Cook, John Parsons, -1855; Palmer, William, 1824-1856 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- England -- London
is, that there was an administration of something which did not
eventually kill him, that is, antimony, but which had the effect of
producing retching, and nausea, and irritation of the stomach, which is
attributed, according to the hypothesis of the Crown, to the deliberate,
persevering intention of the prisoner at the bar to reduce him bit by
bit--making him reject everything off his stomach, so that when once the
ingestion of the poison occurred he was certainly dead; that is the
case. In her first evidence before the coroner she was asked whether she
had tasted the broth, and she said that she had tasted the broth, and
thought it very good; she did not say a single word about any ill
effects that broth had produced upon her--not a single word. She has
since learned it is part of the case for the Crown, or of those out of
whose hands the Crown has taken this prosecution--in fact, the theory of
Dr. Taylor--that all this retching and vomiting was the result of a
constant dosing with antimonial poison, in order to prepare him for an
utter inability to resist the fatal dose of strychnia which it was
intended to give him. Accordingly, when she is examined here, fitting
her evidence to the case, and probably after having been asked many
times whether she had not been sick on some Sunday or another, she has
persuaded herself, if she has not been persuaded--I do not wish to use
the word suborned--that her sickness on some Sunday afternoon took place
on the Sunday afternoon that broth was sent, and was caused by her
having taken two spoonfuls of it. She did not say so in the first
instance before the coroner, but that “she tasted it, and it was very
good.” I ask you to consider for a moment whether it is not to the last
degree improbable that a man like Palmer--a shrewd, intelligent, clever
man--would expose himself to such a chance of detection as the sending
of poisoned broth made at the Albion to the Talbot Arms, at the imminent
risk of its finding its way to the kitchen, where, sure as fate, the
cook would taste it. Can you conceive a cook not tasting broth made by
another cook, and sent over as particularly good? I submit to you it
was such a risk as no man in his senses could by any possibility run. A
cook is, in the nature of the thing, a taster; she tastes everything;
she does not know, of course, if it be her own making, whether it is
good until she tastes it; she gets the habit of tasting--and as sure as
Palmer sent the broth to the Talbot Arms, and any part of it reached the
kitchen, so sure, if it contained antimony, would the cook be ill. Is it
credible? I submit to you, it is not credible; and when you find she did
not say a word about it in the first instance, and that an ample
opportunity was afforded for her so to do in the way I have described, I
submit you cannot rely upon her evidence here, as it differs with her
evidence before the coroner. Again, she said that on the Saturday Cook
had coffee for breakfast about eight o’clock.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account