[173] It must be borne in mind that there was no error in this experiment, and that it was never suggested that the arsenic in this case came from the copper, as it was not destroyed, as when the bottle of chlorate of potash was afterwards tested with copper gauze, which was destroyed by it, and the arsenic in the gauze liberated. Serjeant Parry, of course, said that the experiments in both cases were the same. So they were so far as copper was used, but the presence of the chlorate of potash in the other case made all the difference.—See Chapter IX.
[174] Had this discovery of arsenic not been erroneous, the gap in the evidence, as to the possession of the poison by the prisoner in a form most likely to be administered, would have been filled up. It in no way, however, militated against the discovery of arsenic in bottle 2. See post, Chap. IX., how far Mr. Herapath was correct in asserting that more arsenic was found than could have been released from the copper. In his statement before the committing magistrates, on the 20th of May, Serjeant Ballantine stated that bottle 21 had originally been sent by Dr. Julius with a quinine mixture.
[175] On farther cross-examination, Professor Brande said that the copper he used in Reinsch’s test was generally rolled down from a halfpenny, which he considered pure enough for the purpose.
[176] But see his evidence, Palmer’s trial, p. 175, ante.
[177] Handbuch der Pathologischen Anatomie, by Baron Carl von Rokitansky, Vienna, 1842-46, of which a translation by various English medical men of eminence was published by the Sydenham Society in 4 vols. 8vo. 1849-54. It is still considered a valuable book of reference.
[178] Subsequent to the verdict, in a memorial to the Prince Consort, it was stated that “a lady friend of the deceased was a witness,” to Miss Bankes’ knowledge, of the fact that he was married already, and that she wished the ceremony to be gone through. This lady, the memorial stated, was to have been called, but Mr. Parry deemed it unnecessary. Upon this, the Lord Chief Baron, in his report to the Home Secretary, observed—“I do not believe Mr. Serjeant Parry gave any such advice; but if it be true that any such evidence was ready, why is not the lady friend named, and why is not her statement or declaration now offered and laid before you? Such evidence would, in my opinion, much alter the complexion of the case.”—Judge Stephen’s Hist. of Crim, Law, iii., 461. [What need was there of this evidence, when it had been proved that for weeks together Miss Bankes had been lodging and associating in the same house with Smethurst and his wife?]
[179] Not quite correct; on the prisoners representations of the effect of the sister’s prior visit, Dr. Bird had advised that she should not see her—at any rate at present.—See his evidence, ante, p. 450.
[180] When Dr. Julius was recalled, and stated that at the first examination before the magistrates the prisoner urged that it was necessary for him to go back to his wife; that her death might be occasioned by his absence; and that it was imperative that he should go; Serjeant Parry asked the witness “whether the magistrates at that time did not direct or require him not to interfere further with the patient?” To this he replied—“I do not think it was addressed to him, but it was addressed generally—it was in his presence. It might have been a general direction, but he might have heard it.”
[181] “And not only in the evacuations, where small portions of both were found?” They also laid great stress on the absence of certain symptoms generally present in slow poisoning by arsenic or antimony, or both.
[182] Or he might have added, the results of his experiments on the evacuations, the correctness of which were proved by the subsequent 76 tests by Reinsch’s method.