The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-26 00:00:00

Come on more slowly, If it is given in an indurated sub-
stance It will act with still greater tardiness. Then what was
the period at which this poison began td act after its admini-
stration, assuming it to have been poison. It seems, from
Mr. Jones's statement, that the pills were administered
somewhere about eleven o'clook. They were not admini
stered on his first arrival,for the patient, as if with an intui-
tive sense of the death that aw..ited him, strongly resisted
the attempts to make him take them; and no doubt these
remonstrances, and the endeavours to overcome them, occu-
pe i some period of time. The pills were at last given.
Assuming, which I only do for the sake of argument, that
the pills contained strychnine, how soon did they begin to
°aerate ? Mr. Jones says he came back again alioht twelve
o"cloeic. Upon his return to the room, after a word or two
of conversation with Cock, he proceeded to undress and go
to bed, and had not been in bed ten minutes before a
warning came that another of the paroxysms was to take
place. The maid servant puts it still earlier, and it appears
that so early as ten minutes before twelve the first alarm
was given, which would make the interval little more than
a quarter of an hour. I find in some of the e:xperis
meats that have been Made that the duration of time,
before the poison begins to work, has been little; if any-
thing, less than an hour. In the case of the girl at Glas;
gow, it was stated that it was three quarters of an hour.
1 cannot bring myself to believe that, if in all other respects
you are perfectly satisfied, that the symptoms, the conse-
quences, the effects were analogous, and similar in all
respects to those produced by strychnine, it is not because
the pills have been taken only a qt arier of an hour that you
will say the'.t strychnine was not administered in this case.
hut they say there were no premonitory symptoms in Cook's
case, I say there were premonitory symptoms of the in ast
marked character. He is lying in his bed; he suddenly
starts up in agony of alarm. *hat made him do that ?
Was there nothing premonitory—nothing that warned him
the paroxysm was comiag on ? He jumps up, says '6 Go
and fetch Palmer—fetch me help—l am going to be ill as I
was last night." What was that but a knowledge that the
symptoms of the previous night were returning, and a warning
of what he might expect unless relief were obtained P He
sits up, and prays to have his neck rubbed. What was the
feeling about his neck but a promonitory symptom; which
was to precede the paroxysms which were b supervene ?
But here they say this Could not have been tetanus from
strychnia, because animals cannot bear to be toualled, for a
touch brings on a paroxysm. Now in two cases of death
from strychnine we have shown that the patient has endured
the rubbing of his limbs, and received satisfaction from that
rubbing. In Miss. Smith's case, when her legs were distorted
she prayed and entreated that she might have them straight-
ened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunueley
himself attended, implored her husband, between the spasms,
to rub her legs and arms in order to orercorrie the rigidity.
But there is a third nase—the case of Clutterbuck. And,
,
therefore, say that the continued endeavour to persuade a
jury that the fact of Cook's having had his neck rubbed
proves that this is not tetanus by strychnine, shows nothing
but the dishonesty and insincerity of the witnesses who have
so dared to pervert the facts. But they go further, and say
that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the
paroxysms came on. But he swallowed the pills, and,
what is very curious, and illustrates part of the theory, is
this—that it was the act of sivallOwing the pills, a sort of
movement in raising his head which brought on the violent
paroxysm in which he died. So far from militating against
the supposition that this was a case of strychnine, the fact
strongly confirms it. Then they call our attention to the
appearances after death, and they say, the limbs became
rigid either at the time of death or immediately
after, and that ought not to be foand in a case of
stryChnine. Dr. Nunneley says, " I have always
found the limbs of animals become flaccid before
death, and I have not found them become rigid after
death." The very next witness told us that he hal made
two experiments noon cats, and killed them both, and he
described them as indurated and contracted when he found
them some hours after death. And yet the presence of
rigidity in the body immediately after death is put forth by
Dr. Nunneley as one of his reasons for saying this is not a
death by scrychnine, although Dr. Taylor told us that, in
the case of one of the eats, the rigidty of the body was so
great that he could hold it out by the leg in a horizontal
position. Notwithstanding that evidence, Dr. Nunneley
has the audacity to say that he does not believe this is a ease
of strychnine, because there was rigidity of the limbs, be-
cause the feet were distorted, and the hands clenched, and
the muscles were rigid. The next thing that is said is that
the heart was empty, and that in the animals operated upon
by Dr. Nunneley and Dr. Letheby, the heart was full. I
don't think that applies to all cases. Why, in two cases
which have been mentioned—that of Mrs. Smith
and the Glasgow girl—the heart was congested and empty.
But this is brought forward as a conclusive fact against
death by strychnine, and yet these men who make this state-
ment under the sanction of scientific authority, have heard
both cases spoken to by the gentlemen who examined the
bodies. Then with regard to congestion of the brain and
other vessels, the same observation app'ies. Instead of
being killed by action on the respiratory muscles of the
heart, death is the result of a long series of paroxysms,
and you expect to find the brain and other vessels congested
by that series of convulsive spasms. Looking at the symp-
toms which attended this unhappy man, setting aside the
the theory of convulsions, of epilepsy, of arachnitis, and
angina pectoris, and excluding idiopathic and traumatic
tetanus—what remains ? The tetanus of strychnine, and
the tetanus of strychnine alone. And I pray your atten-
tion to the cases in which there was no question as to
strychnine having been administered, in which the symptoms
were so similar—the symptoms so analogous—that I think
you cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that this death
was caused by strychnine. Several witnesses of the highest
eminence, both on the part of the crown and for the defence,
agree that in the whole range of their experience, observa-
tion and knowledge, they have known of no natural disease
to which these remarkable symptoms can be attributed.
That being so, and there being a known poison which will
produce them, how strong, how cogent, how irresistible is
the conclusion that it is thatlpoison, and that poison alone,
to which they are to be attributed. On the other hand, the
case is not without its difficulties. Strychnia was not found
in this body, and we have it no doubt, upon strong evidence,
that in a great variety of experiments upon the bodies of
animals killed by strychnia, strychnia has been detected by
tests which science placed at the disposal of scientific men.
The question fur your consideration is whether the absence
of its detection leads conclusively to the view that this
death was not caused by the administration of strychnia.
Now, in the first place, under what circumstances
was the examination made by Dr. Taylor and Dr,
Rees. They told us that the stomach of the
man was brought to them for analyzation under the most
unfavourable circumstances. It is true that they who
put the portions of the body into the jar make statements
samewhat different. But there is the most undeniable evi-
dence of considerable bungling in the way in which the
stomach had been cut and placed in the jar. It is very
true that Dr. Nunneley, Mr. Herapath, and Dr. Sotheby
say thr,t whatever impurities there may have been, if
strychnia had been in the stomach they would have found
strychnia there. I should have had every confidence in the
testimony cf Mr. Herapath, if he had not confessed a fact
which had come to my knowledge, that he had asserted
that this was a case of poisoning, but that they did
not go the right way to find it out. I reverence
the man who, from a sense of justice and love of
truth, will come forward in favour of any man for
the purpose of stating what he believes to be true ;
but I abhor the trafficked testimony which I regret to eve
men of science sometimes advance. But, assuming all
they say to be true as to the case of detecting strychnine,
is it certain that it can be found in all cases ? Dr.
Taylor says no, and it would be a most mischievous
and dangerous proposition to assert that it is
necessarily so, for it enables many a guilty man to
escape, who, by administering the smallest quantity
necessary to destroy life, might prevent its detection in
the stomach. What have these gentlemen done ? They
have given large doses in the experiments they h ive
made for the purposes of this cass, in which they have
been retained—l use the word retained, for it is the pro-
per word. In all these cases, I say, they have given doses
large enough to he detected. My learned friend said that
he would contest the case for the prosecution step by step.
Alas! we are now upon ground upon which my friervel has
not even ventured a word in explanation. 'Was the
prisoner at the bar possessed of the poison of strychnine ?
The prisoner obtained possession of strychnine on the
Monday night. It is true that the evidence of the man who
sold the strychnine to Palmer, must be received with care
and attention. Now, Newton said that on the night when
Palmer came back from London, he obtained three grains
of that poison, the symptoms and effects of which are
precisely similar to those which are stated to have occurred
in the case of this poor man. You have heard the reason
assigned by the witness why he did not state the fact of his
having sold the strychnine to the prisoner on the previous
evening, before the coroner, and you will judge of the
value of the explanation which he gave. Upon
the other hand, there is the consideration, what
conceivable motive could this young man have
had for now coming forward and deposing to the
fact of his having sold this poison to the
prisoner, except a sense of truth. Hideous though may be
the crime of taking away life by poison, it is probably not
so horrible to contemplate as the motive of a judicial mur-
der effected by a false witness against a man's life. Can
you suppose that this young man Newton could have the
shadow of any such motive in coming forward in a court
like this to take away the life of the prisoner at the bar, as
alas ! his evidence must do, if you believe him. If you
believe the witness that, on the Monday night, for no other
conceivable and assignable purpose except the deed of dark-
ness to be committed that night, the prisoner at the bar
obtained from him the fatal means and instrument whereby
Cook was to be destroyed, it is impossible that you can
come to any other conclusion than that the prisoner is
guilty of the foul deed with which he stands charged
at the bar. My learned friend says that Newton did
not speak truth, because, first, he did not make this
statement before the coroner ; and, secondly, because
Newton laid the time of Palmer's arrival at nine
o'clock, whereas he did not arrive until ten o'clock. My
learned friend has sought to meet this part of the case. He
has produced a witness; all I can say of whom is, that for
4 the sake of the prisoner at the bar, I trust you will not allow