Twelfth Day, Tuesday, 27th May, 1856 — The Court Met at Ten O’Clock
Lord Campbell
Lord Campbell—Gentlemen of the jury, at the adjournment of the Court yesterday evening I had finished the task of laying before you all the evidence on the part of the prosecution; and certainly that case, if not answered, does present for your consideration a serious case against the prisoner at the bar. It appears that in the middle of November he was involved in pecuniary difficulties of the most formidable nature; he had engagements to perform that he was unable to perform without some most extraordinary expedients; he had to make payments for which he was unprepared; there were actions brought against both himself and his mother upon the forged acceptances; he had no credit in any quarter upon which money could be raised. It so happened that at that time Cook, the deceased, by the winning of the race on the 13th November, became the master of at least £1000, and there is evidence from which an inference may be drawn that the prisoner formed the design of appropriating that money to his own use, and that he is prepared to do whatever was necessary to accomplish that object. There is some evidence that he did appropriate that money to the payment of debts for which he alone was liable. There is evidence from which it may be inferred that he drew a cheque in the name of Cook, which was a forgery, upon which to obtain payment of part of the money which was due to Cook; and there is further evidence that he employed Herring to collect money on the Monday and to appropriate it to his own use. What effect would have been produced by the survival of Cook, under such circumstances, you are to consider. However, it appears that from Cook’s death he contemplated the advantage of obtaining possession of the horse “Polestar,” which had belonged to Cook; and you have evidence of his having fabricated a document which was to declare that certain bills of exchange with which it appears that Cook had no concern were negotiated for Cook’s advantage, and that the prisoner at the bar had derived no benefit from them. Gentlemen, that was brought forward after Cook’s death, and if Cook had survived that fraud must have been exposed, and might have been punished. Then, gentlemen, with respect to the joint liability of Cook and Palmer, which, it is said, would now be thrown entirely upon Palmer, that was rather a distant object; and if Palmer had got possession of all Cook’s property by the means that he resorted to, he would not have been a sufferer by his death. Then, gentlemen, as to the important question whether Cook must be supposed to have died by natural disease or by poison. You have the evidence of Sir Benjamin Brodie and other most skilful and honourable men, who say that, in their opinion, he did not die from natural disease; they know no natural disease in the whole catalogue of diseases which attack the human frame that will account for those symptoms. Further, gentlemen, the witnesses go on to say that they believe that the symptoms that were exhibited by Cook were the symptoms of strychnia, that they were what would be expected from strychnia, and that, comparing those symptoms with natural tetanus, they do not correspond with it, but they do correspond with the symptoms brought on by a man being poisoned by the administration of strychnia. Then, gentlemen, with respect to the consideration that no strychnia was found in the body, that is for you to consider, and no doubt you will pay great attention to it; but there is no point of law according to which the poison must be found in the body of the deceased; and all that we know respecting the poison not being in the body of Cook is that in that part of the body that was analysed by Drs. Taylor and Rees they found no strychnia. But witnesses of great reputation have said, Dr. Christison among the number, that, under certain circumstances, where there has been poison by strychnia, they would not expect the strychnia should be detected; and you have the evidence of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, who made the examination, that they having experimented upon animals killed by strychnia which they themselves administered, and by resorting to the same means that they had employed in examining the body of Cook, no strychnia could be found.
Then, gentlemen, with regard to the length of time that occurred between the alleged administration of the strychnia and the time that the symptoms appeared, the evidence seems to me to lead to this conclusion, that, where it is administered to animals with a view of making experiments and with a view of observing its operations as quickly as possible, it generally operates more rapidly than in the human frame when it is put in the shape of pills, and that will depend upon the manner in which those pills are compounded, and likewise on the state of the health and body of the person to whom they are to be administered, and whether there may or may not have been any previous tampering with the health of that person. Instances are referred to where, even in the human body, a greater space of time has elapsed than in this case between the administration of the poison and the symptoms which were exhibited.
Mr. Serjeant Shee—I think that is not so upon the evidence, my lord.
Lord Campbell
Lord Campbell—There are instances referred to in which it has been detected; there have been instances referred to in the course of this trial in which there has been as long an interval.
Mr. Serjeant Shee—I believe that is a mistake.
Lord Campbell—With regard to there being no blood in the heart, which seems to have been relied upon, it appears that the result is this, that if the death is produced by an obstruction of the respiratory organs, producing asphyxia, the blood is found in the heart; but if it be produced by a spasm upon the heart itself, the heart contracts, the blood is expelled, and no blood is found after death. Now, taking the evidence before us, there are two instances where that took place.
Then, gentlemen, we have to look to the evidence as it implicates the prisoner at the bar. You must consider the evidence to show that he must have tampered with the health of the deceased, by administering something to him in the brandy and water, in the broth, and in the other things which were administered to him at Rugeley. One part of the broth was taken by Elizabeth Mills, as she swears, and the consequence which followed, according to her evidence and the evidence of Lavinia Barnes, was that she was taken ill with a vomiting in the stomach as Cook the deceased had been.
Then, gentlemen, you have antimony found in the body of the deceased; antimony, which would show that tartar emetic, producing vomiting, had been administered, and it seems to be clearly proved that that substance was found in his body, from what source you are to say from the evidence before you.
Lord Campbell
Then, gentlemen, comes the more direct evidence that the prisoner at the bar, if you believe the witnesses, procured this very poison on the Monday and on the Tuesday—3 grains, I think, on the Monday, and 6 on the Tuesday. For what purpose was that obtained? The evidence of the witness who swears to the poison being obtained on the Monday is impeached, but no impeachment rests upon the evidence of the witness who swears to the poison being sold by him on the Tuesday to the prisoner at the bar. You have no account of that poison; what was the intention with which it was purchased, and what was the application of it, you are to infer. Then, gentlemen, it is impossible that you should not pay attention to the conduct of the prisoner at the bar, and there are some instances of his conduct which you will say whether they belong to what might be expected from an innocent or a guilty man. He was eager to have the body fastened down in the coffin. Then, with regard to the betting book, there is certainly evidence from which you may infer that he did get possession of the betting book, that he abstracted it and concealed it. Then, gentlemen, you must not omit his conduct in trying to bribe the postboy to overturn the carriage in which the jar was being conveyed, to be analysed in London, and from which evidence might be obtained of his guilt. Again, you find him tampering with the postmaster, and procuring from the postmaster the opening of a letter from Dr. Taylor, who had been examining the contents of the jar, to Mr. Gardner, the attorney employed upon the part of Mr. Stevens. And then, gentlemen, you have tampering with the coroner, and trying to induce him to procure a verdict from the coroner’s jury which would amount to an acquittal. These are serious matters for your consideration, but you, and you alone, will say what inference is to be drawn from them. If not answered, they certainly present a serious case for your consideration. It is for you to say whether the answer is satisfactory. Either you may be of opinion that the case on the part of the prosecution is insufficient, or you may be of opinion that the answer to it is satisfactory.
Then, gentlemen, that answer consists of two parts—first, of the medical evidence, and, secondly, of the evidence of facts. With regard to the medical evidence, I must say that there were examined on the part of the prisoner a number of gentlemen of high honour and solid integrity and proved scientific knowledge, who came here only to speak the truth and assist in the administration of justice. You may be of opinion that others came whose object was to procure an acquittal of the prisoner. Gentlemen, it is material, in the due administration of justice, that a witness should not be turned into an advocate, any more than an advocate should be turned into a witness. It is for you to say whether some of those who were called on the part of the prisoner did not belong to the category which I described as witnesses becoming advocates.
Gentlemen, the first witness on the part of the prisoner was Mr. Thomas Nunneley. (The learned judge read the evidence of Mr. Nunneley and the documents therein referred to.) You will recollect what he says, and you will form your opinion as to the weight that is to be given to it. He certainly seemed to me to give his evidence in a manner not quite becoming a witness in a Court of justice, but you will give all attention to the facts to which he refers in the evidence he gave. He differs very materially in his general opinion from several of the witnesses who were examined on the part of the prosecution. He speaks of there being an extraordinary rigidity of the body after death, when there has been a death of this description, with other symptoms, and he attaches considerable importance to the heart being empty, but you will say what weight ought to be attached to his opinion.
Lord Campbell
Mr. William Herapath is then called. (The examination-in-chief of Mr. Herapath was read.) He seems to differ from Mr. Nunneley with respect to the rigidity produced by this poison. Now, gentlemen, Mr. Herapath is a very skilful chemist, and I have no doubt he spoke sincerely what he thought, and what was his opinion? That when there has been death by strychnia, strychnia ought to be discovered; but it seems he intimated an opinion on this very case of Cook that there might have been strychnia, and that Dr. Taylor did not use the proper means to detect it. Now, the only evidence that we have in this case that there was not strychnia is the analysis by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees that they did not discover it. As I before pointed out to you, in two other cases in which there certainly had been poisoning by strychnia the result was the same—they could not discover it.
Then the next witness is Mr. Rogers. Now, this is a gentleman whom there seems no reason to doubt; there seems no reason to doubt the facts that he stated, and that he does sincerely entertain the opinion that he expresses; and, according to his evidence, where there has been strychnia mixed with impure matter, it may be expected that it would be detected by skilful experimentalists, and by using the proper tests. Then Dr. Letheby is called; he is the medical officer of health to the city of London and of the London Hospital. I doubt not that Dr. Letheby speaks sincerely, and according to his experience and opinion, but he does say truly that cases vary very much, and that there may be cases which he calls “exceptional,” alluding to the case of the lady at Romsey; and it may probably be the fair result that enough of this disease is not known to be aware of all its varieties, and that any peculiarity that may arise where there is strong probability of strychnia having been administered would not be anything like conclusive evidence to rebut that result.
Then Mr. Robert Gray is examined. Now, gentlemen, here you have a case of what is called idiopathic tetanus; but you are to say whether from this you can infer that the illness of Mr. Cook was idiopathic tetanus. The great weight of evidence seems to me to show that it was not idiopathic any more than traumatic tetanus; but that whatever form of disease it might be, it would not be idiopathic tetanus; and you will find that the symptoms vary most materially in their appearance from the case that is here detailed in the duration as well as the rest of the course of events.
Lord Campbell
The next witness that was called was Mr. Brown Ross. Now, gentlemen, I do not know for what purpose the case alluded to by Mr. Ross was brought before you, unless to lead to an inference that Mr. Cook’s was a case of tetanus of the same sort with this which is here described, because this was tetanus; and I suppose it was intended that you are to infer that Mr. Cook’s was of the same description; but whether you call it idiopathic or traumatic, it was a case of tetanus—was directly to be ascribed to wounds which were upon his body, and which are here described. No such wounds were upon the body of Mr. Cook; and other witnesses who were examined on the part of the defence say that this was not a case of tetanus at all; but then, even in this case that has been described, you see there were the symptoms so nearly approaching those of strychnia that strychnia was suspected, but there was no ground for it; and in the case described there was no ground for supposing strychnia could by possibility be the cause of death.
The next witness is a witness worthy of all praise for the sincerity which he exhibited. I mean Dr. Wrightson. Now, gentlemen, this witness, who, I have no doubt, is a most scientific and a very honourable man, speaks as a man of science, and, according to him, the poison would be found in the body; but he speaks with proper caution, and upon his evidence you ought to say whether, under particular circumstances, it might not be discoverable, or whether the person seeking for it might fail to employ the proper means for detecting it in the body.
Then comes Mr. Partridge, a most respectable gentleman, who says he has been many years in practice as a surgeon, and is professor of anatomy at King’s College. Now, gentlemen, you have here the opinion of a very respectable witness as to the different topics that he touches upon; and the most important one is that he thinks that the symptoms that were exhibited did not correspond with what he should expect from strychnia; but he speaks from his own experience, and you have it from the other witnesses that the symptoms vary considerably in different cases.
The next witness is Mr. John Gay. Now, gentlemen, this was a case, you see, of tetanus arising from the toe being smashed; and it seems to me, although, of course, you will form your own opinion upon it, bears no analogy whatever to the case of Cook, with regard to whom no such cause could be assigned. Again, gentlemen, he says, what is very material, that, in the event of a given state of tetanus, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without collateral evidence, to ascribe the tetanic disease to any cause in the absence of any evidence as to the cause. But you will form your own opinion upon it. Therefore you are to look to collateral evidence; and if the collateral evidence would impute the symptoms of tetanic convulsions to any particular cause, according to this witness that cause may be assigned. That I say with a view to get what is called the moral evidence with regard to the conduct of a particular person, and with regard to what he may have done or what he may have had in his possession.
Lord Campbell
Now comes Dr. M‘Donald. You will observe that he gives an account of experiments he made for the prisoner, and you will see the lengths to which he goes in adopting a new form of disease of epilepsy with these complications. You are to say what weight you give to that evidence compared with the witnesses who have given evidence before you.
The next witness is Mr. John Bainbridge. The object of this witness’s evidence seems to be to induce you to believe that this was a case of epilepsy, and from the symptoms you will say whether you can come to that conclusion.
The next witness is Mr. Edward Steady. The case referred to by this witness seems to be a case of traumatic tetanus; and you will say, if it were idiopathic, whether the course of it in the slightest degree resembles the symptoms of Cook, the deceased.
The next witness is Dr. Robinson. Now, gentlemen, you have this respectable physician, who gives an account from which you are called to infer that Cook’s case was a case of epilepsy. He says he should only take it to be epilepsy in the absence of evidence of strychnia being administered. He says that all the symptoms described by Jones on the Tuesday night are consistent with strychnia; and, with regard to epilepsy, he says in no case where epilepsy had existed would it cause death without a loss of consciousness. Cook, you will remember, remained conscious to the last, and you will say whether, upon the evidence that is laid before you, there was or was not a bending of the body, which is characteristic of tetanus, and what the witnesses have described as being inconsistent with epilepsy.
Lord Campbell
The next witness is Dr. Richardson, who now brings in for the first time angina pectoris as a disease of which it may be presumed Cook died. Now, gentlemen, you have to attend to this case; the witness, who seems most highly respectable, says this case being detailed by him, the symptoms were consistent with strychnia, and that, if he had known as much of strychnia then as he does now, he would have made an analysis to see whether strychnia was in the body. The great question that I propounded for your consideration was whether Cook’s symptoms were consistent with strychnia, and, if they were not, then the conclusion would be in favour of the prisoner; but if they were consistent with strychnia, then you are not upon that alone to find a verdict of guilty against him; but you are to consider the other evidence and see whether the death arose from strychnia or not. Dr. Wrightson is recalled, and he says that, in his opinion, when strychnia is entirely absorbed in the system it is diffused equally throughout the entire system. Dr. Wrightson is a philosopher, and, as a man of science, he speaks with caution, and you have heard his evidence. He says that if the minimum dose were taken to destroy life, and then a long interval elapsed between the taking of the poison and death, the more complete would be the absorption, and the less chance there would be of finding it in the stomach.
Mr. Serjeant Shee—I think he said he would expect to find it in the spleen, the liver, and the blood.
Lord Campbell—Yes; “I should look for it elsewhere, in the spleen, the liver, and the blood.”
Then comes Mr. Oliver Pemberton. The evidence of this witness only goes to show that, in his opinion, an examination of the body at that time was not of much value, and did not afford the means of coming to a satisfactory opinion, differing in opinion, therefore, from others that had been called.
His lordship then dealt with the witnesses as to facts, and pointed out that, according to the trains, Palmer could not have arrived in Rugeley on the Monday night before ten o’clock.
Now, gentlemen, comes a very material witness, who, if he were to be believed, would be very important, particularly upon one part of the case. I mean Jeremiah Smith—and you, having heard the whole of his evidence, the examination and cross-examination, are to say what faith or reliance you can place upon his testimony. Now, gentlemen, this would show, if true, that the genuine and very identical pills that Bamford had made, and in the state in which he had prepared them, were taken by Cook before Palmer arrived from London at Rugeley, or, at any rate, before he came to the Talbot Arms. It is for you to say whether you can place reliance upon such testimony. You saw how he conducted himself in the witness-box, and how he at last denied that the signature to the instrument which he purported to have attested, and which he received from the prisoner at the bar, was in his handwriting. He said it was like it, but it was not his handwriting. Then it appears that he did receive £5, and you are to say whether it was not clearly for attesting that very assignment. The counterfoil of the cheque for £5, from William Palmer the prisoner, is shown him; and with that piece of paper he goes to the bank and receives the £5. Can you believe a man who so disgraces himself in the witness-box? It is for you to say what faith you can place in a witness who, by his own admission, engaged in such fraudulent proceedings. We are now upon veracity, and you are to say whether you can believe a witness who at last acknowledges that he had been applied to and had been engaged in procuring an insurance on the life of Walter Palmer, who had been a bankrupt six years before, and who had no means of living except by the allowance of his friends and an allowance made to him by the prisoner at the bar.
Lord Campbell
Again, he acknowledges that he was engaged in the proposal to insure the life of Bates for £10,000. Bates being at that time superintending the stables of the prisoner at the bar, living in lodgings at 6s. 6d. a week, apparently having no property, and nothing depending upon his life, his life was to be insured for £10,000. Smith gets himself appointed agent to an insurance office, and, with a knowledge of these facts, he proposes the insurance to be accepted by the office which he represents; and can you believe such a witness who acknowledges himself to have been engaged in such fraudulent proceedings, and who, now being examined upon his oath, denies the handwriting of his own attestation to that document? Gentlemen, of his credit you are to judge. His evidence would be material as to what took place on the Monday night, because it would show that the pills that Cook took that night were taken as they had been prepared by Bamford, and before the prisoner at the bar had had any opportunity to substitute others for them in the pill box. Such is the case with regard to what took place on the Tuesday. If it stood there, and if it were believed, it would be evidence in favour of the prisoner at the bar; and you are to say whether you believe it, or, if you disbelieve it, what effect it has upon the other testimony that has been brought forward.
Gentlemen, the case is now in your hands; and, unless upon the part of the prosecution a clear conviction has been brought to your minds of the guilt of the prisoner, it is your duty to acquit him. You are not to proceed even upon a strong suspicion; there must be the strongest conviction in your minds that he was guilty of this offence; and if there be any reasonable doubt remaining in your mind, you will give him the benefit of that doubt; but if you come to a clear conviction that he was guilty, you will not be deterred from doing your duty by any considerations such as have been suggested to you. You will remember the oath that you have taken, and you will act accordingly. Gentlemen, I have performed my task; you have now to discharge yours, and may God direct you to a right finding.
Mr. Serjeant Shee—Your lordship stated to the jury that the question for them to consider was whether the evidence that has been brought forward is consistent with the death of Cook by strychnia. I submit to your lordship that that is not the question which ought to be submitted to the jury.
Lord Campbell—Serjeant Shee, that is not the question that I have submitted to the jury; it is a question. I told them that unless they considered that the symptoms were consistent with death by strychnia they ought to acquit the prisoner.
Lord Campbell
Mr. Serjeant Shee—It is my duty, my lord, not to be deterred by any expression of displeasure at my stating it; I am accountable not only to your lordships, but I am accountable to a much higher tribunal; and I am bound to submit to you what occurs to me to be the proper question to be put to the jury in this case—it is your lordship’s duty to overrule it if you think proper. I submit to your lordships that the question, whether the symptoms of Cook’s disease were consistent with death by strychnia is a wrong question, unless it is followed by this, “and inconsistent with death by other and natural causes”—and that the question should be, whether the medical evidence establishes beyond all reasonable doubt the death of Cook by strychnia—it is my duty to submit that to your lordship.
Lord Campbell—Gentlemen of the jury, I did not submit to you that the question upon which your verdict alone was to turn was whether the symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia, but I said that that was a most material question for you; and I desired you to consider that question with a view to guide your judgment as to whether he died from natural disease, or whether he did not die by poison, by strychnia administered by the prisoner. Then I went on to say that if you were of opinion that the symptoms were consistent with death from strychnia, you should go on to consider the other evidence given in the case, whether strychnia had been administered to him; and whether strychnia had been administered to him by the prisoner at the bar; and those are the questions that I again put to you. If you come to the conclusion that those symptoms were consistent with the strychnia, do you believe from the evidence that it was strychnia, and do you believe that that strychnia was administered by the prisoner at the bar? Do not find a verdict of guilty unless you believe that the strychnia was administered to the deceased by the prisoner at the bar. But if you believe that, it is your duty to God and man to find a verdict of guilty.
The jury retired, and, after an absence of an hour and eighteen minutes, returned a verdict of guilty.
The prisoner was asked what he had to say why the Court should not pass sentence of death upon him according to law, and he made no answer.
Lord Campbell
Lord Campbell then said—William Palmer, after a long and impartial trial you have been convicted by a jury of your country of the crime of wilful murder. In that verdict my two learned brothers, who have so anxiously watched this trial, and myself entirely concur, and consider that verdict altogether satisfactory. The case is attended with such circumstances of aggravation that I do not dare to touch upon them. Whether it is the first and only offence of this sort which you have committed is certainly known only to God and your own conscience. It is seldom that such a familiarity with the means of death should be shown without long experience; but for this offence of which you have been found guilty your life is forfeited. You must prepare to die; and I trust that, as you can expect no mercy in this world, you will, by repentance of your crimes, seek to obtain mercy from Almighty God. The Act of Parliament under which you have been tried, and under which you have been brought to the bar of this Court at your own request, gives leave to the Court to direct that the sentence under such circumstances shall be executed either within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court or in the county where the offence was committed. We think that, for the sake of example, the sentence ought to be executed in the county of Stafford. Now, I hope that this terrible example will deter others from committing such atrocious crimes, and that it will be seen that whatever art, or caution, or experience may accomplish, such an offence will be detected and punished. However destructive poisons may be, it is so ordained by Providence that there are means for the safety of His creatures for detecting and punishing those who administer them. I again implore you to repent and prepare for the awful change which awaits you. I will not seek to harrow up your feelings by any enumeration of the circumstances of this foul murder. I will content myself now with passing upon you the sentence of the law, which is, that you be taken hence to the gaol of Newgate, and thence removed to the gaol of the county of Stafford, the county in which the offence of which you are justly convicted was committed; and that you be taken thence to a place of execution, and be there hanged by the neck until you be dead; and that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall be last confined after your conviction; and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul. Amen!
The prisoner was executed at eight o’clock on Saturday morning, 14th June, 1856, in front of Stafford gaol. He reiterated that he was “innocent of poisoning Cook by strychnia.”