|
Dr.Todd
From the Times Report of the
Trial of William Palmer pub 1856 .
Sir
Benjamin Brodie
From the Times Report of the
Trial of William Palmer pub 1856.
Mr.
Thomas Nunneley
From the Times Report of the Trial of William Palmer pub
1856.
|
|
Dr. Todd,
physician at Kings College Hospital: Stated that granuals found
on the spinal cord of the deceased were unlikely to have caused
Cook's tetanus. He stated that the state of a person suffering from
tetanus is identical to that induced by strychnine. This however
was contradicted by other witnesses for the Prosecution. Suggested
that death was due to strychnine.
At this stage
the Attorney General revealed that Dr. Bamford was so unwell
that the (octogenarian) Rugeley doctor was unlikely to be able to
give evidence and asked that Bamford's deposition be read to the
court. After hearing from two doctors, who stated that Dr. Bamford
was in fact suffering from English cholera, Dr. Bamford's evidence
was read out by the Clerk of the Court.
In the deposition,
Dr. Bamford mentioned making his first visit to Cook, at Palmer's
request, at 3 o'clock on the Saturday when Cook was suffering from
violent vomiting. He detailed his visits and the medicine he prescribed
but stated that he had not given Cook antimony. He stated that,
"I consider death to have been the result of congestion of
the brain when the post mortem examination was made, and I do not
see any reason to alter that opinion." (The death certificate
signed by Dr. Bamford gave the reason as apoplexy, which is a malady
arresting powers of sense and motion caused by effusion of blood
in the brain) He also stated "I attended Mrs. Palmer some days
before her decease; also two children, and a gentleman from London,
who was on a visit at Palmer's house, and who did not live many
hours after I was called in. The whole of these patients died."
His statement also said, "Mr. Palmer said he was of the same
opinion as myself with respect to the death of the deceased. I never
knew apoplexy produce rigidity of the limbs. Drowsiness is a prelude
to apoplexy. I attributed the sickness on the first two days to
a disordered stomach."
The questioning
returned to Dr. Todd
who declared that, "Having heard the deposition of Dr. Bamford
read, I do not believe that the deceased died from apoplexy or from
epilepsy. I never knew tetanus arise either from syphilitic sores
or from sore throat. There are poisons which will produce tetanic
convulsions. The principal of these poisons are nux vomica and those
which contain as their active ingredients strychnine and bruccia.
I have never seen life destroyed by strychnine, but I have seen
animals destroyed by it frequently." He talked of differences
between Cook's symptoms and those of tetanus finding it "remarkable"
that the deceased was able to swallow, and that there was no fixing
of the jaw, which would have been the case with tetanus proper,
resulting either from a wound or from disease. Before cross-examination
he concluded, "From all the evidence I have heard, I think
that the symptoms which presented themselves in the case of Mr.
Cook arose from tetanus produced by strychnine."
Under questioning
from the Defence he replied, "There is nothing in the post
mortem examination which leads me to think that the deceased died
from tetanus proper. I think that granules upon the spinal chord,
such as I have heard described, would not be likely to cause tetanus."
He did know that morphia (Cook had been given this) sometimes produces
convulsions but thought that they would be of an epileptic nature.
Sir Benjamin
Brodie,
a senior surgeon to St. George's Hospital, also President of the
Royal College of Surgeons, gave his evidence with great clearness,
slowly, audibly and distinctly. He stated that death from idiopathic
tetanus was rare in this country and that ordinary tetanus in this
country was traumatic tetanus. He agreed that the general contraction
of muscles resembled traumatic tetanus but the course of Cook's
illness was different entirely. He said, "I do not believe
that death in the case of Mr. Cook arose from what we ordinarily
call tetanus - either idiopathic or traumatic. I never knew tetanus
result from sore throat or from a chancre, or of any other form
of syphilitic disease. The symptoms were not as a result either
of apoplexy or of epilepsy."
The Times Report
of the Trial from 1856 quoted Brodie as saying, "Perhaps I
had better say at once that I never saw a case in which the symptoms
that I have heard described here arose from any disease." Following
this quote they wrote "(Sensation)" presumably to mark
the reaction, of the spectators within the courtroom, to the implication
of these words. Brodie continued, "When I say that, of course
I refer not to particular symptoms, but to the general course which
the symptoms took."
Dr. Daniel,
by then out of practice but for many years a surgeon to the Bristol
Hospital, agreed with Sir Benjamin Brodie with respect to the difference
between ordinary tetanus and tetanus caused by strychnine. He said
that Cook's symptoms were not those usually associated with ordinary
tetanus where symptoms developed from firstly a stiffness of the
lower jaw with the contraction of the muscles always a later symptom.
He suggested that the clenching of the fist and the twisting of
the foot were unusual symptoms not normally associated with tetanus.
He did not know of a case of tetanus where death had come so quickly,
ruled out apoplexy and epilepsy as possible causes of death and
stated that he knew of no cases where syphilitic sores caused tetanus
Mr. Samuel
Solly, for twenty-eight years a lecturer and surgeon of St.
Thomas's Hospital, stated that, in his experience of tetanus, there
had always been, "a marked expression of countenance"
as a first symptom and that once you saw this "sort of grin",
peculiar to tetanus, you could never mistake it. In his judgment
Cook's death could not be attributed to apoplexy, epilepsy or any
disease he had ever witnessed.
Mr. Henry
Lee was a surgeon to King's College and Lock Hospitals, which
were devoted to treating up to three thousand cases a year of a
syphilitic character but had never known an instance of that disease
terminating in tetanus. He was not cross-examined.
After the evidence
relating to what might or might not have been the cause of Cook's
death the prosecution brought evidence from four cases of accidental
strychnine poisoning. In three of the cases the patient died but
in the other case the patient recovered. Witnesses were as
follows:
Dr. Henry
Corbett,
physician of Glasgow:
Dr. Watson, surgeon at Glasgow Infirmary:
Dr. J. Patterson, also of the Glasgow Infirmary:
Mary Kelley, patient of the Glasgow Infirmary:
Caroline Hickson, nurse and lady's maid in the family of
Mr. Sarjantson Smyth:
Mr. Francis Taylor, a surgeon from Romsey,
Jane Witham, a lady's attendant,
Mr. Morley a surgeon from Leeds,
Mr. Edward D Moore, a former surgeon,
Professor
Alfred Swaine Taylor,
Fellow of the College of Physicians and a lecturer at Guy's hospital,
who had made a study of strychnia but had never witnessed its action
on a human subject. He gave evidence for nearly a whole day. He
stated that strychnia is first absorbed into the blood, then circulates
through the body, and especially acts on the spinal cord, from which
proceed the nerves acting on the voluntary muscles. He answered
several leading questions put to him by the Attorney-General as
follows:
"You have
heard the descriptions given by the witnesses of the symptoms and
appearances which accompanied Cook's attacks?"
"I have."
"Were the symptoms and appearances the same as those you have
observed in the animals to which you administered strychnine?"
"They were."
And later: "How do you account for the absence of any indication
of strychnia in cases where you know it was administered?"
"It is absorbed into the blood, and is no longer in the stomach.
It is in a great part changed in the blood."
He was asked
if the "parts" sent to him for analysis were in a "favourable
condition"? He replied, "The most unfavourable that could
possibly be," and added that, "the stomach had been completely
cut from end to end, all the contents were gone, and the fine mucous
surface, on which any poison, if present, would have been found,
was lying in contact with the outside of the intestines - all thrown
together."
He said that
he had heard the four cases mentioned by earlier witnesses and agreed
that the deaths in those cases were caused by strychnine and that
Cook's symptoms appeared to be of a similar character. To the question,
"As a professor of medical science, do you know any cause in
the range of human disease except strychnine, to which the symptoms
in Cook's case can be referred?" he answered, "I do not."
Professor Taylor
had been chosen by Cook's stepfather to examine the samples taken
at Cook's post-mortem prior to the inquest. Before Cook's inquest
he had originally diagnosed that antimony (a poison which can be
used in small quantities as a medicine) had caused the death of
Cook.
When questioned
by Serjeant Shee for the Defence, in spite of agreeing that the
quantity of antimony found in the body was not sufficient to account
for death, Taylor claimed that, before the inquest, he had been
justified in suggesting that antimony (not strychnine as was later
suggested) caused death, reasoning, "We could infer nothing
else."
He continued,
"I was told that the deceased was in good health seven or eight
days before his death, and that he had been taken very sick and
ill, and had died in convulsions. No further particulars being given
us we were left to suppose that he had not died a natural death.
There was no natural cause to account for death, and finding antimony
existing throughout the body we thought it might have been caused
by antimony." Referring to the statement that Cook had been
in good health Shee asked if Taylor, "allowed his judgment
to be influenced by the statement of a person (Cook's stepfather)
who knows nothing of his own knowledge?"
Taylor stated
that he had been present for part of the inquest and heard some
of the witnesses and had had some evidence read to him. He had experimented
upon five rabbits some twenty-three years previously and on some
more rabbits since the inquest stating that this was, "the
only knowledge of my own that I had of the effect of strychnia upon
animal life." He claimed to have, "a great objection to
sacrifice of life." When the Defence Council suggested that
he might have been better choosing to experiment upon dogs rather
than rabbits, his answer of "Dogs are very dangerous to handle",
caused some laughter in the court. The Defence quipped, did he not
mean to answer that, "Dogs and cats bear a greater analogy
to man because they vomit, while rabbits do not, but rabbits are
much more manageable?"
He was asked,
"Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public discussion
of the question which might influence the public mind?" and,
"Did you write a letter to the Lancet?"
He answered
"Yes" to both questions but claimed in justification that
he had written to the Lancet so as to, "contradict several
misstatements of my evidence which had been made." He also
wished to correct the impression, "circulated in every newspaper
that a person could not be killed by tartar emetic." (Tartar
emetic is a purgative medicine containing antimony).
He was also
questioned upon the following quote from his letter, "During
the quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted to toxicological
inquiries I have never met with any cases like these suspected cases
of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which they will affect the
person accused is of minor importance compared with their probable
influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying that the future
security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge,
the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges
of murder which have arisen out of these investigations."
When Serjeant
Shee for the Defence asked "Do you adhere to your opinion that
'the mode in which they will affect the person accused,' that is,
lead him to the scaffold, 'is of minor importance compared with
their probable influence on society'?"
Taylor replied
"I have never suggested that they should lead him to the scaffold.
I hope that, if innocent, he will be acquitted." Asked what
he meant by - "The mode in which they will affect the person
accused is of minor importance"? Taylor replied "The lives
of 16,000,000 of people are, in my opinion, of greater importance
than that of one man."
Taylor continued,
"As you appear to put that as an objection to my evidence,
allow me to state that in two dead bodies I find antimony. In one
case death occurred suddenly, and in the other the body was saturated
with antimony, which I never found before in the examination of
300 bodies. I say these were circumstances which demanded explanation."
Shee asked,
"You adhere to the opinion that, as a medical man and a member
of an honorable profession, you were right in publishing this letter
before the trial of the person accused?"
To which Taylor
responded, "I think I had a right to state that opinion in
answer to the comments which had been made upon my evidence."
He agreed that no comments had been made by the prisoner, Palmer,
but claimed, "Mr. Smith, solicitor for the Defence, circulated
in every paper statements of 'Dr. Taylor's inaccuracy'. I had no
wish or motive to charge the prisoner with this crime. My duty concerns
the lives of all."
Shee switched
his attack to ask Taylor if he had given permission to Mr. Angustus,
Mayhew the editor of the Illustrated Times to publish the caricature
of himself.
Professor Taylor
claimed that he had been tricked by Mr. Mayhew and had not given
his permission for the caricature. He claimed that he had given
an interview on the subject of poisons without thinking about the
links to the Rugeley cases. In fact he claimed he had not realised
that Mayhew was the editor of the Illustrated Times. Taylor responded,
"On my oath. It was the greatest deception that was ever practiced
on a scientific man. It was disgraceful. He called on me in company
with another gentleman, with a letter from Professor Faraday. I
received him as I should Professor Faraday, and entered into conversation
with him about these cases. He represented, as I understood, that
he was connected with an insurance company, and wished for information
about a number of cases of poisoning which had occurred during many
years. " (It should be noted that, after the trial, Mr. Mayhew
entirely denied Dr. Taylor's statements.)
Taylor denied
claims made by a Mr. Johnson, in a letter to Sir George Gray (a
member of the Defence team), that Taylor had once said about Cook,
"He will have strychnia enough before I have done with him."
There was some
further discussion about Cook's symptoms with Taylor stating that,
"Cook's symptoms were quite in accordance with an ordinary
case of poisoning by strychnia." Asked if he knew of a case
where a patient, seized by tetanic symptoms, sat up in bed and talked,
he pointed out that it was after he sat up that he was affected
by the symptoms. He was also asked if he knew of any cases in which
the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia commenced with the patient
beating the bedclothes. He replied that this was a symptom which
might be exhibited by a person suffering from a sense of suffocation
whether caused by strychnia or other causes.
Questioned about
why he had suggested questions for the coroner to ask at the inquest,
he replied that the coroner, "did not put questions which enabled
me to form an opinion" and commented that, "There was
an omission to take down the answers". He said that, at the
time of the inquest he wrote to Mr. Gardner (the solicitor for Cook's
stepfather) "I had not learnt the symptoms which attended the
attack and death of Cook. I had only the information that he was
well seven days before he died, and had died in convulsions. I had
no information which could lead me to suppose that strychnia had
been the cause of death, except that Palmer had purchased strychnia.
Failing to find opium, prussic acid, or strychnia, I referred to
antimony as the only substance found in the body."
In spite of
their finding only small traces of the poison antimony and absolutely
no traces of strychnine in the deceased's body, Professor Taylor
stated that, "Cook's symptoms were quite in accordance with
an ordinary case of poisoning by strychnia."
In his book,
They Hanged My Saintly Billy, Robert Graves quotes a "wag"
from the time of the trial:
In antimony,
great though his faith,
The quantity found being small,
Taylor's faith in strychnine was yet greater,
For of that he found nothing at all.
Dr.
G. O. Rees, lecturer at Guy's Hospital: Suggested that death
was due to strychnine.
Professor Brande, professor of chemistry at the Royal Institution
present at the analysis on Cook.
Professor Christianson, professor of Materia Medica to the
University of Edinburgh: Suggested that death was due to strychnine.
Expert
medical witnesses for the Defence
The Defence's
case rested upon them proving that Cook's symptoms, although similar
in some respects to the effects brought about by strychnine, were
not necessarily those produced as a result strychnine. Their medical
witnesses did not agree about what had caused Cook's death but offered
eight different possibilities. They also brought witnesses who felt
that Dr. Taylor should have been able to trace evidence of strychnia
in Cook body had he in fact been poisoned using strychnine.
First to give
evidence for the Defence was Mr. Thomas Nunneley, Professor
of Surgery at Leeds School of Medicine, called as a man who had
a large practice and had seen cases of both traumatic and idiopathic
tetanus. He was, "of the opinion that death was caused by some
convulsive disease". From the evidence he had heard he continued,
"I assume that Cook was a man of very delicate constitution
- that for a long period he had felt himself to be ailing, for which
indisposition he had been under medical treatment; that he had suffered
from syphilis; that he had disease of the lungs; and that he had
old standing disease of the throat; that he lived an irregular life;
that he was subject to mental excitement and depression; and that
after death appearances were found in his body which show this to
have been the case. There was an unusual appearance in the stomach.
The throat was in an unnatural condition. The back of the tongue
showed similar indications. The air vessels of the lung were dilated.
In the lining of the aorta there was an unnatural deposit, and there
was a very unusual appearance in the membranes of the spinal marrow.
One of the witnesses also said that there was a loss of substance
from the penis. That scar on the penis could only have resulted
from an ulcer. A chancre is an ulcer, but an ulcer is not necessarily
a chancre. The symptoms at the root of the tongue and the throat
I should ascribe to syphilitic inflammation of the throat. Supposing
these symptoms to be correct, I should infer that Cook's health
had for a long time not been good, and that his constitution was
delicate. His father and mother died young. Supposing that to have
been his state of health, it would make him liable to nervous irritation
That might be
excited by moral causes. Any excitement or depression might produce
that effect. A person of such health and constitution would be more
susceptible of injurious influence from wet and cold than would
one of stronger constitution. Upon such a constitution as that which
I have assumed Cook's to have been convulsive disease is more likely
to supervene. I understand that Cook had three attacks on succeeding
nights, occurring about the same hour. As a medical man, I should
infer from this that the attacks were of a convulsive character.
I infer that in the absence of other causes to account for them.
According to my personal experience and knowledge from the study
of my profession, convulsive attacks are as various as possible
in their forms and degrees of violence. It is not possible to give
a definite name to every convulsive symptom. There are some forms
of convulsion in which the patient retains consciousness. Those
are forms of hysteria, sometimes found in the male sex. It is also
stated that there are forms of epilepsy in which the patient retains
consciousness."
He had seen
cases where convulsions recurred with the time of recovery from
a violent attack of convulsions varying from a few minutes to many
hours. He stated that with convulsions death comes from asphyxia,
a spasm of the heart. He was familiar with idiopathic tetanus, as
his own child had suffered from the disease. He had also, within
the previous twelve months, made post mortem examinations on two
people who had died from strychnia and in each case, using chemical
analysis, he had been able to find strychnine.
Mr. Nunneley
thought that the Cook's symptoms on the Saturday night did not resemble
those that, from experience, he would expect following the administration
of strychnia. Cook had more power of voluntary movement. Cook had,
"sat up in bed, and moved his hands about freely, swallowed,
talked, and asked to be rubbed and moved, none of which, if poisoned
by strychnia, could he have done". He also believed that the
convulsions were not caused by strychnia because of the length of
time that had elapsed between Cook taking the pills, which were
alleged to have contained strychnine and the commencement of the
screaming and vomiting. He felt that strychnine ought to have been
detected if it had actually been given to Cook and he had found
strychnia in a patient forty days after death. When he experimented
on animals he had worked jointly with Dr. Morley who had been a
medical witness for the Prosecution and disagreed with the doctor's
evidence. He did not know of any cases of strychnine where rigidity
after death was any greater than with the usual rigor mortis.
He concluded
that, "I judge that he died from convulsions, by the combination
of symptoms." He supposed that Cook was, "liable to excitement
and depression of spirit," giving as justification the reason
that, "The fact that after winning the race he could not speak
for three minutes." And, "Mr. Jones stated that he was
subject to mental depression. Excitement will produce a state of
brain which will be followed, at some distance, by convulsions.
I think that Dr. Bamford made a mistake when he said the brain was
perfectly healthy." He went on to add, "With the brain
and the system in the condition in which Cook's were I believe it
is quite possible for convulsions to come on and destroy a person.
I do not believe that he died from apoplexy. He was under the influence
of morphia. I don't ascribe his death to morphia, except that it
might assist in producing a convulsive attack. I should think morphia
was not very good treatment, considering the state of excitement
he was in."
Mr. William
Herapeth, professor of Chemistry and Toxicology at the Bristol
Medical School had performed experiments on animals and in all cases
had been able to detect poison. He was asked, "Are you of the
opinion that where strychnia has been taken in a sufficient dose
to poison it can and ought to be discovered?"
To which Herapeth
answered, "Yes; unless the body has been completely decomposed;
that is unless decomposition has reduced it to a dry powder. I am
of opinion, from the accounts given by Dr. Taylor and other witnesses,
that if it had existed in the body of Cook it ought to have been
discovered."
There is no
doubt that he was a great scientist and chemist but the Attorney
General tried to undermine the value of Herapeth's evidence of by
asking, "Have you not said that you had no doubt that strychnia
had been taken, but that Dr. Taylor had not gone the right way to
find it?" Herapeth's comments had been made at a private function
in Bristol. He replied that he might have made some initial comments
based upon the impression given in various newspaper articles that
strychnine had been given to Cook. There seems to be little doubt
that there was professional rivalry between Professor Herapeth and
Professor Taylor and that he wished to publicly prove Taylor to
be wrong. Herapeth maintained that he could detect as small a quantity
of strychnine as one fifty-thousandth part of a grain if unmixed
with organic matter or one-tenth part of a grain if in water. However
the suggestion of rivalry had been made and there is no doubt that
this weakened the credibility afforded to Herapeth's evidence.
Mr. Rogers,
Professor of Chemistry at St. George's School of Medicine, had made
experiments upon a dog poisoned by strychnia and said of Cook's
case, "Strychnia must unquestionably have been discovered in
this case if it had been present and the proper tests had been used."
Adding, "If the contents of the stomach were lost it would
make a difference, but not if they were only shaken up." Finally
adding that, "If strychnia were in the stomach a portion would
probably be smeared over the mucous membrane, and then I should
expect to find it on the surface."
Dr. Henry
Letheby, a Medical Officer of Health to the City of London,
had been engaged for a considerable time in the study of poisons
and concluded that the symptoms described in Cook's case "did
not accord" with the symptoms he had witnessed. He stated that
he, "had no hesitation in saying that strychnine is of all
poisons, either mineral or vegetable, the most easy of detection."
He claimed that, "When it is pure the 20,000th part of a grain
can be detected. I can detect the tenth part of a grain most easily
in a pint of any liquid, whether pure or putrid." Adding, "I
never failed to detect strychnine where it had been administered."
When asked his
opinion of the cause of Cook's death he replied, "We are learning
new facts every day, and I do not at present conceive it to be impossible
that some peculiarity of the spinal cord, unrecognizable at the
examination after death, may have produced symptoms like those which
have been described. I, of course, include strychnia in my answer;
but it is irreconcilable with everything I have seen or heard of.
It is as irreconcilable with strychnia as with everything else;
it is irreconcilable with every disease that I am acquainted with,
natural or artificial."
Mr. R. E.
Guy, member of the Royal College of Surgeons, described the
symptoms of a Mr. Foster whom he attended and who undoubtedly died
of idiopathic tetanus with symptoms that were, in his opinion, the
same as those of Cook.
Mr. J. B.
Ross, a house-surgeon to the London Hospital spoke of a case
he had seen where, after death, no poison was found but where old
ulcers had left sores on the arm. He stated that these sores had
led to death from tetanus. He had also seen old chronic syphilitic
wounds in patients, which could account for tetanus.
Mr. Rymers
Mantell also a house-surgeon to the London Hospital appeared
briefly to agree with the evidence of Dr. Ross that, in the case
he mentioned, the patient died from tetanus produced by the sores
on the arms.
Dr. Wrightson had been a pupil of Leibig's at Giessen and
was then a teacher of chemistry in a school in Birmingham. He had
been involved in another case where poison was detected. He stated
that, "I have found no extraordinary difficulties in the detection
of strychnia. It is certainly to be detected by the usual tests."
Professor Partridge a Professor of Anatomy in King's College
lectured at the same college as the Prosecution witness Dr. Todd
but disagreed with Todd's assertion that granules on the spine couldn't
cause tetanus. He stated, "I have heard the statements as to
the granules that were found on his spine. They would be likely
to cause inflammation, and no doubt that inflammation would have
been discovered if the spinal cord or its membranes had been examined
shortly after death. It would not be likely to be discovered if
the spinal cord was not examined until nine weeks after death. I
have not seen cases in which this inflammation has produced tetanic
form of convulsions, but such cases are on record. It sometimes
does, and sometimes does not produce convulsions and death."
When asked if
he could form any judgement as to the death in Cook's case he replied,
"I cannot. No conclusion or inference can be drawn from the
degree or kind of contractions of the body after death. - Hypothetically,
I should infer that he died of tetanus which convulses the muscles.
Great varieties of rigidity arise after death from natural causes.
The half-bent hands and fingers are not uncommon after natural death.
The arching of the feet in this case seemed rather greater than
usual."
Asked, "You
heard Mr. Jones state that if he had turned the body upon the back
it would have rested on the head and the heels. Have you any doubt
that that is an indication of death from tetanus?"
He replied,
"No; it is a form of tetanic spasm. I am only acquainted with
tetanus resulting from strychnine by reading. Some symptoms in Cook's
case are consistent, some are inconsistent with strychnine tetanus.
The first inconsistent symptom is the intervals that occurred between
the taking of the supposed poison and the attacks." He also
added other inconsistent symptoms namely, "sickness, beating
the bed-clothes, want of sensitiveness to external impressions,
and sudden cessation of the convulsions and apparent complete recovery".
Mr. John
Gay,
a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and surgeon to the Royal
Free Hospital, recalled a case he had been involved in 1843. A boy
had suffered an accident when a large stone had fallen upon the
middle toe resulting in him having to have his toe amputated. A
week later he suffered from a stiff neck and could not open his
mouth and this was followed by intermittent convulsions. The injury
to the toe had given rise to affection of his spinal cord and this
irritation of the spinal cord ended in tetanic convulsions.
Dr. W. Macdonald
a licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, stated
that epileptic convulsions sometimes have the same appearance as
tetanic convulsions. He disagreed with all his colleagues by stating
lock-jaw is generally a late symptom. He doubted if a patient who
had been given strychnine could pull a bell violently as Cook had
done and stated, "I think that death was in this case caused
by epileptic convulsions, with tetanic complications." Adding,
"I form that opinion from the post mortem appearances being
so different from those that I have described as attending poisoning
with strychnia, and from the supposition that a dose of strychnia
sufficient to destroy life in one paroxysm could not, so far as
I am aware, have required even an hour for its absorption before
the commencement of the attack. If the attack were of an epileptic
character the interval between the attacks of Monday and Tuesday
would be natural, as epileptic seizures very often recur at about
the same hours of successive days." Asked by the Defence, "Assuming
that a man was in so excited a state of mind that he was silent
for two or three minutes after his horse had won a race, that he
exposed himself to cold and damp, excited his brain by drink, and
was attacked by violent vomiting, and that after his death deposits
of gritty granules were found in the neighbourhood of the spinal
cord, would these causes be likely to produce a death as that of
Cook's?" He replied, "Any one of these causes would assist
in the production of such a death."
Dr. Bainbridge,
a medical officer to St. Martin's Workhouse who had much experience
of convulsive disorders, suggested that, "In both males and
females hysteria is frequently attended by tetanic convulsions."
And, "Hysteric convulsions very rarely end in death. I have
known one case in which they have done so."
Mr. Edward
Austin Steddy, a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons and
of Chatham, told the court of a patient called Sarah Ann Taylor
who had convulsions brought on by depression, brought about by a
quarrel with her husband. Sarah had had convulsions that lasted
for a week before recovering and she had had another attack lasting
a week a year later.
Dr. George
Robinson
was a physician to the Newcastle-on-Tyne Dispensary, who having
heard the medical evidence, had come to the conclusion that Cook
died of tetanic convulsions by which he meant, not the convulsions
of tetanus, but convulsions similar to those witnessed in that disease.
He believed that gritty granules in the region of the spinal cord
would be very likely to produce convulsions similar to the ones
Cook experienced. He also stated that Cook's "mode of life"
would have predisposed him to epilepsy but he had never seen a case
of epilepsy where the body was so stiff as to rest upon head and
heels. He agreed that the symptoms spoken of by Cook's friend Mr.
Jones could indicate death from strychnine but if there were no
other cause of death suggested he would have said that death in
Cook's case arose from epilepsy.
Dr. Richardson, a physician practicing in London, knew of
many cases of death by convulsion often tetanic in appearance without
being strictly tetanus. There are cases of angina pectoris in which
the patient has recovered and appeared perfectly well for a period
of twenty-four hours, and then the attack returned. Dr. Richardson
was of the opinion that the fact that Cook had a second fit was
more likely to be the symptom of angina pectoris than of strychnia
poison.
Dr. Wrightson
was recalled and said, that although strychnia poison is absorbed
into the system, he would have still expected to find it in the
spleen and liver and blood. Catherine Watson from Garnkirk gave
evidence that, in the previous October, she had been attacked by
a fit but had not suffered from a wound or taken poison.
Oliver Pemberton
a lecturer on anatomy at Queen's College, Birmingham and a surgeon
at the city's General Hospital, stated that he had been present
at the examination of Cook's body after its exhumation in the January.
He could not form any opinion as to the state of the body immediately
after death. After this witness Mr. Serjeant Shee intimated that
this concluded the medical evidence on behalf of the prisoner.
The Defence
Team's own experts had given their opinions upon what caused Cook's
death; however, they could not agree suggesting eight different
possibilities other than strychnine. The jury had to decide upon
an issue that divided the medical experts, though the decisive factor
was undoubtedly the masterly way in which the Attorney-General summed
up the evidence for the Prosecution.
|
Introduction
