The Most Extraordinary Trial of William Palmer, for the Rugeley Poisonings, which lasted Twelve Days

by Anonymous

Now in two cases of death from strychnine we have shown that the patient has endured the rubbing of his limbs, and received satisfaction from that rubbing. We produced a third case. In Mrs. Smyth’s case, when her legs were distorted, she prayed and entreated that she might have them straightened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunneley himself attended, implored her husband, between the spasms, to rub her legs and arms in order to overcome the rigidity. That case was within his own knowledge; and yet in spite of it, although he detected strychnine in the body of the unhappy woman, he dares to say that Cook’s having tolerated the rubbing between the paroxysms is a proof that he had not taken strychnia. But there is a third case—the case of Clutterbuck. He had taken an overdose of strychnia, and suffered from the re-appearance of tetanus, and his only comfort was to have his legs rubbed. And, therefore, I say that the continued endeavour to persuade a jury that the fact of Cook’s having had his neck rubbed proves that this is not tetanus by strychnia, shows nothing but the dishonesty and insincerity of the witnesses who have so dared to pervert the facts. But they go further, and say that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the paroxysms came on; but nobody has ever pretended that he could swallow afterwards. He swallowed the pills, and, what is very curious, and illustrates part of the theory, is this—that it was the act of swallowing the pills, a sort of movement in raising his head, which brought on the violent paroxysm in which he died. So far from militating against the supposition that this was a case of strychnine, the fact strongly confirms it. Then they call our attention to the appearances after death, and they say there are circumstances to be found which militate against this being a case of strychnine. They say the limbs became rigid either at the time of death or immediately after, and that ought not to be found in a case of strychnia. Dr. Nunneley says, “I have always found the limbs of animals become flaccid before death, and have not found them become rigid after death.” Now, I can hardly believe that statement.

The very next witness who got into the box told us that he had made two experiments upon cats, and killed them both, and he described them as indurated and contracted when he found them some hours after death. And yet the presence of rigidity in the body immediately after death is put forth by Dr. Nunneley as one of his reasons for saying this is not a death by strychnia, although Dr. Taylor told us that, in the case of one of the cats, the rigidity of the body was so great that he could hold it out by the leg in a horizontal position. Notwithstanding that evidence, Dr. Nunneley has the audacity to say that he does not believe this is a case of strychnine, because there was rigidity of the limbs, because the feet were distorted, and the hands clinched, and the muscles rigid. This shows what you are to think of the honesty of this sort of evidence, in which facts are selected because they make in favour of particular hypotheses of the party advancing them. The next thing that is said is that the heart was empty, and that in the animals operated upon by Dr. Nunneley and Dr. Letheby, the heart was full. I don’t think that applies to all cases. But it is a remarkable fact connected with the history of the poison that you never can rely upon the precise form of its symptoms and appearances. There are only certain great, leading, marked, characteristic features. We have here the main, marked, leading, characteristic features; and we have what is more, collateral incidents, similar to the cases in which the administration and the fact of death have been proved beyond all possibility of dispute. Why, in two cases which have been mentioned—that of Mrs. Smyth and the Glasgow girl—the heart was congested and empty. We know that in cases of tetanus death may result from more than one cause. All the muscles of the body are subject to the exciting action of the poison. But no one can tell in what order these muscles may be affected, or where the poisonous influence will put forth. When it arrests the play of the lungs and the breathing of the atmospheric air, the result will be that the heart is full; but if some spasm siezes on the heart, the heart will be empty. You have never any perfect certainty as to the mode in which the symptoms will exhibit themselves. But this is brought forward as a conclusive fact against death by strychnine, and yet these men who make this statement under the sanction of scientific authority, have heard both cases spoken to by the gentlemen who examined the bodies. Then with regard to congestion of the brain, and other vessels, the same observation applies. Instead of being killed by action on the respiratory muscles of the heart, death is the result of a long series of paroxysms, and you expect to find the brain and other vessels congested by that series of convulsive spasms. As death takes place from one or other of these causes, so will the appearances be. There is every reason to believe that the symptoms in this case were symptoms of tetanus in the strongest and most aggravated form. Looking at the symptoms which attended this unhappy man, setting aside the theory of convulsions of epilepsy, of arachnitis, and angina pectoris, and excluding idiopathic and traumatic tetanus—what remains? The tetanus of strychnine, and the tetanus of strychnine alone. And I pray your attention to the cases in which there was no question as to strychnine having been administered in which the symptoms were so similar—the symptoms so analogous—that I think you cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that this death was death by strychnine.

Several witnesses of the highest eminence, both on the part of the Crown and for the defence, agree that in the whole range of their experience, observation, and knowledge, they have known of no natural disease to which these remarkable symptoms can be attributed. That being so, and there being a known poison, which will produce them, how strong, how cogent, how irresistible is the conclusion that it is that poison, and that poison alone, to which they are to be attributed. On the other hand, the case is not without its difficulties. Strychnia was not found in this body, and we have it no doubt upon strong evidence, that in a great variety of experiments upon the bodies of animals, killed by strychnia, strychnia has been detected by tests which science placed at the disposal of scientific men. If strychnia had been found, of course there would have been no difficulty in the case, and we should have had none of the ingenious theories which medical gentlemen have been called here to propound. The question for your consideration is, whether the absence of its detection leads conclusively to the view that this death was not caused by the administration of strychnia. Now, in the first place, under what circumstances was the examination made by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees. They told us that the stomach of the man was brought to them for analysation under the most unfavourable circumstances. They state that the contents of the stomach had been lost, and therefore they had no opportunity of experimenting upon them. It is true that they who put the portions of the body into the jar make statements somewhat different. But there appears to have been by accident some spilling of the contents, and there is the most undeniable evidence of considerable bungling in the way in which the stomach had been cut and placed in the jar. It was cut, says Dr. Taylor, from end to end, and it was tied up at both ends. It had been turned among the intestines, and placed amongst a mass of feculent matter, and was in the most unsatisfactory condition for analysation. It is very true that Dr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and Dr. Sotheby say that whatever impurities there may have been, if strychnia had been in the stomach they would have found strychnia there. I should have had every confidence in the testimony of Mr. Herapath if he had not confessed a fact which had come to my knowledge, that he had asserted that this was a case of poisoning, but that they did not go the right way to find it out. I reverence the man who, from a sense of justice and love of truth, will come forward in favour of any man for the purpose of stating what he believes to be true; but I abhor the trafficked testimony which I regret to see men of science sometimes advance. But, assuming all they say to be true, as to the case of detecting strychnine, is it certain that it can be found in all cases? Dr. Taylor says no; and it would be a most mischievous and dangerous proposition to assert that it is necessarily so, for it enables many a guilty man to escape, who, by administering the smallest quantity necessary to destroy life, might prevent its detection in the stomach.

What have these gentlemen done? They have given large doses in the experiments they have made for the purposes of this case, in which they have been retained—I use the word “retained,” for it is the proper word—in all these cases, I say, they have given doses large enough to be detected. But the gentlemen who made the experiments in Cook’s case failed in detecting strychnine in two cases out of four in which they had administered it to animals. The conclusion I draw is that there is no positive mode of detection. But this case does not rest here. Alas, I wish it did! I must now draw your attention to one part of the case which has not been met or attempted to be disputed in the slightest degree by my learned friend. My learned friend said that he would contest the case for the prosecution step by step. Alas! we are now upon ground upon which my friend has not even ventured a word in explanation. Was the prisoner at the bar possessed of the poison of strychnia? This is a matter with which it behoved my learned friend to deal, and to exhaust all the means in his power in order to meet this part of the case. The prisoner obtained possession of strychnia on the Monday night. It is true that the evidence of the man who sold the strychnia to Palmer, as I stated at the outset of these proceedings, and I repeat it now, must be received with care and attention. Now Newton said that on the night when Palmer came back from London, he came to him and obtained three grains of that poison, the symptoms and effects of which are precisely similar to those which are stated to have occurred in the case of this poor man. With respect to the evidence of Newton, my learned friend has done no more than repeat the warning which I gave you at the commencement of the case. You have heard the reason assigned by the witness why he did not state the fact of his having sold strychnine to the prisoner on the previous evening, before the coroner, and you will judge of the value of the explanation which he gave. Upon the other hand, there is the consideration, what conceivable motive could this young man have had for now coming forward and deposing to the fact of his having sold this poison to the prisoner, except a sense of truth. My learned friend has very justly and very properly asked for your most attentive consideration to the question of the motives involved in this part of the evidence, before you can come to the conclusion of the prisoner having taken away, with malice and forethought, the life of another.

Hideous though may be the crime of taking away life by poison, it is probably not so horrible to contemplate as the motive of a judicial murder effected by a false witness against a man’s life. Can you suppose that this young man Newton could have the shadow of any such motive in coming forward in a court like this to take away the life of the prisoner at the bar, as, alas! his evidence must do, if you believe him. If you believe the witness that, on the Monday night, for no other conceivable and assignable purpose except the deed of darkness to be committed that night, the prisoner at the bar obtained from him the fatal means and instrument whereby Cook was to be destroyed, it is impossible that you can come to any other conclusion than that the prisoner is guilty of the foul deed with which he stands charged at the bar. My learned friend says that Newton did not speak truth, because, first, he did not make this statement before the coroner; and, secondly, because Newton laid the time of Palmer’s arrival at nine o’clock, whereas he did not arrive until ten o’clock. Now Newton only stated that it was about nine o’clock, and every one knows how easy it is to make a slight mistake as to the hour when there is nothing particular to fix the event on the memory. My learned friend has sought to meet this part of the case. He has produced a witness, all I can say of whom is, that for the sake of the prisoner at the bar, I trust you will not allow him to be affected by anything which that most disreputable witness, Jeremiah Smith, has stated. Now Dr. Bamford said that Palmer told him he had himself seen Cook between nine and ten o’clock, while Smith said that they did not leave the car until past ten o’clock. With respect to the evidence of Smith that he saw Palmer alight from the car, go from thence to the house of Palmer’s mother, I ask you not to believe one single word of it, because I do not myself believe a single word of his evidence. Certainly such a miserable spectacle as that witness in the box, I have never seen surpassed in a court of justice. He is a member of the legal profession, and I blush that such a member is to found upon the rolls. There was not one who heard his evidence who was not satisfied that the man came here to tell a falsehood—not one who was not convinced that he was mixed up in many of the villanies which, if not perpetrated, were, at all events, contemplated, and that he came here to save the life of his companion and friend, and the son of the woman with whom he had that intimacy the nature of which he sought in vain to disguise. I cannot but think that, looking to the whole of this part of the case, you must believe the evidence of Newton, and if you do so believe it, then that evidence is conclusive of the case. But the case does not stop there, because we have the most indisputable evidence that on the following day Palmer purchased more strychnine at the shop of Mr. Hawkins.

You remember the circumstance connected with that purchase, Palmer’s first asking for some prussic acid, and then ordering some strychnine to be put up for him, Newton coming in, and the prisoner calling him out of the shop to speak to him of the most unimportant matters. Why did the prisoner take Newton out of the shop? Evidently because he wished to avoid exciting suspicions which would very naturally be raised in the mind of Newton, from the fact of the prisoner having purchased strychnia on two occasions, and who would very naturally inquire for what purpose it was that the prisoner wanted nine grains of strychnine. Why did the prisoner go to Hawkins’s shop to purchase the poison? The reason was clear. If he had gone to Thirlby’s, who was his former assistant, he would naturally have asked Palmer for whom the strychnine was intended. Why the prisoner should have gone on two successive days and purchased the poison is one of those mysteries attending this case which I cannot explain. At all events, it is quite clear that he did so. But if there is some difficulty in this part of the case, there is, on the other hand, a still greater difficulty arising from the use to which this poison was to be put. If it was for the purpose of professional use, for the benefit of some patient, where is the patient, and why was he not produced? My learned friend passed over this part of the case in mysterious but significant silence. Account for that six grains of strychnia. Throw a doubt, if you please, on the purchase of the strychnine on the Monday night, but on Tuesday it is unquestionably true that six grains were purchased. If these six grains were required for the use of any patients, why were they not produced, and if for any other purpose why was it not explained?

Has there been the slightest shadow of attempt to show the use to which the poison was applied? Alas! no. Something was said at the outset about dogs which were troublesome in the paddock to the prisoner’s mares and foals, but that was proved to have been in September. And if there had been any recurrence of this annoyance why was it not proved in evidence? If it were used for the purpose of destroying dogs some one must have assisted him in the act. Why were they not called? But not only were these persons not called, they were not even named. I ask you what conclusion you can draw from these circumstances, except this one, that the death of Cook took place with all the symptoms of poison by strychnia—death in all the convulsions and throes which that deadly poison produces in the frame of man.

It is said by my learned friend that Palmer might easily have purchased strychnine at London, and that he would not have purchased it in Rugeley on two occasions, if he had intended to have used it for a criminal purpose. I admit the fact, and feel the full force of the observation; and if he could have shown any proper use to which the poison was applied, the assertion would have been one well worthy of your consideration. But, how do the facts stand with respect to Palmer’s visit to London? He might, it is true, have purchased strychnine there. But, then, on the occasion of his visit he had a great deal to do; he had to catch the train; he had pecuniary difficulties to settle and arrange; and even then it would have required the certificate of one other person in order to have obtained the strychnine, as he was not known in London as a medical practitioner. But what avail all these suppositions, when we have, on the other hand, the strong and unmistakeable evidence that the prisoner did actually purchase the strychnine at Rugeley? Well, then, it has been said that the fact of the prisoner having called in two medical men, was strong presumptive evidence to negate his guilt. It is true that he called in Dr. Bamford, and wrote to Dr. Jones to come and see Cook. Now, as medical men, it is true, that they would be very likely to know the symptoms of death by strychnine. But there is a point in this part of the case which deserves notice. If these symptoms exhibited were not those resulting from strychnia, but were referable to that multiform variety of diseases to which the witnesses have referred, there is no reason why the prisoner should have any credit for sending for these medical gentlemen. It is quite true that he called on old Dr. Bamford. I speak of that gentleman in no terms of disrespect, but still I think I do him no injustice when I say that the vigour of his intellect and the powers of his mind have been impaired, as all human powers are liable to be, by the advance of age. I do not think he was a person likely to make any very shrewd observation as to the cause of the death of Cook; and the best proof of this is to be found in what he did and what he wrote on the subject.

As regards Mr. Jones, these observations do not apply, for he was a man in the possession of the full powers of mind. The prisoner selected Jones, and the result proved how wise he was in making that selection. The death of Cook occurred in the presence of Jones, with all those painful symptoms you have heard described, and yet Jones suspected nothing, and if the prisoner had succeeded in introducing Cook’s body into that “strong oak coffin” which he had made for him, the body would have been consigned to the grave, and nobody would have known anything of these proceedings, while the presence of Jones and Dr. Bamford would have been used to prevent any suspicion. On the other hand, it is not at all improbable that the prisoner might have thought that the best mode of disarming all suspicions would be to take care that some medical men should be called in, and should be present at the time of death. There is nothing to show that the prisoner entertained the most distant notion that Jones would have to sleep in the same room as Cook, and if this had not been the case, they would have found in the morning that Cook had gone through his mortal struggle, and had died there alone and unfriended. Cook would have been found dead next morning, and the old man would have said he died of apoplexy, and the young man that he died of epilepsy; and had any suspicion been awakened, it would have been urged in reply, as it has been by my learned friend, that two medical men were called in by the prisoner previous to his death. But the case does not end here. We have had a great many witnesses who have told us a great deal about strychnia, but none that have said a word about antimony.

On the Wednesday night, at Shrewsbury, when Cook drank a glass of brandy and water, he said that there was something in it which burned his throat, and was afterwards seized with vomiting, which lasted for several hours. On that same night, Mrs. Brooks saw the prisoner shaking something in a glass. It is a remarkable fact, that when Cook drank that brandy and water, he was taken ill a few minutes after. There were, it is true, other persons taken ill at Shrewsbury about the same time; but still you will have to bear in mind that scene of the shaking up of the fluid in the glass in the passage, the fact that Cook was somewhat in liquor, and that in that state he ought not to have been told by the prisoner that he would not drink any more unless he finished his glass. Pass on, however, to Rugeley. You still find that Cook was under the influence of the same symptoms as those which he suffered at Shrewsbury. You have the fact of the prisoner sending him over toast and water and broth, and that no sooner had the poor man taken these things than he is seized with incessant vomitings of the most painful character. Then, too, there was the broth, said to have been sent by Smith from the Albion, which was sent, however, not to the Talbot Inn, but to the prisoner’s kitchen. This broth was taken over to the Talbot by the prisoner himself, and as soon as it was touched by Cook, vomitings followed. There is, too, the fact that the servant at the Talbot, after taking two spoonfuls of the broth, was ill for several hours, and vomited something like twenty times. Then, again, on the Monday, when the prisoner was absent, Cook was found to be better; but upon the Tuesday, when he returned to Rugeley, the vomitings again returned. Now, the important fact is, that antimony was found in the tissues of the poor man’s body, and in his blood; and the presence of the antimony in the blood shows that it must have been taken within the last forty-eight hours before death. The small quantity found does not afford, however, the slightest criterion of the whole quantity administered. A part of the quantity given would be thrown up in the vomiting.