The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-18 00:00:00

THE SUNS. L10N09.11, MONK V 1 triVPININ99 AUGUST 111, 1882,

coated copper already obtained, may confirm more
decidedly the opinion I now give.
Mr. Chipperfield asked if the witness wished to
make any cdditio❑ to his report.
Mr. Nunueley replied that in consequence of a
recommendation to that effect the body of the late
Mrs. Atkinson had been re-exhumed on Monday,
June 22 last. He was present on that occasion at

Kirby Lonsdale, and had removed the whole of the
remaining viscera, as well as portions of the mus-
cles from different parts of the body, and also part
of the brain. He was quite sure that those por-
tions had not been before removed or disturbed.
These were placed in jars and sealed by witness,
and forwarded to Professor Taylor, in con-
junction with whom he subsequently made an
examination. From the kidneys which he had
sent up, by the application of tests, minute mi-
croscopic globules were obtained which pos-
sessed more the character of mercury than
arsenic. And on further investigation of the
stain on the copper foil proof of the presence
of arsenic was not obtained, and the conclusion to
which he had now arrived was, that
proof that the death of the deceased was caused by
arsenic, but that it was caused, in all probability,
by some other irritant poison.
Mr. Chipperfield—Are you prepared to say that
arsenic was not used, or simply that you found no
evidence of its presence ?
Witness—l did not find such proof of arsenic that
I could swear to its presence. The presence tf. octo-
hedral crystals is only one portion of the proof of
presence of arsenic, and it requires to be confirmed
by other tests before it can be sworn to.
Supposing death to have been caused by an irri-
tant poison, might solution of arsenic form one of
the agents used, and leave no trace?—lt is possible
it might be one of the agents.
Can you say it was not used ?—The analysis
affords no proof that it was used.
Mr. Norton—ln consequence of the body remain-
ing so long interred chemical changes must have
taken place. Would not that make it more diffi-
cult, if not impossible, to detect arsenic ?
Witness—Yes, if the quantities administered had
been extremely minute.
In reply to Mr. Chipperfield the witness said it
was quite possible that arsenic might have been the
cause of death, and a great portion or the whole of
it expelled from the body by absorption. Besides,
arsenic might be given and effect great misehiefs,
but be carried off by vomiting and purging, so as to
leave no trace of it, supposing a person lived some
days after it had been taken, His reason for think-
ing that death had been caused by some irritant
poison was partly from the appearance of the body,
which was that ofta person who had enjoyed good
health and free from disease. The lungs and viscera
were covered with fat. There was no organic disease
in the chest, head, or abdomen. There was no trace
of inflammation which would account for a persons
death. The stomach and the whole of the intes-
tinal canal were completely empty, showing that
there had been violent vomiting and purging,
which had carried off everything, immediately be-
fore death. The stomach was rather contracted,
and its lining membrane contained patches of a
dark-red colour, such as are seen when some irri-
tant poison had been administered. A vegetable
poison, such as colchicum wine, or in any other form,
would produce the appearance he had discerned
and described, but colchicum would not be dis-
coverable at this distance of time.
In reply to Mr. Neale, the witness said that be-
yond what he had stated he did not find any evi-
dence of any irritant poison.
This having completed the testimony of Mr.
Nunneley, it was signed by that gentleman.
Doctor Alfred Swane Taylor was next called,
and proved that, on the 24th of June last he re-
ceived portions of the remains of the deceased Mrs.
Atkinson, at Guy's Hospital. The viscera were
much decomposed, but the form and structure of
the heart, lungs, and kidneys could be still dis-
tinguished ; the lungs were tough and firm, and of
a dark slate colour. The fat around the kidneys,
as well as on the muscles, was partly changed to
adipocire. There was nothing to indicate the effects
of disease or poison in the parts of the body sent for
examination. Owing to the body having been
buried for the long period of twenty months the
organs had undergone such changes from decompo-
sition as to render it impossible to form an opinion
of the condition in which they were at the time of
death, for those parts of the body which generally
contained poison in the largest quantity, if present
in the body at the time of death, had been removed,
and as I had been informed were entirely employed
in the analysis made by Mr. Nunneley, the last
witness, in April, 1862. The parts to which I refer
are the stomach, the large and small intestines with
their contents, the liver, the spleen, and one of
the kidneys. These I subjected to the following
analyses :—First, two ounces of the red liquid,
which was derived from the jar containing
the whole of the viscera, were examined for arsenic,
antimony, and mercury, but none of those poisons
were present. Secondly, three ounces and a half of
the lungs were tested by a similar proceess, but no
arsenic or other matter was detected. In consequence
of these negative results in my preliminary testing
of the remains, I invited Mr. Nunneley to attend at
the laboratory at Guy's Hospital, in order that we
might analyse portions of the body together, and he
was present on Saturday, June 28, when the re-
maining kidney was selected for our conjoint ex-
periment. The materials to be employed having
been tested and their purity determined, the kid-
ney, which weighed 11-oz., was submitted to
Reinsch's process. A very small portion of pure
copper foil was used, in order that the minutest
trace of arsenic up to the 500th part of a grain
might not escape detection. Atter boiling the
liquid a sufficient time, the copper was removed
and presented a slight tarnish, but not like that
produced by arsenic. Another piece of copper was
then introduced and this was tarnished in a similar
manner, but in a less degree. The tarnished copper
was then tested, but no crystals of arsenious acid
could be obtained. There were seen under the
microscope some globules of moisture and some
minute globules presenting the character of metallic
mercury. On the same occasion, Slr. Nunneley
produced for examination a number of slips of cop-
per foil, which he bad employed in testing by
Reinsch's process in April, 1852. These were cut
into small pieces and tested specially for arsenic,
with the usual precautions, and the result was that
neither Mr. Nunneiey nor myself could extract from
these pieces of copper any crystals of arsenious acid.
The stained copper from the liver, rectum, and
kidney was also examined, with negative results.
The portions of copper selected for these experi-
ments were those which presented the dark grey
coating in the strongest degree. Globules alone
were visible under the microscope, with the except ion
of the sublimate derived from the stained copper of
the kidneyt analysed by Mr. Nunneley in April
last. In this case minute globules resembling
those of metallic mercury were perceptible, and
they had the form and character of the globules
observed in the sublimates derived from the remain-
ing kidney analysed by us on the 28th June. As
some of them were measured by the micrometer and
were found to be not more than the 4,000 th. part of
an inch in diameter, it is obvious that any crystals
of arsenic of a similar size would have been visible
under the microscope. I have since submitted to
further examination six ounces of the lungs of the
deceased, with a view to determine whether, by
operating on a large quantity, the results would be
different. There was a slight tarnish on the small
piece of copper used, but this was unlike the effect
produced by arsenic. On applying further tests to
the tarnished copper no arsenic was detected. A
sample of the earth of the grave in which the coffin
had been deposited was analysed, and it was found
to contain a small quantity of arsenic. The conclu-
sions which I drew from this analysis and investi-
gation are, first,
that those parts of the deceased's
bodywhich were sent to me for examination, viz,,
the lungs, one kidney, and a portion of the blood,
contained no arsenic. 2d. That the only m
substance found by analysis consisted of minute
globules presenting the character of mercury, and
those were separated from the kidney. 3d. That
in reference to the research for arsenic, Mr. Nun-
neley has examined, and I have not had an oppor-
tunity for examining, the stomach and intestines
and their contents, as well as the whole of the liver
and spleen—parts in which poison is more commonly
detected after death—while I have examined, and
Mr. Nunneley has not examined, the lungs, and I
have found no arsenic there. 4th. That the only
parts of the body that have been examined by both
of us are the red, or bloody, liquid drained from
the viscera and next the kidney. In his analysis of
these parts in April, 1862, Mr. Nunneley ob-
tained a dark grey coating on copper, from
which, however, it appears he obtained nothing
to show that in either case the coating was caused
by arsenic. In my analysis on the 26th of June
the bloody fluid refused to give a coating or
tarnish to the copper, while the kidney analysed by
Mr. Nanneley
a slight tarnish or deposit on the metal, from which
and myself on the 28th June caused
no arsenic could be procured, but globules resem-
bling those of mercury were obtained. sth. That
the samples of stained or coated copper foil pro-
ducedthe results obtained by him in his analysis of the
h
of June, yielded no arsenic. 6th, That althoug
h
rectum,liver,byl Nunneley in representing parts of
r an
n,
and kidney of the deceased in April,
1862, when further tested by both of us en the 28t
trace of a substance resembling arsenic was foam'
in the earth of the grave surrounding the coffin in
which the deceased was buried, this could not ac-
count for the presence of arsenic
(if present) in the
viscera examined by Mr. Nunneley.
In reply to Mr. Chipperfield, Dr. Taylor said that
supposing a vegetable irritant poison to have been