The opening of the Court this morning presented the same extraordinary
scene of excitement which was witnessed yesterday. The Court was filled
immediately after the opening of the doors, and throughout the day long
the Old Bailey was thronged with persons anxious to learn the progress
of the summing up, or to obtain admission into the Court.
The prisoner exhibited no marked change in his appearance. Occasionally
he listened with attention to Lord Campbell’s charge, and passed notes
to his counsel; but for the most part there was much of apparent
indifference in his demeanour.
The Lord Chief Justice, Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, took
their seats on the bench at ten o’clock.
His Lordship commenced this morning by observing, that at the
adjournment yesterday evening, he had laid before the jury all the
evidence for the prosecution, and certainly this evidence presented a
serious case against the prisoner. It appeared that in the middle of
November last the prisoner was involved in pecuniary difficulties of a
most formidable character, and from which he could not have possibly
extricated himself without the most extraordinary means. At this period,
the prisoner accompanied the deceased to Shrewsbury races, where the
deceased won a large sum of money, and where, it was alleged, the
prisoner formed the design of getting possession of the deceased’s
property. Before and after the death, the prisoner took steps to collect
all the money due to the deceased, and resorted to a device for securing
the horse Polestar, which also had belonged to the deceased. In fact,
had the plans of the prisoner, as developed in the evidence, succeeded,
he would have become possessed of all the deceased’s property; and hence
it could not be said that he would have derived no benefit from the
death of his friend, nor could it be urged that the balance of
advantages was in favour of his wishing the deceased to live; hence
there was a strong motive for the committal of the crime imputed to the
prisoner; and with this knowledge in their possession, it was for the
jury to determine whether the symptoms of the deceased justified the
conclusion of the scientific evidence for the prosecution--that death
was the result of poisoning by strychnine.
It was true that no strychnine had been found in the deceased’s stomach,
but in point of law there was no necessity that it should be found to
justify the conviction of the prisoner, if there were other and
sufficient evidence to satisfy the minds of the jury that such a poison
had been administered. Well, now, there were two instances in evidence
where, beyond all question, strychnine had been administered, and yet no
traces of it could be found after death, while another portion of the
evidence went to show that the body could be so prepared by antimony and
similar deadly drugs, as entirely to destroy all traces of strychnine
after it had run its fatal course. Now, in this case, there was the
strongest proof that antimony must have been administered to the
deceased immediately before death; and coupling that circumstance with
the evidence of the medical men who had described first the symptoms of
the deceased, and secondly, the symptoms usually observed in strychnine
poisoning, it would be for the jury to say whether the prosecution had
succeeded in bringing the charge of murder home to the prisoner. There
were individual acts of the prisoner proved in evidence, which the jury
might very well consider in arriving at their final conclusion, such as
the fact of his having purchased or obtained strychnine from two
different persons just previously to the death; the fact of his having
attempted to bribe the post-boy to upset the jars, the fact of his
having got the post-master to open Dr. Taylor’s letter; and lastly, the
fact of his having tampered with the coroner to procure a verdict which
would have amounted to an acquittal of the charge which was then, as
now, hanging over his head.
These were the main features of the case for the prosecution, and having
duly weighed and considered them, it would be for the jury to say
whether they brought to their minds an irresistible conviction of the
prisoner’s guilt. On the other hand, numerous witnesses had been called
for the defence, and it remained for him to go through their evidence
with the same care and patience with which he had gone over that of the
prosecution. Like the evidence of the prosecution, the evidence for the
defence partook of a moral and medical character. Those who had been
called to give the latter evidence were men, of high honour, of
unsullied integrity, and profound scientific knowledge, and it was only
due to them to say, that in coming there they appeared to have been only
actuated by a desire to speak the truth, and to assist in the due
administration of justice. This evidence his lordship then proceeded to
read over, commencing with Dr. Nunneley. Commenting upon that
gentleman’s evidence, his lordship observed that Dr. Nunneley seemed to
have displayed an interest in the case which was not altogether
consistent with the character of a witness. He differed very much from
some of the witnesses examined for the prosecution, particularly in
reference to rigidity being produced by strychnine after death, and it
would be for the jury to determine to which side they attached the most
weight in these matters.
The next witness in order was Dr. Herapath, a gentleman who had directed
much attention to the operation of poisons. His lordship having read Dr.
Herapath’s evidence, observed that it differed from that of the
prosecution in a leading particular, inasmuch as it went to affirm that
where death was occasioned by strychnine, its traces were always
discernible in the body, but on cross-examination the witness admitted
that he had before expressed an opinion that Cook died of strychnine,
and that Dr. Taylor had not taken the proper means to find it.
Passing to Dr. Letheby’s evidence his lordship remarked, after reading
it, that the exceptions which in cross-examination the doctor allowed he
had met with in his experience, of the effects and symptoms of
strychnine, were sufficient to neutralise the evidence in chief so far
as it went to rebut that of the prosecution.
The next witness was Dr. Guy, who spoke to having seen a case of
idiopathic tetanus in an omnibus conductor. Remarking upon this
evidence, his lordship said it was for the jury to say whether the
symptoms in this case sufficiently corresponded with those of the
deceased, to bring the two cases into the same class; but it must be
observed that there was a difference in the symptoms, while there was
strong evidence on record, which went to show that the deceased’s case
was neither traumatic nor idiopathic tetanus.
The next evidence was that of Mr. Ross, who instanced a case where a man
had died from tetanus induced by ulcers on the body; but his lordship
reminded the jury that, in the case of the deceased, there was no
evidence whatever that he had suffered from wounds or sores of any kind.
Speaking of the evidence of Dr. Wrightson, who had discovered strychnine
in putrefying blood and decomposed matter, and who had given an opinion
that strychnine never decomposed, his lordship told the jury that the
doctor, who was a man of eminent scientific attainments and
unimpeachable honour, had given his evidence with becoming caution. The
doctor seemed to think, that the poison, if administered, ought to have
been found, and in dealing with this part of the case the jury would
have to consider whether it might not have existed in this case, and yet
have defied the tests employed to discover it.
Referring to the evidence of Dr. Partridge, his lordship said it was
remarkable in this--that the symptoms of the deceased did not strictly
correspond with those he should have expected in the case of a death
from strychnine.
His lordship next read the evidence of Dr. Guy, who spoke to a case of
tetanus in a child of eight years of age, supervening from an injury to
the great toe, and expressed his opinion that there was no analogy
between that and this case, while the witness, his lordship added, had
declared it to be his belief that attacks of tetanus could always be
traceable to some collateral cause. His lordship then read the lengthy
evidence of Dr. McDonald, of Edinburgh, who attributed the death of Cook
to “epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications,” adding that it
was within the range of probability that the convulsions in this case
before the fatal attack were the result of mental excitement. His
lordship reminded the jury that this was the only witness who had given
a positive opinion as to the cause of death; the cause he had described,
and it might, according to the witness, have arisen from mental, moral,
or sexual excitement. It was for the jury to say what weight they
attached to this testimony in the face of the other mass of medical
evidence leading to a different conclusion. Having disposed of other
witnesses, his lordship came next in order to the evidence of Dr.
Richardson, who had described a remarkable case of angina pectoris, and
had pronounced an opinion that the symptoms as described in Cook’s case
presented a singular similarity to those of the strange case referred
to. It was for the jury to determine whether the deceased died from an
attack of the same disease; but on cross-examination the witness
admitted that the symptoms in his case might hive resulted from
strychnine, but at the time it occurred the effects of strychnine were
not so well understood as at the present day, or he would have searched
for it. Both in that case, as in Cook’s case, the symptoms were, the
witness said, not inconsistent with poisoning by strychnine, and that
was one of the questions the jury had to decide. Having read Catherine
Watson and Dr. Wrightson’s evidence, his lordship said this closed the
medical portion of the defence, and perhaps this would be the fitting
moment for an adjournment.
The Court accordingly adjourned for twenty minutes.
On the Court resuming,
His Lordship continued his charge. They had now (he said) to deal with,
the evidence of facts adduced by the defence. The first witness of this
kind was Matthews, the inspector of police at Euston-square, and from
his evidence, it might be taken as probable that on the Monday before
the death the prisoner went down from London to Rugeley by the five
o’clock express train. The next witness was Mr. Foster, the farmer, who
had known the deceased for some years, and who was called to speak to
the state of Cook’s health; but his lordship thought the testimony of
this witness, as bearing upon that particular point, was very slender.
Myatt came next, who had spoken to the brandy and water incident at
Shrewsbury, and who returned with the prisoner and the deceased from
Shrewsbury to Rugeley on the Thursday before the decease. This evidence,
his lordship said, was intended to show that the prisoner could not have
tampered with the deceased’s glass; it was inconsistent with the
evidence of Fisher and Mrs. Brooks, who were called for the prosecution,
and it would be for the jury to decide between them. Then they came to
the evidence of Mr. Serjeant, who saw the deceased’s tongue and mouth a
fortnight before the death, and the jury must decide whether the
appearances which the witness saw were consistent with the deceased’s
state of health as represented by the evidence for the prosecution. His
lordship then read the evidence of Mr. Jeremiah Smith, the solicitor, of
Rugeley, and also the three letters written by Cook to Smith with
reference to some bills which were due or overdue, the allusions to an
alleged improper intimacy between the witness and the prisoner’s mother,
and Smith’s denial of his handwriting in a document produced by the
prosecution, and purporting to bear his signature and the signature of
Walter Palmer.
To this point his Lordship directed special attention, remarking that as
the witness said he had no doubt that he had received the document from
William Palmer, the question for decision was whether William Palmer had
forged Smith’s signature. Remarking generally upon the evidence of this
witness, the Lord Chief Justice said it was a question for the jury to
decide--what reliance was to be placed on the testimony of this man, who
had denied his signature to the instrument produced, and then allowed
that it might be his signature. Then they had his acknowledgment that he
had received £5 from the prisoner; and the jury must ask themselves
whether he had received that £5 for attesting the signature of Walter
Palmer. There was also the fact of his being concerned in effecting an
insurance upon the life of Walter Palmer for £13,000, when he knew that
Walter Palmer had no means of livelihood except through an allowance
from William Palmer or his mother. And they must also take into
consideration his admission that he had been concerned in endeavouring
to effect an insurance for £10,000 on the life of Bates, whom he knew to
be a man living in lodgings at 6s. 6d. per week, and that he got himself
appointed agent to an insurance society for that purpose.
All these things must be taken into account in deciding upon the
credibility of the witness Smith. His Lordship then proceeded to say
that that was all the evidence which had been adduced; and to direct the
attention of the jury generally to the state of the pecuniary
transactions between Cook and the prisoner,--to the loss of the
betting-book--to the alleged tampering with the post-boy for the purpose
of upsetting the jar--to the resemblance of Cook’s symptoms to death by
strychnine--and, above all, to the purchase of strychnine by the
prisoner. The case was then in their hands; the evidence was before
them, and they were to decide by that evidence; not to convict the
prisoner upon suspicion, or strong suspicion merely; but to weigh the
evidence to the best of their judgment; to give the prisoner the benefit
of any doubt, if doubt existed, but not to be deterred by any
consideration from a due discharge of their duty.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE took exception to the summing up of the Lord Chief
Justice, considering that the question whether the symptoms of Cook were
the symptoms of strychnia was a question which ought not to have been
put, unless there had been added, or symptoms that might have been
produced by any other cause.
Lord CAMPBELL told the jury that unless they considered the death of
Cook was consistent with symptoms of death by strychnine, they ought to
acquit the prisoner.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE urged that the question ought not to have been put, in
his opinion; but if over-ruled, he must submit.
The Lord Chief Justice said he had submitted to the jury that it would
be for them to consider whether the symptoms of Cook were such as might
have resulted from natural disease; but if they thought those symptoms
such as might have been produced by strychnine, then they were to
consider the evidence, and come to a conclusion as to whether the
prisoner administered it or not.
The jury then retired to consider their verdict at eighteen minutes past
two, the judges also retiring; and the prisoner, who wore upon his
features an expression of mute despair, was then, according to such
cases, taken down below.
The crowds in the court broke up into noisy conversational groups as to
the nature of the coming verdict, and the news that the jury were
deliberating travelled fast and far, causing intense excitement outside
the Court, where an immense mass of people speedily assembled.
During the absence of the jury, there was one little incident, full of
significant import, which awakened marked attention, viz., the entrance
into Court of the Rev. J. Davis, chaplain of Newgate, who took his seat
upon the bench near the seats of the judges, in full canonicals, ready
to pronounce the final “Amen,” when sentence of death should be
pronounced, if the jury convicted the prisoner.
The jury re-entered the Court at thirty-five minutes past three, having
been absent one hour and seventeen minutes.
Upon the appearance of the jury every whisper ceased, and men seemed
scarcely to breathe in the solemnity of the moment.
The Judges then resumed their seats, and the prisoner was replaced at
the bar, looking calm and quiet.
The Clerk of the Arraigns inquired of the jury whether they had agreed
upon a verdict?
The Foreman replied in the affirmative.
The Clerk: Do you find the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty?