The Press.
London, England, 1856-05-31 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

George Myatt, a Rugeley saddler, was at the
Raven Hotel, at Shrewsbury, on the Wednesday
previous t .C.iok's death. Cook and Palmer came in,
and brandy and water was ordered. The brandy was
brought in a decanter. They each had a glass.
Nothing was or could have been put into the brandy
or water without him seeing it done. Palmer and
witness slept in the same room that night. The
next day they returned to Rugeley, and Palmer was
sick on the road. On cross-examination, this wit less
swore that Palmer never left the room at the Raven
until he went to bed.

John Sergeant, a betting-man, swore to having
noticed the state of Cook's throat at Liverpool. Cook
showed it to him. It was full of ulcers, and much
inflamed. Remembered Cook on the railway platform
at Liverpool being tricked into eating a gingerbrea
nut filled with cayenne pepper. Cook said afterwards
that it nearly killed him. At Liverpool Cook was
very poor.
Mr. Jeremiah Smith, a Rugeley attorney, was then
examined. The gist of his evidence amounted
merely to his having slept in Cook's room at the
Talbot Arms on the Saturday night previous to his
death, Cook was very unwell during the night.
Before Shrewsbury races Cook had his throat dressed
with caustic, and kept by him a bottle of black wash.
Mr. Smith was then cross examined at great length
with reference to certain attestations he had made
of proposals for insuring Walter Palmer's life. The
witness" could not recollect," andr doubted" the signa-
ture of his name to the proposals handed in," did not
like to speak from memory," and was " not quite
positive" he was present when Walter Palmer
executed the deed assigning his life policy over to the
prisoner. With respect to the insurance upon
Bat3s's life, Mr. Smith acknowledged to having pro-
posed to effect the insurance for 10,0001.

This closed the case for the defence.
The ATTORNEY GENESAL then rose to reply upon the
whole evidence. The questions he first brought be-
fore the jury to decide were simply these—did Cook
die from natural causes or from the poison of strych
nine, and if so, by whom was that poison adminis-
tered ? Sir A'exander Cockburn then, severely ani-
madverting upon the feeling of partisanship and
professional pique which had so evidently influenced
the medical testimony, said that the medical wit-
nesses for the defence differed much in their views
of Cook's symptoms, but they coincided remarkably
with the Crown medical witnesses in declaring that,
in the whole course of their experience, they knew
no natural disease to which the symptoms of Cook's
case could be referred. Now, argued the learned
Attorney-General, this singular coincidence existing,
and there being a known poison which will produce
the effects Cook suffered from, how cogent and irre-
sistible became the conclusion that that poison was
administered. The absence, however, of its detection
in the body presented an obstacle, but that fact in
the face of the other could not be regarded as con-
clusive evidence of non-administration. The ana-
lysis in this case was made under the most disad-
vantageous circumstances, and the cases of detection
of the poison brought forward by the witnesses for
the defence were cases when powerful doses of pure
strychnine were given, and analysis carried on under
every circumstance favorable to the discovery of the
poison. But there was a great point which no evi-
dence on the part of the defence had attempted to
grapple with. Had Palmer obtained possession of any
strychnine previous to Cook's death ? There was
undoubted evidence that he had first obtained three
grains from Newton on the Monday night, and six
grains more from Roberts on the Tuesday morning.
If Newton's evidence were true—and it was incom-
prehensible to believe that, he was lying—Roberts'
at least was incontestable, and had been completely
passed over by the defence. The purchase of strych-
nine on the Tuesday at Roberts' shop took place
under circumstances which could not fail to lead to the
conclusion that Palmer shrank from the observation
of Newton at the time of purchase, and no proof had
been offered of the legitimate purpose to which those
Wx grains, sufficient to kill a dozen people, were in-
tended to be, or were in point of fact, applied :

If it were for professional use—for the benefit of some
patient to whom small doses might be advantageous—
where (asked the Attorney-Geneial) is that patient?
Why is he not produced? My learned friend did
not in bis powerful address even advert to the ques-
tion of the seoond day's purchase of strychnia. He
passed it over in mysterious but significant silence.
Account for that six grains of strychnis, the purchase of
which is an undoubted and indisputable fact ! Throw
doubt if you please—l blame you not—upon the story of
the previous night, but it is unquestionably true that on
the Tuesday six grains of strychnia were purchased by the
prisoner. Purchased for whom—purchased for what? If
for any patient, who is that patient? Produce him. If
fur any other purpose, at least let us have it explained.
Has there been the slightest shadow of an attempt to ex•
plain it? Alss ! I grieve to say none—none. At the out
set of the ease something was said about some dogs which
had been troublesome in the paddocks where the mares
and foals were kept, but that proved to have been in Sep.
tausber. If there 4*4 been any reattrreusa of such a Otiuli,
wkero Iwo tin scum* wl 1144 the charge qt Wes, baron t

MS

Why are they not here to state the fact ? If this poison
WAR used to destroy dogs, some one most have asaiated
Palmer in the attempts which he made for that purpose.
Where are they ? Why are they not called? Not only
are they not called, they are not even named. My learned
friend does not venture to go into the question. I ask you,
gentlemen, what conclusion can we draw from all these
things, save one? Death in all the convulsive throes and
agonies which that fatal poison produces in the frame of
man—death with all the appearances which follow upon
such an end, and mark how it has come to pass. These
things leading in the minds of those who can discuss and
consider them with calm and dispassionate attention, who
do not mix themselves up with the case as advocates or
partisans—leading to one anti but one conclusion ; and
then the fact of strychnia having been purchased by the
prisoner on the day of this horrible death—even if it were
not, as sworn to, obtained by aim also on the previous
night—and this part of the case left wholly uncovered,
wholly unmet, without a shadow of explanation! Alas! is
it possible that you can come to any other conclusion than
the one dreadful one of guilt ?
Sir Alexander Cockburn then reviewed all the evi-
dence seriatim, dwelling particularly upon the dis-
covery of antimony in Cook's body, to account fon
which no evidence had been offered by the defence,
and which indisputable fact left but one conclusion
to be drawn from all the circumstances taken into
connection—the preparation of broth for C Kok by
Palmer, the maid-servant's sickness on tasting it,
and the continued sickness of Cook after everything he
took from the hands of Palmer—viz., that antimony
was administered by Palmer with the design of produ-
cing certain natural effects which might not unreason,
ably account for death. Then the conduct of
Palmer throughout Cook's illness was not that
of an innocent man. On the Tuesday morning
when he met Dr. Bamford, and though it was
just after Cook's dreadful attack on the night
previous, he said not a word to Dr. Bamford of
Cook's symptoms, and prevented Dr. Bamford from
visiting Cook alone on two occasions in the day.
Neither when Mr. Jones arrived did Palmer Pay •
single word about Cook's attack the night before. He
merely observed that he is suffating from a bilious
attack! Again, where was the necessity of Dr. Bans-
ford making up such a simple medicine as a mor.
phine pill? Why could not Palmer have made it up
himself? Then showing Mr. Jones the handwriting
on the pill-box ; what were all these facts, taken
together—the discovery of antimony, the purchase of
strychnia, the prevention of Bamford visiting Cook
on Tuesday morning., the sending for Jones, the
avoidance of all mention of Cook's frightful attack
the night previous, the getting Dr. Bamford to write
plain directions—but clear evidence of design of a
deep scheme to silence suspicion when death ensued ?
The learned Attorney-Geueral then entered upon
the question as to whether Palmer had any motive
for the murder of Cook, and contended that Palmer's
only hope of escape from the embarrassment sur-
rounding him was by obtaining a large sum of money.
Now, Cook had brought with him to Rugeley between
7001. and 8001., and his Shrewsbury winnings
amounted to 1,0201. more. The 1,0201. was applied
by Palmer on the Monday to his own uses in pay-
ments to Herring, Pratt, and Padwick. The money
Cook had with him at Rugeley had never been ac-
counted for, while no sooner was Cook dead than
Palmer wrote to Pratt claiming Polestar, the valuable
mare which won her race at Shrewsbury, and asked
Cheshire to attest a document purposed to be pre-
pared by Cook declaring that bills for 4,0001. for
which he (Palmer) was liable had been negotiated
for Cook's sole benefit Neither this document nor
the bills had been produced in evidence ; and if these
documents had been genuine, and not a forgery, who
could doubt but that they would have been produced?
Then, his conduct with respect to the missing betting-
book was at least suspicious. if that betting-book
had been found, Mr. Stevens would have discovered
that bets to the amount of 1,0201. were due oa
Shrewsbury races. Who received, appropriated, or
was interested in concealing the amount of those
bets but Palmer? And, daring the inquiry into the
cause of Cook's death, was all that restless anzte:y
he displayed compatible with innocence? It might
possibly be if it stool by itself alone, but it was one
of a series of things which, though small perhaps in
their individual capaciv, when grouped together did
lead to the inevitable and irresistible conclusion that
the prisoner was the clause of Cook's death :

This (continued the Attorney General) is the case which
you have to decide. You have in the prisoner a man labouring
under a pressure almost overwhelming, with pecuniary lialgia
lit ies which he is utterly unable to meet, involving penaltie,
of the law which must bring down disaster and ruin upon him.
The only mode by which he can prevent those consequeoee.
is by obtaining money: awl under such circumstance
we know that a comparatively small amount, if it wi4
meet the exigencies of the moment and will avert the init
pending catastrophe of ruin, will operate with immense
power. You then find that he had excess to the bedside
of the man whose depth you have now to inquire into.
You find that he has means of administering poison to
and that within forty-eight houis of the death he bee I

sequin(' poasoaaion of the poison whtoh we suppose ki
to hare administered to the citteessetl. Thou you bate t
Oailt Motif W lusigle 044 moitias oiroquilaßook


int
it•
lux
eli

5

14

of which are characteristic only of death by that poison—
str)chnine—and no other. You have then the fact that to
the utmost of his ability the prisoner realises the purpose
fir which it suggested to you that the death was aCCOM •
piished. Whether these facts, coupled with the undoubted
and undisputed fact that a subsidiary poison—antiinony—
was used, of which traces were found, although none were
found of the principal poison, justify you in returning a
verdict of " guilty " against the prisoner, it is for you to
determine ; and you must take all these circumstances
into your consideration. If on a review of this whole case,
comparing the evidence on one side and on the other, and
weighing it in the even scales of justice.you can come to
tee conclusion of innocence, or can even entertain that
f iir and reasonable amount of doubt of which the accused
entitled to the benefit, in God's name acquit him ; but
if, on the other hand, all the facts and all the evidence lead
your minds, with satisfaction to yourselves, to the conclu-
sion of his guilt, then—but then only—l ask for a verdict
of " guilty " at your hands. For the protection of the
g .od, fur the repression of the wicked, I ask for that verdict
by which alone—as it seems to me—the safety of ao2iety
can be secured, and the demands, the iroper.ous demands,
of public justice can be sat.stied.
The learned Attorney• General concluded his ad•
dress shortly before half•pa'.t six o'clock.
The Loan CHIEF JU'iTICE then informed the jury
that he feared he must for another Sunday sequester
them from their family and friends ; and the court
then adjourned.