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

THE DEFENCE.

The nature of the defence opened by Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, in his long and eloquent address to the jury has already been indicated by his cross-examination of the medical witnesses, and was so fully commented on by the learned judge in his charge to the jury that it is needless to reprint it. On its conclusion residents at Berkhampstead who had known him for several years, testified to the good character which he had borne for kindness, charity, and benevolence, and a Mr. Richards, of Dover, and a Captain Dillon, who had both known him abroad—the latter for nearly thirty years—gave similar evidence of his kind, charitable, and hospitable disposition. On the conclusion of this evidence Baron Parke adjourned the Court to the next morning, when he gave the following exhaustive charge to the jury.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

After the usual introductory caution to the Jury to be strictly impartial, Baron Parke said:—

“He would next tell them what the case was, and how it was to be proved. It was to be proved by circumstantial evidence—the only sort of evidence that could be obtained in most cases of a similar nature. The most atrocious crimes were committed in secret, but Providence had so ordered it that some traces were frequently left which were sufficient to lead to the discovery of the perpetrators. The law, therefore, wisely provided that direct proof of crime was not absolutely necessary; but on the other hand it was equally necessary that by circumstantial evidence the case should be so fully made out as to leave no rational doubt of its committal. He should, therefore, advise them to lay down the rule, that they should first consider what had been proved to their satisfaction, and then whether all those facts were consistent with the guilt of the prisoner. If they thought that they were consistent with his guilt—and there was nothing inconsistent with it except the prisoner’s previous character—then they should consider whether they were inconsistent with his innocence, and they should remember that the existence of the crime was not inconsistent with the other parts of the case. Whilst on this part of the case, he should observe that the counsel for the prisoner had admitted all those facts, but had asserted that the law required not only that those facts should be proved, but that it should be shown directly that the deceased had died from poison, and that a sufficient quantity of poison to cause death had been found in her stomach. That was not true of the law. It was not necessary to give direct and positive evidence in every step of the case. There was no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, if the evidence was sufficient to satisfy their minds that death had ensued from poison. It was not necessary to prove what quantity of that poison was necessary to produce death by the testimony of the person who had actually seen death produced by it; nor was it necessary to prove that such a quantity as would destroy life was actually found in the body. If they were satisfied that the prisoner administered poison to the deceased, and that she died of it, it was not necessary to prove what quantity had been administered to her. The only positive fact which the law required to be proved was the finding of the body, where such was possible. The body of the deceased having been found, it was to be considered whether the prisoner administered poison to her—whether it had been administered to her by the prisoner or by herself. The only allegation that she had done so was that of the prisoner himself, and if the jury thought the extraordinary story told by him was worthy of credit, it would agree with the latter mode of accounting for her death. But if they did not believe it, they had no other conclusion left than that he had committed the crime imputed to him.”

The learned judge then proceeded to comment on the evidence of Mrs. Ashley, and others, who deposed to the perfect health and good spirits of the deceased up to a few minutes of the discovery of her lifeless body, and to the medical evidence of the perfect state of her internal bodily organs, leaving no doubt that she had not died from natural causes. He then went to the evidence of Messrs. Champneys and Pickering, the surgeons, who, on opening the body of the deceased on the day following her death smelt the odour of the prussic acid.[17] “There, then,” he said, “was evidence at once of the presence of prussic acid in the stomach on the day following a sudden death accompanied by appearances, such as would be symptomatic of sudden death from that powerful poison. Mr. Cooper, the chemist, analysed the contents of the stomach subsequently and obtained a quantity of pure Prussian blue from it, and before he proceeded further with the evidence on this point, he would observe, that the jury should never lose sight of the conduct of the prisoner during the whole of the proceedings. He then proceeded to comment on the evidence of the presence of prussic acid in the stomach immediately after death, and the allegation of the Prisoner’s counsel, that it was producible from apples, and that it might have been produced from natural causes in the stomach, which contained a quantity of apple pulp. He pointed out that from all the medical evidence, it was proved that, that acid was contained not in the apple, but in the pip, and that pips were not found in the pulp in the deceased’s stomach. It was also proved that prussic acid had been obtained from the pips themselves only by a process of distillation, and was not produced by the mere natural process of digestion.[18] No one would die from eating apple pips, although a person might be killed by the prussic acid obtained from them by a chemist. Besides, the action of the acid was sudden and immediate, and the deceased had died in the manner she would have done after suddenly swallowing some.”

With respect to the evidence regarding the odour of the acid being perceptible under this or that circumstance, said the Judge:—

“All that could be inferred was, that though the perception of it was a positive proof of its presence, the non-perception was no proof of its not being present. As to the deceased having died from water having been poured down her throat, it was quite idle to attribute it to that. At that moment she was not living: death had already done its work. With regard to the quantity of prussic acid requisite to kill a human being, it had been proved that less than a grain would kill in some cases, as appeared by the melancholy cases so frequently referred to of the seven epileptic patients in Paris; and Mr. Cooper had proved that more than a grain existed in the stomach of the deceased. It was said that the experiments were not satisfactorily conducted—that was a question for the jury.

“In considering the conduct of the prisoner, the jury must couple it with all the other evidence, in order to judge how far it bore out or contradicted the inferences that might be derived from it. It appeared that on the day in question the prisoner had gone to the Paddington station of the Great Western Railway and taken his place for Slough. He had left his great coat at the Jerusalem coffee-house, and told the waiter that he was going to dine at the West End of town. That was untrue, and he must have made that false statement for some object or other. He went down to Slough at five o’clock, and between six and seven Mrs. Ashley went round to the deceased’s house, in consequence of the noise she heard of stifled screaming. She met the prisoner in the garden in a state of agitation—so great that he could not undo the latch of the gate. She opened it for him. As to the observation she made about fearing that her neighbour was ill, she could not say that the prisoner heard it, and therefore it went for nothing. Let that pass. However, after she got in at the door of the deceased’s house, she turned round and saw the prisoner looking at her, and such was the effect upon her that she felt alarmed, and closed and fastened the door. At seven o’clock the prisoner was seen by a postboy, and he was then making towards the station. At ten minutes after seven he was at the station. He was next seen getting into the Eton omnibus, and asking to be set down at Herschel House. What his intention was in going to Herschel House does not appear. He was traced back again to the station, and an alarm having been given, a signal was made by the electric telegraph, and he was seen to alight from the railway carriage at Paddington, and was then traced home. When he was taken up next morning, and told what he was taken for, his answer was, that he knew no one at Slough. It had been suggested by his counsel that this was strictly true, as the deceased did not live exactly at Slough, but a little distance from it. It had also been suggested that he wished to prevent his wife hearing of his improper connection. It would be for the jury to say what degree of weight should be given to these explanations.

“He had told several falsehoods when informed of the nature of the charge. On the Friday, about one o’clock, the prisoner had an interview with his legal adviser, and after that, but not until after that, did he make any attempt at explanation or give any account of what had taken place; and the account which he then gave was the extraordinary statement of her self-destruction. Here, then, the prisoner represented himself as present when the poison was administered, and as it was found in her stomach, it was for the jury to say whether the question did not amount to the simple one, of whether she had destroyed herself or the prisoner had administered it. If he thought she had been threatening to poison herself, he should at least have stayed to see what would be the effect upon her. The jury would next observe, keeping the prisoner’s story in mind, that no such vial as that described by him was found in the house. It had been proved by Mr. Thomas, who had sold him the poison in the morning, that the prisoner had prussic acid in his possession that day. He (the judge) did not give much weight to the observation that he would not have gone back the next day to the same shop for more if he were conscious of guilt, because in cases of murder, and especially of murder by poison, it was found that great precautions were not used. The perpetrators did not at all expect to be found out. As to the medicinal use alleged to have been made by the prisoner of the deadly poison, he might have had varicose veins; but at all events it had been shown that he had poison in his possession—he had the means of doing this act on the day it was committed.”