Gaspard à Reies,[[198]] and other writers, have maintained that the discovery of living worms in the intestines of a person, suspected to have died from poison, ought to be received as a direct refutation of the charge. We are, however, not disposed to concur in such an opinion. With respect to the value of the indication supposed to be afforded by the circumstance of froth issuing from the mouth of the corpse, soon after death, Mr. Hunter has given a very satisfactory opinion, and to which we must refer the reader, see Appendix, p. 273.
Q. IV. How far the absence of poison, or the inability of the chemist to detect it, in the body, or in the fluids ejected from it, is to be received as a negative to an accusation of poisoning?
We have already stated, that of all the proofs which can be adduced by the physician, in support of a charge of murder by poison, no one can be put in competition with that which arises from the discovery of the poisonous substance itself, in the stomach, or in the contents of the matter ejected by vomiting or purging. The law expects, therefore, that the professional witness should be prepared to state, that every experiment, calculated to detect the presence of poison, has been scrupulously and faithfully performed; and we may take this occasion to observe, that the circumstance of advanced putrefaction can rarely, in the present state of our chemical knowledge, be admitted as a satisfactory plea for not having proceeded to an anatomical inspection, as preliminary to chemical inquiry; and, as to the danger of such dissections, Dr. Gordon Smith has very truly observed, “that much is placed to this account which belongs merely to disgust.” Had an examination of the body taken place in the case of Ogilvy and Nairne, how many doubts would have been cleared away; indeed, this omission afforded the prisoners a strong ground of defence; they complained that the informer had intentionally prevented the dissection of the body, being conscious that the suspicions he had raised, and the project he had formed for their ruin, would, by such a measure, have been totally removed and defeated. To this it was answered, that when the informer (a younger brother of the deceased) arrived, he did insist on the body being opened and examined, as soon as a physician of eminence could be present, which the prisoners did not then oppose; but that when the physician arrived on the ensuing day, he declared the body to be in such a putrid state, that no certain conclusions could be drawn from outward appearances, nor even from a dissection of the body, which, besides, could not be performed with safety to the surgeon and attendants, and that he therefore thought proper to decline the investigation. Fortunately for the ends of justice, the circumstantial evidence of guilt was too strong to be affected by this culpable defect in the medical testimony, although it has been often asserted that the prisoners should have received the benefit of the omission by an acquittal. See Donellan’s case in the Appendix, p. 243.
With respect to the mode of conducting a chemical analysis upon these occasions, we have reserved our directions, until we shall enter on the discussion of poisons individually. We have, however, in this place some remarks of a general nature to offer, to which we are desirous of drawing the attention of those, who, without much experience, may be called upon to conduct such investigations. In the first place, we are desirous of convincing him, that the processes which he must institute, for the detection of a mineral body, are by no means so elaborate and embarrassing, as a superficial view of the subject may lead him to conclude. During the progress of the present work the author has repeatedly felt the truth of the opinion which he is now expressing; for, like Becher, he has laid down his pen, and taken up his tests, and, by the most simple modes of manipulation, has satisfied his own mind of the extreme delicacy of the different processes which are recommended for the detection of a poisonous mineral; in short, it is very difficult to convince those whose chemical knowledge is wholly theoretical, with how little trouble, and with how much pleasure and profit, such experiments may be conducted. If such then be the perfect state at which our analytical knowledge has arrived, the reader may perhaps conclude, that in every case of mineral poisoning the deleterious substance should be found, and that the inability of the chemist to detect its presence, should go far to negative the charge. Such an inference, however, is neither correct, nor philosophical, for the poison may have been absorbed, or eliminated, during life, it may have undergone chemical changes, or it may have entered into combinations, by which its characters are masked, or wholly changed. To Dr. Bostock the judicial physician is under many obligations, but there is no discovery for which he is more deeply indebted to him, than for that which has resulted from his satisfactory experiments, in elucidation of the present question. He has shewn, in the instance of Corrosive Sublimate,[[199]] that an animal may be suddenly killed by receiving a metallic poison into the stomach, and yet that the most delicate chemical re-agents may not be able to detect any portion of such poison, after death, in the contents of that viscus. Dr. Henry, in a letter to Dr. Duncan,[[200]] communicates the case of Hannah Tomlinson, aged twenty, who died, under the care of Dr. Holme, on the sixth day after a dose of Corrosive Sublimate. In this case, although an ounce of the mercurial salt had been swallowed, and the fluid ejected from the stomach was examined, only twelve hours afterwards, by Drs. Henry and Roget, yet not the slightest trace of the poison could be detected! More recently we have received from the pen of Mr. Alexander Murray,[[201]] surgeon of Alford, some highly interesting cases of poisoning by Arsenic, and which are so illustrative of the present question, as well as several others that have fallen under consideration, that no apology can be necessary for introducing some account of them in this place. A family of the name of Mitchell, and which consisted of William, a robust man, aged 45, James, æt: 52, Mary, æt: 50, and Helen, æt: 48, breakfasted together on Sunday morning, (August 19, 1821) on porridge, consisting of milk, salt, and meal. William partook largely, but James, who perceived “a sickening taste,” took less than common, while the sisters had their usual quantity. William was seized with sickness shortly afterwards, about 10 a. m., on his way to church, and then with thirst and headache; and, on his return home, between three and four in the afternoon, he was seized with vomiting, which recurred often during the next four or five days, especially on his attempting to quench his thirst. In the early part of the week, he was heard to complain of pain in his stomach, eyes, throat, breast, and arms; he was observed to void his urine frequently; and about this time, he pointed out to one of his sisters a hollow[[202]] between his breast and belly, into which according to her expression, “she could have laid her arm.”
His illness had scarcely at any time confined him to bed. On the evening of Friday, the 24th of August, he rode six miles, for the purpose of consulting Mr. Murray, the surgeon, and reporter of the cases; on Wednesday the 22d he had taken a dose of Epsom salts which operated, and at the time Mr. Murray first saw him he complained of the following symptoms:—pain and heat in the region of the stomach and lower part of the chest; occasional uneasiness in the abdomen, and sometimes ineffectual efforts to go to stool; thirst; difficulty of breathing; heat and uneasiness of throat, with hoarseness; soreness of eyes, which had the common appearance of inflammation; shifting pains in his extremities, particularly the arms, which had not their usual strength; great restlessness; anxious expression of countenance; pulse frequent, 100-110, not strong.
A blister was applied over the stomach and lower part of the chest, and he took an opiate at bed time. On the following day, (Saturday 25th) Mr. Murray visited him at his own house, and found him nearly as before, except that his countenance more strongly exhibited a disturbed and anxious expression, and the redness of the eyes, and the hoarseness were increased. Mr. Murray also observed small roundish white accuminated prominences, on the palate and uvula, apparently as if the membrane covering the palate bones and velum pendulum, was detached at the parts by a whitish liquid. This day he took an ounce of castor oil, which operated in the afternoon, his illness was not observed to change during the evening, and he retired at about eight o’clock to rest. At a little past two in the morning, he rose in search of water to drink, and on returning to bed he was heard to utter a deep groan; after which he lay motionless and quiet, and very soon was found to have expired. The surgeon who saw the body, about 10 a. m., states that “many bluish spots were observed on the inferior extremities.” James, Mary, and Helen Mitchell were attacked the same forenoon with their brother William, and with nearly similar symptoms; they were all, however, fortunate enough to recover, although a considerable period elapsed before their usual strength returned, and in all of them a numbness of the arms, or legs, occurred, together with a loss of muscular power.
The body of William Mitchell was, owing to particular circumstances, not opened until the 29th of August, (3 days 8 hours after death) when the following appearances presented themselves. “The face had a natural, composed appearance; and the rigidity of the body did not appear to be different from what is common. The right ear, and corresponding side of the face, as well as the scalp, exhibited a deep clay-blue colour. On the chest and belly, several spots and streaks, some green, others blue, were observed; and the back, upon which the body lay, was from head to foot of a livid colour; while several roundish spots, of a still deeper hue, gave to the shoulders and neck a mottled appearance. The penis was much swollen and red. The scrotum also was enlarged, and of a dark blue colour.
Upon opening the abdomen, the smell was not unusually offensive, and its contents did not appear to have undergone alteration after death, but several ounces of a highly-coloured liquid were found in the cavity. The surface of the jejunum and ilium presented many purple spots, some of which were several inches in circumference. The peritoneal surface of the stomach, in a tract which extended from the cardia, and occupied, for some distance downwards, the whole circumference of that viscus, except the small curvature, was of a clear, dark red colour; and through this space dark lines, apparently veins, were observed to ramify. This appearance, perhaps, from 20 to 30 square inches in extent, was strongly marked in contrast with the natural state of the inferior extremity and small curvature. The substance connecting the stomach to the spleen, was, as well as a small part of the transverse colon, of a red colour. The spleen was gorged with blood; the liver healthy. The duodenum, from a small distance below the pylorus, almost to its inferior extremity, and round nearly the whole intestine, was of a very dark purple colour. Upon opening the stomach, the internal surface of that part where the outward appearance, already described, existed, was found of a bright red colour, and over this lighter dots were thickly scattered[[203]], making such an appearance as might be produced by a red colour being dashed from a painter’s pencil, upon a somewhat darker ground.
The internal coats of the duodenum were very dark coloured, with a slightly reddish hue, pulpy, thickened, and easily separated from the peritoneal covering, while in one roundish spot, of the size of a crown piece, the villous and muscular coats were entirely wanting. Red patches were observed on the inner surface of the jejunum and ilium, the shape, size, and situation of which were the same as those of the appearances already noted as occurring on the outside of these intestines. The stomach and duodenum contained about a quart of a brown, semi-opaque, thickish liquid; the jejunum and ilium were empty, and coated with a yellow viscid matter. The lungs and heart were quite healthy; but in the cavity of the thorax were ten ounces of a reddish turbid liquid, and about half that quantity in the pericardium. The pharynx was of an unusually red colour. The whole of the brain was healthy, and of firm consistence.”
Mr. Murray concludes by stating that no part of the salt and milk used on the sunday morning, was to be found after he visited the family, and that although the remainder of the meal, and also the contents of William Mitchell’s stomach and duodenum were examined by Drs. Henderson and Fraser, of Aberdeen, as well as by Mr. Craigie, surgeon, who assisted in the dissection, and Mr. Alexander Murray, yet, “no poisonous ingredient was detected in these substances.”