“Is not the risus sardonicus very common in all forms of violent
convulsions?--No, it is not common. Does it not frequently occur in
all violent convulsions which assume, without being tetanus, a
tetanic form and appearance?--Yes, it does. Are they not a very
numerous class? No, they are not numerous. Is it not very difficult
to distinguish between them and idiopathic tetanus?--In the onset,
but not in the progress. I think you say you have only seen one
case of idiopathic tetanus?--I have only seen one. When you
answered that question of mine you spoke from your reading, and not
from your experience?--I did not know your question applied to
idiopathic tetanus alone. Does epilepsy sometimes occur in the
midst of violent convulsions?--Epilepsy itself is a disease of a
convulsive character. I am aware of that; but you heard the account
that was given by Mr. Jones of the few last moments before Mr. Cook
died? Yes, I did. That he uttered a piercing shriek, fell back and
died; did he not? Yes. Tell me whether that last shriek and the
paroxysm that occurred immediately afterwards--would not that bear
a strong resemblance to epilepsy? In some respects it bears a
resemblance to it. Are all epileptic convulsions--I do not mean
epileptic convulsions designated by scientific men as of the
epileptic character--are they all attended with an utter want of
consciousness?--No, not all. Does not death by convulsions
frequently occur without leaving any trace in the body behind
it?--Death from tetanus, accompanied with convulsions, leave seldom
any trace behind; but death from epilepsy leaves a trace behind it
generally.”
Lord CAMPBELL.--The jury have heard you read it. It is for them to say
whether it is important in their view or not. Evidence is next given of
various cases of tetanus arising from strychnine; it is for you,
gentlemen, to consider how far the symptoms in those cases resemble the
symptoms in this case, or how far the symptoms in this case resemble
those of ordinary tetanus, idiopathic or traumatic. [The learned judge
read his notes of the evidence given by Dr. Robert Corbett, Dr. Watson,
Dr. Patterson, and Mary Kelly, witnesses examined to prove the symptoms
in the Glasgow case, and then proceeded to call the attention of the
jury to the testimony of Caroline Hickson, Mr. Taylor, surgeon, and
Charles Bloxham, all of whom were examined with reference to the case of
Mrs. Smyth, of Romsey. He then passed on to the Leeds case--that of Mrs.
Dove, whose name had transpired so frequently in the course of the
trial, that it would be vain to affect any reserve on the subject now.
After reading the evidence of Jane Witham and George Morley, the learned
judge observed,--] It is beyond all controversy that strychnia was not
discovered in the dead body of Cook, but it is important to bear in mind
that the witness Morley declares that in cases where the quantity of
strychnine administered had been the _minimum_ dose that will destroy
life, it is to be expected that the chemist should occasionally fail in
detecting traces of the poison after death. That case of Mrs. Dove’s is
a very important one, because it is a case in which it is beyond all
question that death was caused by strychnine, however administered. It
is for you to determine how far the symptoms of this unhappy lady
corresponded with or differed from those of Cook. You will remember that
she had repeated attacks of convulsions. She recovered from several, but
at last a larger dose than usual was given, and death ensued. With
regard to the possibility of the poison being decomposed in the blood,
that appears to be a vexed question among toxicologists, and Mr. Morley
differs on the point from other and, I doubt not, most sincere
witnesses.
The great question for your consideration at this part of the inquiry is
whether there may not be cases of death by strychnia in which,
nevertheless, the strychnia has not--let the cause be what it may--been
discovered in the dead body. [The learned Judge then read the evidence
of Edward Moore in the Clutterbuck case, where an over-dose of strychnia
had been administered; and proceeded as follows:--] I have now to call
your attention to the evidence of Dr. Taylor, but before doing so I
think it right to intimate that I fear it will be impossible to conclude
this case to-night. It is most desirable, however, to finish the
evidence for the prosecution this evening. When that is concluded I
shall be under the necessity of adjourning the Court, and asking you to
attend here again to-morrow, when, God willing, this investigation will
certainly close. [The learned Judge then proceeded to read his notes of
Dr. Taylor’s evidence, and on arriving at that portion of it in which
the witness described the results of his own experiments upon animals
observed,--] There is here a most important question for your
consideration. Great reliance is placed by the prisoner’s counsel, and
very naturally so, upon the fact that no trace of strychnine was
detected in the stomach of Cook by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, who alone
analyzed it and experimented upon it. But, on the other hand, you must
bear in mind that we have their own evidence to show that there may be
and have been cases of death by strychnine in which the united skill of
these two individuals have failed to detect the presence of the
strychnine after death.
Both Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees have stated upon their oaths that in two
cases where they knew death to have been occasioned by strychnine--the
poison having, in fact, been administered with their own hands--they
failed to discover the slightest trace of the poison in the dead bodies
of the animals on which they had experimented. It is possible that other
chemists might have succeeded in detecting strychnine in those animals,
and strychnine also in the jar containing the stomach and intestines of
Cook; but, however this may be, it is beyond all question that Dr.
Taylor and Dr. Rees failed to discover the faintest indications of
strychnine in the bodies of two animals which they had themselves
poisoned with that deadly drug. Whatever may be the nature of the
different theories propounded for the explanation of this fact, the fact
itself is deposed to on oath; and, if we believe the witnesses, does not
admit of doubt. With regard to the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr.
Gardner, stating that neither strychnia, prussic acid, nor opium had
been found in the body, his Lordship said this letter was written before
Cook’s symptoms had been communicated to Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees; but
they had been informed that prussic acid, strychnia, and opium had been
bought by Palmer on the Tuesday. They searched for all these poisons,
but they found none. The only poison they found in the body was
antimony, and therefore they did not, in the absence of symptoms,
attribute death to strychnia, as they could not at that time; but they
say that it possibly may have been produced by antimony, because the
quantity discovered in the body was no test of the quantity which might
have been taken into the system.
As to the letter which was written by Professor Taylor to the _Lancet_,
the learned Judge remarked: I must say I think it would have been better
if Dr. Taylor, trusting to the credit which he had before acquired, had
taken no notice of what had been said; but it is for you to say whether,
he having, as he says, been misrepresented, and having written this
letter to set himself right, that materially detracts from the credit
which would otherwise be given to his evidence. Having concluded the
reading of Dr. Taylor’s evidence, his lordship said: This is Dr.
Taylor’s evidence. I will not comment upon it, because I am sure that
you must see its importance with regard to the antimony and the
strychnia. For the discovery of strychnia, Dr. Taylor experimented upon
the bodies of two animals which he had himself killed with that poison,
but in them no strychnia could be found. [The learned Judge next read
the evidence of Dr. Rees, in commenting upon which he said: I do not
know what interest it could be supposed that Dr. Taylor had to give
evidence against the prisoner. He was regularly employed in his
profession, and knew nothing about Mr. Palmer until he was called upon
by Mr. Stevens, and the jar was given to him. He could have no enmity
against the prisoner, and no interest whatever to misrepresent the
facts. [Mr. Serjeant SHEE reminded the learned Judge that the
experiments upon the two rabbits were not made until after the inquest.]
That makes no difference. If the witnesses are the witnesses of truth,
there are equally cases where there has been the death of an animal by
strychnia, and no strychnia can be found in the animal; if that
experiment had been made this morning, the fact would have been the
same.
Dr. Taylor has been questioned about some indiscreet letter which he
wrote, and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of
the _Illustrated Times_. Against Dr. Rees there is not even that
imputation, and Dr. Rees concurs with Dr. Taylor that in these
experiments the rabbits were killed by strychnia; that they did whatever
was in their power, according to their skill and knowledge, to discover
the strychnia, as they did with the contents of the jar, and no
strychnia could be discovered. As to the antimony, he corroborates the
testimony of Dr. Taylor. Antimony is a component of tartar emetic,
tartar emetic produces vomiting, and you will judge from the vomiting at
Shrewsbury and Rugeley whether antimony may have been administered to
Cook at those places. Antimony may not have produced death, but the
question of its administration is a part of the case which you must
seriously consider. His Lordship then read the evidence of Professor
Brande, of Dr. Christison, a man above suspicion, who said that if the
quantity of strychnia administered was small he should not expect to
find it after death, and of Dr. John Jackson, who spoke to the symptoms
of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus as he had observed them in India,
which, concluded the evidence on the part of the Crown. Having thus gone
through all the evidence for the prosecution, his Lordship intimated
that he should defer the remainder of his charge until the following
day; and the Court was therefore (at eight o’clock) adjourned till ten
o’clock to-morrow (Tuesday) morning.