The Wahpeton times. [volume] (Wahpeton, Richland County, Dakota [N.D.]) 1879-1919, 1908-10-01
"A TraCe|ess Poison
tOriginal.l

Having been summoned as an expert
In chemistry in the Nolan case, con-
cluded my testimony with the remark.
"A person desiring to kill another
would be more likely to use a poison
that would leave no trace" where.
upon the prosecuting attorney asked
me If there was such poison. l hav-
ing replied that there was, he asked
me to name it. The Judge forbade ME
to do so. The prosecutor insisted. but
the Judge was immovable. He would
not permit me to name publicly poi
son that would leave no trace.
Immediately after my testimony was
published was deluged with letters
fnquiring the name Of the poison that
left no trace. Most of them doubtless
came from idle curiosity, but was as
tonfshcd at the number of those which
showed plainly, from the pains the
writer's took to conceal their identity,
that they were written for an evil pur-
pose.
One day received call from a wo-
man who asked for the secret She
said she had made bet With her
brother, who was q scientist, of $1,000
that there was such Il poison, and she
desired to prove it to him by trying it
on Cog. If would give her the name
or the poison and she won she would
give me half the amount.
questioned her, then. going into an
other room, returned with tiny dill,
which l gave her, saying that if it
killed the dog and left no trace she
might refer her brother to me for evil
dence that she had won the bet. When
! she left l sent housemaid to follow
her, who brought me her address.
Sending for a detective, l directed him
to establish some sort Of watch on
the house where she lived, TO shadow
her when she went out and report to
me any case Of illness that might occur
to any one With whom she might be
connected.
In few days my man reported that
the lady's husband had died suddenly.
1t had been given out that he had suf-
fered an apop!ectic stroke and had not
lived an hour after.
l was thundcrstruck. l alone knew
the nature OF the pill l had given the
woman, and Of course she would keep
the secret. Nevertheless l was very
much troubled at the result directed
the detective to keep her under strict
surveillance. Later lie reported to me
that she had visited the Office of q
life insurance company. Upon inquiry
he had learned that her husband had
been insured for $4,000. l hurried to
the insurance office, called on the pres
ident and advised him before paying
the claim to make sure that there was
no trickery connected with it. But I
would answer no questions.
The next heard of the case was
that upon examination of the body
exhumed for the purpose-it was dis
covered that it was the remains of the
brother of the man insured. The in
sured himself had disappeared. Pay
ment was refused, and the woman was
arrested OH a charge Of fraud, to which
was added a charge Of murder.
The body of the deceased was given
over to physicians with a view to dis
covering if the man had died natural
death. One reported apopleXy as the
cause, another heart trouble and an
other kidney disease. Three different
experts reported three different poisons
found in the body. There was opium,
arsenic and one other, the name of
| which l have forgotten. was sum-
| mOned as witness for the prosecution
and produced sensation by refusing
to testify on the ground of self incrim-
ination.
Afterward consented to give my
evidence. Informed the court of the
woman's visit to me. Of her request for
poison that would leave no trace and
the use she proposed to make of It.
Then told them that had given her
the pill. At this point q technical OBJ
lection was interposed by the defend.
ants counsel. and the Judge sustained
him. was forbidden to tell what was
In the pill. the reason being that it had
not been proved that the pill had been
used. This left me In a very unfortu
nate position.
After long trial the woman was &C.
quilted Of the charge Of murder, and
the charge of fraud was never pressed.
The prosecution had failed to prove
she knew that the man who was buried
was her husbands brother or that she
had poisoned him. Her counsel con-
trived to throw all the blame on her
husband, who had disappeared.
After her acquittal the woman came
to see me. She was curious to know If
I had been deceived by her story about
the bet and If had really given her a
traceless pill. Before replying l asked
her to explain the case to me, and, aft
er solemn promise on my part to
keep her secret, she did SO.
Her husbands life was largely in.
sured, and since they were an i'll mated
couple she resolved to poison him.
Just as she was about to give him the
pill had furnished her her husband
brother came to the house for q visit.
His health had been broken down by
excuses, especially drugs that he had