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.
The use of poisons but little known at the time has generally been due to
a special knowledge of their properties on the part of the poisoner, who
has hoped in this way to escape detection, and, in fact, has often done
so.
Arsenic, which has always been a favourite with ignorant poisoners, is
cumulative in its action, and remains in the system for a long time after
it has been taken. It has a remarkable preservative effect upon the
tissues, which it will keep for an indefinite length of time from
decomposition. There is, therefore, little difficulty in detecting and
identifying it in a body years after a crime has been committed.
The effect of antimony is very similar, and it was owing to this fact that
it was possible in the Chapman poisoning case to prove that some of the
victims had been poisoned with antimony.
Organic poisons such as prussic acid and vegetable alkaloids are much less
stable in character, though they are not so fugitive as some poisoners
have supposed, and the presence of alkaloidal poisons in the system has
been proved months after death.
In the celebrated Palmer case, to which reference has already been made,
Palmer, who was a doctor, made use of strychnine, and, although he was
convicted upon the medical and other evidence, Taylor, the official
analyst, was unable to detect the poison in the remains. On these grounds
and the evidence of other chemists who asserted that they could detect the
slightest trace of strychnine, and that had that poison been given it must
have passed into the system, the defence was set up that no strychnine had
been given, and that the prisoner was entitled to an acquittal.
All that can be fairly deduced from the chemical evidence, however, is
that no very large amount of strychnine was present, and that the method
of separating alkaloids used by Taylor half a century ago was not capable
of detecting traces of strychnine. So far, then, as regards chemical
analysis, Palmer had succeeded in administering a poison in sufficient
quantity to kill, but to escape detection.
With the more delicate methods of analysis now at the disposal of the
chemist this would no longer be possible, for it has been repeatedly
proved that it is possible to detect a minute trace of that alkaloid in
the body many months after death.
The other details of this case are interesting as forming a very complete
chain of evidence.
Palmer, as has been mentioned, was a medical man living at Rugeley, where
he had formerly had a practice. For some time prior to the trial he had
given up medicine and devoted himself to horse-racing, with the result
that he had lost heavily, and by the summer of 1855 owed about £20,000,
which he had borrowed at an exorbitant rate of interest from different
moneylenders.
As security for these amounts he had given promissory notes, in which he
had forged the signature of his mother. It was his intention to have paid
the most pressing of his creditors out of the proceeds of an insurance
upon the life of his brother, who died in August of the same year.
The insurance company, however, from certain circumstances that had
reached their ears, had a suspicion of fraud in connection with this
policy, and refused to pay the sum insured.
The holders of the bills, therefore, prepared writs against Palmer and his
mother, which were to be issued unless they received the promised money,
and it was, therefore, a matter of urgency for Palmer to find a means of
satisfying them.
Early in November he went to some races at Shrewsbury in company with a
young man named Cook, and the latter won between £2,000 and £3,000, some
£800 of which he received upon the race-course, leaving the balance to be
paid in London.
To celebrate the occasion, Cook asked a number of his friends to dine with
him at the hotel in Shrewsbury. That evening Palmer was observed holding a
tumbler up to the light outside his bedroom, and he then went into the
other room where Cook was talking to his friends.
After drinking some brandy, Cook became violently ill, and a doctor was
sent for. Cook said he had been given something by Palmer, and gave his
money into the charge of one of his friends, who next day returned it to
him.
Notwithstanding his suspicions, Cook returned with Palmer to Rugeley, and
put up at an inn there near Palmer's house. He was there visited several
times by Palmer, who gave him coffee and broth, both of which made him
violently sick. He was attended by a local medical man, who was very old,
and, acting on Palmer's suggestion, this doctor prescribed morphine pills
for the sick man.
Palmer went with the doctor to his surgery, helped him in the preparation
of the pills, and undertook to see that the patient took them. Accordingly
he went round to the inn the same night, and persuaded Cook, who was
unwilling to have anything to do with them, to take the pills. Within
fifteen minutes he had died, after showing all the symptoms of strychnine
poisoning.
After Cook's death, his stepfather came to Rugeley, and made inquiries as
to the cause of death. Certain circumstances drew suspicion upon Palmer,
and this was strengthened when it was found that on several occasions he
had bought strychnine, and that immediately after Cook's death he had been
seen examining his pockets and searching under the pillow of the bed.
When asked whether there were not some sporting debts due to Cook, he
denied that there were any, and it was significant that the betting book
of the deceased man had disappeared.
It was further discovered that Palmer had since the death paid over
considerable sums of money to his creditors, and that he had induced the
old doctor who had been in attendance upon Cook to sign a certificate
giving apoplexy as the cause of death.
A post-mortem examination was held, at which Palmer, although under
suspicion, was allowed to be present. When the portion of the stomach was
sealed up in a bottle, Palmer removed it to another part of the room while
the attention of the doctors was otherwise occupied, and it was found that
he had cut two slits in the parchment cover, and had attempted to get rid
of the contents. Subsequently he offered a bribe of £10 to the driver who
was to take the doctors to the station if he would upset the carriage and
break the jar.
The evidence of the doctors called by the Crown left little doubt as to
death having been caused by strychnine poison, and although a number of
medical men gave evidence on behalf of Palmer, their opinions were
conflicting and inconsistent, and, as the judge pointed out, were
obviously aiming at an acquittal at all cost.
After a trial lasting twelve days, the judge (Lord Campbell) summed up the
evidence, and dwelt in strong terms upon the scientific witnesses for the
defence (see _ante_, p. 19). With reference to the fact that no strychnine
had been detected in the body, he remarked that "there was no rule of law
according to which the poison must be found in the body of the deceased,
and all they knew respecting the poison not being found in the body was
that in that part of the body that was analysed by the witnesses no
strychnia had been found."
Since physiological tests are, in many cases, much more sensitive than
chemical tests, they have often been used for the identification of traces
of poison isolated from a body. Thus a small quantity of a particular
alkaloid will produce certain characteristic physiological results when
injected into the circulatory system of a small animal, and should
precisely the same results be obtained by the injection of the unknown
substance, the obvious inference to be drawn is that the two substances
are identical.
At the same time it has been shown on more than one occasion that it is
not justifiable to draw a comparison between the quantitative action of a
particular poison upon an animal and upon man.
As an instance of the danger of relying too exclusively upon the results
of experiments upon an animal, the interesting case of Freeman, who was
tried at Leicester in 1829, may be mentioned. A young woman, the servant
of a chemist in the town, was found dead in bed. She had evidently died
from the effects of prussic acid, and from the fact that the one ounce
bottle from which the poison had been taken still contained three and a
half drachms, it was inferred that she had taken four and a half drachms.
Owing to the facts that the arms of the dead woman were crossed upon her
breast, and that the clothes had been pulled up neatly over them, while
the bottle containing the remainder of the poison had been re-corked and
was lying by her side, it was thought that it was not a case of suicide,
but that the poison must have been given to her.
Suspicion fell upon a young man named Freeman, who was an assistant of the
chemist, and he was charged with having murdered the woman.
The point urged by the prosecution was that the action of prussic acid was
so rapid, that it was impossible for the woman to have had the time to
take the amount which had apparently been taken, and subsequently to have
arranged the bed-clothes and corked the bottle.
Expert evidence upon this question was given by five doctors, four of whom
gave as their opinion that these things could not have been done by the
woman herself. In support of their view, one of them stated that the same
quantity of prussic acid had killed a dog in three seconds.
Fortunately for the prisoner he was able to produce conclusive evidence of
his innocence, and the jury, therefore, very rightly refused to accept the
medical opinion.
Cases in which scientific evidence has been given to prove that a
particular portion of food or drink is of a poisonous nature, as shown by
its effects upon animals, have frequently been before the Courts, and the
evidence is not so open to criticism as in Freeman's case, although, at
best, such a proof is far less satisfactory than the separation and
identification of the poison by chemical means.
In one trial, however, described by Taylor, which took place in the early
part of last century in the West of England, the evidence supplied by the
accidental poisoning of some animals was so convincing as to prove the
prisoner guilty, although chemical evidence of the presence of poisoning
was wanting.
A farmer's wife was accused of having poisoned her husband by putting
arsenic into his soup while they were dining together. Then, in order to
get rid of all signs of her guilt, she had thrown the remainder of the
soup into the farmyard, where the pigs and the fowls had devoured it. The
husband had died with all the symptoms and appearances of arsenical
poisoning, but no arsenic was found in the body by the imperfect methods
of analysis then available.
All the animals in the farmyard had also died, apparently from the effects
of an irritant poison, and in the bodies of some of them, probably owing
to its quantity being greater, arsenic was found.
The evidence as to these facts, which was put forward at the trial, was
regarded by the jury as conclusive proof that poison had been given to the
man, notwithstanding the objections pressed by the defence that the poison
had not been found in his body, and that, since none of the soup was left
for examination, it had not been proved that the soup was poisonous.
With the more refined methods of analysis now available, such evidence
would probably have been corroborated, seeing that the tests are capable
of detecting arsenic even in the minute proportion of one part in sixty
millions.
In a remarkable trial that took place, in 1831, at the Warwick Assizes,
expert evidence that an animal had not been poisoned supplied the proof
required to establish the guilt of the prisoner. A woman named Mary
Higgins was accused of having poisoned her uncle with arsenic. It was
proved that he had died from an irritant poison, and there was also
abundant proof that the niece had bought arsenic. Her explanation of this
was that she had wanted it to destroy vermin, and by way of adding
conviction to her story she actually produced a dead mouse, which, she
alleged, had been killed by the poison. This proved a fatal blunder on her
part, for an examination of the mouse showed that there was no arsenic
whatever in its body. The defence was therefore discredited, and the
prisoner was found guilty of murder.
The most valuable applications of physiological tests have been in cases
where narcotic poisons have been used, and especially in the early days of
chemical analyses, when the methods then known were incapable of
identifying these poisons.
For example, in the year 1838 a woman was tried at Liverpool on a charge
of having sent a poisoned pudding to another woman with the intention of
poisoning her. The two children who were sent with the pudding tasted it
on the way, and finding that it was bitter, mentioned the fact to the
woman to whom they were taking it. She had other reasons for being
suspicious, and, therefore, sent the pudding to a doctor to be examined.
He applied various tests, but was unable to detect the presence of any
poison, although from the taste he suspected that some narcotic poison was
present.
Accordingly, he gave a small portion of the pudding to a dog, with the
result that the animal died within three hours with all the symptoms of
poisoning produced by a narcotic poison. On the strength of this evidence,
the prisoner was found guilty.
A French poisoning trial which took place in the early part of last
century is especially interesting from the fact that it is apparently the
only recorded instance, prior to the recent notorious Crippen case, in
which the deadly plant, henbane, was the original source of the poison.
In the French case a child had been poisoned by some broth, and the
symptoms had suggested the presence of a narcotic poison. The chemical
analysis of alkaloidal poisons was at that time in its infancy, and in
order to obtain proof of the poisonous character of the broth, some of the
meat remaining in it was given to a cat. The animal died in about five
hours, and the symptoms produced and the appearance of its body after
death were all similar to those observed in the child.
The evidence was therefore regarded as corroborative proof that the plant
henbane had been introduced into the broth.
In the present state of chemical analysis proof would have been expected
of the presence of the active principles of henbane (hyoscine and
hyoscyamine) in the broth and in the body of the victim, and physiological
tests would probably only have been accepted as supplying additional proof
of the identity of the poison.
A striking example of the way in which the scientific evidence may succeed
in establishing the innocence of a person accused of murder is seen in
the following case, which was tried in 1835:--A woman, who had a violent
disposition and was subject to attacks of hysteria, accused her husband of
having attempted to poison her, and in proof of her charge produced a
white powder, which, as she alleged, he had put into her food. The powder
was found to be white arsenic, and the food on examination was found to
contain a fatal quantity of that poison. The husband was therefore
immediately arrested and kept in prison pending the investigation.
The woman was perfectly well for eight days, but on the ninth day became
very violent, and did many eccentric things, and on the next day she died.
Examination of the body showed that arsenic had been the cause of death.
Her husband denied that he had ever put any arsenic into her food, but had
it not been for the scientific evidence he would probably have been unable
to prove that he was innocent.
Undoubtedly he owed his escape to his having been in prison for the eight
days between the accusation brought by his wife and her death, for the
medical witnesses proved that it was not possible for him to have given
the dose of arsenic which caused the death of the woman, since the effects
of arsenic could not have remained latent in the system for that length of
time.
Circumstances, therefore, indicated that the woman had committed suicide,
and on the strength of this evidence the prisoner was immediately set at
liberty.
To come to more recent times, the most notable trial in which the results
of experiments upon animals have formed one of the strongest links in the
evidence against the prisoner, was that of George Henry Lamson, in 1881,
who was convicted of poisoning his brother-in-law.
Here again the accused was a medical man, who was able by reason of his
specialised knowledge to use a poison that at the time would not readily
be identified in the body after death. In fact, in the opinion of Montagu
Williams, who defended him at the trial, there could be but little doubt
but that he had previously poisoned a brother of his victim in the same
manner, without incurring any suspicion.
He was a young man twenty-nine years of age, in practice in a small way at
Bournemouth. He was not well off and had been in pecuniary straits, and,
as it was known at the trial, would have benefited materially by the death
of his brother-in-law, Percy John, a lad of nineteen, who was at a school
in Wimbledon.
Percy was a cripple, and had to be carried up and down-stairs, and to be
wheeled about in a chair, but there was no reason why he should not have
lived to old age.
The story told by the prosecution was that Dr. Lamson wrote to his
brother-in-law, telling him he was coming to see him at the school on his
way over to Paris, and the boy was disappointed on receiving a message
that he could not come till the next day. On December 3rd, however, Lamson
called at the school, and said that he had only time to pay a flying visit
before catching the night train to Paris.
He produced some gelatine capsules, and also a cake. Taking one of these
he remarked to the schoolmaster, who was present throughout the interview,
that he would leave them with him, so that he might give nasty medicines
to his pupils without difficulty. He then filled one of the capsules from
a basin of sugar that was on the table, and turning to the boy, said:
"Here, Percy, you're a swell pill-taker; take this, and show Mr. Bedbrook
how easily it may be swallowed."
Dr. Lamson had also brought with him some sweets and a cake, and he gave
slices of this to the schoolmaster and to his young brother-in-law, and
also ate a piece himself.
Immediately after the lad had swallowed the capsule Lamson observed:
"That's soon gone, my boy," and then remarked, "I must be going now."
He then left with the intention of catching the evening boat-train to
Paris. Very shortly afterwards Percy became ill and told the schoolmaster
that he felt exactly as he did four months before when his brother-in-law
had given him a pill. Doctors were summoned, but in spite of everything
that was done the poor boy died the same evening. A medical examination of
the body showed no appearance of any disease that could have resulted in
such sudden death, but a chemical examination of the stomach, which was
made by Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Dupré, proved that a vegetable irritant
poison must have been the cause of death.
Investigations showed that on several occasions Dr. Lamson had purchased
small quantities of aconitine from different chemists, and this
strengthened the suspicions already attaching to him.
A few days later Lamson returned from Paris and voluntarily went to
Scotland Yard, saying that as his name had been mentioned in connection
with the case he had thought it best to call and see what was to be done
about it. He was then arrested and formally charged with causing the
death.
The trial was memorable for the conclusive nature of the scientific
evidence. The cake and sweets had been analysed and found to be quite free
from aconite and the gelatine capsules were also proved to be innocuous.
At the bottom of the boy's box a pill-box had been discovered containing
pills in which aconitine was present, but although the point was suggested
by the defence, there was no evidence to show that the boy had secretly
taken one of these.
The presence of morphia and aconitine in the body was proved, the latter
being identified by its general chemical reactions as an alkaloid, by the
burning sensation produced upon the tongue, and by its characteristic
action upon mice, as compared with that of a standard solution of pure
aconitine. In each case the animals died, the symptoms being the same and
characteristic of aconitine poisoning.
For the defence it was urged by Montagu Williams that it was admitted by
the scientific witnesses for the prosecution that they had no other proof
of the identity of aconitine than these physiological tests upon mice;
that their conclusions were a leap in the dark; and that mice had so
delicate a constitution that even an injection of pure water would kill
them. How then could it fairly be argued that because these little animals
had been killed by an injection of a substance extracted from the body,
that substance must be aconitine? Apart from that, bodies of the nature of
alkaloids were formed in the body by decomposition, and the effects upon
the mice attributed to aconitine might very well have been caused by one
of these alkaloids.
It was further pointed out that there had been no opportunity of giving
the boy a pill without the knowledge of the schoolmaster, and that the
prisoner could not have charged the capsule with aconitine without having
been observed.
The evidence put forward by the prosecution carried conviction to the
jury, and the prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to death.
With reference to the more important points raised by the defence it may
be mentioned that no known ptomaine (_i.e._, alkaloid formed by
decomposition in the body after death) produces the same physiological
effects as aconitine, and that the conclusions of Dr. Stevenson and Dr.
Dupré were based upon the results of comparative tests, which showed that
as little as 1/2000 grain of aconitine could be recognised in this way.
The probable solution of the mystery of how the prisoner managed to give
the poison to the boy is suggested in the reminiscences of Lord Brampton,
who, as Sir Henry Hawkins, was the presiding judge at the trial. He points
out that Lamson was far too clever a man to attempt such a clumsy plan as
to charge the capsule with aconitine, and thus draw suspicion upon
himself. The much more plausible theory is that the capsules had nothing
whatever to do with the poisoning but that Lamson had previously put the
aconitine into a raisin in the cake, and had taken care that his young
brother-in-law should get the slice containing that raisin, while he and
the schoolmaster had eaten other portions of the otherwise harmless cake.
After sentence of death had been passed, Lamson stood with his arms folded
and in a loud voice proclaimed his innocence before God. Before his
execution, however, it is stated that he confessed that he had not only
poisoned Percy John, but also his other brother-in-law Herbert.