The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1879-12-05

| VI Ills HstuuS anu tiic SoicS VI Ills lcct,
electricity applied to the head and spine,
failed to make any impression on his
lethargy. The eyelids being forci-
bly, opened, the pupils We're
seen to be contracted to the
size of pinheads, and violently turned
inward. Later, the stertOrous breathing
developed into the Ominously loud rattle
of mucous in the trachea; there were
commissions, attended by copiOus froth-
ings at the mouth; the under jaw fell
upon the breast; and paralysis and death
followed, four hours after DIR. gilbert s
arrival.
Several of the most eminent practi-
TONERS of the city, put upon the stand
by the prosecution, swore that, in their
opinion, the symptoms noted by DIR.
gilbert not only indicated opium pois-
Oning, but could have resulted from no
other cause.
On the other hand, the State absolute
ly failed to show either that opium in
any form had been purchased by Mrs.
Ratcliff in st. Louis, or that traces of
opium in any form were found in the
room after the event. 1t is true that
the Prosecuting Attorney, in his closing
argument, sought to make the latter
circumstance tell against the prisoner.
He argued that the disappearance of any
vessel containing or having contained
laudanum, in view of the positive evil
dence that laudanum had been en-
ployed, served to establish a deliberate
intention of murder and to demolish any
theory of accidental poisoning that the
defense might attempt to build; and he
propOunded half a dozen hypothetical
methods by which Mrs. Ratcliff might
have disposed, in advance, of this evil
dence of her crime. The Court, of
course, in summing up, cautioned the
Jury against attaching weight to these
hypothesis of the Prosecuting AttOr-
ney.
The Court, however, put much en-
phasis on the medical testimony for the
prosecution, and on the calm declaration
of Mrs. Ratcliff to DIR. gilbert, 81 sup
pose that l have killed him."
Having conducted the autopsy, and
afterward made a qualitative analysis of
the contents of the dead mans stomach,
l was put upon the stand as a witness
for the defense.
Then l saw the prisoner for the first
time in more than five years. When
had taken the oath and answered the
preliminary questions, Mrs. Ratcliff
raised the veil which she had worn since
the trial began, and looked me in the
face with the well remembered eyes of
Miss Borgier.
/ confess that my behavior during the
first few moments of surprise afforded
some ground for the reports that were
afterwards current concerning my rela-
tons with the prisoner. Her eyes
chained not only mine, but my tongue
also. saw Jerusalem again, and the
face framed in blue sky peering down
into the amphitheater of the old Medical
College. 1t was only after a struggle
which attracted the attention of Judge,
jury, bar, and spectators that was able
to proceed with my testimony.
That testimony was strong for the ac-
cused. My knowledge of the case was
wholly pOst-mOrtem. 1t began with the
autopsy. Nothing had been found that
indicated poisoning by laudanum or by
any other agent. There was no morbid
appearance of the intestinal canal; no
fullness of the cerebral vessels, no Serious
effusion. Every appearance that would
have resulted from death by poison was
wanting in the subject. That, of course,
was merely negative evidence. But,
furthermore, my chemical analysis had
proved the absence of the poison in the
system. The opium OdOr could not be
detected. had tested for morphine
with nitric acid, permuriate of iron,
chrOmate of potash, and, most i'm
pOrtant of all, iodic acid. l had tested
again for meconic acid with the per
muriate of iron. 1 had tested by Las
saigne's process, by Dublane's, and by
Flandin's. As far as the resources of
organic chemistry could avail, had
proved that, Notwithstanding the symp-
toms of MIR. Ratcliff's case before death,
death had not resulted from laudanum
or any other poison known to science.
The questions by the prosecuting
counsel as to my previous acquaintance
with the prisoner, l was able to an
swer truthfully in manner that did not
shake the force of my medical testimony.
And it was chiefly ON the strength of
this testimony that the jury, after short
returned verdict of not |
guilty.
Did l swear falsely? No; for science
bore me out in every assertion. knew
that not drop of laudanum or grain of
morphine had passed Ratcliff's lips.
Ought l to nave declared my belief re-
garding the true cause of the mans
death, and told the story of my previous
observations of Miss Borgier's, case
No; for no court of justice would have
listened to that story for a single mo-
ment. knew that the woman did not
murder her husband. Yet l believed
and knew-as surely as we can know
any thing where the basis of ascertained
TACT is slender and the laws obscure
hat she poisoned him, poisoned him to
leath Nth her eyes.
! think that it will be generally con-
'eded by the profession that am neither
sensationalist nor prone to lose nv
'ef-command in the mazes of physico-
speculation. 1 make the
OregOing assertion deliberately, fully
of all that it implies.
What was the mystery of the noxious
influence which this woman exerted