Homepage
Login
Profile
BookClubs
dmBox
Read Ebook: Trial of William Palmer by Knott George H Editor
Font size:
Background color:
Text color:
Add to tbrJar First Page Next Page
Ebook has 1084 lines and 169972 words, and 22 pages
PAGE Introduction, 1 Table of Dates, 18 List of Counsel, 21 The Trial--
FIRST DAY--WEDNESDAY, 14TH MAY, 1856.
Ishmael Fisher, 23 Thomas Jones, 26 George Reid, 26 William Scafe Gibson, 26 Elizabeth Mills, 27
SECOND DAY--THURSDAY, 15TH MAY, 1856.
Elizabeth Mills 33 James Gardner, 37 Anne Brooks, 37 Lavinia Barnes, 39 Anne Rowley, 42 Charles Hawley, 42 Sarah Bond, 42 William Henry Jones, 44 Elizabeth Mills , 49 Henry Savage, 49 Charles Newton, 49
THIRD DAY--FRIDAY, 16TH MAY, 1856.
Charles Joseph Roberts, 52 William Vernon Stevens, 52 Dr. John Thomas Harland, 55 Charles John Devonshire, 58 John Myatt, 59 Samuel Cheshire, 59 Samuel Cheshire , 60 Captain John Haines Hatton, 61 Samuel Cheshire , 61 George Herring, 61
FOURTH DAY--SATURDAY, 17TH MAY, 1856.
George Bate, 63 Thomas Blizzard Curling, 63 Robert Todd, 64 Sir Benjamin Brodie, 67 Henry Daniel, 68 Samuel Solly, 69 Dr. Robert Corbett, 70 Dr. Watson, 70 Mary Kelly, 70 Caroline Hickson, 70 Francis Taylor, 71 Jane Witham, 71 George Morley, 72 Edward Duke Moore, 74
FIFTH DAY--MONDAY, 19TH MAY, 1856.
Dr. Alfred Taylor, 75 Dr. George Owen Rees, 83 Professor Robert Christison, 84
Dr. John Jackson, 89
SEVENTH DAY--WEDNESDAY, 21ST MAY, 1856.
Serjeant Shee, 91
EIGHTH DAY--THURSDAY, 22ND MAY, 1856.
Thomas Nunneley, 161 William Herepath, 174 Julian Edward Disbrowe Rogers, 176 Dr. Henry Letheby, 176 Robert Edward Gay, 181
NINTH DAY--FRIDAY, 23RD MAY, 1856.
John Brown Ross, 183 Dr. Francis Wrightson, 184 Richard Partridge, 186 John Gay, 189 Dr. William M'Donnell, 192 Dr. John Nathan Bainbridge, 200 Edward Austin Steady, 201 Dr. George Robinson, 202 Dr. Benjamin Ward Richardson, 204 Dr. Wrightson , 207 Catherine Watson, 207
TENTH DAY--SATURDAY, 24TH MAY, 1856.
Oliver Pemberton, 208 Henry Matthews, 208 Joseph Foster, 208 George Myatt, 209 John Sargent, 210 Jeremiah Smith, 211
The Attorney-General's Address to the Jury, 214
ELEVENTH DAY--MONDAY, 26TH MAY, 1856.
The Lord Chief-Justice's Charge to the Jury, 266
TWELFTH DAY--TUESDAY, 27TH MAY, 1856.
The Lord Chief-Justice's Charge to the Jury , 275 Verdict and Sentence, 285
APPENDICES.
Note written by Palmer to his Counsel while in the dock at the Old Bailey, " 160
Sir Alexander Cockburn, " 214
Lord Chief-Justice Campbell, " 266
Mr. Baron Alderson, " 316
Letter from William Palmer to his wife, " 320
Facsimile of page from the Diary of William Palmer, " 324
WILLIAM PALMER.
INTRODUCTION.
Sir James Stephen, in his "History of the Criminal Law," observes that he was present at the trial of William Palmer, and that it made an impression on him which the subsequent experience of thirty-four years had only confirmed and strengthened. He considers that the trial, as a whole, was one of the greatest trials in the history of English law, and eminently deserving the attention of students of the law, and we may add of students of human nature.
Palmer was convicted, but there has always been a certain amount of doubt and mystery about the trial. We can hardly imagine a reader not being satisfied morally as to the guilt of Palmer, but were he to take the medical and chemical evidence alone, which forms so large a part of the following report, we could at least imagine him holding his judgment in suspense. He might well believe that Palmer administered poison to Cook, whom he was charged with murdering, without admitting that the poison was strychnia. And there remains the ambiguous language of Palmer himself, who neither positively admitted nor denied his guilt, but declared, "I am innocent of poisoning Cook by strychnia." Sir James Stephen, who will not allow that the defence was impressive, is yet struck with this defect in the evidence, and suggests that Palmer may have discovered a method of administering strychnia so as to disguise its normal effects. If this is so, his secret has never been disclosed. Perhaps it is equally probable that he selected some poison allied to strychnia--bruchsia, for example--and that the medical and chemical experts of sixty years ago were not sufficiently acquainted with the strychnoid poisons to trace all their differences. The evidence of the chemical witnesses suggests something of this kind, so inconsistent were their opinions; and this remark applies even more strongly to the evidence of the doctors as to the difference between the disease of tetanus and the effects of strychnia. This is one of the great subjects of interest in the report of the trial. A constant and alert attention is needed in reading it, and it is a professional discipline for either lawyer or doctor.
Our personal opinion is that, had it not been for one or two definitely known cases of strychnia poisoning in the human subject, the prosecution would have failed, in spite of all the experiments on animals from which analogies as to Cook's symptoms were attempted to be drawn. There had been no trial for poisoning by strychnia before Palmer's. But it happened that while the Palmer case was pending Dr. Dove, of Leeds, was accused of poisoning his wife by strychnia, and the symptoms of poison were more certainly ascertained. Yet Dr. Nunneley, of Leeds, who made a report on this case, was called for the defence, not for the prosecution.
In this preliminary sketch I shall not attempt to convey any idea of the chemical and medical evidence by a formal summary. It would be impossible, as Sir James Stephen remarks, to treat satisfactorily such an extensive, so technical, and so contradictory a body of testimony, and only such a general statement will be made of the circumstances as will enable the reader the easier to follow the case of the prosecution.
There is a tradition that Palmer, a racing man, expressed his sense of the deadly effect of Sir Alexander Cockburn's examination, cross-examination, and speech in racecourse language, "It was the riding that did it."
With the Lord Chief-Justice's summing up I have dealt freely. It occupied two days, and the form of it, to a great extent, was this. Lord Campbell would say to the jury, "Now, gentlemen, I will take the witness So-and-So and read you his evidence. It is for you to say what the effect of this evidence is." Then would follow comments directing the jury's attention to this or that feature. What the jury thought is not important now, but what the reader thinks with the evidence before him. Where Lord Campbell made special comment on any particular evidence the passages are given. Nothing material is omitted, and the general effect of his address is preserved.
Mr. John Parsons Cook, whom Palmer was charged with poisoning, was a young man of about twenty-eight who had been articled as a solicitor, but he inherited some ?12,000, and did not follow his profession. He also went on the turf, kept racehorses, and betted, and it was in this common pursuit that Palmer and Cook became acquainted.
Palmer's pecuniary circumstances in 1854 are important. He had raised money on a bill for ?2000, and discounted it with Padwick, a notorious moneylender and racing man of the day. He had forged his mother's name as acceptor, and, as she was wealthy, the bill had been discounted on the security of her name. It was this bill and others similarly forged which, according to the prosecution, led to the murder of Cook.
Previously to this Palmer had only been able to pay off debts to the amount of ?13,000 on bills which were in the hands of another moneylender, Mr. Pratt, who figures so conspicuously in the trial, out of money received on the death of his wife, whom he had insured for ?13,000.
At the close of 1854 he took out another policy for ?13,000 on the life of his brother Walter. This policy was deposited as security with Pratt to cover a series of bills which began then to be discounted. These, by November, 1855, amounted to ?11,500. His mother's name as acceptor had also been forged on these bills by Palmer.
In the month of August, 1855, Walter Palmer died, but the office refused to pay on the policy, and the question was still in dispute in November when the death of Mr. Cook occurred. If the policy were not paid Pratt would sue Mrs. Palmer, as Palmer himself had no means, so that Palmer was in the same peril of being shown to be a forger both by Pratt and Padwick.
This policy was never paid, and we may add that when Palmer was tried for the murder of Cook there were two other indictments against him for the murders of his wife and brother, but they were not proceeded with as he was convicted on the Cook charge.
What happened about the bills was this. On the 6th of November Pratt issued two writs for ?4000 against Palmer and his mother, but withheld them from service pending arrangements that Palmer might make. Pratt wrote to him on the 13th of November, a memorable day in the history of the case, when "Polestar," Cook's mare, won the Shrewsbury Handicap, that steps would be taken to enforce the policy on Walter Palmer's life; so that Palmer's problem was to keep paying portions of the bills until the question of the policy was settled, and thus keep Pratt quiet.
The pecuniary position of Cook is quickly explained. He had practically nothing but what came to him through the winning of "Polestar" at Shrewsbury on the 13th of November. His betting book showed winnings which amounted, with the stakes, to ?2050. It was proved that he had ?700 or ?800 in his pocket at Shrewsbury from the bets he actually drew there, and ?1020 remained to be settled at Tattersall's on the following Monday, the 19th November.
The evidence will show how Palmer obtained payment of the bets with the exception of ?120, and applied them to paying instalments on Pratt's bills.
We now come to the circumstances of the illness and death of Cook. Palmer and Cook went together from Rugeley to Shrewsbury races, and stayed at the Raven Hotel. On the night of the 14th of November, and the day after "Polestar" had won the race, Cook was taken ill at the Raven with severe retchings and vomitings in consequence of having taken a glass of brandy and water into which the prosecution alleged Palmer had put antimony in the form of tartar emetic. The only direct testimony as to this was that of a Mrs. Brooks, who attended races. She knew Palmer, and called on him at the Raven on some business connected with racing. She swore that, as she turned into the lobby, she saw Palmer holding up a tumbler to the light of the gas, looking at it "with the caution of a man who was watching to see what was the condition of the liquid," according to the Attorney-General's statement. Having looked at it so he withdrew to his own room, and presently returned with the glass in his hand, and then went into the room where Cook was, and where he drank the brandy and water. There was much evidence from other witnesses as to what happened in connection with the brandy and water incident.
The state of Cook's health previous to the incident at Shrewsbury was of the utmost importance. It was admitted by the prosecution that Cook was delicate of chest, but otherwise he was asserted to be hale and hearty. In May of 1855 he had consulted Dr. Savage for supposed syphilitic symptoms. He suffered from his throat, and had some eruptions about his mouth, and he had been taking mercury. Dr. Savage stopped this treatment, and advised that the symptoms were not those of syphilis. The post-mortem showed the cicatrised wound of an old chancre, but not of anything recent. The defence sought to show that Cook's death was connected with his history of ill-health.
Add to tbrJar First Page Next Page