In further cross-examination Mr. Cowper succeeded in throwing doubt upon the statements of witnesses, who alleged that they had seen marks of strangling, and produced witnesses to prove that any marks upon the body had been the result of contact with stakes in the bed of the river. Then he brought forward his own expert medical evidence, which was given by ten of the leading doctors of the day, including Sir Hans Sloane and the celebrated surgeon William Cowper. These held a different view from that of the doctors called for the prosecution, and gave their reasons for concluding that the appearance of the body was quite consistent with death by drowning. Some described experiments they had made upon animals, which proved that when killed and thrown into the water the body sank at first and then rose to the surface, and also that drowning could take place without much water being swallowed. As proof of the dead woman having been of a melancholy disposition and not of sound mind, letters of hers were read to the jury, but these her mother and brother would not admit were in her handwriting, since, they asserted, it did not suit her character. (See p. 85.) The judge, Sir Henry Hatsell, in summing up confessed that he was very much puzzled, and that he perceived that "doctors do differ in their notions about these things." The conclusion of his remarks is worthy of quotation: "I am sensible I have omitted many things; but I am a little faint, and cannot remember any more of the evidence." It is not surprising that, soon after Queen Anne came to the throne, he was removed from the bench. The jury believed the medical witnesses for the defence, and after a short discussion found Spencer Cowper and the other prisoners "Not guilty." To come to more modern times, the advantage of a conflict of scientific opinion to the accused was seen in the celebrated Maybrick poisoning case. At the trial evidence was given by Professor Tidy to the effect that the symptoms and appearances were not those of arsenical poisoning and that the amounts of arsenic found in the body were not greater than those present in cases where arsenical medicines had been taken months before death, and where there was no suspicion of poisoning. Although the prisoner was convicted and sentenced to death, there can be little doubt but that this evidence had an important influence in determining the subsequent alteration of the sentence to penal servitude. There is no necessity for such scientific assistance given to the defence to degenerate into partisanship, such as was shown at the trial of Palmer for poisoning in 1856. That case was characterised by many remarkable features, the suspected person, for instance, being allowed access to the bottle in which had been placed the material taken from the body for analysis, and also being given the opportunity of attempting to destroy it.