SCIENCE AND THE CRIMINAL
_UNIFORM WITH THIS BOOK_
HYPNOTISM AND SUGGESTION
By BERNARD HOLLANDER, M.D.
"It is the work of a man of established reputation, who has devoted
himself for years to the subject, and whose aim it is to tell what
Hypnotism really is, what it can do, and to what conclusions it seems to
point."--_Globe._
[Illustration: TRIAL OF CAROLINE RUDD
_Frontispiece_]
SCIENCE AND THE CRIMINAL
BY C. AINSWORTH MITCHELL
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY
1911
TO MARK HANBURY BEAUFOY, ESQ., J.P. AS A MARK OF REGARD AND ESTEEM
PREFACE
In the following pages I have endeavoured to give some account of the ways
in which scientific discovery has been utilised in the struggle between
society and the criminal.
I have tried to describe the principles upon which different kinds of
scientific evidence are based, and at the same time to bring human
interest into what would otherwise tend to be dry detail by giving an
outline of trials in which such evidence has been given. It is, perhaps,
hardly necessary to mention that in many of these illustrative trials the
accused persons were proved innocent of the charges brought against them,
and that although their cases were tried in the criminal courts the title
of the book in no way applies to them.
For the accounts of the older trials I have drawn freely upon Cobbett's
_State Trials_, Paris and Fonblanque's _Medical Jurisprudence_, and the
first edition of Taylor's _Medical Jurisprudence_, while I must also
acknowledge my indebtedness to the _Circumstantial Evidence_ of Mr.
Justice Wills and the recent excellent lectures on _Forensic Chemistry_,
by Mr. Jago.
In the later cases I have mainly relied upon contemporary accounts and
upon my own impressions of some of the trials at which I have been
present.
My best thanks are due to all those who have given me valuable and
ungrudging assistance. In particular I would mention Major Richardson, who
has kindly given me a photograph of one of his trained bloodhounds and has
allowed me to quote the description of an actual man hunt with
bloodhounds, from his book, _War, Police, and Watch Dogs_; and
Mademoiselle Arlette Clary (and the _Daily Mirror_) who have supplied me
with a photograph of a Paris police dog.
I am further indebted to the late Sir Francis Galton and his publishers,
Messrs. Macmillan & Co., who gave me permission to reproduce illustrations
from his book on _Finger Prints_; and to Mr. Thorne Baker and the _Daily
Mirror_ for photographs illustrating the use of telegraphy in transmitting
portraits.
The excellent drawings of the hairs of different animals were made by my
friend Mr. R. M. Prideaux, and are reproduced here by the kind permission
of Messrs. Scott Greenwood & Co.
Finally, I would thank the proprietors of _Knowledge_ and the Editor, Mr.
Wilfred Mark Webb, for the loan of various blocks and for permitting me to
make use of material from several articles of mine on handwriting, which
have appeared in that journal.
C. A. M.
_White Cottage,
Amersham Common,
Buckinghamshire._
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Conflict between the Law-maker and the Law-breaker--
Illustrations of Deductive Reasoning in Criminal Cases--
Scientific Evidence--Scientific Assistance for the
Accused--Instances of Advantages of Conflict of Scientific
Evidence--Scientific Partisanship 1
CHAPTER II
DETECTION AND CAPTURE OF THE CRIMINAL
Contrasts between Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries--Margaret Catchpole--Tawell--Crippen--Portraits
and the Press--Charlesworth Case--Bloodhounds--Police
Dogs--Circumstantial Detection 22
CHAPTER III
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
McKeever's Experiment on Fallibility of Eye-witnesses--
Gorse Hall Murder--Cases of Mistaken Identity--Gun-flash
Recognition--Self-deception--Tichborne Case 37
CHAPTER IV
SYSTEMS OF IDENTIFICATION
Photography--Anthropometry--Finger-prints and their Uses 48
CHAPTER V
IDENTIFICATION AND HANDWRITING
Heredity--Emotional Influences--Effects of Disease on
Handwriting 70
CHAPTER VI
EVIDENCE AS TO HANDWRITING
Illustrative Cases--Handwriting Experts 85
CHAPTER VII
FORGED DOCUMENTS
Use of Microscope--Erasures--Photographic Methods--
Typewritten Matter--Examinations of Charred Fragments--
Forgery of Bank Notes 93
CHAPTER VIII
DISTINGUISHING INKS IN HANDWRITING
Elizabethan Ink--Milton's Bible--Age of Inks--Carbon
Inks--Herculaneum MSS.--Forgery of Ancient Documents 105
CHAPTER IX
TWO NOTABLE TRIALS
Trial of Brinkley--Trial of Robert Wood 116
CHAPTER X
SYMPATHETIC INKS 130
CHAPTER XI
REMARKABLE FORGERY TRIALS
Trials--William Hale--The Perreaus--Caroline Rudd--Dr.
Dodd--Whalley Will Case--Pilcher, etc. 135
CHAPTER XII
IDENTIFICATION OF HUMAN BLOOD AND HUMAN HAIR
Structure of Blood--Human Blood--Blood of Animals--Blood
Crystals--Libellers of Sir E. Godfrey--Trial of Nation in
1857--Physiological Tests--Precipitines--First Trial in
France--Gorse Hall Trials--Human Hair--Hairs of Animals 154
CHAPTER XIII
EARLY POISONING TRIALS
Murder of Sir T. Overbury--Mary Blandy--Katharine Nairn,
etc. 171
CHAPTER XIV
NOTABLE POISONING TRIALS
Use of Poisons--Arsenic and Antimony--Chapman Case--
Strychnine in Palmer Trial--Physiological Tests--Case of
Freeman--Error from Quantitative Deductions--Poisonous Food
Given to Animals--Mary Higgins--Negative Result of
Physiological Tests--Hyoscyamus Poisons--Crippen Case--
Experiment on Cats--Time Limit for Action of Arsenic--
French Case 190
CHAPTER XV
THE MAYBRICK CASE 206
CHAPTER XVI
ADULTERATION OF FOOD
National Loss from Adulteration--"Adulterated"
Electricity--The Beer Conner--Conflict of Evidence--The
Notice Dodge--Preservatives--Standards for Food--Court of
Reference--Administration of the Law 214
INDEX 239
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
TRIAL OF CAROLINE RUDD _Frontispiece_
WAR PLAN SENT BY WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY 24
PHOTO SENT BY TELEGRAPHY FROM PARIS 26
PORTRAIT SENT BY "WIRELESS" 28
MAJOR RICHARDSON'S MAN-TRACKER "PATHAN" 30
FRENCH POLICE DOG 32
PURKENJE'S STANDARD FINGER-PRINTS 64
TYPES OF FINGER-PRINTS 66
HEREDITY IN HANDWRITING 71
INFLUENCE OF TRAINING ON HANDWRITING 74
SIGNATURES OF NAPOLEON AT DIFFERENT PERIODS OF HIS CAREER 77
WRITERS' CRAMP 78
SPECIMEN OF AGRAPHIA 78
WRITING OF LENAU, BEFORE AND DURING INSANITY 79
WRITING OF HÖLDERLIN, BEFORE AND DURING INSANITY 79
MIRROR WRITING IN PARALYSIS 80
HYPNOTIC HANDWRITING 82
GARIBALDI'S SIGNATURE 83
DETECTION OF FORGERY BY MEANS OF CAMERA AND MICROSCOPE 100
FURTHER SPECIMENS OF DETECTION OF FORGERY, AND TESTS TO
DISTINGUISH OLD FROM NEW INKS 102
ELIZABETHAN DOMESTIC RECIPE FOR INK 107
THE TINTOMETER 109
GOAT'S AND COW'S HAIR 162
KANGAROO'S AND HUMAN HAIR, AND THE HAIR OF A CAT AND A DOG 164
FIBRES OF CHINESE SILK 164
RABBIT'S AND HORSE-HAIR 166
WOOL FIBRES FROM DIFFERENT BREEDS OF SHEEP 168
COTTON AND FLAX FIBRES 170
ANNE TURNER 172
Science and the Criminal
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Conflict between the Law-maker and the Law-breaker--Illustrations of
Deductive Reasoning in Criminal Cases--Scientific Evidence--Scientific
Assistance for the Accused--Instances of Advantages of Conflict of
Scientific Evidence--Scientific Partisanship.
In the constant state of warfare between the law-maker and the
law-breaker, which began when mankind first organised itself into
communities and has existed ever since, every new invention or practical
application of scientific discovery has supplied each side with new
weapons frequently of much greater precision.
The advantage thus conferred tends to be on the side of the law-maker but
not invariably so; for in spite of all the facilities of investigation now
available it is surprising how many crimes remain undetected, or how
frequently in suspicious cases it is impossible to discover the truth. The
law-breaker's primitive weapon of natural cunning has thus often proved
more than a match for all the weapons at the disposal, of his opponent.
There is much to be said, therefore, for the suggestion which has recently
been put forward on many sides that a department specially trained for
the work of criminal investigation should be created.
Under the present conditions the rank and file of the detective force,
recruited as it is from the best of the uniformed policemen, contains many
men of acute intellect and reasoning capacity, but it cannot be doubted
but that in many cases their efficiency would have been enormously
increased by a scientific training.
The present system somewhat recalls that under which doctors acquired
their knowledge of medicine in the early part of last century. Their
mistakes taught them what not to do, but in the meantime the patient
sometimes died.
Methods of scientific reasoning so as to draw deductions from observed
facts cannot be acquired by solitary night watches upon a "beat," nor does
the facility for breaking up a tangle in traffic which the constable
acquires as the outcome of his daily duties, necessarily render him more
capable of extricating from a mass of confused details the essential facts
upon which stress should be laid.
In some of the unsolved mysteries that have occurred during the last few
years the presence of a highly trained intellect at the first hour of the
investigation might conceivably have led to the detection of the criminal.
As a rule, it is only after the first examination is over and the case
appears likely to be a difficult one, that the best brains of the
department are brought to bear upon the facts, and it may then be too late
for effective action.
It should be made possible for a man who possesses a facility for this
type of work to join the criminal investigation department without having
to go through the routine work of a police constable, which will probably
add nothing to his powers of following up a clue; but, on the other hand,
this period of probation should be occupied by practical training in
scientific methods of working.
The present conditions both of payment and of status are not of the kind
that will attract the highest type of brain to the work of criminal
investigation, and yet there is no reason why it should not be made to
offer the advantages of other branches of professional work.
An apt illustration of the use of acute observation and deduction in
solving a mystery is afforded by the strange story of a shooting accident,
that, according to a writer in one of the leading morning papers, took
place many years ago.
A country gentleman was found lying dead upon a sofa, with the whole of
the charge of a sporting gun in his body. The discharged gun was hanging
in its usual place upon the wall, and there were no indications of any
struggle having taken place. All the circumstances apparently pointed to
the man having been murdered in his sleep, for it was impossible for him
to have shot himself and have then replaced the gun upon the wall, and
strong suspicion fell upon one of the servants in the house.
This man was arrested, and would probably have been convicted had it not
been for the detective noticing that the dead man's watch, which had been
smashed by some of the shot, had been stopped early in the afternoon, and
that at exactly the same moment the sun was focussed through a bottle of
water that was standing upon the table in such a way that the ray fell
upon the nipple of the gun upon the wall.
Accordingly he loaded the gun again, hung it in the same spot, and placed
a dummy figure upon the sofa, and as soon as the sun's rays passed through
this unintended burning-glass and were focussed upon the gun, an explosion
occurred and the contents were discharged into the figure.
The writer has been unable to trace the date of this occurrence, but even
if it is not founded upon fact it is not impossible, for there are
undoubtedly cases where papers have been set on fire by the rays of the
sun being concentrated upon them, through a bottle of water.
An instance of the way in which one small fact may give conclusive proof
that a crime has been committed is afforded by the trial of Swan and
Jefferies in the early part of last century.
The prisoners, who were indoor servants, had committed a murder and then
raised an alarm with the object of throwing the suspicion upon burglars,
who they alleged had broken into the house. But an examination of the
grass outside the house showed that although dew had fallen heavily
through the night there were no indications of its having been disturbed
by footsteps. This piece of circumstantial evidence led to their arrest,
and they were subsequently convicted and executed.
Equally convincing were the clues that led to the arrest of Courvoisier in
1840, for the murder of Lord William Russell, who was then seventy-five
years of age.
The prisoner had only been in the service of the murdered man for a short
time. He stated that on the night before the murder he had left his master
reading in bed, as was his frequent custom, and a fact in support of this
was that the candle had burned down to the socket.
Early in the morning the housemaid found the silver plate scattered about
the room, and various articles of value tied up in bundles, as though
burglars had broken into the house and had been interrupted in their work.
She called Courvoisier, and he appeared almost immediately, fully dressed,
and going into the room of Lord William Russell found him with his throat
cut.
On a door were marks which indicated that it had been broken in by the
supposed burglars, but closer examination showed that the damage had been
done from the inside. In addition to this, any burglars entering the house
through this door must have passed over a wall, and this was found to be
thickly coated with dust which had not been disturbed.
For a long time no trace of the missing valuables were discovered, but
finally after a thorough search of the premises, some of the money was
found hidden behind the skirting in the pantry of the accused, while later
on the stolen plate was discovered in the keeping of a man with whom
Courvoisier had formerly lived.
Mainly on the circumstantial evidence of these facts the prisoner was
convicted; afterwards he made a full confession of the crime.
Clever deductive reasoning was also shown in the following case, in which
the author of a shooting outrage that occurred in 1831 at Ayr was
discovered in a singular manner. Someone had maliciously fired a gun into
a church, and had hoped to escape detection. It was noticed, however, that
some of the bullets, after having passed through the windows, had left a
mark upon the wall opposite. By drawing a straight line between these
marks and the holes in the windows, and extending the line outside the
church, the other end was found in a window on the other side of the
street. Subsequently other proof was obtained that the gun had been fired
from this window.
Numerous cases might also be quoted where the trained observation of a
doctor has called attention to some slight point which would otherwise
have been overlooked, but which has furnished the clue to the detection of
a crime.
In the year 1806 a man named Blight was shot with a pistol at Deptford by
someone unknown, and died from the wound. Sir Astley Cooper, who was
called in to attend to the victim, carefully noted the relationship of the
body to other objects in the room, and from the position of the wound
concluded that the shot had been fired by a left-handed person. This
inference drew suspicion upon a gentleman named Patch who was the only
left-handed person who had been seen with Mr. Blight. He was a close
personal friend of the latter, and no one had dreamed of suspecting him of
the crime. The results of further inquiries proved that this man had
fired the shot, and after his conviction he confessed that he had been
guilty of the murder.
The fact that a weapon is tightly held in the hand of a person who has
been shot is strong presumptive evidence that it is a case of suicide,
since it is improbable that the hand of a dead man could subsequently be
made to grasp a pistol.
There is a remarkable case on record, however, in which the fact that a
pistol was found clenched in the hand of a dead man was at first regarded
as evidence of a murder. A son of the deceased, who had slept in the same
room was accused of having killed him and of then placing the discharged
pistol in his hand to give the suggestion of suicide. Experiments were
made in which the hand holding the pistol was lifted into the position in
which it must have been held if it had been a case of suicide, and in each
instance the hand, when allowed to fall, did not retain the pistol. For
the defence medical evidence was given that the spasmodic contraction of
the muscles after death would account for the pistol being still clenched
in the hand, while the inability of the hand to grasp it afterwards did
not prove anything. Evidence as to the presence of a motive was given, but
the scientific evidence was regarded as decisive and the prisoner was
discharged.
The question whether a person who has apparently committed suicide could
possibly have made use of the degree of force to which circumstances
pointed has frequently arisen.
The most notable instance of the kind was in reference to the Earl of
Essex who was found dead in the Tower in July, 1683, his throat having
been cut. A razor was lying by his side with its blade notched, and public
opinion was strongly divided as to whether he had committed suicide or had
been murdered. The medical men who supported the former view explained the
notches upon the razor blade as the result of its having been drawn
backwards and forwards across the neck bone, although for a suicide to
have done this would have been an impossibility.
Occasions have arisen where a chemical expert has been asked to state
whether a gun or pistol found lying near a body has or has not been
recently discharged.
Even in the case of firearms that had been loaded with black powder no
very definite answer can usually be given to this question. Taylor
suggested that the presence of potassium sulphide (formed from the powder)
adhering to the barrel would indicate that the gun had recently been
fired, whereas after a short time this sulphide would become oxidised, and
no longer give the reactions of a sulphide. After a longer time traces of
iron oxide formed from the iron of the barrel might be expected.
It would not be safe to lay stress upon conclusions based upon such data
as these, and at best they could only afford corroborative evidence.
An amusing instance within the present writer's experience affords another
example of the way in which a trifling point being overlooked may be
strong presumptive evidence of attempted fraud. A family of the name of,
say, Abendessig, effected an insurance against burglary with a company
which may be described as the Safeguard Assurance Co.
It was not long before they were the unhappy victims of a burglary in
which Miss Abendessig lost several valuable pieces of jewellery including
a watch, a diamond ring, and several brooches.
In proof of her claim she produced receipts from the jeweller from whom
she stated she had bought these articles, the total value of which was
given at £150.
There were three receipts in all, dated at intervals of two or three
months, the first being made out to Miss Abendessig and the last to Mrs.
Lab, she having been married in the interval, and the second to her
father, Simeon Abendessig.
The Safeguard Assurance Co. had a suspicion that the jeweller, who had an
address but no shop, was in league with the Abendessigs, and that the
first and third receipts had been written at the same time.
The present writer was therefore asked to examine these documents to see
whether any evidence of the date of writing could be obtained.
They were both written in blue ink upon common billheads, but the fact
that the ink and paper were of the same kind was no proof that they were
not genuine receipts.
When, however, the receipt stamps were examined under the microscope it
was obvious that the right-hand side of one stamp corresponded with the
left-hand side of the other stamp. That is to say, the little projections
of paper left when two stamps are torn apart across the perforation
exactly coincided in every instance, a long projection on one being
matched by a short projection on the other, and so on.
The exact coincidence of seventeen points could not have been the result
of chance, and the stamps on the two receipts must therefore originally
have been attached to one another in the sheet.
The further inference was that the jeweller must either have torn them
apart and put one on the earlier receipt and the other on the later one at
the same time, or he must have had the second stamp put aside for three
months and then affixed it to the later receipt.
A much more obvious slip than this was made some years ago in a bogus
claim upon a fire insurance company, the story of which is related in Lord
Brampton's "Reminiscences." The fire broke out on the premises of a firm
of tailors, and it was claimed by them that the whole of their stock,
including many hundred pairs of trousers, had been destroyed.
The insurance company, after examining the burnt-out building, instructed
a number of their agents to sift carefully the whole of the ashes.
At the hearing of the case the counsel for the company remarked that it
was strange that in a fire in which so many pairs of trousers had been
burned the metal buttons upon them should not have been found.
On the next day the tailors appeared with a whole bucketful of buttons,
but their production was too late to be convincing, for the ashes had been
thoroughly sifted before the claimants attempted to make good their
oversight, and only a very few trouser buttons had been discovered.
On the other hand, the danger of jumping to a sudden conclusion from
circumstances has been frequently demonstrated. Thus, a very extraordinary
case in which some facts that clearly pointed to the guilt of a prisoner
were found to have misled many witnesses, was tried in 1813 at the assizes
at Bury St. Edmunds. A farmer who owned upwards of 1,200 acres was accused
of burglary, and as evidence against him it was positively stated that
certain articles in his possession had been stolen from the house. The
witnesses swore that they had identified some sheets by stains upon them
and a cask by the fact of its being marked with the letters P.C. 84 in a
circle. For the defence, witnesses stated that the prisoner was in
possession of sheets stained in exactly the same way, and that the cask
was one of those in which he had received cranberries from Norwich, all of
which casks were marked in the same manner. The prisoner was acquitted.
Scientific testimony is another form of the so-called "circumstantial
evidence," and as such is sometimes looked upon with suspicion. Yet in how
few cases is it possible to produce the man who can say, "I saw the deed
done," and even in such cases, what errors of identification may occur! In
far the greater number of crimes the proof must depend to a large extent
upon the evidence of circumstances. But these must be so convincing that
it is impossible in reason to draw any other conclusion from them. In this
country it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt, and unless
that is done in such a way as to leave no shadow of doubt in the minds of
the jury, a prisoner is entitled to be acquitted.
There must be no speculation upon a man's guilt. A man is regarded as
innocent so long as it is impossible to connect to him the last link in a
long chain of circumstantial evidence.
In the brief accounts of various celebrated trials in the following pages
an attempt has been made to give an outline of the scientific
circumstantial evidence that has led to the conviction or acquittal of the
prisoners. In some of these trials proof of guilt has been overwhelming,
although the testimony of an eye-witness has been lacking, but in others
the Scotch verdict of "Not proven" (a curious equivalent of which,
however, was once given in the trial of Mrs. Rudd) would be a more fitting
deduction from the evidence, than the alternative of "Guilty" or "Not
guilty," which is all that is allowed by the English law.
A good illustration of the value of scientific proof was seen, in 1884, at
the trial of a woman named Gibbons on the charge of having shot her
husband.
For the defence it was urged that the man had committed suicide. There
were four bullet wounds from a revolver in the body, and the medical
evidence went to prove that although any one of the wounds might have been
inflicted by the man himself, it was extremely improbable that all of them
had been. Moreover, some of them were in such a position that they could
only have been self-inflicted if the revolver had been held in the left
hand, whereas witnesses testified that the deceased was not left-handed.
The prisoner was found guilty.
Attempts have frequently been made by defending counsel to obtain
permission for a scientific man to be present on behalf of a prisoner at
any examination made before a trial, but all such requests are invariably
refused.
It is quite a common occurrence, however, for the evidence given by
scientific witnesses for the prosecution to be controverted by scientific
witnesses for the defence, and the most recent instance of the kind at the
trial of Crippen will be fresh in the memory of everyone. Where there is
any possibility of doubt it should be possible for every prisoner to
obtain scientific assistance.
An accused person who lacks the means to procure legal assistance in his
defence has assigned to him by the Court a barrister who will represent
his interests and see that they do not suffer from ignorance of legal
technicalities.
This principle might well be extended so as to cover the ground of
scientific evidence. Under the present conditions the prosecution has
unlimited facilities for applying every description of test, but it has
not always been easy for the representatives of the accused person to
obtain scientific help in criticising the nature of this evidence.
Scientific evidence should be, and usually is, quite impartial, but the
everyday conflict of honest opinion in civil actions illustrates the
possibility of mistakes occurring or of certain points that would tell in
favour of the accused being overlooked.
For instance, suppose a stain on the clothes of a person accused of murder
were examined by a chemist for the prosecution and found to consist of
blood. The fact would tell against the accused, even though the witness
(as in a recent case) could express no opinion whether it was human blood,
or the blood of an animal. Assuming in this hypothetical trial that the
blood stain was really due to rabbit's blood, another chemist representing
the prisoner might be acquainted with the comparatively recent
physiological methods of distinguishing between the blood of different
animals, and thus be able to prove the real nature of the blood stain and
break one of the links in the chain of evidence.
In most of the important criminal trials the scientific evidence is given
by more than one witness, and the possibility of mistake is thus greatly
reduced, but this is not invariably the rule.
Scientific criticism derived from a first-hand examination of the material
would be of much more value than the criticism of the statement of the
results, and might have considerable weight upon the conclusions of the
jury.
A defending counsel cross-examining a scientific witness is usually
dealing with an unfamiliar subject, and lacks the specialised knowledge
that would enable him to point out the weak points in the evidence.
When a wealthy person is on trial, however, the counsel has the advantage
of getting the best expert advice upon the scientific matters put forward
in evidence, and is thus able to lay stress on all that will help his
client, but a poor prisoner lacks this advantage, and therefore runs a
greater chance of being convicted.
An early trial in which the prisoner owed his acquittal to a conflict of
scientific evidence was that of Spencer Cowper, the grandfather of
Cowper, the poet, who was tried at the Hertford Assizes in 1699 for the
murder of a young gentlewoman named Sarah Stout.
With Cowper were also tried several of his friends, whose remarks having
been overheard had suggested that they were aware of what had happened to
the girl.
Cowper, who was a barrister, defended himself and incidentally his
companions. The story told by the prosecution was that at the previous
Assizes the prisoner had stayed for a night at the house of Mrs. Stout,
the mother of Sarah Stout. The servant-maid stated that she had been told
to prepare Mr. Cowper's bed, and that when she came downstairs again, it
then being about eleven o'clock in the evening, he had gone out,
presumably with Sarah Stout, who was never again seen alive. The next day
her dead body was found floating upon the river.
The condition of the body was, it was asserted, conclusive proof that she
had been strangled and then thrown into the water; for, to quote the words
of the counsel for the prosecution, "when her body came to be viewed it
was very much wondered at; for in the first place it is contrary to nature
that any persons that drown themselves should float upon the water. We
have sufficient evidence that it is a thing that never was; if persons
come alive into the water, then they sink; if dead, then they swim. At
first it was thought that such an accident might happen though they could
not imagine any cause for this woman to do so, who had so great
prosperity, had so good an estate, and had no occasion to do an action
upon herself so wicked and so barbarous. Upon view of the body, it did
appear there had been violence used to the woman; there was a crease round
her neck, she was bruised about her ear; so that it did seem as if she had
been strangled either by hands or a rope."
The evidence brought forward to support the theory that Sarah Stout had
been killed, before being thrown into the water, included that of several
local doctors who had examined the body, and also that of several London
doctors who were called in as expert witnesses.
These all gave as their opinion that the body of a person who had been
drowned must contain water in the thorax, and that since no water was
present in the body, death must have been caused in some other way. Two
seamen of the Royal Navy were also put into the box, and both were
emphatic in their opinion that the body of a person who had been drowned
would sink, while a dead body thrown into the water would float.
Spencer Cowper, who, as has been stated, conducted his own defence,
cross-examined the medical witnesses and made them admit that they had no
knowledge of the way in which the body of a person who had drowned himself
would behave.
He entered a strong protest against the body having been examined after
the coroner's inquest (at which a verdict of suicide while of unsound mind
had been found) by medical men acting in the interests of the relations of
the dead woman, with the intention of becoming prosecutors. "If," said he,
"they intended to have prosecuted me or any other gentleman upon this
evidence, they ought to have given us notice, that we might have had some
surgeons among them to superintend their proceeding. My Lord, with
submission, this ought not to be given in evidence." The judge overruled
this objection, saying that supposing an ill thing had been done in taking
up the body without some order, that was no reason why the evidence should
not be heard.
In further cross-examination Mr. Cowper succeeded in throwing doubt upon
the statements of witnesses, who alleged that they had seen marks of
strangling, and produced witnesses to prove that any marks upon the body
had been the result of contact with stakes in the bed of the river. Then
he brought forward his own expert medical evidence, which was given by ten
of the leading doctors of the day, including Sir Hans Sloane and the
celebrated surgeon William Cowper. These held a different view from that
of the doctors called for the prosecution, and gave their reasons for
concluding that the appearance of the body was quite consistent with death
by drowning.
Some described experiments they had made upon animals, which proved that
when killed and thrown into the water the body sank at first and then rose
to the surface, and also that drowning could take place without much water
being swallowed.
As proof of the dead woman having been of a melancholy disposition and not
of sound mind, letters of hers were read to the jury, but these her mother
and brother would not admit were in her handwriting, since, they asserted,
it did not suit her character. (See p. 85.)
The judge, Sir Henry Hatsell, in summing up confessed that he was very
much puzzled, and that he perceived that "doctors do differ in their
notions about these things."
The conclusion of his remarks is worthy of quotation: "I am sensible I
have omitted many things; but I am a little faint, and cannot remember any
more of the evidence."
It is not surprising that, soon after Queen Anne came to the throne, he
was removed from the bench.
The jury believed the medical witnesses for the defence, and after a short
discussion found Spencer Cowper and the other prisoners "Not guilty."
To come to more modern times, the advantage of a conflict of scientific
opinion to the accused was seen in the celebrated Maybrick poisoning case.
At the trial evidence was given by Professor Tidy to the effect that the
symptoms and appearances were not those of arsenical poisoning and that
the amounts of arsenic found in the body were not greater than those
present in cases where arsenical medicines had been taken months before
death, and where there was no suspicion of poisoning. Although the
prisoner was convicted and sentenced to death, there can be little doubt
but that this evidence had an important influence in determining the
subsequent alteration of the sentence to penal servitude.
There is no necessity for such scientific assistance given to the defence
to degenerate into partisanship, such as was shown at the trial of Palmer
for poisoning in 1856. That case was characterised by many remarkable
features, the suspected person, for instance, being allowed access to the
bottle in which had been placed the material taken from the body for
analysis, and also being given the opportunity of attempting to destroy
it.
Prior to the trial, Taylor, the chemist who was to give evidence as to the
presence of poison in the body, communicated with the papers, while
Herapath, one of the witnesses called for the defence, publicly accused
Taylor of incompetence.
So acrid were the statements of the scientific witnesses for the defence
at the trial that the judge commented in vigorous terms upon their
evidence as having been given with the object of obtaining an acquittal at
all costs. "It is indispensable," he said, "to the administration of
justice that a witness should not be turned into an advocate, nor an
advocate into a witness."
In another poisoning trial which took place three years later, the
chemical evidence brought forward by the defence resulted in the prisoner
being set free, after having been sentenced to death. In this case a
doctor named Smethurst was accused of poisoning a young woman named
Isabella Banks.
Dr. Taylor, who was the chief chemical witness called for the prosecution,
had found arsenic in material from the body, although he could not detect
any remaining in the tissues. On the other hand, Dr. B. W. Richardson, who
was called as a witness for the defence, stated that arsenic was a
cumulative poison, and that if it had been given for a long period, as
alleged, traces must inevitably have been present. Hence in his opinion
the absence of arsenic in the tissues was conclusive proof that death was
not the result of slow arsenical poisoning.
The medical evidence called by the defence, also left room for some doubt
as to whether death might not have been the result of dysentery, the
symptoms and appearance, it was alleged, being as consistent with that
cause as with arsenical poisoning.
The scientific witnesses for the defence did not succeed in convincing the
jury, but after sentence of death had been passed the judge forwarded the
papers to the Home Secretary, and advised that the opinion of an
independent scientific authority should be taken. Accordingly the whole of
the chemical and medical evidence was studied by Sir B. Brodie, whose
report was that there were six reasons which led to the conclusion that
Smethurst was guilty, and eight reasons which pointed in the opposite
direction; and that, therefore, the impression left upon his mind, was
that the proof of Smethurst's guilt was not absolutely convincing.
The Home Secretary, on receiving this statement of opinion from his
scientific referee, immediately granted a free pardon. In this case, but
for the conflict of scientific opinion upon the medical and chemical
evidence the prisoner would have been hanged.
Instances such as these might be largely multiplied, but the above are
sufficient to show that a scientific defence may succeed in breaking down
the scientific evidence brought by the prosecution in criminal cases; or,
failing that, may (as in the Maybrick case) help to bring about a
commutation of the sentence.
There is thus abundant justification for the plea that the poor prisoner
should have the same advantages as regards scientific assistance as he now
possesses in legal matters, and thus be placed on an equality with a
wealthy prisoner.
It ought not to be a difficult matter to draw up a list of men of
recognised standing in chemistry and medicine, who would be willing to
serve in this capacity when selected by the judge in a trial.