Reports of Trials for Murder by Poisoning; / by Prussic Acid, Strychnia, Antimony, Arsenic, and Aconita. Including the trials of Tawell, W. Palmer, Dove, Madeline Smith, Dr. Pritchard, Smethurst, and Dr. Lamson, with chemical introduction and notes on the poisons used

by G. Lathom Browne; active 19th century C. G. Stewart

After next reading the evidence of Wright, the attorney of Birmingham, to show how heavily Palmer was indebted to his brother, besides to Pratt, and alluding to the bill of sale of all his property, he laid great stress on the non-production of the cheque on Weatherby for £350, the production of which would have settled the question whether or not it was forged with the intention of appropriating it to his own use. Mr. Serjeant Shee here interposing with the remark that Weatherby thought the signature genuine, Lord Campbell replied:—

“Mr. Weatherby said the body of the cheque was not in Cook’s handwriting, and he had paid no attention to the signature. You, gentlemen, must consider the evidence with regard to this part of the case. The cheque is not produced, though it was sent back by Weatherby to Palmer. It is not produced” [here the judge read the evidence of the search for papers at Palmer’s]. “It might have been expected that the cheque so returned to Palmer, who professed to set store upon it, and to have given value for it, would have been found, but it is not forthcoming. It is for you to draw whatever inference may suggest itself to you from this circumstance.”

The judge then alluded to the fact of Palmer remaining in the neighbourhood after suspicion had been excited against him, as of importance, and worthy of being taken into consideration, though, as he added, “he might have done so, perhaps, thinking that from the care he had taken nothing would be discovered against him,” and that neither the bills nor the document by which Cook was said to have admitted his liability on them were produced, and closed this portion of the evidence.

On the incident of the brandy-and-water at Shrewsbury, the learned judge remarked, “What a mysterious circumstance it was, that Cook, after he had stated his suspicions, still retained his confidence in Palmer—was still constantly in his company—during the few remaining days of his life, still sent for him whenever in distress; and, in fact, seemed to a great extent to be under his influence.” In a subsequent part of his charge, when dealing with the evidence for the defence, he contrasted the evidence of Myatt in contradiction to that of Brooks and Fisher, and left the jury to draw their own conclusion which they would believe. Cook’s letter to Fisher to pay Pratt the £200 was also here read and commented on, and the jury left to infer why he did not go to London as he proposed, and why he put the collection of his bets in Herring’s hands instead of Fisher’s—“if he did so.”

Coming now to the illness at Rugeley, he said, “he was bound to declare that not one fact had been adduced to prove that Mills had been bribed, or that Mr. Stevens had read over the newspaper to her, to influence her evidence in a particular direction: it was a gratuitous assertion, unsupported by evidence, and distinctly denied.” Whether the difference of Palmer’s dress when he ran over, as described by Mills or Barnes, was of sufficient importance, was a question for the jury, and also whether Mills’s deposition before the coroner, and her evidence in Court (the deposition was read) was not substantially the same. On the letter from Palmer calling in Jones, cited by the defence as a proof of innocence, he said:—

“It is important, however, to consider at what period of Cook’s illness Jones was sent for, and in what condition he was when Jones arrived. Palmer’s assertion in the letter was, that Cook had been suffering from diarrhœa, and of this statement we have not the slightest confirmation in the evidence. When Jones, looking at Cook’s tongue, observed it was not the tongue of a bilious attack, Palmer’s reply was, ‘You should have seen it before.’ What reason could Palmer have for using these words, when there is not the slightest evidence of Cook having suffered from such an illness?” Then, having had Jones’s deposition before the coroner read, he added, “It is for you to say whether in your opinion this deposition at all varies from his evidence given here: I confess that I see no variation, and no reason to suppose that his evidence is not the evidence of sincerity and truth.”

After observing that the evidence of Dr. Savage showed that previous to his departure for Shrewsbury Cook was in better health than he had been for a long time, the learned judge read the evidence of Newton, and his deposition before the coroner. Remarking on his omitting to mention the first purchase of strychnia until the Tuesday morning, when coming to London, he said:—

“You will observe that though there has been an omission, there is no contradiction. You are then to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked lie—a most important lie, if lie it be. He had no ill will towards the prisoner at the bar, he had never quarrelled with him, and had nothing to get by injuring him. I cannot see any motive for his inventing a lie to take away the life of the prisoner. No inducement was held out to him by the Crown. He says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that at last he disclosed this circumstance from a sense of duty. If you believe his evidence, it is very strong against the prisoner.” And then, reading the evidence of Roberts and remarking that he was not cross-examined or in any way contradicted, he added—“If you couple that with the statement of Newton—believing that statement—you have evidence of strychnia having been procured by the prisoner on the Monday night before the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited by Cook; and by the evidence of Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on Tuesday six grains of strychnia were supplied to him. Supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Cook were consistent with strychnia, then a case is made out for the Crown. The learned counsel did not favour us with the theory he had formed in his own mind with respect to that strychnia. There is no evidence—there is no suggestion—how it was applied; what became of it.[70] That must not influence your verdict, unless you come to the conclusion that Cook’s symptoms were consistent with death by strychnia. But if you come to that conclusion, I should shrink from my duty—I should be unworthy to sit here—if I did not call your attention to the inference, that if he purchased that strychnia, he purchased it for the purpose of administering it to Cook.”

Then, after vindicating the conduct of Mr. Stevens in relation to the loss of the betting-book, Lord Campbell alluded to the pushing of the jar, at the post-mortem, as probably an accident, and its removal as “nothing more than the pushing, were it not coupled with evidence afterwards given, which might lead to the inference that there was a plan to destroy it and prevent the analysis of its contents.” He saw no reason to doubt the evidence of the postboy, and did not believe that Stevens had given Palmer such provocation as to induce him to offer Myatt a bribe to upset him. “That is not indeed a decisive proof of guilt, but it is for you to say whether the prisoner did not enter on that contrivance to prevent an opportunity of examining the jar, which might contain evidence against him.”