Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1879-12-16

theory of accidental poisoning that tn,
defense might attempt to build; and ht
propounded half a dozen Hypothetical
methods by which Mrs Ratclif NIGH
have disposed in advance of this evidenc,
of her crime The Court, of course, il
summing up, cautioned the jury against
attaching weight TO these hypothesis Of
the prosecuting attorney.
The Court, however, put much empha.
sis on the medical testimony for the pros
ecution and on the cam declaration oi
Mrs. Ratclif to Dr. Culbert, Il suppose
| have killed him"
Having conducted the autopsy, and
afterward made qualitative analysis OF
the contents of the dead mans stomach
| was put upon the stand as witness ioT
the defense.
Then | saw the prisoner for the first
time in more than five years When
had taken the oath and answered the pre-
liminsry questions, Mrs Ratclitf raised
the veil which she had worn since the
trial began and looked me in the face
with the wcll-rcmembcrcd eyes Of Miss
Borgier.
confess that my behavior during the
first few moments OF surprise afforded
some ground for the reports thai were
afterwards current concerning my rela-
tions with the prisoner. Her eyes chained
no; only mine, but my tongue also. |
saw Jerusalem again, and the face framed
in blue sky, peering down into the am
phitheatre of the old medical college. 1t
was only after a struggle which attracted
the attention Of judge, jury, bar and spec
tators that was able to proceed with my
testimony.
That testimony was strong for the
accused Ny knowledge of the case was
wholly post-mortcm. 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, fur
thermorc, my chemical analy sis had proved
the absence OF poison in the system.
The opium odor could not be detected.
had tested for morphine with nitric acid,
permuriate of iron, chromatc OF potash,
and. most important Of all, iodic acid.
had tested again for meconic acid with
the permuriate of iron. had tested by
I.assaignes process. by Dublancs :, and
by Flandins. AS far as the resources OF
organic chemistry could avail, / had prov
ed that, Notwithstanding the symptoms
of Mr.. Ratclif caSs before death, death
had not resulted from morphine or any
other poison known to science.
The questions by the prosecuting coun-
sci as to my previous acquaintance with
the prisoner. | was able to answer truth
fully in a manner that did not shake the
force of my medical testimony. And 1t
was chiefly on the strength Of this tcsii-
mony that the jury, after short dcI'ber
alton, returned a verdict OF not guilty.
Did swear falsely: No; tor >ci'aca
bore me out in every asser,.o". ] N-e"
that not a drop OF laudann.n or r.-lr
Of morphine had passed Ratclih "p-.
Ought | to have declared my belief Ie-
garding the true cause OF the mm =,
death. and told the story Of my previous
observation, Of Miss Borgier's case: No:
for no court of Justice would have listened
to that story Tor a single moment. /
knew that the woman did no: murder her
husband. Yet | believed and knew-as
surely as We can know anything where
the basis OF asccrtained fact Is slender
and the laws obscure-that she poisoned
him. poisoned him to death With her eyes.
| think it will be generally conceded
by the profession that am neither sen
sationalist nor prone to lose my self-com-
mand in the macs of physico-psycho-
logic speculation. make the foregoing
assertion deliberately, fully conscious OF
of all that it implies
What was the mystery Of the noxious
influence which this woman exerted
through her eyes: What was the record
of her ancestry, the secret of predisposi-
ton in her case: BY what occult process
of evolution did her glance derive the
toxical effect of the papdver somHyeru"'
How did she come to be WomanPoP-
py: | cannot vet answer these ques-
tions. Perhaps | shall never be able to
answer them.
But if there is need Of further proof
of the sincerity of my denial of any SEN
timent on my part which might have led
me to shield Mrs. Ratcliff by perjury, |
may say that | have now in my posses
sion letter from her, written after her
acquittal. proposing to endow me with
her fortune and herself, as well as copy
of my reply, respectfully declining the