The experts responsible for the analysis of Lacoste's remains were now
called. All three of those gentlemen from Paris, MM. Pelouze, Devergie,
and Flandin, agreed in their findings. Two vessels were exhibited, on
which there glittered blobs of some metallic substance. This substance,
the experts deposed, was arsenic obtained by the Marsh technique from
the entrails and the muscular tissue from Lacoste's body. They could be
sure that the substances used as reagents in the experiments were pure,
and that the earth about the body was free from arsenic.
M. Devergie said that science did not admit the presence of arsenic as
a normal thing in the human body. What was not made clear by the expert
was whether the amount of arsenic found in the body of Lacoste was
consistent with the drug's having been taken in small doses, or whether
it had been given in one dose. Devergie's confrere Flandin later
declared his conviction that the death of Lacoste was due to one dose of
the poison, but, from a verbatim report, it appears that he did not give
any reason for the opinion.
At this point Mme Lacoste was recalled, and repeated her statement that
she had seen her husband rubbing himself with an ointment and drinking
some white liquid on the return of a syphilitic affection.
Dr Lasmolles testified that Lacoste, though very close-mouthed, had told
him of a skin affection that troubled him greatly. The deceased dosed
himself, and did not obey the doctors' orders. It was only from a farmer
that he understood Lacoste to have a hernia, and Lacoste himself did
not admit it. The doctor did not believe the man poisoned. He had been
impressed by the way Mme Lacoste looked after her husband, and the
latter did not complain about anyone. M. Lasmolles had heard no mention
from Lacoste of the glass of wine given him by Meilhan.
After M. Devergie had said that he had heard of arsenical remedies used
externally for skin diseases, but never of any taken internally, M.
Plandin expressed his opinion as before quoted.
The next witness was one Dupouy, of whom some mention has already been
made. Five days before his death Lacoste told him that, annoyed with
his wife, he definitely intended to disinherit her. Dupouy admitted,
however, that shortly before this the deceased had spoken of taking a
pleasure trip with Mme Lacoste.
Lespere then repeated his story of the complaints made to him by Lacoste
of his wife's conduct, of his intention of altering his will, and of
his belief that Euphemie was capable of poisoning him in order to get a
younger man. It was plain that this witness, a friend of Lacoste's for
forty-six years, was not ready to make any admissions in her favour. He
swore that Lacoste had told him his wife did not know she was his
sole heir. He was allowed to say that on the death of Lacoste he had
immediately assumed that the poisoning feared by Lacoste had been
brought about. He had heard nothing from Lacoste of secret maladies or
secret remedies, but had been so deep in Lacoste's confidence that he
felt sure his old friend would have mentioned them. He had heard of such
things only at the beginning of the case.
The Procureur du Roi remarked here that reliance on the secret remedies
was the 'system' of the defence.
That seemed to be the case. The 'system' of the prosecution, on the
other hand, was to snatch at anything likely to appear as evidence
against the two accused. The points mainly at issue were as follows:
(1) Did Meilhan have a chance of giving Lacoste a drink at the fair?
(2) Did Lacoste become violently sick immediately on his return from the
fair?
(3) Did Lacoste suffer from the ailments attributed to him by his wife,
and was he in the habit of dosing himself?
(4) Did Meilhan receive money from Mme Lacoste, and, particularly, did
she propose to allow him the supposed annuity?
With regard to (1), several witnesses declared that Lacoste had
complained to them of feeling ill after drinking with Meilhan, but none
could speak of seeing the two men together. M. Mothe, the friend
cited by Meilhan, less positive in his evidence in court than the acte
d'accusation made him out to be, could not remember if it was on the
16th of May that he had spent the whole afternoon with Meilhan. It was
so much his habit to be with Meilhan during the days of the fair that
he had no distinct recollection of any of them. Another witness, having
business with Lacoste, declared that on the day in question it was
impossible for Meilhan to have been alone with Lacoste during the time
that the latter was supposed to have taken the poisoned drink. Lescure,
in whose auberge Lacoste was supposed to have had the drink, failed to
remember such an incident. The evidence that Meilhan had given Lacoste
the drink was all second-hand; that to the contrary was definite.
For the most part the evidence with regard to (2), that Lacoste became
very ill immediately on his return from the fair, was hearsay. The
servants belonging to the Lacoste household all maintained that
the vomiting did not seize the old man until the night of
Wednesday-Thursday. Indeed, two witnesses testified that the old man, in
spite of his supposed headache, essayed to show them how well he could
dance. This was on his return from the fair where he was supposed
to have been given a poisoned drink at three o'clock. The evidence
regarding the seclusion of Lacoste by his wife was contradictory, but
the most direct of it maintained that it was the old man himself, if
anyone, who wanted to be left alone. On this point arises the question
of the delay in calling the doctor. Witness after witness testified to
Lacoste's hatred of the medical faculty and to his preference for dosing
himself. He declared his faith in a local vet.
On (3), the bulk of the evidence against Lacoste's having the suggested
afflictions came simply from witnesses who had not heard of them.
There was, on the contrary, quite a number of witnesses to declare that
Lacoste did suffer from a skin disease, and that he was in the habit
of using quack remedies, the stronger the better. It was also testified
that Lacoste was in the habit of prescribing his remedies for other
people. A witness declared that a woman to whom Lacoste had given
medicine for an indisposition had become crippled, and still was
crippled.
With regard to (4), the Mayor merely repeated the evidence given in
his first statement, but the cure', who also saw the deed assigning an
annuity to Meilhan, said that it was not in Mme Lacoste's writing, and
that it was signed with the unusual "Euphemie." This last witness added
that Mme Lacoste's reputation was irreproachable, and that her relations
with her husband were happy.
Evidence from a business-man in Tarbes showed that Mme Lacoste's
handling of her fortune was careful to a degree, her expenditure being
well within her income. This witness also proved that the Fourcades'
evidence of Euphemie's misbehaviour could have been dictated from spite.
Fourcade had been found out in what looked like a swindle over money
which he owed to the Lacoste estate.
The court then went more deeply into the medico-legal evidence. It were
tedious to follow the course of this long argument. After a lengthy
dissertation on the progress of an acute indigestion and the effects of
a strangulated hernia M. Devergie said that, as the poison existed in
the body, from the symptoms shown in the illness it could be assumed
that death had resulted from arsenic. The duration of the illness was in
accord with the amount of arsenic found.
M. Flandin agreed with this, but M. Pelouze abstained from expressing
an opinion. He, however, rather gave the show away, by saying that if
he was a doctor he would take care to forbid any arsenical preparations.
"These preparations," he said moodily, "can introduce a melancholy
obscurity into the investigations of criminal justice."
Some sense was brought into the discussion by Dr Molas, of Auch. He put
forward the then accepted idea of the accumulation of arsenic taken in
small doses, and the power of this accumulation, on the least accident,
of determining death.
This was rather like chucking a monkey-wrench into the cerebration
machinery of the Paris experts. They admitted that the absorption and
elimination of arsenic varied with the individual, and generally handed
the case over to the defence. M. Devergie was the only one who stuck
out, but only partially even then. "I persist in believing," he said,
"that M. Lacoste succumbed to poisoning by arsenic; but I use the word
'poisoning' only from the point of view of science: arsenic killed him."