clearest and most unquestioned evidence that Mr. Palmer bought more
strychnia. He went to Mr. Hawkins’ shop, and there purchased six grains
more, and the circumstances attending that purchase are peculiar in the
extreme. He comes to the shop, and he gives an order for prussic acid,
and, having got his prussic acid, he gives an order for strychnia.
Before the strychnia is put up, Newton, the same man, comes into the
shop. What does the prisoner do? He immediately takes Newton by the arm,
and says he has something particular to say to him, and takes him to the
door. What was it he had to say to him? Was it anything particular? Was
it anything of the slightest importance? Was it anything that might not
have been said in the presence of Roberts, who was putting up the
strychnia? Certainly not. It was to ask a most unimportant question,
namely, when young Mr. Salt was going to the farm which he had taken at
Sudbury. In that question there could be nothing which might not be put
in the presence of anybody, no matter who. He takes him to the door, and
then puts this question. At the same time a man of the name of
Brassington, a cooper, comes up, and Brassington had something to say to
Newton upon business, having some bills against Newton’s employer, Mr.
Salt. Upon that Brassington and Newton get into conversation at some
little distance from the door. The prisoner immediately takes advantage
of those two being in conversation, and he goes back and completes the
purchase of the strychnia. But while the strychnia was being made up he
stands in the doorway with his back to the shop, and his face to the
street, where he would have a perfect command of the persons of Newton
and Brassington, and where, if Newton had quitted Brassington to return
into the shop, the prisoner would at once have been in a position to
take every possible step for not letting Newton go in, by renewing the
conversation with him until the strychnia had been taken away. I ask
you, having this description of the transaction given to you by Roberts,
in the first place, confirmed by Newton afterwards, can you entertain
any reasonable doubt that the prisoner was desirous of not letting
Newton know that he was purchasing strychnia there? You can very well
understand that he would be desirous of keeping that fact from Newton,
because, if it be true that Newton had let him have three grains the
night before, Newton’s attention would be naturally immediately aroused
by so strange a circumstance, because nine grains of strychnia were
enough--three grains were enough--to kill three, perhaps six people.
What could a man want with nine grains of strychnia in so short a space
of time? It would attract Newton’s attention, and it did; for Newton
immediately went and asked what he wanted there, his attention being, in
the first place, directed, not so much to what he had come to purchase
as to the singularity of his coming there at all, because for two years
past the prisoner never bought an article of any sort or kind at the
shop of Mr. Hawkins. His former assistant, Mr. Thirlby, had two years
before set up in business as a chemist, and from that time, naturally
enough, Mr. Palmer had withdrawn his custom from Mr. Hawkins, and had
given it to his former assistant, Mr. Thirlby. It was a remarkable thing
that he should go to Mr. Hawkins’ shop upon this occasion to get
strychnia. Why did he not go to Mr. Thirlby? I will tell you. Mr.
Thirlby would have known perfectly well that he could have no legitimate
use for such an article. Mr. Thirlby had taken his practice. Mr. Palmer
was no longer in practice, except in the circle of his relatives and his
own immediate friends; and if he had gone to Mr. Thirlby for strychnia,
Mr. Thirlby would have said, naturally enough, “What are you going to do
with it?” and therefore he did not go to Mr. Thirlby. Why he should have
gone to purchase strychnia (I agree with my learned friend it is one of
the mysteries of this case) on two successive days I cannot tell; but
that he did is undeniably true; and if on the one hand some little
difficulty arises, on the other hand is not the difficulty infinitely
greater in accounting for the motive that induced him to go and get this
strychnia either on the Monday night or upon the Tuesday? If it was for
the purpose of professional use for the benefit of some patient for whom
small doses of strychnia might have been advantageous, where is the
patient, and why is he not produced? My learned friend did not even
advert to the question of the second purchase of strychnia in the whole
of his powerful observations. He passes it over in mysterious but
significant silence. Account for that six grains of strychnia, the
purchase of which is an undoubted and indisputable fact. Throw doubt if
you please--I blame you not for it--upon the story of the purchase on
the previous night; but on the Tuesday it is unquestionably true that
six grains of strychnia were purchased. Purchased for whom? purchased
for what? If for any patient, who is that patient? Produce him. If for
any other purpose, at least let us have it explained. Has there been the
slightest shadow of an attempt at explanation? Alas! I grieve to say,
none at all. Something was said, in the outset of this case, about some
dogs that had been troublesome in the paddocks where the mares and foals
were, but that proved to have been in September. If there had been any
recurrence of such a thing, where are the grooms who had the care and
charge of those mares and foals, and why are they not here to state the
fact? If this poison was used for the purpose of destroying dogs, some
one must have assisted Mr. Palmer in the attempts which he resorted to
for that purpose. Where are those persons? Why are they not called? But,
not only are they not called, they are not even named. My learned friend
does not venture to breathe even a suggestion of anything of the kind. I
ask, gentlemen, what conclusion can we draw from these things, except
one, and one alone? Death, with all the symptoms of strychnia--death in
all the convulsive agonies and throes which that fatal poison produces
in the frame of man--death with all the appearances which follow upon
death, and mark how that death has come to pass--all these things, in
the minds of those who can discuss and consider them with calm,
dispassionate attention, who do not mix themselves up as advocates,
partisans, or witnesses, leading to but one conclusion; and then the
fact of the strychnia being purchased by the prisoner on the morning of
the fatal day, if not obtained by him, as was sworn to, on the night
before, is left wholly uncovered and wholly unmet, without the shadow of
a defence. Alas! gentlemen, is it possible that we can come to any other
than one painful and dread conclusion? I protest I can suggest to you
none.
It is said by my learned friend, “Is it likely that Mr. Palmer should
have purchased strychnia at Rugeley when he might have got it in
London?” I admit the fact. I feel the force of the observation. If he
could have shown that he had done anything with this strychnia--if he
could have shown any legitimate purpose to which it was intended to be
applied, and to which it was afterwards applied--then I should say that
it would be an argument worthy of your gravest and most attentive
consideration. But just see on the one hand how the fact may stand. He
was in town on the Monday, and he had the opportunity, as my learned
friend suggests, of purchasing strychnia there. But on the other hand he
had much to do; he had his train to catch by a certain time; he had in
the meanwhile his pecuniary embarrassments to solve if he could. Time
may have flown too fast for him to be able to go and obtain this
strychnia; and even if he had had time, I do not believe it is sold in
chemists’ shops in London without the name of the party purchasing it as
a voucher. If he had given his name, of course, it would have been still
worse if he had bought strychnia in London than if he had bought it in
Rugeley. I do not say that it is not worthy of your consideration, that
it is not a difficulty in the case; but I say there is plain, distinct,
positive proof of the purchase of strychnia, and under circumstances
which cannot fail to lead to the conclusion that he shrank from the
observation of Newton at the time he was buying it; and there is a total
absence of all proof, nay, of all suggestion, of any legitimate purpose
to which that fatal poison was to be, or was in point of fact,
afterwards actually applied.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
Then, gentlemen, it is said that there are two other circumstances in
the case which make strongly in favour of the prisoner, and negative the
presumption of a guilty intention, and those are, the fact that he
called in two medical men. Here, again, I admit that this is a matter to
which all due consideration ought to be given. He called in Dr. Bamford
on the Saturday, and he wrote to Mr. Jones on the Sunday, and desired
his presence to attend his sick friend. It is perfectly true that he
did. It is perfectly true, as medical men, they would be likely to know
the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia, and they would be likely to
suspect that death had ensued from it; and yet even here it strikes me
that there is a singular inconsistency in the defence. See the strange
contradiction in which the witnesses called for the defence involve my
learned friend who puts them forward, if all those symptoms were not the
symptoms of strychnia. If they are referable to all the multiform
variety of disease to which those witnesses have spoken, why, then,
should Mr. Palmer have the credit of having selected medical men who
would be likely to know from those symptoms that they were symptoms of
strychnia? I pass that by; it is not a matter of very much importance.
It is true that he did have those two medical men. He called in old Dr.
Bamford. I speak of that gentleman in terms of perfect respect; but I
think I do him no injustice if I say that the vigour of his intellect
and his power of observation have been impaired, as all human powers are
liable to be impaired, by the advancing hand of time. I do not think he
was a person likely to make very shrewd observations upon any symptoms
exhibited to him, either immediately after death or upon the subsequent
examination of the body; and the best proof of that is to be found in
that which he has actually done and written with reference to this case.
As regards Mr. Jones the same observation does not apply. He was a young
man in the full possession of his intellect and the professional
knowledge which he had acquired. Nevertheless, about him the
observations I am about to address to you I think are not unworthy of
notice. The prisoner at the bar selected his men well, for what has come
to pass shows how wisely he judged of what was likely to take place.
This death occurred in the presence of Mr. Jones, with all those fearful
symptoms which you have heard described; yet Mr. Jones suspected
nothing; and if Mr. Stevens had not exhibited that sagacity and firmness
which he did manifest in the after parts of this transaction, and if Mr.
Palmer had succeeded in getting that body hastily introduced into the
strong oak coffin that he had had made for it, the body would have been
consigned to the grave, and nobody would have been aught the wiser. The
presence of Mr. Jones, and the presence of Dr. Bamford, would not have
led to detection, would not have frustrated the designs with which I
shall presently contend before you this death was brought about.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
On the other hand, gentlemen, the matter is perhaps capable of this
aspect, it may have been that a man whose cunning was equal to his
boldness may have thought it the best course to adopt to avoid
suspicion--to prevent its possibility--was to take care that medical men
should be called in and should be present at the time of death; nor is
there anything to show that the prisoner had the most distant notion
that Mr. Jones intended to sleep in this room that night; and if he had
not the man would have been found dead in the morning; he would have
gone through his mortal struggle and intense and fearful agony; he would
have died there alone and unbefriended; he would have been found dead
the next morning; the old man would have said it was apoplexy, and the
young man would have put it down to epilepsy. If any one had whispered a
suspicion, the same argument would have been used which has been used
now with so much power and force by my learned friend. Can you imagine
that the man would have called in medical men to be the witnesses of a
death which he himself was bringing about? But, gentlemen, as I have
already said, if you believe the evidence of Newton, and if you believe
that that same night pills were administered to Cook by Palmer--and
that, I believe, will be your opinion and conclusion, notwithstanding
that wretched witness to-day said he heard Cook say to Palmer that he
had taken the pills already, because he, Palmer, was late, whereas the
woman witness, Mills, told you that the next morning Cook reminded her
that his agony was such as she never could have witnessed in any human
being, and he told her he ascribed it to the pills which Palmer had
given him at half-past ten--if you believe that statement, and that the
pills were given him by Palmer at half-past ten, and you find that
Palmer a few short minutes, perhaps, before went to Newton, and got the
poison from Newton, and you find upon that night the first paroxysms,
though not so violent and not fatal, yet similar and analogous in
character to those which preceded the death, can you doubt on the first
night the poison was administered to him? though with what purpose I
know not; I can only speculate--whether it was to bring about by some
minute dose convulsions which should not have the complete character of
tetanus, but would bear a resemblance to natural convulsions which
should justify his saying afterwards that the man had had a fit, and so
prepare those who should hear of it on the next night, when the death
was to ensue, for the belief that it was merely a succession of the same
description of fit that he had had before. That is one solution. The
other may be that he attempted on that Monday night to carry out his
fell purpose to its full extent, but that the poison proved
inefficacious. We hear that an adulterated form, or, at all events, an
inferior form, called bruchsia, is occasionally sold, and it may have
been that it failed in its effect. It is only one-tenth of the strength.
We know that he purchased poison on Tuesday, and that on that night Cook
died with all the symptoms of poison; and why he purchased that poison
is not in any way accounted for. The symptoms were the same on the
Tuesday night in character, though greater in degree, than they were on
the Monday; and there is found a witness who comes forward and says,
with no earthly motive to tell so foul a falsehood, “I found the
character of the convulsions the two succeeding nights the same.” I
cannot resist the conclusion to which my reasoning impels me that poison
was administered upon both nights, though it failed upon the first. I
can only speculate as to what was the cause of failure. There are the
facts, and you must deal with them.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
Alas! gentlemen, it does not stop there; there is another part of this
case which, though it may not have been the means of death, is of the
highest value in estimating the credit that is to be given to the point
which we advance of this death having been produced by strychnia--I
allude to the antimony. We have had medical men and analytical chemists
who have told us a great deal about strychnia, but not one has said a
word about antimony. On the Wednesday night, at Shrewsbury, when Cook
drinks his glass of brandy and water he fancies there is something in it
that burns his throat; he exclaims at the time, and he is seized
immediately with vomiting, which lasts for several hours. On that same
night Mrs. Brookes sees the prisoner shaking something in a glass,
evidently dissolving something in fluid. A man has been called here
to-day, the boon companion, the chosen associate, the racing confederate
of the prisoner, to come and tell you that all that story is
untrue--that the woman never came down stairs--that Palmer never carried
out the brandy and water--that there is not a word of truth in it--and
the fact is that Palmer and Cook only came in at twelve o’clock, when
Myatt, forsooth, had been waiting for two hours. Mrs. Brookes’ story is,
according to him, an entire invention from beginning to end; he swears
that he must have seen if anything had been mixed with the brandy and
water, and nothing was mixed with it. I think you will be more disposed
to believe Mrs. Brookes than to believe any of those persons who were
the associates of the prisoner, and who had been partners in his
transactions. It is a remarkable fact that Cook drinks that brandy
and water and a few minutes after is taken ill. There were other
persons taken ill at Shrewsbury; it may be within the verge of
possibility--although ten minutes after he had drunk the brandy and
water he was taken with vomiting--that it was the same form of complaint
to which other persons were subject in Shrewsbury; I do not want to
press it one jot further than it ought to go, but it is a remarkable
circumstance that the man is seen with a glass and with a fluid which he
is mixing up and holding to the light, and shortly afterwards his friend
who is drinking with him or drinking at the same table at which he is
drinking, who, if Myatt be telling the truth, was somewhat in liquor,
and ought not to have been pressed to take brandy and water--Palmer
says that he will not take anything until Cook has exhausted his
portion--and then immediately afterwards the man is taken ill. These are
circumstances not altogether incapable of producing certain impressions
upon one which it is difficult to shake off.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
Nevertheless, I pass on from that, and go to Rugeley. From the Saturday
morning until the Monday morning I find this poor man suffering under
the influence of constant vomiting; that was not the Shrewsbury
disease--he had got rid of it; he was well on Thursday and he was well
on Friday. On Saturday morning, after dining at Mr. Palmer’s, he is
taken ill; and then we have the fact of Mr. Palmer administering his
food, administering his remedies, sending over toast and water, sending
over broth; and, no sooner has this poor man taken those things than he
is seized with incessant vomitings of the most painful description. What
about the broth? The broth is said to-day by Smith to have been sent
from the Albion. Yes; and where does it find its way to? It is taken,
not to the Talbot Arms, but to the prisoner’s kitchen. After that,
instead of leaving it, as one would suppose he would leave it, to the
woman to take to the Talbot Arms, he takes it himself from the fire,
puts it into the cup, gives it to her, it is taken over, and the man
vomits immediately after he has drunk it. On the Sunday the same thing
is done again; the broth is brought from the same quarter, and attended
with the same results. Of that broth the woman takes a couple of
spoonfuls, and she is sick for several hours. She vomits twenty times,
and is unable to leave her bed for some hours. My learned friend said
she did not state that before the coroner. Nevertheless, it is sworn to
by the other servant that the woman was ill. I can quite understand why
the woman did not state it before the coroner. It shows the honesty of
the woman’s character. It did not occur to her to connect the sickness
from which she suffered with the taking of the broth; but afterwards,
when the story of the antimony came up, and Cook’s sickness was
connected with it, then she remembered perfectly well, after the
evidence had been given, how she, having taken the broth, immediately
became ill. The fact is not one capable of dispute, although it may be
that she did not mention it before the coroner. And I think you will
regard it as a very important and significant fact in the case, that, on
the Monday when Palmer is absent, Cook is better. On the Tuesday he
vomits again, though not in the same degree. But after death--now comes
the important fact--antimony is found in the tissues of that man’s body,
and his blood shows the presence of it; the blood shows distinctly that
it must have been taken recently, within the last eight-and-forty hours
previous to his death. How came it there? The small quantity that is
found does not form the slightest criterion of the quantity that had
been administered to him. Part of it, you know, would be thrown up by
the act of vomiting which it provokes; part of it would pass away in
other forms, but none would be there unless he had taken some. When did
he take it? If you find that he is suffering from vomiting for days
before his death--that a person is constantly administering things to
him, and after taking those things he vomits--when the prisoner sends
him over a basin of broth he vomits, and when the servant takes a couple
of spoonfuls she is reduced to the same condition--what other conclusion
can you come to, knowing that antimony is an irritant that will produce
vomiting and retching in the human system, than that the antimony must
have been administered to him by some one? By whom? Who but the prisoner
at the bar could have done it? My learned friend says Cook might have
taken antimony at some former time--that he might have taken James’
powder for a cold. There is not the slightest trace of evidence from the
beginning to the end of the case that he ever had a cold, or ever took
James’ powder over the whole period we are now ranging. Moreover, as I
have even now said, it was in his blood, it must have been administered
eight-and-forty hours before death; who could have administered it but
the prisoner at the bar? I ask you to form your own judgment upon that
matter, but I cannot resist the conclusion, it is irresistible. If so,
for what purpose was it administered; it is difficult to say with
anything like precision; one can only speculate upon it. It may have
been, however, to produce the appearance of natural disease, to account
for the calling in of medical men, and to account for the catastrophe
which was already in preparation; but it may also have had another and a
different object, and it is this--if we are right as to the motives
which impelled the prisoner at the bar to commit this great crime, it
was, at all events in part, that he might possess himself of the money
which Cook would have to realise upon the settling day at Tattersall’s
on Monday. If Cook went there himself the scheme was frustrated; Mr.
Cook intended to go there himself, and if he had done so the prisoner’s
designs would have failed of accomplishment. To make him ill at
Shrewsbury--to get him in consequence to go to Rugeley, instead of going
to London or anywhere else--to make him ill again and keep him ill at
Rugeley might be part of a cleverly contrived and organised scheme. It
might have been with one or other of those motives, it might have been
with both, that the antimony was administered, and so sickness produced,
but that the sickness was produced and that the antimony was afterwards
found in the body are incapable of dispute. Put them together and you
have cause and effect; and if you are satisfied that antimony was
introduced into that poor man’s body for the purpose of producing
vomiting and sickness, then, I say there is no one who could have given
it to him within that recent period but the prisoner at the bar. Neither
the doctor at Shrewsbury nor the doctor at Rugeley ever gave him one
fraction of antimony which had those natural effects which as a cause it
was certain to produce; then it will be for you to ask yourselves
whether it can have been with any other than a fell purpose and
design--with a view of paving the way for the more important act which
was afterwards to follow.
My learned friend has dealt with this case of antimony in no other way
than that which I have suggested, namely, casting out some loose,
floating, imaginary notion that at some period or other, for which no
precise date is given, he may have taken James’ powder for the purpose
of getting rid of a cold. Alas! gentlemen, I feel that so idle an
objection cannot stand between you and the conclusion which, I submit to
you, arises from the fact that this antimony was given to Mr. Cook with
a wicked design. If it was, just see the important influence which it
exercises upon the other question. If antimony was found--if antimony
can have been given with no legitimate object, and if it can only have
been given by the prisoner at the bar--how great does it render the
probability that to carry out the purpose, whatever it may be, that he
had in his mind, he gave him this strychnia, of which the deadly effects
and consequences have been but too plainly made manifest.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]