The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-21 00:00:00

LITERATURE.

REMARKS AIVD CO.II,IIE.V7'S ON THE
ALE DICA 7, AND CHEMICAL EVIDENCE
ADDUCED AT THE TRIAL OF JOHN
TA WELL. By G. L. ,'_trauss..
This is a pamphlet of most painful interest, and if
Mr. Strauss be right, a very heavy responsibility rests
upon the medical men on whose evidence a verdict of
guilty was returned against John Tawell. It struck
us from the beginning that the medical evidence
given before the Coroner was of a rather slovenly
charact.-r, and in this opinion we were borne out by
an article, which appeared shortly afterwards, in the
Medical Times. The contradictions in the medical
evidence, as given before the Coroner and at the trial,
are most important, and are thus pointed out by Mr.
Strauss :

" Mr. Champneys stated before the Coroner, that not
the slightest trace of the peculiar odour of prussic acid was
perceptible during the pest mortem examination ; and,
probably, aware that the absence of this odour militates
most decisively against the supposition of free prussic
acid being present, he, as well as Mr. Norblad, endea-
voured to account for the absence of this odour by
assuming that cyanide of potassium might have been
administered instead of prussic acid ; this proposition,
however, is quite untenable, as these gentlemen them-
selves seem to have discovered afterwards, since at the,
trial they made no mention whatever of cyanide of po-
tassium. (Mr. Cooper had probably told them in the
meantime that cyanide of potassium in solution is rea-
dily decomposed, even by weak acids, such as carbonic
acid, with evolution of hydrocyanic acid ; and in the
stomach the cyanide encounters one of the strongest acid,
known to us—viz., hydrochloric acid.) Mr. Champneys,
however, mentioned to the Coroner that during the
examination he thought he smelt prussic acid, that he
made a remark to that effect to Mr. Norbiad, who replied
that he perceived no smell. As this is a most important
point, I think it will be better to quote from the evidence
as taken down before the Coroner : _

" Question—By a juryman—Would not the smell of
prussic acid be discovered if there was no other thing in
conjunction with it, to destroy that effect (smell) ?
" Mr. Charnpneys—lt was very unusual not smelling
the prussic acid, but I mentioned during the examina-
tion that I thought I smelt prussic acid, but Mr. Norblad
did not think he did, and afterwards, on opening the
stomach, I did not thi;:k I did at all.
" The Coroner—Then you abandoned that idea of
smelling at all ?
" Mr. Champneys—Yes, Sir.
" Mr. Norblad likewise stated before the Coroner that
there was no smell of prussic acid perceptible.
" At the trial, however, Mr. Champney asserts most
positively that he in reality smelt prussic acid immedi-
ately upon opening the body, and that he mentioned
something to that effect to Mr. Pickering (before the
Coroner it was to Mr. Norblad), that this was not a
mere passing conjecture of his, but a fact, of the reality
of which he was most positive. In cross-examination
he stated that neither Mr. Pickering nor Mr. Norblad
did smell it; and that he himself did not perceive it
after having opened the stomach. .Mr. Pickering, on his
part, asserts that it was upon making the first incision in
the stomach of deceased that Mr. Champney s called his
attention to the smell, and that he himself did perceive
the smell of prussic acid. Here we have more contra-
dictions and discrepancies than would be considered quite
sufficient to overthrow the evidence of witnesses in any
common case. _ _ _

Mr. Champneys positively contradicts himself. Be-
fure the Coroner he admits that he simply fancied he
smelt prussic acid, and tells the Coroner that he aban-
doned that idea subsequently altogether; at the trial, this
passing conjecture having had two months' time to grow,
had ripened into positive certainty.
"'Phis assertion of Messrs. Champneys and Pickering
was laid hold of by Mr. Baron Parke in his very impar-
tial summing up, in order to prove that the prussic acid
existed as such in the stomach previously to the con-
tents of the stomach being subjected to digestion in the
sand and water baths. It is this assertion which has
most materially contributed to decide the issue of the
trial; and yet it would have been so easy to confute it,
simply by pointing out the discrepancies and contradic-
tions which appear on the face of the evidence on this
point."
Now, if these gentlemen really smelt prussic acid,
how comes it that tests were applied in the first in-
stance, to discover oxalic acid, vitriolic acid, in fact,
every conceivable poison but prussic acid ? How
comes it that neither of these gentlemen who smelt
prussic acid on opening the body, mentioned the fact
to Mr. Cooper, for.—
" From Mr. Cooper's own evidence, it appears that he
himself was the first to hint at a suspicion that prussic
acid might be present—' Well, if this woman has taken
poison, it can be no other than prussic acid :' these are
Mr. Cooper's own words, as given in cross-examination."
Besides, as Mr. Strauss very properly remarks in a
note— _ _

" Had Messieurs Champneys and Pickering really
smelt prussic acid, they would have continued to smell
it. No these gentlemen imagine that a definite minute
proportion of odour enters into the composition of prussic
acid? Perhaps the acid in this case retained only suffi-
cient to give a taste of it to two noses—which supposi-
tion would at once satisfactorily account for Mr. Nor-
Wad's inability to smell it."
Then, as to the quantity discovered. Mr. Cooper
found only one grain in the contents of the stomach.
Mr. Strauss says—
" I myself have taken as much as three drops of pure
anhydrous prussic acid—(equiNalent to about 2•1 grains)
—of course largely diluted with water, without feeling
any very considerable inconvenience ; and if Mr. Nor-
blad will read Liebig's lectures on • Organic Chemistry'
(Lanc4), be will find that a cat can stand, without in-
convenience from two to three drops of anhydrous
prussic acid, diluted with from four to six ounces of
water."

" I may venture to assert, that one grain of prussic
acid introduced into the digestive apparatus in a high
state of dilution, will not be sufficient to destroy lie.
Messrs. Champneys, Norblad, and Pickering, and also
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Baron Parke, however, deem even
less than one grain quite sufficient to cause death. On
this point these gentlemen take their stand, more parti-
cularly upon the case of the seven epileptic patients in
one of the hospitals at Paris, who are reported in Eng-
lish works on the subject of poisoning by prussic acid,
to have died from so small a dose as 7-10ths of one grain
of this deleterious substance. Now this is a most egre-
gious blunder, occasioned probably by confounding the
medicinal acid of France with that of Scheele." _

" The physician who treated the seven patients in
question, prescribed eleven grammes fifty centigrammes
of hydrocyanic sirup, which he intended to be prepared
according to Magendie's formula.
" Had the sirup been prepared according to the phy-
sician's intention, every one of the seven patients would
in the 172 grains of hydrocyanic sirup which were ad.
ministered to him have received only one grain and one-
third of absolute acid. But having been prepared by
mistake, according to the formula of the old codex, the
amount of pure and absolute prussic acid administered
to each of the patients, was two grains and one-fourth,
on the most moderate calculation, i. e. if the acid au
sixinie was used; if the acid au troisi?me was used, the
quantity, of pure acid amounted to six grains for every
patient.'
" Can there be a grosser blunder than this ? And
yet it is upon such and similar (ex uno disce mites)
authority, that a fellow-creature is about being con-
signed to an ignominious death ! 1
" It is by such evidence and such authorities that one
of the most clear-headed judges of the land has allowed
himself to be completely misguided."
The highest authority in Toxicological science is
undoubtedly M. Orfila, and—
" M. Orfila states in his celebrated work on Toxico-
logy, that the mere detection of prussic acid in the di-
gestive apparatus, or in matter rejected,by vomiting, does
most decidedly not entitle the physician and chemist,
charged with medico legal investigations in cases of
suspicious death, to affirm that this acid has been in
reality administered to the subject of the investigation.
Prussic acid is formed in some cases in the animal
organismus, even though the individuals offering- this
phenomenon be in a state of perfect health. It is a
well-known fact, that the perspiration of some per-
fectly healthy individuals exhales the peculiar odour
of hydrocyanic acid, and sulphocyanide of potassium has
been detected in the saliva, by Tiedemann and Gmelin.
Moreover it would be very absurd indeed to deny that
prussic acid may be formed in the decomposition and
putrefaction of organic matter, just as likely as ammonia,
acetic acid, and other similar compounds, to the forma-
tion of which the simple decomposition of organic
matter gives rise. Bitter almonds and pomaceous seeds
may be present in the stomach, and subsequently upon
the distillation of its contents, yield hydrocyanic acid.
Ferrocyawide of potassium is a perfectly innocuous
substance ; this may by chance have been partaken
of ; (as is frequently the case in manufactures of fer-
rocyanide of potassium—vide Liebig's Lectures on
Organic Chemistry, in the Lance!) ; and would, of
course, upon distillation, yield a considerable amount of
prussic acid.
"In the year 1841, M. Orfila was called in to refute
the evidence of two physicians and four chemists, in a
case of suspicious death. The physicians and chemists
in question asserted most positively that a certain Mon-
sieur Pralet, procureur at Chambit.y. had died from the
effects of prussic acid. M. Orfila proved, however, most
clearly and satisfactorily, that M. Pralet died from apo-
plexy, and not from prussic acid.
" According to M. Orfila, the detection of prussic
acid in the digestive apparatus, &c., assumes the value
of positive evidence, only in such cases where the sub-
ject of the investigation has exhibited previously to his
or her death the characteristic symptoms which are con-
stantly attendant upon poisoning by prussic acid, and
where the post-mortem examination reveals the patho-
logical alterations produced by the action of this delete-
rious substance upon the animal organismus."
Now, were these symptoms observed in the case of
Sarah Hart ?

" Mr. Champneys states that he smelt at the mouth
of deceased, and that he could not perceive any odour of
prussic acid. Had prussic acid been administered, he
must have smelt it, especially as the quantity must have
been considerable enough to cause death within from ten
to fifteen minutes. He, moreover, states that her eyes
were fixed; he does not mention a word of that peculiar
brilliancy of the eye which is generally considered one
of the characteristic symptoms of poisoning by prussic
acid, and which persists even for a considerable time
after death. I myself have seen three cases of poisoning
by hydrocyatic acid, and this symptom existed in every
one of them. With regard to the repeated screaming of
deceased, I will admit that this would not very much
militate against poisoning by prussic acid, since its re-
sults from Coullon's experiments that animals poisoned
by prussic acid scream repeatedly during the seconsl pe-
riod of the action of the acid. It is, however, gene-
rally held, that after, or rather with that peculiar shriek
usually emitted by persons poisoned with prussic acid,