arise,” he says, “from causes so
slight as these,--the sticking of a fishbone in the fauces, the air
caused by a musket shot, the stroke of a whip-lash under the eye,
leaving the skin unbroken, the cutting of a corn, the biting of the
finger by a tame sparrow, the blow of a stick on the neck, the insertion
of a seton, the extraction of a tooth, the injection of a hydrocele, and
the operation of cupping.” He goes on to say that when the disease
arises from exposure to the cold or damp it comes on earlier than on
other occasions--often in a few hours--so that if the exposure takes
place in the night, the complaint may begin to manifest itself next
morning. He also says that, although tetanus may be occasioned by a
wound, independently of exposure to cold, or by exposure to cold without
bodily injury, there is good reason for thinking that in many instances
one of the causes would fail to produce it where both together would
call it forth.
Dr. Watson adds that, although the pathology of tetanus is obscure, we
may fairly come to the conclusion that the symptoms are the result of
some peculiar condition of the spinal cord, produced and kept up by
irritation of the substance, and that the brain is not involved in the
disease; the modern French writers upon the disease hold that it is an
inflammable complaint, and that it consists essentially of inflammation
of the spinal marrow. Now, who shall say that those symptoms which were
spoken to on the day of the inquest by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones may
not be ranged under one of those forms of tetanus? Idiopathic tetanus is
so like general convulsions that in many cases it cannot be
distinguished from them; and to such an extent is this so that Dr.
Copland states that convulsions frequently assume a tetanic appearance.
It is true that traumatic tetanus begins in four cases out of five by a
seizure of the lower jaw; but then in the fifth case it does not so
commence; and Sir B. Brodie mentions two instances in which it began in
the limb which was wounded. Now, having gone so far, and having
endeavoured to satisfy you that the symptoms which were spoken to by
those two witnesses in their depositions may be, as I am told and
instructed that they are, rather referable to a violent description of
general convulsions than to any form of tetanus, let us proceed to
inquire whether or not the symptoms are consistent with what we know of
tetanus produced by strychnine; because, if you shall be satisfied, upon
full investigation, that they are not consistent with the symptoms,
which are the unquestionable result of strychnia tetanus, then the
hypothesis of the Crown entirely fails and John Parsons Cook can’t have
died of strychnine poison. Whether that be so or not will depend in a
great degree, as it strikes me--although, of course, that will be for
you to decide upon what you think of the evidence of Elizabeth Mills;
but, before I go to that evidence, I will call your attention to the
description of strychnia tetanus as given by two very eminent gentlemen,
Dr. Taylor and Dr. Christison, who were called for the Crown the other
day; and, if you find from their description that strychnia tetanus is a
different thing from the picture first given of the attack and paroxysms
by Elizabeth Mills and Mr. Jones, you will, I think, have great
difficulty in determining that Mr. Cook died from strychnine.
Let us first take Dr. Taylor’s description of strychnia tetanus. I am
not sure whether he stated that he had ever seen a case of strychnia
tetanus in a human subject; but we must be just to Dr. Taylor. He has
had large and extensive reading on the subject on which he writes, and
it is not to be supposed that he has set down in his book what he has
not found established upon respectable authority. Therefore, although we
have it secondhand in the book, we must suppose that Dr. Taylor knows
something of the subject. In his work upon strychnia poisoning, Dr.
Taylor says, “that in from five to twenty minutes after the poison has
been swallowed the patient is suddenly seized with tetanic symptoms
affecting the whole of the muscular system, the body becoming rigid, the
limbs stretched out, and the jaws so fixed that considerable difficulty
is experienced in introducing anything into the mouth.” But, according
to the statement of the witnesses, Mr. Cook was sitting up in bed,
beating the bedclothes, talking, frequently telling the people about him
to go for Palmer, asking for “the remedy,” and ready to swallow whatever
was given him. There was no “considerable difficulty in introducing
anything into the mouth,” and the paroxysm, instead of beginning within
“from five to twenty minutes after the poison was supposed to have been
swallowed” did not begin for an hour and a half afterwards. Dr. Taylor
further on states, “After several such attacks, increasing in severity,
the patient dies asphyxiated.” Now I submit, although there are some of
these systems in this case, as there will be in every case of violent
convulsions, that this is not a description of the case of John Parsons
Cook.
The other medical authority to whom I said I should refer is Dr.
Christison. He says that the symptoms produced by strychnine are very
uncommon and striking--the animal begins to tremble, and is seized with
stiffness and a starting of the limbs. Those symptoms increase, till at
length the animal is attacked by general spasms. The fit is then
succeeded by an interval of calm, during which the senses are impaired
or are unnaturally acute; but another paroxysm soon sets in, and then
another and another, until at last a fit occurs more violent than any
that had preceded it, and the animal perishes suffocated. Now, who can
say that that description at all tallies with the account of Mr. Cook’s
symptoms? I know exactly what Dr. Christison means by this description,
because I have had the advantage of having had several experiments
performed in my presence by Dr. Letheby, which enable me to understand
it. One of these experiments was this:--A dog had a grain of strychnine
put into his mouth, and for about 20 or 25 minutes he remained
perfectly well. Suddenly he fell down upon his side, and his legs were
stretched out in a most violent way. He was as stiff as it was possible
to be. In that state the dog remained, with an occasional jerk, for two
or three minutes. In a short time he recovered and got up, but he
appeared to be dizzy and uncomfortable, and was afraid to move. If you
touched him he shrunk and twitched, and after another minute down he
went again. He got up again and fell down again, and at last he had a
tremendous struggle, and then he died. That is what Dr. Christison means
by his description. If the dose had not been sufficient to kill the dog
it would have been longer in producing an effect; the paroxysms would
have occurred at more distant intervals, and they would have been less
and less severe until the animal recovered. But if the dose be strong
enough to kill, the interval between the paroxysms is short, and at last
one occurs which is strong enough to kill. Just before the animal dies
the limbs become as supple and free as it is possible to conceive the
limbs of an animal to be. Whichever way you put the limbs of the animal
after it is quite dead, the rigor mortis comes on after a time, and they
remain in any position in which they are placed. I saw an experiment
performed also upon two rabbits. The symptoms were substantially the
same; the limbs of both of them were quite flaccid immediately upon
death; and during the intervals between the paroxysms the animals
shuddered and were extremely “touchy.” Now, gentlemen, I will give you
my reasons for saying that, according to their own principle, as adduced
in evidence by the Crown.
Mr. Cook’s death cannot have resulted from strychnia poison. I object to
the theory of it having resulted from strychnia poison--first, on the
ground that no case can be found in the books, in which, while the
paroxysms lasted, the patient had so much command over the muscles of
animal life and voluntary motion as Mr. Cook had upon Monday and Tuesday
night. The evidence is, that he was sitting up in his bed beating the
bedclothes, calling out, and that, so far from being afraid of people
touching him, he actually asked to have his neck rubbed; and it was
rubbed. I now come to the next reason why we say that death in this case
did not result from strychnine poison; and I assert that there is no
authentic case of tetanus from strychnine in which the paroxysm was
delayed so long after the ingestion of the poison as it was in Mr.
Cook’s case. Dr. Taylor says, in page 74 of his book, that from five to
twenty minutes after the poison has been swallowed the tetanic symptoms
commence; and then, in support of this statement, he proceeds to cite a
number of cases. One young lady was “instantly deprived of the power of
walking, and fell down.” In the next case, which was that of a girl,
“tetanic symptoms came on in half an hour.” The next is a German case,
taken from the _Lancet_, and there a young man, aged 17, was “attacked
in about a quarter of an hour.” Then there is the case of Dr. Warner,
who took half a grain of sulphate of strychnine, and died in fifteen
minutes. Then there is the case of a young woman who took two or three
drachms of _nux vomica_, and died in between thirty and forty minutes.
Another case is given by Dr. Watson in his book, which he himself
observed in the Middlesex Hospital, where strychnine pills, intended for
paralytic patients, were taken by mistake. One-twelfth of a grain was
intended to be administered every six hours; but unluckily a whole grain
was given at one time, about 7 o’clock in the evening, and in half an
hour it began to exhibit its effects. Dr. Watson says, that “any attempt
at movement--even touching the patient by another person--brought on a
recurrence of the symptoms.” It is clear, then, from all these cases,
that the interval which elapsed between the supposed ingestion of the
poison and the commencement of the paroxysm was much too long--three
times too long to warrant the supposition that strychnia poison had been
taken in this case. Thirdly, I submit--and I shall prove--that there is
no case in which the recovery from a paroxysm of strychnine poison has
been so rapid as it was in Cook’s case upon Monday night, or in which a
patient has endured so long an interval of repose or exemption from its
symptoms afterwards. In this case of Mr. Cook, according to the theory
of the Crown, the paroxysms would not have been repeated at all if a
second dose had not been given. There was an end of it when Elizabeth
Mills left Palmer sleeping by the side of his friend in an arm-chair;
how easy would it have been then, if he had been so disposed, to
administer another dose, and to have hurried into Elizabeth Mill’s room,
and called out that Cook was in another fit?
Dr. Taylor says in his book, that the patient is suddenly seized with
spasms affecting the whole system, and that after several such attacks,
increasing in severity, the patient dies asphyxiated. Dr. Christison
holds precisely the same language; but I submit that here there is a
broad distinction between the case of Cook and that which these
gentlemen state to be the distinguishing feature of the disease. I now
come to the _post-mortem_ examination. Dr. Letheby was good enough to
dig up from his garden, in order that I might see it, an animal which
had been killed by strychnine, with a view to this inquiry, a month
before, and to examine the heart before me. The heart of that animal was
quite full. The heart also of the dog that was killed in my presence was
quite full, and so were the hearts of both the rabbits that I saw
killed. Now, I am told by a gentleman, whom I shall call before you, who
is not afraid of dogs--and remember that this is rather a matter for
experiment than of theory,--I am told that the result of an enormously
large proportion of such examinations--and, indeed, of all of them if
they be properly conducted--is, that the heart is invariably full. At
the same time, I am told that if the examiners do the thing clumsily,
they may contrive to get an empty heart. If there be any doubt in your
minds, however, as to the heart being full in these cases, I hope that
some morning you will desire that a reasonable number of animals should
be brought into one of the yards here, and that you will see them die by
strychnine, and examine their hearts, and form an opinion for
yourselves. I have now discussed what may be said to be the theory of
these matters; but I have not yet met the strong point which was made by
the Crown of the evidence of Elizabeth Mills. I, upon all occasions, am
most reluctant to attack a witness who is examined upon his or her oath,
and particularly if he be in a humble position of life. I am very
reluctant to impute perjury to such a person; and I think that a man who
has been as long in the profession as I have been must, in most cases,
be put a little to his wits’ end when he rushes upon the assumption that
a person whose statements have, after a considerable lapse of time,
materially varied, is therefore necessarily, deliberately perjured.
The truth is, we know perfectly well that if a considerable interval of
time occurs between the first story and the second story, and if the
intelligent and respectable persons who are anxious to investigate the
truth, but who still have a strong moral conviction--upon imperfect
information--of the guilt of an accused person, will talk to witnesses
and say, “Was there anything of this kind?” or “anything of that kind?”
the witnesses at last catch hold of the phrase or term which has been so
often used to them, and having in that way adopted it, they fancy that
they may tell it in court. This might have been the case with Elizabeth
Mills; and let me point out to you what occurs to me to be the right
opinion that you should form of that witness. I submit to you that in
this case of life and death--or, indeed, in any case involving a
question of real importance to liberty or to property--that young
woman’s evidence would not be relied on. In the ordinary administration
of justice in the civil courts, if a person has upon material points
told two different stories juries are rarely willing to believe that
person; and in criminal cases the learned judges, without altogether
rejecting the evidence, point out to the jury the discrepancies which
have taken place, and submit whether, under all the circumstances, it
would be safe to rely upon the testimony last given, differing from the
statement which was made when the impression was fresh upon the
witness’s mind. It cannot be said in this case that Elizabeth Mills was
not fully and fairly examined. I submit that my learned friend the
Attorney-General really made a false point--the most unfortunate in the
course of the prosecution--in attacking, upon this ground, the coroner,
Mr. Ward. Just place yourselves, gentlemen, for a moment in the position
of the coroner; and, to enable you the better to do so, just recollect
what has passed in the course of this trial in this court; recollect, if
you can, how many questions have been put by my learned friends and by
me on account of which it has been necessary for counsel to interpose
and to ask the learned judges whether the question was a proper one. Our
rules of examination are strict, but they are most beneficial, because
they exclude from the minds of the jury that loose and general sort of
information which, in country towns especially, is the subject of
pot-house stories and market gossip, and substitute for it the evidence
of actual facts which have been seen and are deposed to by the
witnesses. Imagine the coroner in a large room at a tavern, just under
the bed-room where poor Cook died--a crowd of excited villagers in the
room, all full of suspicion produced by the inquiries of the Prince of
Wales Insurance-office about Walter Palmer--and Inspector Field there,
and Inspector Simpson--and all impressed with the belief that whatever
the London doctor said must be true, and that if Dr. Alfred Swayne
Taylor had made up his mind that it was poison, poison it was. The whole
town was in a state of uproar and excitement. Every question that
occurred to everybody must be put before the coroner--“Didn’t you hear
so and so?” “Didn’t somebody tell you that some one had said so and so?”
and so on. How is it possible under such circumstances to conduct an
inquiry with the dignity and decorum that are observed in the superior
courts?
There was a celebrated trial some years ago in France, in which I
remember to have taken great interest, of the ministers of King Charles
X. Upon that occasion one witness actually proved that he had read all
the pamphlets that had been published on the subject, and he came
forward to state what, upon the whole, was the result which those
pamphlets had made upon his mind. It is true that that was in
revolutionary times, but it shows to what an extent the introduction of
a loose system of questioning may go. I don’t say that Dr. Taylor
suggested any but proper questions, but you must consider the
difficulties under which the coroner had to labour, and I am told that
he is an exceedingly good lawyer and a most respectable man. Dr. Taylor
said that the coroner’s omission to ask questions arose, in his opinion,
rather from want of knowledge than from intention. Of course the coroner
would not be likely to know the proper questions to put in such a case,
but when he did know them he seems to have put them. He was right in
refusing to put irrelevant questions to gratify an inquisitive juryman;
we are ourselves constantly being rebuked by the learned judges, and
told to adhere to the rules, and not to put questions which are
irrelevant. I have now pointed out such discrepancies in the evidence
given by Mills before the coroner and before you as will, I think, make
it clear to you that you cannot rely upon her testimony. Since she first
gave her evidence she has had the means of knowing what is the case on
the part of the Crown. I do not mean to say she has been tutored by the
Crown; I believe that my learned friend would not have called her if he
thought she had; but she has had an opportunity of discovering by
interviews with several different people that the case for the
prosecution is, that Palmer having first prepared the body of Cook for
deadly poison by the poison of antimony, afterwards despatched him with
the deadly poison of strychnine. Their case is, that there was an
administration of something which had the effect of producing retching,
nausea, and irritation of the stomach. Those symptoms are therefore
attributed to the persevering intention of the prisoner to reduce Cook
to such a state of weakness that, when once ingestion of the poison
occurred, he was sure to be carried off. In her evidence before the
coroner she was asked whether she had tasted the broth? She said she
had, and she thought it very good. She did not then say anything about
the ill effects the broth had produced; but she has since learnt that it
is part of the case of those out of whose hands the Crown has taken the
prosecution, and that it is the theory of Dr. Taylor that all this
retching and vomiting was the result of a constant dosing with
antimonial poison. She has probably been frequently asked whether she
was not sick after drinking the broth; perhaps she may have been sick on
some Sunday or another, and she has persuaded herself--for I do not wish
to impute perjury to her--that she was made sick by the two
table-spoonfuls of broth which she drank.
Is it not to the last degree incredible that a shrewd, intelligent man
like Palmer should have exposed himself to such a chance of detection as
sending broth which he had poisoned from his house, to stand by the
kitchen fire of the Talbot Arms, when, sure as fate, the cook would
taste it? Did you ever know a cook who would not taste broth sent by
another person and said to be particularly good? It is not in the nature
of things. A cook is a taster, she tastes everything, and Palmer must
have known that as sure as ever he sent into the kitchen broth
containing antimony the cook would take it and be ill. Her statement is
not credible and cannot be relied on. Then she said in her evidence
before the coroner that on Saturday Cook had coffee and vomited directly
he swallowed it, and that up to the time she gave him the coffee she had
not seen Palmer. She was not then aware that the theory of the gradual
preparation of the body by antimony was to fit into the theory of death
from strychnine, but by the time she came here she had become acquainted
with that part of the case. My learned friend stated that, “Palmer
ordered him coffee on Saturday morning; it was brought in by the
chambermaid Elizabeth Mills, and given to the prisoner, who had an
opportunity of tampering with it before giving it to Cook.” There is all
the difference between this statement of my learned friend and that
first made by Mills before the coroner. But the young woman did not go
quite so far as that. She went however to this extent:--“Palmer came
over at 8 o’clock and ordered a cup of coffee for Cook. I gave it to
him. I believe Palmer was in the bedroom at the time. I did not see him
drink it. I observed afterwards that the coffee had been vomited.” Her
statement was not so strong as that of my learned friend, but a great
deal stronger than the one she made before the coroner. The two
statements are essentially different, and the difference between them
consists in this--the one supports the theory suggested by the
prosecution, the other is totally inconsistent with it. Can you rely on
a woman who makes such alterations in her testimony? That is not all.
The case suggested for the Crown now is, that Cook expressed reluctance
to take the pills ordered for him, and that his reluctance was overruled
by Palmer. Mills’s first statement was that Cook said the pills made him
ill. Here she said that the pills which Palmer gave him made him ill.
Before the coroner, too, she did not say that Palmer was in the bedroom
between 9 and 10 on Monday night, as she has stated here. She makes him
more about the bedside of the man, she gives him a greater opportunity
of administering pills and medicine, she shows an _animus_, the result,
according to the most charitable construction that can be put upon it,
of a persuasion that Palmer must be guilty, but still an _animus_ which
shows that she is not to be relied on. How easily may persons in her
condition make mistakes without intending to deceive! It is the just
punishment of all falsehood that when a lie has once been told it cannot
be retracted without humiliation, and when once this young woman had
been induced to vary her statement in a material particular she had not
the moral courage to set herself right.
But the particulars I have mentioned are nothing to those to which I
will now call your attention. I impeach her testimony on the ground that
she here gesticulated and gave her evidence in such a manner that if it
had been natural and she had adopted it at the inquest it must have
attracted the attention of Dr. Taylor. The remarkable contortions into
which she put her hands, her mouth, and her neck would, if they had been
observed at the inquest, have been reduced to verbal expression, and
recorded in the depositions. I am told by Dr. Nunneley, Dr. Robinson,
and other gentlemen, that the symptoms she described are inconsistent
with any known disease. There was an extraordinary grouping of symptoms,
some of them quite consistent with tetanus produced by strychnine
administered under peculiar circumstances, others quite inconsistent
with it. Now, in the last week in February a frightful case of
strychnine occurred in Leeds. A person having the means of access to the
bedside of a patient, was supposed to have administered small doses, day
by day, and after keeping her for some time in a state of irritation, to
have at last killed her. The person who attended the patient spoke of
her symptoms for about a week before her death, and said she had
“twitchings” in the legs, that she was alarmed at being touched in the
intervals between the spasms. I will now call your attention to the
evidence of Mills. She states:--“Cook said, ‘I can’t lie down; I shall
be suffocated if I lie down. Oh, fetch Mr. Palmer!’ The last words he
said very loud. I did not observe his legs, but there was a sort of
jumping or jerking about his head and neck and the body. Sometimes he
would throw back his head upon the pillow, and then raise it up again.
He had much difficulty in breathing. The balls of his eyes projected
very much. He screamed again three or four times while I was in the
room. He was moving and knocking about all the time. He asked me to rub
his hands. I did rub them, and he thanked me. I noticed him ‘twitch.’ I
gave him toast-and-water. His body was still jerking and jumping. When I
put the spoon to his mouth, he snapped at it and got it fast between his
teeth, and seemed to bite it very hard. In snapping at the spoon he
threw forward his head and neck. He swallowed the toast-and-water, and
with it the pills. Palmer then handed him a draught in a wineglass. Cook
drank this. He snapped at the glass as he had done at the spoon. He
seemed as though he could not exactly control himself.”
The expressions she used, particularly the word “twitching,” are
remarkable. It may well be that when this case became public she may
have had her attention called to it, and then had questions put to her
with regard to the symptoms of Cook which induced her to alter the
evidence she had before given. I cannot otherwise account for the
remarkable variance in her evidence. From the time she left the Talbot
Arms till she came here she seems to have been a person of remarkable
importance. She went to Dolly’s, where Stevens visited her five or six
times. What for? Stevens was unquestionably--and within proper limits he
is not to be blamed for it--indignant at the circumstances of Cook’s
death. He is not in the same condition of life as Mills. Why did he call
on her? Why did he converse with her in a private room? He came, she
said, to inquire after her health and see how she liked London. Mr.
Gardner also saw her in the street, but he only asked her how she was
and talked of other things. I do not say that these gentlemen went to
her with the deliberate intention of inducing her to say what was false;
but they did go with the deliberate intention of stimulating her memory
upon points as to which they thought it required stimulating. Mr.
Hatton, the police officer of Rugeley, also saw her a few times. They
could have gone to her for no purpose but that of taking her evidence. I
may mention a circumstance which shows how differently minor matters may
be stated by witnesses who do not wish to assert what is false. When
Palmer went into the bedroom after being called up, he remarked, “I do
not think I ever dressed so quickly in my life,” and it is suggested
that he never went to bed, but waited up for the commencement of the
paroxysm. Mills answered the question I put to her upon that point
pretty fairly; she said, “He came in his dressing-gown, and I do not
recollect that there was anything like a day shirt about his neck.” On
the other hand, Lavinia Barnes, who gave her evidence in a most
respectable manner, said that he was quite dressed; that he wore his
usual dress. People get talking about what they have witnessed, the real
image of what occurred becomes confused or altogether obliterated from
their minds, and they at last unconsciously tell a story which is very
different from the truth. Mills was examined three times before the
coroner, and if that officer acted improperly on those occasions it was
quite competent for the Crown to bring him here and give him an
opportunity of vindicating himself, but he ought not to be blamed upon
the evidence of a witness like her. In the course of her examination,
however, there came out a fact which is worthy of remark. Is there not
something extraordinary in the periodicity of the attacks she described
in their recurrence on three nights nearly at the same hour? There are
numerous cases in the books in which attacks of this kind occurred at
the same distance of time after the patient had gone to bed.
Without going into unnecessary details, I will now state what I intend
to prove upon this part of the case. I shall call a great number of most
respectable medical practitioners and surgeons in general practice, with
a large experience in great cities, who will support the theory that
these fits of Cook were probably not tetanus at all, but violent
convulsions, the result of a weak habit of body, increased by a careless
mode of life--by at least a sufficient amount of disease to render
violent mineral poisons, in their opinion, desirable, and by habits
which led to a chronic ulceration of the tonsils and difficulty in
swallowing. They will prove that men with constitutions weakened by
indulgence have often, under the influence of strong mental excitement
and violent emotion of any kind, been suddenly thrown into such a state
of convulsion that symptoms have been exhibited in the voluntary muscles
of violent disease, and that persons suffering from those symptoms have
constantly died asphyxiated or of exhaustion, leaving no trace whatever
as to the cause of death. In addition, I will call several gentlemen who
will speak to experiments they have made upon animals, and who will be
ready to show you those experiments in any yard belonging to this
building, if my lords should think fit. They will tell you, on the
authority of Orfila, that no degree of putrescence will decompose
strychnine, and that if it is in the body they would be sure to find it
even now.
Lord CAMPBELL said that the Court could not see the experiments made,
but witnesses might be called to prove them.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I have now done with that branch of the case, and
will proceed to the last matter to which I propose to direct your
attention. I propose to discuss whether the circumstantial evidence is
inexplicable on the supposition of the prisoner’s innocence; and, if I
show you that in all its broad and salient features it is not so, I am
sure that you will be only too happy to acquit him, recollecting that
you represent the country, which is uninformed upon the case, which has
no opportunity of hearing the witnesses on either side.
Lord CAMPBELL: In the language of the law “which country you are.”
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: Which country you are. You are responsible not to
render this kingdom liable to the charge of having, in a paroxysm of
prejudice propagated by a professional man with no knowledge of his own
upon the matter, condemned an innocent person. In discussing the
circumstantial evidence, I will avoid no point that seems at all
difficult; but, not to waste time, I will not, after the intimation
which I have received from the bench, trouble you with such matters as
the pushing against Dr. Devonshire during the _post-mortem_ examination
or the cutting of a slit in the cover of the jar, which might be done
accidentally with any of the sharp instruments which were being used, or
the putting it at the further end of the room.
Lord CAMPBELL: What was said referred only to the pushing.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE: I take leave to suggest that in an examination in the
town of Rugeley, where Palmer was perfectly well known, the fact of
there having been a little apparent shoving, which may for the moment
have disturbed the operator, is not to be allowed to have weight against
the prisoner, especially as Mr. Devonshire said nothing was lost. The
matter was one in which all present took considerable interest, and a
little leaning over might easily have produced the effect which was
spoken to. Then, as to the removal of the jar. It was not taken out of
the room. It could not have been taken away without its removal being
observed, and it would have been to the last degree foolish for any
guilty person to attempt to remove it. That a man who knew himself to be
innocent should be very unwilling that the jar should be removed out of
the hands of persons upon whom he could rely for honest dealing is very
probable. Palmer knew that there were some persons who did not want to
pay him £13,000, and who had for a long time been doing all they could
to undermine his character, and to impute to him most wicked conduct
with regard to the death of a relation--suspicions in which none of his
relatives had joined. It is clear from his observation, “Well, doctor,
they won’t hang us yet,” that he knew that it was intended to ground a
suspicion or a complaint upon the _post-mortem_ examination, and it was
exceedingly natural that he should like to have the jar kept in safe
custody, even in the crowded room. All his conduct is consistent with
this explanation. To Dr. Harland, with whom he does not appear to have
been particularly intimate, he says, “I am very glad you are come,
because there is no knowing who might have done it.” That is the conduct
of a respectable man, who knew that his conduct would bear investigation
if it were properly conducted.
I dare say there are in Rugeley many excellent and very serious people
to whom the prisoner’s habits of life, his running about to races, and
so on, would not much recommend him, and who he had reason to know
entertained prejudices against him. As to his objection to the jar being
taken to Mr. Frere’s, there had, I believe, been some slight difference,
arising out of Thirlby (Palmer’s assistant) having come to him from Mr.
Frere. I do not do Mr. Frere the injustice to think that this slight
dispute would have led him to put anything into the jar, but it may
account for Palmer’s caution. Let us now come to the more prominent
features of Palmer’s conduct, upon which, in accordance with his
instructions, my learned friend principally relied. I will first call
your attention to the evidence of Myatt, the postboy at the Talbot Arms.
Mr. Stevens had come down from London, and had acted towards Palmer in
such a way as would have induced some men to kick him. Assuming Palmer
to be innocent, Stevens’ conduct was most provoking. He dissembled with
Palmer, cross-questioned him, pretended to take his advice, scolded him
in a harsh tone of voice, almost insulted him, threatened a
_post-mortem_ examination, and acted throughout under the impression
that some one had been guilty of foul play towards Cook, which ought to
be brought to light and punished. Stevens had been there during the
whole of the _post-mortem_ examination--a gloomy, miserable day it must
have been, poring over the remains of that poor dead man; the jar was
ready, and the fly was at the door to take himself and Boycott to
Stafford, in order that this jar might be sent to London, out of
Palmer’s ken and notice; so that if there was anybody base enough to do
it, either in support of a theory, or to maintain a reputation--God
forbid that I should suggest that to the prejudice of Dr. Taylor! I do
not mean to do so--but if there was anybody capable of acting so great a
wickedness, it might be done; and it was but a reasonable concern that
Palmer should be anxious that it should stop at Dr. Harland’s. He did
not like its going with Stevens to London. Stevens had been
particularly troublesome; he had been vexatious and annoying to the last
degree. The fly was ready, when Palmer met Myatt, the postboy, and
learned that he was going to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford.
According to Myatt’s evidence, Palmer then asked him if he would upset
“them.” That word was first used in this court to designate the jars;
but as there was at that time but one jar, it must have been intended to
apply to Mr. Stevens and his companion. Palmer’s conduct to Stevens had
been most exemplary, and he must have been irritated to the last degree
to find that he was suspected of stealing a paltry betting-book, which
was of no use to anyone, and of having played foully and falsely with
the life of his friend, the deceased. That he was much annoyed was
proved by his observation to Dr. Harland in the morning--“There has been
a queer old fellow down here making inquiries, who seems to suspect that
everything is wrong. He thinks I have stolen a betting-book, which
everyone who knows anything knows can be of no use to anyone now that
poor Cook is dead.” This shows that Palmer’s mind was impressed with a
sense that Stevens had illtreated him. He, no doubt, said to himself,
“He (Stevens) has encouraged and brought back suspicions which have
well-nigh destroyed me already, and which, if he proceeds in this course
of bringing another charge against me, will probably render it
impossible to get the sum which would be sufficient to release me from
my embarrassments.” In this state of mind Palmer met the postboy who was
ready to drive Mr. Stevens to Stafford. What occurred then was thus
described by Myatt:--“He said he supposed I was going to take the
jars.--What did you say then, or what did he say?--I said I believed I
was.--After you said you believed you were, what did he say?--He says,
‘Do you think you could upset them?’--What answer did you make?--I told
him ‘No.’--Did he say anything more?--He said, if I could, there was a
£10 note for me.--What did you say to that?--I told him I should
not.--Did he say any more to you?--I told him that I must go, for the
horse was in the fly waiting for me to start.”
In cross-examination he was asked--“Were not these the words Palmer
used,--‘I should not mind giving £10 to break Mr. Stevens’s neck?’--I do
not recollect him saying ‘to break his neck.’--Were they not words to
that effect, ‘I should not mind giving him £10 to break his neck?’--I do
not recollect that.--Then ‘£10 to upset him?’--Yes.--Those were the
words, were they?--Them were the words, to the best of my recollection.
Did he appear to have been drinking at the time?--I cannot say.--When he
said ‘to upset him,’ did he use any epithet; did he describe him in any
way, such as ‘upset the fellow?’--He did not describe him in any
way.----Did he say anything about him at the time?--He did say
something about it; ‘it was a humbugging concern,’ or something to that
effect.--That he was a humbugging concern, was that it?--No.--That ‘it
was a humbugging concern,’ or something to that effect?--Yes.”
I submit to you that, after this evidence, you can only regard this
expression about “upsetting them,” in its milder and more innocent
sense, as a strong expression used by a man vexed and irritated by the
suspicious and inquisitive manner which Stevens had from the first
exhibited. That this is the correct view of the matter is confirmed by
the fact that at the time of the inquest nothing was known of this, and
Myatt was not called. Myatt was engaged at the Talbot Arms, and must
frequently have conversed about the death of Cook and the _post-mortem_
examination with servants and other persons about that inn. Had any
serious weight been attached to this offer of Palmer, it would have
excited attention, and would have been given in evidence before the
coroner. On the other hand, it is to the last degree improbable that a
medical man, knowing that he had given a large dose of strychnine, with
the violent properties of which he was well acquainted, should have
supposed that by the accidental spilling of a jar--the liver, spleen,
and some of the tissues remaining behind--he could possibly escape
detection. I will next call your attention to the evidence of Charles
Newton, who swore that he saw Palmer at Mr. Salt’s surgery at 9 o’clock
on Monday night, when he gave him three grains of strychnine in a piece
of paper. He did not bring this to the knowledge of the Crown until the
night before this trial commenced. He was examined before the coroner,
but although then called to corroborate the statement of Roberts as to
the presence of Palmer at Hawkins’s shop, where he was said to have
purchased strychnine, he then said nothing about the purchase on the
Monday night. A man who so conducts himself, who when first sworn omits
a considerable portion of what he tells three weeks afterwards, and
again comes forward at the last moment and tells more than enough in his
opinion to drive home the guilt to the person who is accused, that man
is not to be believed upon his oath. There are other circumstances which
render Newton’s statement in the highest degree improbable. That Palmer
should once in a way purchase strychnine in Rugeley is not to be
wondered at. It is sold to kill vermin, to kill dogs. And whatever the
evidence as to the galloping of the mares and their dropping their
foals, it shows that Palmer had occasion for it, and for other purposes.
But that, having bought enough for all ordinary purposes, he should go
and buy more the next day, and should purchase it at the shop of a
tradesman with whom he had dealt for two years, is in the highest degree
incredible. Nobody would believe it. Nobody can or ought to believe it.
But observe this also. Palmer had been to London on the Monday, and in
London there is no difficulty in procuring strychnine. It is sold to any
one who, by writing down the technical description of what he wants,
shows that he has had a medical education. Why did he not get it in
London? And if he could not get it in London, why did he not get it at
Stafford, or at any of the other places to which he had been? If he had
bought it for this guilty purpose, would he not, as a wary man, have
taken care that when his house was searched there should be found in it
the paper containing the exact quantity of strychnine which he had
purchased? What could have been easier to do than that? Newton’s story,
therefore, cannot be believed, but, in addition, I will show that
Palmer, who is stated by Herring to have been in London at a quarter
past 3 o’clock, could not have been in Rugeley at the time at which
Newton says he was at Mr. Salt’s.
Palmer attended the _post-mortem_ examination; and is it credible that
he, a skilful medical man, who studied in a London hospital, and made a
note upon one of his books of the effect of strychnine, would ask that
stupid sort of fellow Newton anything about its action upon a dog; and
would, when the answer was given, snap his fingers and say, “It is all
right, then, it cannot be found.” No one will believe it for a moment.
The _animus_ of Newton is shown by his omitting the word “poor,” and
representing Palmer as having said, “You will find this fellow suffering
from a disease of the throat; he has had syphilis;” and then, when
cross-examined upon the subject by my learned friend Mr. Grove,
replying, “I don’t know whether he said poor or rich,” as if that had
anything to do with the question. I will now take you back to what
occurred at Shrewsbury. The case for the Crown is that as early as
Wednesday, the 14th November, the scheme of poisoning Cook begun to be
executed at Shrewsbury. It is suggested that Cook was dosed with
something that was put into his brandy-and-water. You will remember that
I read to you a letter from Cook to Fisher, dated the 16th of November,
to which there is this postscript--“I am better.” That must have
referred to his illness at Shrewsbury. It is the postscript to a letter
in which he speaks of the object he has in view, which is of great
importance to himself and Palmer. Is his writing in that tone consistent
with his having a belief that Palmer had drugged him with poison for the
purpose of destroying his life at Shrewsbury? What did Palmer say about
it?--“Cook says I have put something in his glass. I don’t play such
tricks.” He treated it as though it had never been understood to be more
than the expression of a man who, if not actually drunk, was very nearly
so. Palmer did not arrive at the Raven until after the dinner hour. We
have no evidence how Cook fared there; but we shall be able to prove
that he went from there to the Unicorn, where he arrived pretty flush,
and where he sat drinking brandy-and-water with Saunders the trainer and
a lady. Seven or eight glasses of brandy-and-water did this good young
man drink, and the result was that his unfortunate syphilitic throat was
in a very dreadful state, if not of actual laceration, at least of
soreness and irritation. [The learned Serjeant here read to the jury a
long extract from an article which had appeared in some newspaper, which
he did not mention, in which the occurrences at Shrewsbury were
described in a style which seemed intended to be humourous, and in which
Cook’s sickness was attributed to his having taken too much brandy upon
champagne, in order to “restore his British solidity.” The learned
Serjeant said that this entirely concurred with his own view of the
case. He then continued.]
Cook’s own conduct afterwards proved that his illness was owing to his
having drunk too much. He got up in the morning, breakfasted with
Palmer, was good friends with him, and went with him to Rugeley. At
Rugeley they received Pratt’s letter of the 13th, in consequence of
which Palmer wrote to Pratt to say that some one would call upon him and
pay him £200, and Cook wrote to Fisher and asked him to call on Pratt
and pay this money. Does that look as though he thought there had been
an attempt to poison him? Mrs. Brooks, who gave her evidence in a most
creditable manner, proved that there was much sickness among the
strangers who were at Shrewsbury; and the rest of her evidence did not
tell much against Palmer, who might, after Cook’s complaint, very
naturally have been looking at the tumbler to see if anything had been
put into it. Cook got worse, and at last had the good sense to put his
money into Fisher’s hands and go to bed. He was still very sick, and a
doctor was sent for, who recommended an emetic. Cook made himself sick
by drinking warm water and putting the handle of a toothbrush down his
throat. He took a pill and a black draught, went to sleep, and next
morning was quite well. This is really too ludicrous to receive a
moment’s consideration. A person named Myatt was in the room at the
Raven all the evening. He has been put into the box, but I shall call
him, and you will hear his account. Palmer and Cook having got back to
Rugeley the history of the slow poisoning continues. They went there
together, and probably talked on the way of their difficulties and the
mode of getting out of them, and of the small way that the winnings at
Shrewsbury would go to effect that object, both seeing ruin staring them
in the face unless the Prince of Wales Insurance-office could be made to
pay the money which was due, and they could meanwhile remain free from
all suspicion of insolvency or any sort of misconduct. When they got to
Rugeley they provided for the temporary difficulty by sending £200 to
Pratt. They were then evidently on friendly terms, Cook’s winnings being
at Palmer’s service, and probably both effecting their objects, because,
as it would appear from what Palmer said, Cook had some interest in the
bills which were outstanding. Probably his name might not be upon them,
but as they were engaged in these racing transactions, were joint owners
of one horse and had the same trainer, they were very probably equally
interested in these bills--were in fact what I remember to have once
heard a nobleman well known upon the turf call “confederates.” The
frequency of Palmer’s visits to Cook during the illness of the latter at
Rugeley affords no ground of suspicion against the prisoner. On the
contrary, it tells in his favour. Cook had no friend in the town but
Palmer, with whom he may almost be said to have been on a visit; for
though he did not sleep in Palmer’s house Palmer was in continual
attendance on him, and, owing to the close proximity of his own
residence, was enabled to bring him many little delicacies not easily
attainable at an inn. Had he neglected the sick man, and only visited
him occasionally, the inference of the Crown would probably have been
that he was a black-hearted scoundrel, who only looked in now and then
to give him his poison; but as he was zealously and laboriously
attentive to him the conclusion is that he must have murdered him!
It is said that Palmer was guilty of a falsehood in representing Cook as
suffering from diarrhœa; but that is to put a very violent and a very
uncharitable construction on his words, for you will remember that
Bamford swore to Cook having told him that his bowels had been affected
twice or three times on Sunday. But, leaving these minor points, I come
to one which in this case of circumstantial evidence is of the very last
importance, and should be deemed decisive of the prisoner’s innocence.
The supposition of the Crown is, that Palmer intended to dose Cook with
antimony--to keep his stomach in continual irritation by vomiting, in
order that he might the more surely despatch him with strychnine; and
that during Sunday, the day on which he insisted on his taking the
broth, Cook was under the influence of this insidious treatment. Now,
supposing this to be true, and assuming it to be the fact that Palmer
was indeed bent upon destroying Cook by this singular process, is it not
manifest that there is one man who of all the men in the world would
have been the very last whom he would have selected to be a witness of
his proceedings? That man is a surgeon in the prime of life, a man
intimately acquainted with Cook, and very much attached to him--Mr.
Jones, of Lutterworth. Yet this is the very man to whom, when he is
about to set out for London, Palmer writes a letter informing him that
Cook is ill, and urging him to come over and see him without delay. I
entreat of you to appreciate the full importance of that fact. The more
you think of it the more profound will become your conviction that it
affords evidence irrefragable of Palmer’s innocence. The imputation is
that Palmer meant to kill Cook to possess himself of his winnings. Who
was with Cook when the race was won? Who was by his side on the
Shrewsbury racecourse for the three minutes that he was speechless? Who
saw him take out his pocketbook and count up his winnings? Who but
Jones?--Jones, who was his bosom friend, his companion, his confidant,
and who knew to the last farthing the amount of his gains. Jones was of
all men living the most likely to be the recipient of Cook’s confidence,
and the man who was bound by every consideration of honour, friendship,
and affection to protect him, to vindicate his cause, and to avenge his
death. Yet this was the man for whom Palmer sent, that he might converse
with Cook, receive his confidences, minister to him in his illness, and
even sleep in the same room with him!
How, if Palmer is the murderer they represent him, are you to account
for his summoning Jones to the bedside of the sick man? If Cook really
suspected--which we are assured he did--that Palmer was poisoning him,
Jones was the man to whom he would most willingly have unbosomed
himself, and in whose faithful ear he would have most eagerly
disburdened the perilous stuff that weighed upon his own brain. Palmer
and Jones were both medical men; and it is not improbable that, in the
course of his studies, the latter may have noted in his classbook the
very passages respecting the operation of strychnine which also
attracted the attention of the former. Is it conceivable that if Palmer
meant to slay Cook with poison in the dead of the night he would have
previously ensured the presence, in his victim’s bed-room, of a medical
witness, who would know from the symptoms that the man was not dying a
natural death? He brings a medical man into the room, and makes him lie
within a few inches of the sick man’s bed, that he may hear his terrific
shrieks, and witness those agonising convulsions which indicate the
fatal potency of poison! Can you believe it? He might have despatched
him by means that would have defied detection, for Cook was taking
morphia medicinally, and a grain or two more would have silently thrown
him into an eternal sleep. But, instead of doing so, he sends to
Lutterworth for Jones. You have been told that this was done to cover
appearances. Done to cover appearances! No--no--no! You cannot believe
it. It is not in human nature. It cannot be true. You cannot find him
guilty--you dare not find him guilty on the supposition of its truth.
The country will not stand by you if you believe it to be true. You will
be impeached before the world if you say that it is true. I believe in
my conscience that it is false, and that, consistently with the rules
that govern human nature, it cannot possibly be true. [Sensation and
murmurs of applause.] With respect to the interviews and dialogues that
took place between the prisoner and Mr. Stevens, I contend that, so far
from telling against the former, they are in his favour. There is
nothing but the evidence of a kind and considerate nature in the fact of
his having ordered “a shell and a strong oak coffin” for the deceased;
nor is it possible to torture into a presumption of guilt the few words
of irritation that may have fallen from the prisoner in the course of a
conversation in which Mr. Stevens treated him with scorn, not to say
insolence.
With respect to the betting-book, many persons had access to Cook’s
room--servants, both men and women, undertaker’s men, and barbers; and
though I do not venture to mark out any particular person for suspicion,
any one of them may have purloined the book and been afraid to return
it. It is not fair in a case of this momentous importance to affix the
opprobrium on a man who is not proved to have ever had it in his hand.
The Crown had no doubt originally intended to rely upon the prisoner’s
medical books as affording damning proof of his guilt; but I will refer
to those volumes for evidences that will speak eloquently in his favour.
In youth and early manhood there is no such protection for a man as the
society of an innocent and virtuous woman to whom he is sincerely
attached. If you find a young man devoted to such a woman, loving her
dearly, and marrying her for the love he bears her, you may depend upon
it that he is a man of a humane and gentle nature, little prone to deeds
of violence. To such a woman was Palmer attached in his youth, and I
will bring you proof positive to show that the volumes cited against him
were the books he used when a student, and that the manuscript passages
are in the handwriting of his wife. His was a marriage of the heart. He
loved that young and virtuous woman with a pure and generous affection;
he loved her as he now loves her first-born, who awaits with trembling
anxiety the verdict that will restore him to the arms of his father, or
drive that father to an ignominious death upon the scaffold. [The
prisoner here covered his face with his hands and shed tears.] Here in
this book I have conclusive evidence of the kind of man that Palmer was
seven years ago. I find in its pages the copy of a letter addressed by
him while still a student to the woman whom he afterwards made his wife.
It is as follows:--
“My dearest Annie,--I snatch a moment from my studies to write to
your dear, dear little self. I need scarcely say that the principal
inducement I have to work is the desire of getting my studies
finished, so as to be able to press your dear little form in my
arms. With best, best love, believe me, dearest Annie,
Your own WILLIAM.”
Now this is not the sort of letter that is generally read in courts of
justice. It was no part of my instructions to read that letter, but the
book was put in to prove that this man is a wicked, heartless, savage
desperado; and I show you what he was seven years ago--that he was a man
who loved a young woman for her own sake--loved her with a pure and
virtuous affection--such an affection as would, in almost all natures,
be a certain antidote against guilt. Such is the man whom it has been my
duty to defend upon this occasion, and upon the evidence that is before
you I cannot believe him to be guilty. Don’t suppose, gentlemen, that he
is unsupported in this dreadful trial by his family and his friends. An
aged mother, who may have disapproved of some part of his conduct,
awaits with trembling anxiety your verdict; a dear sister can scarcely
support herself under the suspense which now presses upon her; a brave
and gallant brother stands by him to defend him, and spares neither time
nor trouble to save him from an awful doom. I call upon you, gentlemen,
to raise your minds to a capacity to estimate the high duty which you
have to perform. You have to stem the torrent of prejudice; you have to
vindicate the honour and character of your country; you have, with
firmness and courage, to do your duty, and to find a verdict for the
Crown if you believe that guilt is proved; but, if you have a doubt on
that point, depend upon it that the time will come when the innocence of
that man will be made apparent, and then you will deeply regret any want
of due and calm consideration of the case which it has been my duty to
lay before you.
The speech of the learned Serjeant occupied exactly eight hours in its
delivery. There were some slight indications of an attempt to applaud at
its conclusion, but they were instantly repressed.
The Court then adjourned till 10 o’clock next morning.