“I did not make an entry of any of those things in our books; if
articles are sold over the counter and paid for at the time, we do not
enter them in our books.” Now, gentlemen, this is the evidence of Mr.
Roberts, which is most important, for he is not cross-examined as to the
veracity of his testimony, nor is it contradicted at all. It is not
denied that on this Tuesday morning the prisoner at the bar got 6 grains
of strychnia from Mr. Roberts. If you couple that with the evidence of
Mr. Newton, believing that, then you will have positive evidence of
strychnia being procured by the prisoner at the bar; that the symptoms
of strychnia were exhibited in Mr. Cook, the deceased; and you have the
evidence of Mr. Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on the Tuesday
the 6 grains of strychnia were supplied. Now, gentlemen, if you believe
both, a very serious case is adduced, supposing you should come to the
conclusion that the symptoms of Mr. Cook were consistent with that
poison. If you think the symptoms are accounted for by merely ordinary
tetanus, of course the fact of strychnia being obtained by the prisoner
at the bar is entitled to very little weight; but if you should come to
the conclusion that the symptoms which Mr. Cook exhibited on the Monday
night and Tuesday night are consistent with strychnia, then a fearful
case is made out against him. Gentlemen, I have listened with the most
anxious attention to know what explanation would be given respecting the
strychnia that was purchased on the Tuesday morning. The learned counsel
for the prisoner told us that we must believe nothing, that he would
combat and disprove everything, and no doubt, according to his
instructions, he very properly denied that Mr. Newton was to be
believed; and, disbelieving Mr. Newton, you have no evidence of any
strychnia being obtained on the Monday evening; but, disbelieving Mr.
Newton and believing Mr. Roberts, you have evidence of 6 grains of
strychnia having been obtained on the Tuesday morning, and no
explanation is given of it. The learned counsel did not favour us with
the theory which he had formed in his own mind respecting that
strychnia, and how he considered it to be consistent with the view that
he suggested. There is no evidence of the intention with which it was
purchased; there is no evidence how it was applied, what became of it,
or what was done with it.
Then I say, gentlemen, that it will not at all influence your verdict
unless you come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Mr. Cook were
consistent with a death by strychnia; but if you come to that conclusion
I should shrink from my duty, and I should be unworthy to sit here, if I
did not draw to your consideration the importance of the testimony and
the inference it may afford of the death having been occasioned by
strychnia, and that that was administered by the prisoner.
[The evidence as to the post-mortem was then read, and that of the
postboy, of Cheshire, the postmaster, and several others, without
comment of material importance. Passing to the scientific witnesses, his
lordship said--“Now, gentlemen, you are called upon to form your opinion
as to the opinion of scientific men respecting the appearance of the
symptoms that Cook exhibited, and how far they can be accounted for by
natural disease, and how far also, upon the evidence, they are
consistent with strychnia. Whether they agree with traumatic or
idiopathic tetanus, whatever it may be, or whether the symptoms
correspond with a natural disease, and do not correspond with strychnia,
is a matter that is of very great importance for you to consider.” Until
his lordship reached Dr. Taylor the scientific evidence was read to the
jury with no material comments.]
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
The next witness is Dr. Taylor. Now, gentlemen, here is something most
important for your consideration. You see it is very properly relied on,
on the part of the prisoner, that, though strychnia may be found in the
body by analysis, none was found upon the analysis which was made by
Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, for they, and they alone, experimented upon it,
and they could find none. We know that experiments were made by those
two individuals, and they say that, so far as their skill goes, there
may be death by strychnia and yet that strychnia cannot be detected. But
Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees state experiments that they made where the death
had been by strychnia which they themselves administered; and in at
least two of those cases where there had been death by strychnia they
could discover none. Now, it is possible that other chemists and other
medical men might have discovered strychnia in those animals, and might
have discovered strychnia in the body or in the jar which contained the
stomach of Cook, but they found none in their analysis. They found none
also in at least two cases where they killed animals by strychnia, and
afterwards did all their skill enabled them to do for the purpose of
discovering the strychnia. I thought at one time that these examinations
were made with a view to show that, if the pills prepared by Mr. Bamford
had been taken as he prepared them, mercury ought to have been found in
the body of Mr. Cook; but I think that was not pressed, and I should
think that it ought not to have any influence upon your verdict--there
was no mercury found. There was mercury in the pills which Mr. Bamford
prepared, and which Cook ought to have taken, but the simple fact of no
mercury being found in those parts of Cook’s body that were examined
ought not to have any influence upon your verdict; but that, of course,
you will judge of for yourselves. Then the learned counsel, in
cross-examination, read a passage from Orfila about a dog who had taken
antimony, and some few minutes afterwards antimony was found in the
bones, in the fat, and in the liver. (His lordship read the letter
written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardener.) You will bear in mind,
gentlemen, that was written before the symptoms were known to Dr. Taylor
and Dr. Rees, but they had been informed that prussic acid and strychnia
and opium had been bought by Palmer on the Tuesday. They search for all
these poisons and they find none; but they swear distinctly that they
found antimony in the body, and therefore, in the absence of the
symptoms, they do not impute the death to strychnia, but they say it may
possibly have been produced by antimony, because the quantity they
discovered in the body was no test of the quantity that had been
administered to the deceased. Then a letter was read which Dr. Taylor
wrote to the _Lancet_, and I must say that he would have done better to
have abstained from taking any notice whatsoever of what was said about
him, but you will say whether what he did write materially detracts from
the credit which would otherwise be due to him. I think the passage in
this letter in the _Lancet_, which was relied on, is the last passage
which I will read to you. He explains what his evidence had been, and
complains of the reports that had been spread abroad respecting him, and
then he concludes his letter thus--“In concluding this letter I would
observe that during a quarter of a century which I have now specially
devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like
those suspected of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which they will
affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with their
probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying that the
future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge,
the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of
murder which have arisen out of these investigations.” I again say that
I think it would have been better if he had trusted to the credit which
he had already acquired, instead of writing a letter to the _Lancet_;
but it is for you to say that he, having been, as he says,
misrepresented, and writing this letter to set himself right, whether
that materially detracts from the credit which is due to him.
Then Dr. Rees follows, and he corroborates the evidence given by Dr.
Taylor. Here, therefore, is Dr. Rees, whom no one can suppose to have an
interest in the matter. I do not know what interest it can be supposed
that Dr. Taylor had in the matter, for he was regularly employed in his
profession; he knew nothing about Mr. Palmer until he was called on by
Mr. Stevens to analyse the contents of the jar; he had no animosity
against him, and no interest whatever in misrepresenting the matter.
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--He said that the experiments with the two rabbits
were made after the inquest.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
LORD CAMPBELL--Certainly; it cannot matter whether they were made before
or after if they are witnesses of truth. It is the case that there was
the death of the animals by strychnia, and that after death no strychnia
could be found in the animals; and, if the experiments had been made
this morning, the effect would have been the same. Dr. Taylor has been
questioned about the indiscreet letter which he wrote to the _Lancet_
and some indiscreet conversation which he had with the editor of the
_Illustrated Times_; but with regard to Dr. Rees that imputation does
not exist, and he concurs with Dr. Taylor in the evidence that the
rabbits were killed by strychnia, and that, although they did everything
in their power, according to their skill and knowledge, to discover the
strychnia, as they did with regard to the contents of the jar, yet no
strychnia could be found. You will judge from the vomiting that took
place at Shrewsbury, and afterwards at Stafford, whether antimony may
have been administered to Cook at Shrewsbury or Stafford. Antimony may
not produce death; but it is part of the transaction, and deserves your
deliberate consideration.
The Court then adjourned.
Twelfth Day, Tuesday, 27th May, 1856.
The Court met at ten o’clock.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
LORD CAMPBELL--Gentlemen of the jury, at the adjournment of the Court
yesterday evening I had finished the task of laying before you all the
evidence on the part of the prosecution; and certainly that case, if not
answered, does present for your consideration a serious case against the
prisoner at the bar. It appears that in the middle of November he was
involved in pecuniary difficulties of the most formidable nature; he had
engagements to perform that he was unable to perform without some most
extraordinary expedients; he had to make payments for which he was
unprepared; there were actions brought against both himself and his
mother upon the forged acceptances; he had no credit in any quarter upon
which money could be raised. It so happened that at that time Cook, the
deceased, by the winning of the race on the 13th November, became the
master of at least £1000, and there is evidence from which an inference
may be drawn that the prisoner formed the design of appropriating that
money to his own use, and that he is prepared to do whatever was
necessary to accomplish that object. There is some evidence that he did
appropriate that money to the payment of debts for which he alone was
liable. There is evidence from which it may be inferred that he drew a
cheque in the name of Cook, which was a forgery, upon which to obtain
payment of part of the money which was due to Cook; and there is further
evidence that he employed Herring to collect money on the Monday and to
appropriate it to his own use. What effect would have been produced by
the survival of Cook, under such circumstances, you are to consider.
However, it appears that from Cook’s death he contemplated the advantage
of obtaining possession of the horse “Polestar,” which had belonged to
Cook; and you have evidence of his having fabricated a document which
was to declare that certain bills of exchange with which it appears that
Cook had no concern were negotiated for Cook’s advantage, and that the
prisoner at the bar had derived no benefit from them. Gentlemen, that
was brought forward after Cook’s death, and if Cook had survived that
fraud must have been exposed, and might have been punished. Then,
gentlemen, with respect to the joint liability of Cook and Palmer,
which, it is said, would now be thrown entirely upon Palmer, that was
rather a distant object; and if Palmer had got possession of all Cook’s
property by the means that he resorted to, he would not have been a
sufferer by his death. Then, gentlemen, as to the important question
whether Cook must be supposed to have died by natural disease or by
poison. You have the evidence of Sir Benjamin Brodie and other most
skilful and honourable men, who say that, in their opinion, he did not
die from natural disease; they know no natural disease in the whole
catalogue of diseases which attack the human frame that will account for
those symptoms. Further, gentlemen, the witnesses go on to say that they
believe that the symptoms that were exhibited by Cook were the symptoms
of strychnia, that they were what would be expected from strychnia, and
that, comparing those symptoms with natural tetanus, they do not
correspond with it, but they do correspond with the symptoms brought on
by a man being poisoned by the administration of strychnia. Then,
gentlemen, with respect to the consideration that no strychnia was found
in the body, that is for you to consider, and no doubt you will pay
great attention to it; but there is no point of law according to which
the poison must be found in the body of the deceased; and all that we
know respecting the poison not being in the body of Cook is that in that
part of the body that was analysed by Drs. Taylor and Rees they found no
strychnia. But witnesses of great reputation have said, Dr. Christison
among the number, that, under certain circumstances, where there has
been poison by strychnia, they would not expect the strychnia should be
detected; and you have the evidence of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, who made
the examination, that they having experimented upon animals killed by
strychnia which they themselves administered, and by resorting to the
same means that they had employed in examining the body of Cook, no
strychnia could be found.
Then, gentlemen, with regard to the length of time that occurred between
the alleged administration of the strychnia and the time that the
symptoms appeared, the evidence seems to me to lead to this conclusion,
that, where it is administered to animals with a view of making
experiments and with a view of observing its operations as quickly as
possible, it generally operates more rapidly than in the human frame
when it is put in the shape of pills, and that will depend upon the
manner in which those pills are compounded, and likewise on the state of
the health and body of the person to whom they are to be administered,
and whether there may or may not have been any previous tampering with
the health of that person. Instances are referred to where, even in the
human body, a greater space of time has elapsed than in this case
between the administration of the poison and the symptoms which were
exhibited.
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I think that is not so upon the evidence, my lord.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
LORD CAMPBELL--There are instances referred to in which it has been
detected; there have been instances referred to in the course of this
trial in which there has been as long an interval.
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--I believe that is a mistake.
LORD CAMPBELL--With regard to there being no blood in the heart, which
seems to have been relied upon, it appears that the result is this, that
if the death is produced by an obstruction of the respiratory organs,
producing asphyxia, the blood is found in the heart; but if it be
produced by a spasm upon the heart itself, the heart contracts, the
blood is expelled, and no blood is found after death. Now, taking the
evidence before us, there are two instances where that took place.
Then, gentlemen, we have to look to the evidence as it implicates the
prisoner at the bar. You must consider the evidence to show that he must
have tampered with the health of the deceased, by administering
something to him in the brandy and water, in the broth, and in the other
things which were administered to him at Rugeley. One part of the broth
was taken by Elizabeth Mills, as she swears, and the consequence which
followed, according to her evidence and the evidence of Lavinia Barnes,
was that she was taken ill with a vomiting in the stomach as Cook the
deceased had been.
Then, gentlemen, you have antimony found in the body of the deceased;
antimony, which would show that tartar emetic, producing vomiting, had
been administered, and it seems to be clearly proved that that substance
was found in his body, from what source you are to say from the evidence
before you.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
Then, gentlemen, comes the more direct evidence that the prisoner at the
bar, if you believe the witnesses, procured this very poison on the
Monday and on the Tuesday--3 grains, I think, on the Monday, and 6 on
the Tuesday. For what purpose was that obtained? The evidence of the
witness who swears to the poison being obtained on the Monday is
impeached, but no impeachment rests upon the evidence of the witness who
swears to the poison being sold by him on the Tuesday to the prisoner at
the bar. You have no account of that poison; what was the intention with
which it was purchased, and what was the application of it, you are to
infer. Then, gentlemen, it is impossible that you should not pay
attention to the conduct of the prisoner at the bar, and there are some
instances of his conduct which you will say whether they belong to what
might be expected from an innocent or a guilty man. He was eager to have
the body fastened down in the coffin. Then, with regard to the betting
book, there is certainly evidence from which you may infer that he did
get possession of the betting book, that he abstracted it and concealed
it. Then, gentlemen, you must not omit his conduct in trying to bribe
the postboy to overturn the carriage in which the jar was being
conveyed, to be analysed in London, and from which evidence might be
obtained of his guilt. Again, you find him tampering with the
postmaster, and procuring from the postmaster the opening of a letter
from Dr. Taylor, who had been examining the contents of the jar, to Mr.
Gardner, the attorney employed upon the part of Mr. Stevens. And then,
gentlemen, you have tampering with the coroner, and trying to induce him
to procure a verdict from the coroner’s jury which would amount to an
acquittal. These are serious matters for your consideration, but you,
and you alone, will say what inference is to be drawn from them. If not
answered, they certainly present a serious case for your consideration.
It is for you to say whether the answer is satisfactory. Either you may
be of opinion that the case on the part of the prosecution is
insufficient, or you may be of opinion that the answer to it is
satisfactory.
Then, gentlemen, that answer consists of two parts--first, of the
medical evidence, and, secondly, of the evidence of facts. With regard
to the medical evidence, I must say that there were examined on the part
of the prisoner a number of gentlemen of high honour and solid integrity
and proved scientific knowledge, who came here only to speak the truth
and assist in the administration of justice. You may be of opinion that
others came whose object was to procure an acquittal of the prisoner.
Gentlemen, it is material, in the due administration of justice, that a
witness should not be turned into an advocate, any more than an advocate
should be turned into a witness. It is for you to say whether some of
those who were called on the part of the prisoner did not belong to the
category which I described as witnesses becoming advocates.
Gentlemen, the first witness on the part of the prisoner was Mr. Thomas
Nunneley. (The learned judge read the evidence of Mr. Nunneley and the
documents therein referred to.) You will recollect what he says, and you
will form your opinion as to the weight that is to be given to it. He
certainly seemed to me to give his evidence in a manner not quite
becoming a witness in a Court of justice, but you will give all
attention to the facts to which he refers in the evidence he gave. He
differs very materially in his general opinion from several of the
witnesses who were examined on the part of the prosecution. He speaks of
there being an extraordinary rigidity of the body after death, when
there has been a death of this description, with other symptoms, and he
attaches considerable importance to the heart being empty, but you will
say what weight ought to be attached to his opinion.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
Mr. William Herapath is then called. (The examination-in-chief of Mr.
Herapath was read.) He seems to differ from Mr. Nunneley with respect to
the rigidity produced by this poison. Now, gentlemen, Mr. Herapath is a
very skilful chemist, and I have no doubt he spoke sincerely what he
thought, and what was his opinion? That when there has been death by
strychnia, strychnia ought to be discovered; but it seems he intimated
an opinion on this very case of Cook that there might have been
strychnia, and that Dr. Taylor did not use the proper means to detect
it. Now, the only evidence that we have in this case that there was not
strychnia is the analysis by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees that they did not
discover it. As I before pointed out to you, in two other cases in which
there certainly had been poisoning by strychnia the result was the
same--they could not discover it.
Then the next witness is Mr. Rogers. Now, this is a gentleman whom there
seems no reason to doubt; there seems no reason to doubt the facts that
he stated, and that he does sincerely entertain the opinion that he
expresses; and, according to his evidence, where there has been
strychnia mixed with impure matter, it may be expected that it would be
detected by skilful experimentalists, and by using the proper tests.
Then Dr. Letheby is called; he is the medical officer of health to the
city of London and of the London Hospital. I doubt not that Dr. Letheby
speaks sincerely, and according to his experience and opinion, but he
does say truly that cases vary very much, and that there may be cases
which he calls “exceptional,” alluding to the case of the lady at
Romsey; and it may probably be the fair result that enough of this
disease is not known to be aware of all its varieties, and that any
peculiarity that may arise where there is strong probability of
strychnia having been administered would not be anything like conclusive
evidence to rebut that result.
Then Mr. Robert Gray is examined. Now, gentlemen, here you have a case
of what is called idiopathic tetanus; but you are to say whether from
this you can infer that the illness of Mr. Cook was idiopathic tetanus.
The great weight of evidence seems to me to show that it was not
idiopathic any more than traumatic tetanus; but that whatever form of
disease it might be, it would not be idiopathic tetanus; and you will
find that the symptoms vary most materially in their appearance from the
case that is here detailed in the duration as well as the rest of the
course of events.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
The next witness that was called was Mr. Brown Ross. Now, gentlemen, I
do not know for what purpose the case alluded to by Mr. Ross was brought
before you, unless to lead to an inference that Mr. Cook’s was a case of
tetanus of the same sort with this which is here described, because this
was tetanus; and I suppose it was intended that you are to infer that
Mr. Cook’s was of the same description; but whether you call it
idiopathic or traumatic, it was a case of tetanus--was directly to be
ascribed to wounds which were upon his body, and which are here
described. No such wounds were upon the body of Mr. Cook; and other
witnesses who were examined on the part of the defence say that this was
not a case of tetanus at all; but then, even in this case that has been
described, you see there were the symptoms so nearly approaching those
of strychnia that strychnia was suspected, but there was no ground for
it; and in the case described there was no ground for supposing
strychnia could by possibility be the cause of death.
The next witness is a witness worthy of all praise for the sincerity
which he exhibited. I mean Dr. Wrightson. Now, gentlemen, this witness,
who, I have no doubt, is a most scientific and a very honourable man,
speaks as a man of science, and, according to him, the poison would be
found in the body; but he speaks with proper caution, and upon his
evidence you ought to say whether, under particular circumstances, it
might not be discoverable, or whether the person seeking for it might
fail to employ the proper means for detecting it in the body.
Then comes Mr. Partridge, a most respectable gentleman, who says he has
been many years in practice as a surgeon, and is professor of anatomy at
King’s College. Now, gentlemen, you have here the opinion of a very
respectable witness as to the different topics that he touches upon; and
the most important one is that he thinks that the symptoms that were
exhibited did not correspond with what he should expect from strychnia;
but he speaks from his own experience, and you have it from the other
witnesses that the symptoms vary considerably in different cases.