The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1893-04-27


lives, would have easily escaped pun
ishment if the rule had been applied to
his case that a jury shall not find man
guilty OF murder by poisoning unless
shere is direct evidence of the fact.
Palmer is famous in history as the first
Of a long line of modern poisoning doc
tors He was only about 81 years of
age but was much given to the race
course and IT'S incidental vices. Topro-
cure money to maintain his dissolute
life he poisoned his wife, his brother.
and, finally, his friend, a Mr.. Cook,
for whose murder alone he was tried.
He had employed strychnia, fatal
preparation which leaves no trace in
the body of the victim. BY this pre-
caution Palmer thought that he had
securely guarded himself against detec-
ton and punishment. But when he
was arrested and charged with the
| offense he betrayed so much nervous
ness at every point of the proceedings
that he gave the jury good reason, by
his own behavior alone, to believe that
he was guilty. He tried to bride the
Coroner who held the ipGuest on Cook
body. he offered ten pounds in money
to driver of carriage in which the
| jar containing the contents of Cooks
| stomach was to be taken to the rail-
road depot on its way to London for
analysis, on condition that he
would upset the vehicle and break
| the jar Yet on his trial, which
took place in 1856. he showed the
oo11rocc 10 al,
with the wardens on his way 10 and
from the court room and laughingly
predicted his own acquittal with the
utmost confidence The Central Grim
inal court room in London in which he
was tried was crowded with an audi
ence gathered mainly from the nobility
and the first social circles of England
The doctors were obliged to admit on
their oaths that there was no trace of
stry CHINA found in the body of Cook
and the best legal opinion of the coun-
try expected his acquittal. While the
jury were out of court celebrating on
their verdict Palmer was so confident
that the chain OF circumstances proved
against him was incomplete that he
tossed over paper to his counsel on
which he had jauntily. written: There
will be verdict of not guilty
The jury convicted him. nevertheless.
Palmer still believed that he would not
be executed, and repeatedly declared in
his condemned cell that he was going
to his grave a murdered man. So stead
fast did he seem to be in his assertion
of innocence that pu bile opinion wav-
cred, as it always will do under such
circumstances, and there began to be
widespread anxiety lest an innocent
man was going to be deprived
of his life. Palmer was sent
back to Staffordshire to be exc
cuted, and in front of Stat
ford jail the largest concourse of spec
tators ever assembled in England on a
like occasion witnessed his last mo-
ments. Not less than $4,000 people
stood around his scaffold. The process
sion of death had reached the platform
of the scaffold, and still Palmer had
not confessed But at the last moment
he turned to the chaplain and admitted
that he he not only poisoned Cook, but
had also poisoned his wife and brother
in the same manner. If he had had
two minutes more of the hardihood
and bravado which had characterized
him all through the trial and ND to the
very brink of eternity, William Palmer
would have joined the other specters
that throw their weirdSshadows across
the annals of the courts and make us
all tremble a the possibility of doing
wrong that never can be righted on |
the strength Of merely circumstantial |
evidence. e. !
Curiously like the case of Carlyle W. |
Harris in many respects was that of |
George Henry Lamson, young medi-
1882 on the charge of procuring the
death by poison of his younger brother
in-law, Percy Malcolm John, lad
a bout Is years of age. The boy was
a pupil at the school of Mr.. Bed brook
at Blenheim House, Vim bledon. He
was seriously crippled by curvature
of the spine so that he had to be car
ried up and down stairs at school, but
otherwise was in fair health. His
mother had died in 1868 and all her
children had been made wards in Chan
Gerry. One of the sisters of the boy had
married Lamson, who was Young
doctor with a poor practice at Bourne
mouth. Each of the children was en-
titled to one-eighth OF the estate on COM
ing of age or marrying. and the share
Of any one of them who died was to pass
TO the survivors, The murdered BOYS
inheritance was valued at
4 bout $4,000. This amount would
pass to his two married sisters in case of
Mas the wife of Lamson. Mrs. Lamson.
1t the time of her marriage. had settled
Ill her property upon her husband. so
that the boys portion. if he died would
20 TO DR.. Lamson. And that was the
motive for the crime. One of Percy's
brothers, Herbert John, had already
i;ed in 1879. and DR.. Lamson had then
received as his share of that child's ;
portion the sum of about SIS, 500. 1t was
proved al the trial that the doctor was
N very straitened circumstances and in
the most urgent need OF money. Never
.heless. the trial awakened widespread
questioning Of the value of circuInstan-
ial evidence, and particularly of the
medical testimony, which was of an ex- I
remely scientific and technical charac- {
err. =
What was clearly proven was this
hat about o'clock in the evening Of
)ecem Der 8. 1881. Dr.. Lamson paid a
isit 10 the school at Win bledon, and
lad an interview with mis- young
'rother-in-law, but was never once
lone with him. as the principal OF the :
chool, DR.. Bedrock. was present the
Whole time. seeing everything that was