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
_Evidence for the Prosecution (continued)._
Dr. Alfred Taylor, 75 Dr. George Owen Rees, 83 Professor Robert Christison, 84
_Evidence for the Prosecution (concluded)._
Thomas Nunneley, 161 William Herepath, 174 Julian Edward Disbrowe Rogers, 176 Dr. Henry Letheby, 176 Robert Edward Gay, 181
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 (recalled), 207 Catherine Watson, 207
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
The Lord Chief-Justice’s Charge to the Jury, 266
The Lord Chief-Justice’s Charge to the Jury (continued), 275 Verdict and Sentence, 285
I. Letter from Thomas Palmer, brother of William Palmer, to the Lord Chief-Justice Campbell, 289
II. Short Account of the Judges and Counsel engaged in the Case, 316
Note written by Palmer to his Counsel while in the dock at the Old Bailey, “ 160
Letter from William Palmer to his wife, “ 320
Facsimile of page from the Diary of William Palmer, “ 324
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.