case. It seems to me to be, though I touch upon it briefly here, one of
the very last importance, and one which ought to decide it in the
prisoner’s favour. The supposition of the Crown is, that Palmer
intended to dose Cook with antimony, to keep his stomach in a perpetual
state of vomiting, in order the more easily to despatch him by
strychnia; that he began the plot on the Wednesday at Shrewsbury and
continued it at Rugeley, and that during the Sunday Cook was under the
influence of that treatment--Sunday was the day Palmer attempted, as was
said, to force the broth upon him. Now, being bent, as it is supposed,
upon destroying Cook, there is one man in the world who would be the
very last witness he would select as a witness of his proceedings. He
was a medical man, in the prime of life, intimately acquainted with
Cook, living in the same house with him, much attached to him, at all
events sufficiently attached to him to come to him as soon as he had
heard that he had had an attack of diarrhœa--Mr. Jones, of
Lutterworth. Palmer, intending to go to London, and not wishing to leave
Cook alone, wrote on the Sunday to Mr. Jones, telling him that Cook was
then ill with diarrhœa, a statement which is not altogether
inconsistent with the evidence of Dr. Bamford and what Cook stated, and
begs of him to come over. I beg of you to pause here for a moment in
order to appreciate the full importance of this fact; the more you think
of it the more profound will be your conviction that it affords evidence
irrefragable of Palmer’s innocence. The imputation upon Palmer is that
he intended to kill Cook to possess himself of his winnings. Who was
with Cook when the race was won? Who was by his side on Shrewsbury
racecourse for the three minutes that he was speechless? Who saw him
take out his betting-book and count his winnings? Who but Jones--Jones
who was his bosom friend, his companion, his confidant, and who knew to
the last farthing the amount of his gains? Jones was, of all men living,
the most likely to be the recipient of Cook’s confidence, and the man
bound by every consideration of honour, friendship, and affection to
protect him, to vindicate his cause, and to avenge his death. Yet this
was the man for whom Palmer sent, that he might converse with Cook,
receive his confidence, minister to him in his illness, and even sleep
in the same room with him! How, if Palmer is the murderer they represent
him, are you to account for his summoning Jones to the bedside of the
sick man? If Cook really suspected--as we are assured he did--that
Palmer was poisoning him, Jones was the man to whom he would most
willingly have unbosomed himself, and in whose faithful ear he would
have most eagerly disburthened the perilous stuff that weighed upon his
own brain. Jones, as well as Palmer, was a medical man, and it is not
improbable that, in the course of his studies, the former may have noted
in his class-book the very passages respecting the operation of
strychnia which had attracted the attention of the latter. Is it
conceivable that, if Palmer meant to slay Cook with poison in the dead
of the night, he would have previously ensured the presence in his
victim’s chamber of a medical witness, who would know from his frightful
symptoms that the man was not dying a natural death? He brings a medical
man into the room, and makes him lie within a few inches of the sick
man’s bed, that he may be startled by his terrific shrieks, and gaze
upon those agonising convulsions which indicate the fatal potency of
poison! Can you believe it? He might have despatched him by means that
would have defied detection, for Cook was taking morphia medicinally,
and a grain or two more would have silently thrown him into an eternal
sleep; but instead of doing so, he sends to Lutterworth for Jones. You
have been told that this was done to cover appearances. Done to cover
appearances! No, no, no! You cannot believe it--it is not in human
nature--it cannot be true--you cannot find him guilty--you dare not find
him guilty on the supposition of its truth--the country will not stand
by you if you believe it to be true--you will be impeached before the
whole world if you say that it is true--I believe in my conscience that
it is false, because, consistently with the laws that govern human
nature, it cannot possibly be true.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
Gentlemen, there are other facts to be adverted to before I sit down to
which it is necessary your attention should be drawn. There was a great
stir at the hotel at Rugeley after Mr. Jones had returned from London
with Mr. Stevens, the executor. Mr. Stevens arrives at the inn with Mr.
Jones, has been in conversation all the way down with Mr. Jones, and has
heard from Mr. Jones all that Mr. Jones knows, and does not appear to
have had anything communicated to him by Mr. Jones which could justify
any suspicion on his part. Mr. Jones, when they arrive at Rugeley,
introduces him to Palmer, and Palmer at once takes him up to the room of
the dead man, and uncovers the body down to the thighs, and Mr. Stevens
looks at the corpse and sees there are no convulsions about the body
except the clenching of the hands. He sees there is no emaciation, no
signs as he thinks of illness, and, wondering within himself, says, “How
can you have died?” or something to that effect; “How grievous a thing
it is that your young life should have passed away!” I think he said he
did not look as if he were dead. After seeing the corpse they went down
to dinner, and he asked Palmer to dine with him, and Jones, and Mr.
Bradford, the husband of Mr. Cook’s sister. He has not been called; he
could have told us if there was anything suspicious in the conduct of
Palmer, anything that could justify such conduct on the part of Mr.
Stevens. They have their dinner, and when their dinner is over, see what
takes place. It is important you should know it, because I think you
will see from the way it occurred that the conduct of Palmer was the
conduct of a man certainly apprehensive of any sort of vexatious inquiry
which might involve him in pecuniary troubles, and was therefore anxious
to conciliate Mr. Stevens, still comporting himself like one who could
firmly and freely maintain his equality with Mr. Stevens unabashed, with
a clear brow and the appearance of an innocent man. (The learned
serjeant read a portion of the dialogue which took place between Mr.
Stevens and Palmer.) He said, “with a spasmodic convulsion of the
throat,” which was perfectly apparent; he could not see his face, but
there was a spasmodic convulsion of his throat. Who could believe such a
testimony of guilt as that? He expects that Palmer is to be bound to
look after everything of every kind that was in the hotel belonging to
Cook, and because he could not find a trumpery book, which anybody might
have taken away, thinking and probably having heard it was of very
little use, which could not be of the slightest service in any way to
Palmer for any purpose whatever, or to anybody, simply on that account,
he is to indulge in this vexatious proceeding. The last time the book
was seen was on the Monday. The last person who saw it was Elizabeth
Mills, on the Monday, and on that day there were several people there
with Cook--Saunders the trainer, and the jockeys; after his death the
two servant-maids and the housekeeper, the three undertaker’s men, the
two women who laid Cook out, and some other persons; the barber who
shaved him might have taken the book, and having taken it could not
return it; for here again is the effect of dishonesty as well as
falsehood. Once done, you cannot repair it; without admitting it you
cannot set it right again. I throw imputation on nobody; I simply say,
that as many people had access to the room, it is not fair, it is not
right under the circumstances when a man is charged in such a case of
momentous importance without any assignable reason for his purloining
the betting book, to fix it on him without any proof that he ever had it
in his hands, when nothing like a proper search was made for it until
some time after Cook’s death. I asked whether the drawers were not full
of linen and clothes, the answer was that they were. It was not seen
immediately after the death, nor was there any search made for it, nor
was it set aside and taken care of in the room, so that it could not
have been removed by Palmer with a guilty intention of purloining it.
Let us go on for a moment with this dialogue--(the learned serjeant then
read a passage from the dialogue as detailed in the evidence)--and at
last, after goading and irritating the man for all this time, though
Palmer was willing to make explanations and provoke inquiries into
anything or circumstance which if inquired into would at once have led
to a discussion of matters in a fair and gentleman-like manner, Stevens
snubs him by asking him whether he intends to be at the post-mortem; and
at last, when he says, “It is a matter of indifference to me,” goads the
poor man into saying, “So it is to me.” That is the only word of
irritation that Palmer--who kept his ground during the whole time and
stood up to this man--that is the only word of irritation that he used.
Mr. Stevens speaks to him in a very warm manner, yet Palmer manifests
the composure of a gentleman, of a man of feeling and consideration to
the father--as he called himself--but the stepfather of the young man,
and that is to be turned into evidence of guilt.
There is another story made against him, that he was found searching in
the pockets of Mr. Cook shortly after his death--it is the most absurd
suggestion on their own showing. The facts were these. Mr. Jones, I
think, told the servants to tell Palmer to come into the room. I think
that was it--to tell Palmer to go into the room; and then I think Mr.
Jones told another servant to follow him into the room. Elizabeth Mills
is the witness to that. She says, “I went in, and I saw him looking
about seeing if there was anything in one of the coats, and he also
looked under the bolster of the bed, just as a gentleman might be
looking for a watch; and he went on doing so after I got into the room.”
It was quite clear she suspected nothing, and I submit it is not fair
that any suspicion should attach to him on the subject.
[Sidenote: Serjeant Shee]
One other circumstance there is on which reliance has been placed; and
although it has been said great reliance is not intended to be placed
upon it, I cannot tell what effect it will produce on your minds. I am
sure that when those who have promoted this prosecution first undertook
it they intended to rely, as proof of damning guilt, on the manuscript
extracts about strychnia in these medical books. I think it will be
within your experience that in youth and early manhood the best
protection that a man can have for his honour and integrity is the
company and society of a wife whom he loves. If you find a man in early
youth attached to a virtuous young woman, whom he loves with a sincere
and heartfelt attachment, depend upon it he is of a gentle nature, and
little prone to deeds of violence. They have put in these books to show
that Palmer had a knowledge of strychnia poison, and they are the books
which he used when a student attending lectures in London, as must have
been known to his deceased wife. I find, in what I am in a condition to
prove to be her own handwriting, proof positive that this was his
student’s book, and that he then and long after loved that young woman
in the way in which it is God’s will, under the sanction of His holy
ordinance, young men should love their wives. His marriage was a
marriage of affection; he loved her for herself and for her person; he
loved her as ardently as he now loves her first-born, his only surviving
child, a boy of seven years old, who waits with trembling anxiety for a
sentence which will restore him to his father’s arms, or drive that
father to an ignominious death upon the scaffold. He loved her with a
pure, generous affection. There is proof positive in this letter, copied
in her handwriting into his notebook, that such a man was William Palmer
when only a few years younger than he is now--
“My dearest Annie,--I snatch a moment to write to your dear, dear little
self. I need scarcely say the principal inducement I have to work is the
desire of getting my studies finished, so as to be able to press your
dear little form in my arms. With best, best love, believe me, dearest
Annie, your own William.”
Now, this is not the sort of letter that is generally read in Courts of
justice. It was no part of my instructions to read it to you, but that
book was put in to prove that this man was a wicked, heartless, savage
desperado, and I show you from it what he was when that letter was
written--what his deceased wife knew him to be when she copied it--a
young man who loved a young woman for her own sake--loved her with a
pure and virtuous affection, such an affection as would in almost all
natures be a sure antidote against guilt.
Such, gentlemen, is the man whom it is my duty to defend. Upon the
evidence which is before you I cannot believe him guilty. Do not suppose
for a moment that he is abandoned in this dreadful strait by his family
and friends. An aged mother, who may have disapproved of some parts of
his conduct, expects in an agony of grief your verdict. A dear sister
can scarcely sustain herself under the suspense which presses upon her.
A gallant and devoted brother stands by him to defend him, sparing
neither time nor labour to save him from an awful doom. I call upon you
to expand your minds to a capacity for estimating the high duty that you
have to perform. You have to stem the torrent of prejudice; you have to
vindicate the honour and character of your country; you have with
firmness and courage to do your duty, and find a verdict for the Crown,
if you believe that guilt is proved; but if you have a doubt upon the
point, depend upon it the time will come when the innocence of this man
will be made apparent, and when you will deeply regret any want of due
and calm consideration of the case which it will be my duty to lay
before you.
The Court then adjourned.
[Illustration: Note written by Palmer to his Counsel while in the dock
at the Old Bailey]
Eighth Day, 22nd May, 1856.
The Court met at ten o’clock.
Evidence for the Defence.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Mr. THOMAS NUNNELEY, examined by Mr. GROVE--I am a Fellow of the College
of Surgeons, Professor of Surgery at the Leeds School of Medicine, and a
member of several foreign and English scientific societies. I have been
in practice between twenty and thirty years. I have seen cases of both
traumatic and idiopathic tetanus. One of the four cases of idiopathic
tetanus I have seen did not commence with the symptoms of lockjaw, nor
did lockjaw occur sufficiently to prevent swallowing during the whole
period of illness. I have been present during the evidence given here as
to the symptoms of Mr. Cook. I had previously read the portions of the
depositions as to the scientific and medical part of the case. Judging
from the symptoms as described, and confining myself to the evidence as
to the scientific part of the case, my opinion is that Mr. Cook died
from some convulsive disease. I found that upon the difference of the
symptoms described in the deposition and on the evidence before the
Court.
LORD CAMPBELL--This is not satisfactory; we cannot ask witnesses what
faith they give to the evidence of the witnesses as contrasted with the
depositions. This witness’s opinion ought to be founded on the _viva
voce_ evidence of the witnesses given during the trial.
Examination resumed--The previous state of health of Mr. Cook had some
effect on my judgment.
State your own grounds in your own way for that opinion?--If I take the
evidence which has occurred in Court--
By LORD CAMPBELL--The evidence of the symptoms of John Parsons Cook as
stated by the witnesses?--Not merely the symptoms, but the general state
of health.
But we have nothing to do with that. The witness should give his opinion
on the symptoms described, and then state what influences the other
facts may have had on his mind.
By Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--Do you remember the accounts that were given of
what was said or supposed to be syphilitic sores?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--But there was no such thing said.
Mr. BARON ALDERSON--Supposing a person had syphilitic sores, what would
you say then? That is the proper way of putting it.
LORD CAMPBELL--We must take it that medical men are not to be
substituted for the jury.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Mr. JUSTICE CRESWELL--If I were to suggest a mode of meeting the thing
it would be this--let the gentleman describe what he assumes to be the
state of the deceased’s health at the time, then the Attorney-General
may say he is not justified in assuming.
Examination resumed--Will you do that having heard the evidence?--I
assume him to have been a man of very delicate constitution; that for a
long period he felt himself to be ill, for which he had been under
medical treatment; that he had suffered from syphilis; had disease of
the lungs; had an old-standing disease of the throat; led an irregular
life; was subject to mental excitement and depression; that after death
traces were found in his body which show this to have been the case;
there was found an unusual appearance within the stomach; the throat was
in an unnatural condition; the back of the tongue showed similar
indications; the lungs were in an emphysematous condition, that is, the
air cells dilated; in the lining of the aorta or large artery of the
body there was an unnatural deposit; and there was a very unusual
appearance in the membranes of the spinal marrow. These are the
indications which are unnatural in the post-mortem examination. I should
also state it is described by one of the witnesses that there was a loss
of substance of the penis. The symptoms on the root of the tongue and
the throat I ascribe to syphilitic inflammation of the throat. From
these symptoms I have described I should infer that his health had not
been good for long, and that his constitution was delicate. It was also
stated that his father and mother had died young, and that the brother
and sister were both delicate. That being the state of health of Mr.
Cook, he would be liable to nervous irritation. Excitement or depression
might bring it on. Exposure to wet and cold would have a greater effect
than on a healthy person. It is a condition of the constitution when a
convulsive disease is more likely to supervene.
What would you infer from the fact, supposing it to have occurred, that
three days before death he suddenly woke up in the middle of the night
in a state described as madness, for two or three minutes? I understand
that he had three attacks on succeeding nights, each occurring about the
same hour. Would you draw any inference from that circumstance?--Yes,
that they were of a convulsive character, in the absence of other causes
to account for it. Convulsive effects are extremely variable in their
forms and degrees of violence. It is not possible to give a definite
name to every convulsive attack. There are some forms of violent
convulsions, such as hysteria, in which the patient retains his
consciousness. It is stated that there are forms of convulsions,
epileptic in their character, in which the patient retains his
consciousness.
By LORD CAMPBELL--Have you met with any?--No, not during a fit.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
But it is during a state of fit we are inquiring?--I have not.
Examination resumed--I know by my reading as a medical man that that
does occur sometimes. The degree of consciousness in epilepsy varies
very much; in some attacks the consciousness is altogether lost.
Convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied by violent spasms and with
rigidity of portions of the body. Convulsions arising from a convulsive
disease, either from infancy or from other causes, but not exactly
tetanus, sometimes assume something of the complexion of tetanic
affection. Such convulsions might arise from any cause--worms in
children, affections of the brain in adults, hysteria, administration of
chloroform to some persons. Indigestible food will sometimes produce
convulsions in adults. I agree with Dr. Copland, whose book was referred
to yesterday, that these convulsions sometimes end immediately in death.
Asphyxia is frequently the cause of death when a man dies in one of
these convulsions. I have seen convulsions of the character I have
described recurring at various intervals, sometimes in hours, in other
cases days. The time also varies very much when a patient, suffering
from a violent paroxysm of such convulsions, becomes easier; it may be
hours or minutes. When death takes place in the paroxysm of such
convulsions it sometimes happens in post-mortem examinations that there
is no trace of organic disease in the body.
Have you known at all or frequently in persons, not further advanced in
years than the age of twenty-eight, granules between the dura mater and
the arachnoid?--They are not common to any age that I am aware of.
Do you know whether granules have been part of the symptoms of
tetaniform convulsions?--I have seen three preparations in St. Thomas’s
Hospital museum where granules are found in the membranes of the spinal
cord, in which patients are said to have died of tetanus. In order to
ascertain with satisfaction the nature and probable extent of the injury
of such granules the spinal cord should be examined immediately after
death. Not the most remote medical judgment could be formed if the
examination was made two or three months after death. If an examination
of the spinal cord is made so long after death, if there had been a
large tumour or some similar change, it might have been discovered; but
neither softening nor induration of the minute structure of the cord
could be detected. The minute nervous structures change within two hours
after death.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
I have in the course of my experience had cases of traumatic tetanus. It
generally begins by an attack of the jaw. I have had under my personal
observation four cases of idiopathic tetanus. One of them was my own
child. In three cases the symptoms commenced with lockjaw. In the
fourth case the symptoms commenced in the body; the power of swallowing
easily was retained to the last. Within the last twelve months I have
made a post-mortem examination of two women who have died from the
poison of strychnia. In both cases it was by chemical analysis that I
ascertained the deaths had been caused by strychnia. In one case the
post-mortem took place forty-two hours after death, in the other case
thirty hours.
(The witness produced his report to the coroner on these two cases.)
I have not seen a fatal case, but several of taking too large a dose.
One, a middle-aged man, took one-sixth of a grain of strychnia, given in
solution. In a very few minutes the symptoms manifested themselves by
the want of power of controlling the muscles, by twitching and rigidity,
with some cramp, more violent in the legs than any part of the body. He
was up and walking about. It was not a severe case. In six hours the
spasms entirely disappeared. They were intermittent in character, every
two or three seconds at first. The other case was similar with
one-twelfth of a grain.