In his summing up of the evidence the judge, Baron Parker, said with reference to one of the contentions of the prisoner’s counsel: “If the evidence satisfies you that the death was occasioned by poison, and that poison was administered by the prisoner it is not necessary to give direct and positive proof of what is the quantity which would destroy life, nor is it necessary to prove that such quantity was found in the body of the deceased, if the other facts lead you to the conclusion that the death was occasioned by poison and that it was knowingly administered by the prisoner.”
Referring to the argument that there was no proof that the deceased might not have died from the effect of a sudden emotion he pointed out that they were not to have recourse to mere conjecture; that where the result of the evidence gave them the existence of a cause to which the death might be rationally attributed they were not to suppose without a reason for doing so, that it was to be attributed to any other cause.
As has already been mentioned, the evidence convinced the jury of the guilt of the prisoner, and he was sentenced to death.
CHAPTER XIV
NOTABLE POISONING TRIALS
Use of Poisons—Arsenic and Antimony—Chapman Case—Strychnine in Palmer Trial—Physiological Tests—Case of Freeman—Error from Quantitative Deductions—Poisonous Food Given to Animals—Mary Higgins—Negative Result of Physiological Tests—Hyoscyamus Poisons—Crippen Case—Experiment on Cats—Time Limit for Action of Arsenic—French Case.
The use of poisons but little known at the time has generally been due to a special knowledge of their properties on the part of the poisoner, who has hoped in this way to escape detection, and, in fact, has often done so.
Arsenic, which has always been a favourite with ignorant poisoners, is cumulative in its action, and remains in the system for a long time after it has been taken. It has a remarkable preservative effect upon the tissues, which it will keep for an indefinite length of time from decomposition. There is, therefore, little difficulty in detecting and identifying it in a body years after a crime has been committed.