'I saw in that only the hypocrisy of a Scot,' Dr Palmer retorted. 'There were several cards missing from the pack, including the high trumps.'
'Moreover,' went on the Under-Sheriff, 'no less than three judges agreed with the jury's finding.'
'Well, Sir, but that don't satisfy me,' said the Doctor. He then stated that Lord Chief Justice Campbell had failed to consult his fellow-judges before announcing their unanimous agreement with the verdict; and that it should properly have fallen to Mr Justice Cresswell, as junior judge, to pass sentence.
Later, Dr Palmer admitted: 'Despite old Campbell's unfair speech at the close, I had hoped to get off; but when the jury returned to Court, and I saw the cocked-up nose of that perky little Foreman, I knew it was a gooser with me.'
He appeared greatly mortified when given a grey suit of convict clothes and curtly told to change into them. Having done so, he was hand-cuffed and fettered. 'You are bound for Stafford tonight,' said the Under-Sheriff.
A Black Maria stood waiting in the courtyard, where the crowd had gathered thick for a sight of the prisoner; but Mr Weatherhead, the Governor of Newgate Gaol, smuggled him out by cab to Euston Square Station. Though met there with angry and derisive shouts, he was safely assisted to the eight-o'clock train and thrust into the middle compartment of a first-class carriage; the blinds being at once drawn. He had pleaded to travel by the Great Western Railway, over a less direct route, on the ground that if he went by the London & North Western, he would be recognized all along the line. This favour was denied him.
When he arrived, rather fagged, at Stafford Station late that night-only to be greeted with prolonged boos and cat-calls-Mr Wollaston, Superintendent of the Stafford Police, took one of his arms, and Mr Weatherhead the other. The Police having dispersed the crowd, Dr Palmer picked his way carefully through the puddles, saying: 'Dear me, it's very wet! Have you had much rain down here?'
'We have,' Mr Wollaston answered shortly.
No further word was spoken for some time, but after about five minutes Dr Palmer sighed and said: 'I've had a wearying trial of it: twelve long days!' Then he stumbled in the dark and cried: 'Bother these chains! I wish they were off. I can't walk properly.'
The Doctor's brothers, George and Thomas, had leave to visit his cell a day or two later. When they begged him to declare whether he were guilty or not guilty, he forcibly replied: 'I have nothing to say, and nothing shall I say!'
Within half a week of returning to Stafford he overcame his fatigue, and was allowed several more visits from them; also from the Rev. Mr Atkinson, the Vicar of Rugeley, who had baptized, confirmed, married, and never ceased to feel affection for him; from Mr Wright, the philanthropist of Manchester; and from the Rev. Mr Sneyd of Ripstone. All these urged on him the necessity of confessing, but he kept a polite silence. Serjeant Shee sent Dr Palmer a Bible, carrying a sympathetic note on the fly-leaf; and he passed much of his time reading this, and other religious books, lent him by the prison chaplain, the Rev. H. J. Goodacre. At his request, old Mrs Palmer spared herself the pain of a farewell, and took sole charge of little William, his son.
For a while, he was generally assumed to be guilty beyond dispute, and the crowds at Newgate would have cheerfully torn him to pieces, had the Police permitted them. Yet among medical men in Edinburgh, London, and Dublin, the prevalent view now seems to be: 'Hang Palmer for the insurance offices, or for the Jockey Club, or for the greater glory of the Attorney-General. Hang him as a rogue, if you will, but it must be on circumstantial evidence alone, not on the medical evidence; because that has broken down, horse, foot and guns!'
Yesterday, the President of the College of Surgeons, lecturing to a packed audience on the subjects of tetanus and strychnine, referred pointedly to Dr Palmer's trial: 'I have heard of grand jurors and petty jurors, special jurors, and common jurors, but these were twelve most uncommon jurors-very respectable confectioners and grocers into the bargain, I have no doubt-who boldly cut the Gordian knot, and settled the most difficult problem in the world, which is the anatomy of the brain!' He added that ninety-nine parts in a hundred of the surgical evidence at the trial were irrelevant to the case, since Cook had doubtless died of no surgical disease, but of a medical one-namely, a convulsion.
Guy's Hospital is in a ferment. One of Professor Taylor's colleagues has represented the speech of the Attorney-General as one of the greatest examples of medical extravagance and folly ever proffered to the public. Another pre-eminent surgeon calls it 'a piece of cold-blooded cruelty, disgraceful to the nineteenth century.' Professor Taylor himself receives cold looks from his own associates and pupils. At King's College Hospital, where Professor Partridge lectures, the pupils are indignant at the Attorney-General's attack on Mr Devonshire, who performed the first post-mortem, and is regarded as one of the most promising young surgeons in that institution.
A considerable change of opinion has therefore been observed among the educated public. We reprint the following from The Daily Chronicle:
A public meeting, organized neither by Dr Palmer's family, nor by the Defence, but spontaneously by a number of disinterested citizens, took place today in St Martin's Hall, Longacre, to consider the propriety of staying Wm Palmer's execution on the ground of doubtful and conflicting testimony given at the trial. Most persons present were working men, with a considerable representation of the middle classes, and here and there a few women.
When the doors opened, the hall soon filled, and hundreds who could not find standing room remained outside during the proceedings. A petition praying that the hanging might be postponed, to allow time for a medical inquiry into the facts at issue, lay in a lobby at the entrance throughout the evening, and a stream of people appended their names to it. The feeling manifested by the greater part of the audience was in favour of a respite, though a few score vociferously asserted an opposite view at all stages of the proceedings. So high, indeed, did feeling run at one time that a well-dressed, portly man named Bridd jumped upon the platform and, defying the remonstrances of the chairman, Mr P. Edwards, began addressing the meeting while another speaker held the chair. Bridd was brought to reason amid a scene of indescribable confusion only by the appearance of police constables.
Mr P. Edwards announced that he and his fellows on the platform had not the least personal sympathy with William Palmer, knew nothing of him, and had never seen or conversed either with him or with any member of his family. Nor did they feel a morbid sympathy with criminals, and if the verdict had satisfied public opinion as correctly given, he for one should never have considered arresting the progress of the Law, which was always a thing to be respected. (Cheers.) But, since public opinion found much cause to doubt Palmer's guilt, and since a number of first-class medical men, such as Professor Herapath of Bristol, Dr Letheby, and others, stated that, given more time, they could throw additional light on this subject, the meeting had been convened to ask for more time. (Cheers.)
He, and those who acted with him on this occasion, demanded neither a reprieve, nor the Royal clemency; they demanded simple justice. If his listeners considered the evidence submitted at the trial to have been doubtful, he hoped that they would endeavour, with him, to procure a re-investigation of the case, so that there might afterwards be no cause for resentment at a judicial scandal. He had not met with a single man who ventured to assert that Palmer's guilt was proved. (Cheers and uproar.) Despite the show of a fair trial, most people thought that Palmer had too many counsel against him, and that Lord Campbell himself might be included in their number. (Renewed uproar.) He thought Lord Campbell to stand high above all interested and petty motives, yet all judges are fallible human beings, and he might well have erred in his direction of the trial.
Though Mr Edwards admitted that he himself believed in Palmer's guilt, belief (he insisted) was one thing and certainty another. Surely a man was not to be hanged on mere belief?
Mr Baxter Langley now moved the resolution: 'That, there being grave doubts as to whether or not John Parsons Cook died from strychnine, and it being essential to the interests of society, the progress of science, and the safety of individual life, that such doubts should be removed, this Meeting is of opinion that the execution of William Palmer should be delayed till an opportunity has been afforded of proving whether or not strychnine can be found in all cases where it has caused death.'
Mr Langley, too, denied that he had any sympathy with the convict Palmer, or with his pursuits. He stood there to vindicate the majesty of the Law, which was dear to all Englishmen as a protective, and not as a destructive, principle; and he wished the public mind to rest satisfied, before the sentence was executed, that no link was wanting in the chain of evidence against the prisoner. He did not affirm Palmer's innocence, but he asked the Meeting for their own sakes and for the sake of the Law, to give Palmer the benefit of the doubt which still hung over his guilt.
He went on to say that Lord Campbell, when summing up, had assumed the prisoner was a murderer, and then laid before the jury facts to prove his own hypothesis. ('No, no!' and counter-cheers.) The summing up of Lord Campbell was unfair, because he did not put the question to the jury whether strychnine had, or had not, been administered to the deceased-but whether his death was consistent with poisoning by strychnine-thus assuming that death had occurred from strychnine, which was not found in Cook's body. He himself believed that if Palmer were executed, he would be executed to satisfy an unproved scientific hypothesis. ('No, no!' and uproar.)
Mr R. Hart, who seconded the resolution, contended that if capital punishment must take place, it should take place only in cases admitting no doubt of guilt. If a man has been haled to the scaffold and hanged, and if proof of innocence be afterwards established, what compensation for the wrong does this bring his relatives, and what alleviation for the remorse of those who hanged him? (Cheers.) They were not there to consider whether Palmer was a gambler, a black-leg, or a forger. The question was: had the crime of poisoning been legally proved against him? ('No, no!' and uproar.) He could hardly do Lord Campbell the injustice of supposing that he was a willing accessory to legal murder. Yet the evidence was wholly circumstantial, not only as to Palmer's guilt, but as to the fact of any crime having been committed; for though the doctors had contradicted one another, and advanced opposite theories throughout the trial, most of them held that Cook died a natural death. The whole operation of the old English Law observed on trials for murder had, in this case, met with a reversal: first, when, before proceeding to prove a murder, they proceeded to prove a murderer; and second, when, instead of inferring the criminal from the crime, they inferred the crime from the criminal.
The motion, which the Rev. Mr Thomas also supported, was put and carried by a considerable majority.
Mr H. Harris, a surgeon, then moved the appointment of a deputation, consisting of the chairman and several other gentlemen on the platform, to wait upon Sir George Grey, the Secretary of the Home Department, and lay the resolution on his table.
An amendment moved by Mr Bridd, and seconded by the Rev. Mr Pope, to the effect that the verdict of the jury was perfectly correct according to the evidence given at the trial, was lost on a show of hands, and the original motion re-affirmed by a large majority.
The Meeting then dispersed.
'Honest John Smith', Dr Palmer's solicitor, had meanwhile pressed for a further post-mortem examination of Cook's mangled remains, and their analysis by chemists who claimed that, in cases of strychnine poisoning, they could detect the ten-thousandth part of a grain. He was supported in his demand by Professor J. E. D. Rodgers, Lecturer in Chymistry at the St George's School of Medicine. Professor Rodgers wrote to The Times:
To the Editor:
Sir,
I cannot conceive an opinion more dangerous to promulgate than that a fatal dose of poison can be so nicely adjusted as to escape detection after death. Yet such has been the tendency of many letters published in the Press for some time past. It was with feelings of deep regret that I noticed in your edition of today a communication from a former colleague of mine, Mr Ancell, who, I am sure, would never have sent it, had he been aware of the nature and results of numerous experiments lately made by myself independently, and in conjunction with Mr Girdwood, Assistant-Surgeon, Grenadier Guards. I have asserted, and do still assert, that strychnia cannot evade discovery if proper processes be employed for its separation.
In this view I am supported by the highest chemical authorities of the day; and now request a space in your valuable columns to give the world a process which will form the conclusion of my letter. It has enabled myself and Mr Girdwood to detect that fearful poison in the blood, liver, tissues, and stomachs of animals poisoned by doses such as those Professor Taylor administered in experiments mentioned at the late trial. It has even enabled us to separate the strychnia from the tissues and organs of a dog after its body had been interred twelve months. The results of these experiments, though not a description of the process employed, were forwarded by myself and Mr Girdwood for the scrutiny of Sir George Grey. We hold that if John Parsons Cook was poisoned by strychnia, no matter how small the fatal dose, its presence could even now be clearly demonstrated should the victim's tissues be subjected to the same analytic process: for of all known poisons, there is not one more readily detected.
The process is as follows:-
The tissues are rubbed with distilled water in a mortar to a pulp, and then digested, after the addition of a little hydrochloric acid, in an evaporating basin. They are then strained, and evaporated to dryness over a water bath. The residue is digested again in a spirit filter, and once more evaporated to dryness. We next treat it with distilled water, acidulated with a few drops of hydrochloric acid, and filter it. We thereupon add excess of ammonia, and agitate in a tube with chloroform; the strychnia in an impure condition being thereby entirely separated with the chloroform.
This chloroform is to be carefully separated by a pipette, poured into a small dish and evaporated to dryness; the residue being moistened with concentrated sulphuric acid, and heated over a water bath for half an hour. We then add distilled water and excess of ammonia-again agitated with chloroform-and the strychnia will have thus been again separated by the chloroform now in a state of sufficient purity for testing. The test is made by evaporating a few drops on a piece of white porcelain, adding a drop of strong sulphuric acid and a minute crystal of bichromate of potash.
J. E. D. RODGERS,
Lecturer in Chymistry,
at the St George's School of Medicine.
John Smith wrote from London to Sir George Grey at the Home Office, two days before the execution:
To The Right Hon. Sir G. Grey,
Sir,
Notwithstanding the unabated anxiety which exists in the public mind relative to the fate of William Palmer, I have hitherto postponed addressing you on this subject. Long since his relations and friends would have rushed, in the intensity of their grief, to the Home Office; but as I have been charged with this matter of life and death, the arduous duty of making an appeal falls upon me.
Let me, then, claim your largest indulgence. I have now, when the sand of William Palmer's life has run until the eleventh hour-when only a few days stand between him and the grave, unless your clemency be exercised on his behalf-to address you as the head of that department which is recognized as the last sanctuary of injured justice. Although since the period of your administration the records of mercy adorn it more than at any other time-notwithstanding murder in its blackest form was committed, its perpetrators, under your merciful and wide dispensation, have been allowed to make atonement in exile or in solitude-still I shall not appeal to your sense of mercy.
I shall merely ask that a respite should take place in the execution of William Palmer until the serious doubts, medical and circumstantial, connected with this case, are laid at rest. No matter how popular passion may have been excited to its late state of madness against my client, your spirit of justice must examine into the obscurities that do exist. Sir, I trust you will not reverse one of the first principles of our criminal code, but allow my client the full benefit of doubt, if doubt be well founded.
I therefore ground this application for my client's respite-
First: Upon the character of Charles Newton, the principal witness for the Crown; as also upon the character of Elizabeth Mills; both of whose antecedents were unfortunately hidden from me at the time of the trial.
Secondly: Upon the absence of two witnesses who could, as I believe, have given satisfactory proofs as to the disposal of the poisons purchased by the prisoner, as well as to the disposal of Cook's money.
Thirdly: Upon the discrepancy of the medical evidence as to the finding of strychnia.
Lastly: Upon the judge's charge to the jury.
The importance as to Charles Newton's testimony in procuring a conviction for the Crown cannot be over-rated. Newton said he sold strychnia to the prisoner on the Monday night before Cook's death; and upon that night Cook was first seized with symptoms of illness. The medical evidence for the Crown pronounced this illness to have been connected with the administration of strychnia; but there was sufficient in Charles Newton's evidence to render him a witness un-worthy of belief. The hour which he fixed for the delivery of the poison was incompatible with the hour when the prisoner was seen at Stafford on the same night. The suppression of this incident (if it took place) before the Coroner; the consultation relative to the effects of strychnia, which he said had occurred between Palmer and himself; and the unfeigned joy with which he represented Palmer to have been seized when he lent him his boyish knowledge of the powers of strychnia-all these circumstances and incidents rendered his evidence at the trial such that even the consummate ability of the Attorney-General could not deal with it as he wished. Yet the jury gave implicit faith to this witness.
I have now, Sir, to tell you that the same Charles Newton has been twice in custody for theft at Nottingham; and that some of his more recent acts are under investigation by the Police. Ought this man then to be relied upon in a case of life and death, under the circumstances I have narrated?
As to the witness Mills, she swore on the trial that she slept with Mrs Dutton, when lodging at the house of Mrs Dutton's son. I assert, upon most unimpeachable testimony, that Mrs Dutton lives four miles from her son's residence, and has not been in his house for over nine months. It may be said that perjury by a witness to conceal the offence of fornication is venal, and that the rest of the testimony of such a witness can be perfectly relied upon. My belief is that any person who departs from the paths of virtue, and then perjures herself to cover her shame, may also commit perjury for motives not more honest. Again, let me ask whether life should be sacrificed on such evidence?
I now, Sir, approach a most important part of the case-which is medical and chemical testimony. So much has been written, spoken, and laid before the world on this head, that it requires but a few words from me. Sir, the point upon which so much doubt exists has created a universal and wide-spread feeling relative to the justice of the verdict. No man ought ever to ascend a scaffold with a doubt attached to his guilt. Let not that ill-fated man, William Palmer, whom prejudice has long since consigned to the gallows, do so!
Dr Letheby and Professor Herapath, two of the most eminent toxicologists of this day, declared upon their solemn oaths that they could discover the fifty-thousandth part of a grain of strychnia in the body of a dead man; and that, if Cook died from that poison, they could now find it. Their opinions were confirmed by almost equally distinguished members of the schools of London, Leeds, Edinburgh, and Dublin. Yet the body of Cook did not yield to the manipulations of Drs Taylor and Rees the smallest particle of strychnia. Since the unfortunate end of the trial, my table has been laden with letters from scientific men in support of Dr Letheby and his party. If you honour me by your commands, I shall be proud to place these letters before you. Yet I hope that the new light thrown on the characters of Newton and Mills alone justify me in the strong assurance that a respite, for the object of further inquiry, and for the consequent elucidation of truth, will be granted.
Upon the last point which I am calling to your attention, I must, to a certain extent, be mute-I mean the Lord Chief Justice's charge to the jury. As an officer of his Court, I owe him every respect and duty, so that nothing but the dearer interests of my client would induce me to criticize his conduct of the trial. I cannot, however, refrain from saying that if a similar rule existed in the criminal law as in civil law, my Lord Chief Justice's charge would be open to the complaint of misdirection. The voice of the public has unanimously condemned it as one-sided and mistaken. Upon this point I pray your earnest thought.
I sincerely trust that I have given sufficient reasons to postpone the hour of death, and that the 14th inst.-a day which will witness the nation's common celebration of joy with our brave allies, the French, in the baptism of the future Napoleon IV[1]-may not bathe in tears of bitterness, sorrow, and resentment all the numerous relatives and friends of the unfortunate William Palmer.
May I seek as early an answer as is compatible with the consideration of this sincere plea?
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
JOHN SMITH
John Smith had his answer on the next evening:
Whitehall, June 12, 1856
Sir,
Secretary Sir George Grey has received and considered your letters of the 10th and 11th inst., in behalf of William Palmer. He directs me to inform you that he can see nothing in any of the points that you have pressed upon his attention which would justify him in interfering with the due course of law in this case.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
H. WADDINGTON
By the same post he received a letter from Dr Palmer himself:
Stafford, June 11th, 1856
My dear John,
The governor has been kind enough to allow me to write to you, as I am anxious to see you, and shall be glad if you will come as soon as you can. Thank God, I am very well in health and spirits. Write to me immediately.
I am, my dear John, yours ever, here and hereafter,
WILLIAM PALMER
聚合中文网 阅读好时光 www.juhezwn.com
小提示:漏章、缺章、错字过多试试导航栏右上角的源