The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-11 00:00:00

PALMER'S CASE.

TO TUB EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Slll,—lt would have been supposed that no English.
man could have been found to state that Palmer has not
had a fair trial. A special Act of Parliament was passed
to insure it. An intelligent jury, selected from this
vast metropolis, gave the case their unexampled attention
for a period of thirteen days. Three of the most en-
lightened and experienced judges, whose lengthened
and honourable career must place them above partiality
or suspicion, sat on the bench. The prisoner's counsel
was allowel a latitude perhaps unexampled in the trial
of criminal causes. A unanimous verdict of "guilty"
was returned, in which all the judges fully concurred.
Notwithatanding, the prisoner has declared ho had not
a fair trial, Mr. Sergeant Shce has expressed his solemn
belief in the innocence of his client, and, on Friday last
only, his solicitor addressed a letter to the same effect to
one of the leading journals of the day. In this opinion
some Englishmen are found to coincide. I read or heard
every word of this extraordinary trial from beginning to
end, and am of opinion that no train of circumstantial
evidence was ever more complete and overwhelming—
no case was snore clearly brought home (save and ex-
cept those murders witnessed by human eye) than the
murder of John Parsons Cook by William Palmer.
The best and wisest, the gentlest and kindest, the
basest amongst us recoil with disgust from the gallows ;
and let not the last sentence of the law even now be
carried into effect on the unhappy culprit if his learned
counsel or persevering solicitor can adduce any fresh
evidence to call for the interference of the Crown.
This may even yet be done. Palmer was proved
to have purchased nine grains of strychnine. Let
Mr. John Smith at once state to the world what he
purchased it for—what has become of it. Why did Mr.
Sergeant Shee neglected to do this at the trial ? for it
would be supposed that such a course was absolutely
necessary to attach any weight to the expression of his
solemn belief in his entire innocence.
Palmer was proved to have administered two pills.
Two pills were prescribed by Mr. Bamford, consisting
of morphia and calomel. Why did they not show that
the identical pills of Mr. Bamford were administered to
the patient, for the smallest quantity of calomel can be
detected in the human body. The effect of these pills
were so apparent, that they could not have been vo-
mited, and, consequently, no trace of them left. As calo-
mel was not found, which ought to have been adminis-
tered-sae strychnine was purchased and not accounted
for—as Palmer administered these pills—as the effect of
their administration was not to be mistaken—as the
symptoms were admitted by the medical evidence on
both sides not to be inconsistent with death by that poi-
son—to what conclusions can any fair and impartial
reasoner come, but that the death of John Parsons
Cook was caused by strychnine, and that it was ad-
ministered by the hands of William Palmer ? Though
there was a discrepancy in the chemical, and some por-
tion of the medical, evidence, I maintain there was none
on the vital question, " Whether the symptoms of the
death of John Parsons Cook were consistent with death
by strychnine," and of its administration to the deceased
by the prisoner, I should expect no stronger evidence to
have been adduced, unless it were his own admission to
an eye-witness, "This is strychnine, and I am ad-
ministering it." Even that distinguished chemist, Mr.
Herapath, called for the defence, had stated that he con-
sidered the death of Cook had arisen from strychnine ;
and, though be recently addressed a letter to a
leading journal stating that "he formed that opinion
from newspaper reports with theirexaggerations," he does
not add, having heard the evidence adduced at the trial,
he has now come to a different conclusion. His letter,
therefore, in no way benefits the unhappy prisoner.
But this is not all. Let Mr. John Smith account for
the removal of the jar containing the intestines of the de-
ceased to a remote corner of the room adjoining a door,
taken in conjunction with his subsequent offer of 101.
to the postboy to upset the jar, and destroy its contents.
Is it;possible to suppose that an innocent man could be
a party to the removal or destruction of a jar, the con-
tents of which alone could silence for ever the breath of
suspicion, and prove him before the whole world to be
an innocent and injured man ?
Palmer innocent ? Whence his anxiety to know the
contents of Dr. Taylor's letter; whence the necessity to
hold communication with and bribe the coroner? Let
Mr. John Smith account for the loss of the betting-book,
the non-production of the order on Messrs. Weatherby
for the amount of the stakes dna to John! Parsons Cook,
the document he requested Chesshire, the postmaster, to
witness, after Cook was deal, that he (Palmer) was
liable for him to the amount of 4,0001. Let him account
for the money on his person which has not since been
found, the collection of Cook's winnings at Tattersall's,
and the appropriation of them to his own use ; his letter
to Pratt, " strictly private and confidential," requesting
that no information might be given to any inquirers of
pecuniary transactions between them. Let him account
for all this, let him adduce additional evidence on these
points, and then the Home-office, thegolden link between
the Sovereign on the throne and the criminal in the cell,
may step in between the criminal acid the grave. Till
this is done let no hopes—fallacious hopes—be held out
of mercy—let no doubts be thrown ou the justice of
the sentence, for it may lead over-sensitive people to be-
lieve that a conscientious jury had exceeded their duty.
Sir, I tell Mr. Smith, as the betting-book has never been
found, though proved to have been in the possession of
Palmer—as the important documents alluded to ha►e
never been produced—as the money of Cook has not
been forthcoming—as his winnings:were appropriated to
Palmer's use—that all these circumstances lead to an
irresistible conclusion that had the unhappy John Par-
sons Cook lived a few hours longer, all would have been
brought to light, and I ask him whether they do not
furnish an overwhelming motive for the removal of Cook
at that particular moment ? Mr. John Smith states '
" that a c msiderable reaction has taken place in public
opinion relative to Palmer's case. The people are be-
ginning to think that he was found guilty, not upon
what remains unproved." Sir, Ido not believe it. I
am confident the English people believe, that although
strychnine was not found (which is unfortunate), Wm.
Palmer, after a fair .and impartial trial, was convicted,
on the clearest circumstantial evidence, of the wilful
murder of his own friend, John Parsons Cook, under
circumstances of the most aggravated and harrowing'
description, and while they deeply lament his impending
fate, they demand that the laws of justice should be
satisfied—that his life should be expiated on the scaffold,
not only as a just punishment for his heinous offence,
but as an example to others ; one that will teach wicked
and designing people that the most refined poisoner is
certain to be cut short in his diabolical career.
Death is, by the Divine law, the'penalty for murder.
Probably by this time Palmer has been told that allhopes
mercy are at an end. A few days yet remain to him. If
rightly used, they may be the happiest of his life—days
of sorrow, but yet of joy. Let us hope he will unbttr-
then his mind to those around him,—that without an
hour's delay he will make a full confession. It cannot
save hie body, but it may save his soul. It will be an
unspeakable consolation to his afflicted relatives and
friends. It will give satisfaction to a conscientious jury,
the learned judges, and others, who had a most painful
duty to perform. It will be a warning to others tread-
ing in the same path to stop short before it be too late.
—I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
London, June 7.

J. G.