The Daily spy., 1848-12-11
Gne Ddilp @3,p.
WORC ESTER
MONDAY, DECEMBER, II, 1913.
TRIAL For MuhnER.
ComMoNwEALTH rs >JoHN Cook.

CoMMoEWEALTH uS.SJoHN Cook.
Hon BENZ F. Thomas, in addressing the jury IN de-
fence, regretted that he could not have some opporuni>
ty 10 arrange and digest the testimony in the case-but
he felt strong confidence that the result of this days
examination not result in the untimely death of
the prisoner the bar-and he looked to something
more than acqutal-to one that should excul>
pate him from the Suspicion of guilt in the minds of the
people. In all but the single one of murder the
law has wisely provided that no indictment can be found
after six years from the time when the crime is charged
to be committed. He then spoke of the uncertainty of
all testimony in relation any thing which took place so
long ago as Is years; how much must have been for
getten and how much imperecty remembered, He
thought that instead of murder being an exception 10 the
general rule of limitation, it ought more than any other
crime 10 be brought within it, on account of the uncer.
tainty.
The FIRST question to be considered Is, did the woman
die from taking arsenic into the system
If taken in, was it intentional or accidental?
If intentional, was ii done by the prisoner?
The prisoner must be considered innocent till clearly
proved guilty The government must make the proof
so clear as TO leave the mind Of the jury free from doubt
and hesitation, and at repose in case they convict
DID this woman die of arsenic Who can tell 4? Sud-
1H'N'' VI NtatH lS HO PROOF Of H. similar SuddenUeSS
is not unirequent, when there is suspicion Of crime
Df cutler had no suspicion of crime from the symptoms
10 this case, Of poison. There nothing to distinguish
IRON otner cases of sudden death in bis practice and
to r the fact in his memory. You cannot then suppose
you have nll statement of the case The usual ac>
compartments OF cases of poisoning-purgng and vom-
ng-were wanting, and DR. Cutl,r treated it like case
OF Inflammation from constipation. DR. Guy an emi>
nent physician and chemist, estifes that the symp-
toms would not prove 1t to be a case of poisoning
They were such might be Induced by variety Of
other causes. The appearance of preservation of the
body was rather apparent than real resulting merely
from the chests retaining its form. On attempting
removal it all fell in and DR. Webster SAID he could not
tell from the substance sent him. whittier it had ever
belonged to human frame or not Preservation also,
is induced by various and unknown causes In this case
the quantity OF would not account for it, even if
II is preservative which is YET an unsettled question
But was the arsenic i'll that body? Doctor Webster
did not testify to IT. as matter of fact but as thing to
be inferred as the result of scientific experiment We
know not what care was used in making the exT erment.
Many vessels must have been used and processes gone
through and all the arsenic found might have been in
some OF the vessels otherwise accidentally introduced
in making the experiments You must be satisfied that
the examination carefully made that there could be
mistake in this respect Dr. Webster stated that no
case to be fund in the books where arsenic had
been detected in the human system more than years
after death. Iiwas found in this case IA years afer
1t most extraordinary addition to scientific facts
But there in the remains, what proofis
there that it was introduced before death? Dr. Guy
man of great science, says the appearance would have
been the me whether introduced before or afer There
are various ways in which it might have been introduced
after DEATH and if applied externally would penetrate
the system The testimony Of the government in the
absence ofthe usual evidence afforded by post NOR
TEN examination, at any rate, leaves the subject in
doubt
But you haze doubt that there ras arsenic in lbe
system, and that introduced before death ii leads
to the other point Is there any evidence to show that
the arsenic was intentionally introduced? II YOU can
reconcile the facts the hypothesis OF an accidental in
tIoduction you are bound to do it, Arsenic hadbeea
kept in the house There various WAYS in which il
might have been accidentally taken. People do no, act
without motive commit great crimes without po,oer.
(L motive till they have become hackney ed in vice and
hardened in crime, by long familiarity with it, The pr
was man of unimpeached characters a member
of the church. married to the woman OF his choice with
child recently born, and they lived happily tose her
What motive could he have for committing so diaboIcal
crime Judge for yourselves, by your waieeipgs,
for SO only you judge. Men do moi become haden,
ed in moment aud turned 10 6ends without remeu-
dous impellng motive. The only motive assigned by
the government the iedeeming Of three hundred
dollars, held by bis wife, TO his possession There
is no evidense thai she refused him single dolar
Oit--and, by law, it was already bis own There is
thea entire want Of any adequate motive for the
crime. Unless there was amotiye, you cannot believe
The crime committed
Bu if,he crime wascommitled, !, does no, follow that
i.w done by The husband Their was another per.
son there who hada motive one who hated both hus~
band and wife, And when sister hates sister, the
mon feelings ofhumanty must be lost ifshs admins
tered the poison, ii Destroyed one that she no longer
loved, and punished another whom she hated Yhere are
various Ways in which she might have administered IL. Il
might been she, and no, Cook who gave deceased
~ Ssk~ sss as st.h 4 ssssss