The D'Arblay mystery

by R. Austin Freeman

“Taking the medical facts as known to you, are you able to form an opinion as to what took place when the poison was administered?”

“That,” the witness replied, “is a matter of inference or conjecture. I infer that the person who administered the poison thrust the needle violently into the back of the deceased, intending to inject the poison into the chest. Actually, the needle struck a rib and bent up sharply, so that the contents of the syringe were delivered just under the skin. Then I take it that the assailant ran away—probably towards the pond—and deceased pursued him. Very soon the poison would take effect, and then deceased would have fallen. He may have fallen into the pond, or more probably, was thrown in. He was alive when he fell into the pond, as is proved by the presence of water in the lungs; but he must then have been insensible; and in a dying condition, for there was no water in the stomach, which proves that the swallowing reflex had already ceased.”

“Your considered opinion, then, based on the medical facts ascertained by you, is, I understand, that deceased died from the effects of a poison injected into his body by some other person with homicidal intent?”

“Yes; that is my considered opinion, and I affirm that the facts do not admit of any other interpretation.”

The coroner looked towards the jury. “Do any of you gentlemen wish to ask the witness any questions?” he inquired; and when the foreman had replied that the jury were entirely satisfied with the doctor’s explanations, he thanked the witness, who thereupon retired. The medical witness was succeeded by the inspector, who made a short statement respecting the effects found on the person of deceased. They comprised a small sum of money—under two pounds—a watch, keys, and other articles, none of them of any appreciable value, but, such as they were, furnishing evidence that at least petty robbery had not been the object of the attack.

When the last witness had been heard, the coroner glanced at his notes and then proceeded to address the jury.

“There is little, gentlemen,” he began, “that I need say to you. The facts are before you, and they seem to admit of only one interpretation. I remind you that, by the terms of your oath, your finding must be ‘according to the evidence.’ Now the medical evidence is quite clear and definite. It is to the effect that deceased met his death by poison, administered violently by some other person: that is by homicide. Homicide is the killing of a human being, and it may or may not be criminal. But if the homicidal act is done with the intent to kill; if that intention has been deliberately formed—that is to say, if the homicidal act has been premeditated; then that homicide is wilful murder.

“Now the person who killed the deceased came to the place where the act was done provided with a solution of a very powerful and uncommon vegetable poison. He was also provided with a very special appliance—to wit, a hypodermic syringe—for injecting it into the body. The fact that he was furnished with the poison and the appliance creates a strong enough presumption that he came to this place with the deliberate intention of killing the deceased. That is to say, this fact constitutes strong evidence of premeditation.

“As to the motive for this act, we are completely in the dark; nor have we any evidence pointing to the identity of the person who committed that act. But a coroner’s inquest is not necessarily concerned with motives, nor is it our business to fix the act on any particular person. We have to find how and by what means the deceased met his death; and for that purpose we have clear and sufficient evidence. I need say no more, but will leave you to agree upon your finding.”

There was a brief interval of silence when the coroner had finished speaking. The jury whispered together for a few seconds; then the foreman announced that they had agreed upon their verdict.