Cook, John Parsons, -1855; Palmer, William, 1824-1856 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- England -- London
Is there any other part of his conduct connected with the post-mortem
which requires explanation? When the jar was going to be sent to town he
objects to its going to Frere’s. He had some reason for that. He had an
assistant in his service who had been in the service of Frere. We know
the jealousies that exist in country towns between professional men. We
will not do Mr. Frere the injustice to suppose he would do so great a
wrong to Palmer as might result from tampering with the contents of the
jar; but still it was right to be cautious, and Palmer told Dr. Harland,
“I want you to take it with you to Stafford, and not let it go to
Frere’s house.” In these minor incidental matters his conduct appears to
me perfectly consistent with innocence. Let me call your attention to
this more important matter, on which my learned friend in his
instructions was told to rely--and accordingly he did, in the discharge
of his duty, rely upon it. I will call your attention to what has been
stated by Myatt, the postboy. His evidence was pressed into the case; it
could not well be excluded from it as an evidence of guilt. Now, what
did it amount to? Before I have done, under the general head of Palmer’s
conduct, I will call your attention to what passed between him and
Stevens. You will find the conduct and deportment of the latter were
such as would make some men almost kick him; it was so very provoking,
supposing Palmer was innocent. He dissembled with him--pretended to take
his advice--cross-questioned him--changed his tone upon him--now
speaking to him mildly, now in a voice of menace--threatened him with a
post-mortem examination--and evidently did the whole thing hostilely to
him, as if he thought something wrong had taken place, and it was his
duty not only to protect the property, but to see any person who had
been guilty of foul play towards Cook brought to condign punishment.
Stevens, after poring over the remains of the dead man at the
post-mortem examination, was ready to leave Rugeley, and a fly was
ordered for him and his companion, Mr. Boycott, in which they were to
proceed with the jar to Stafford, and thence by rail to London. Now, if
there were anybody base enough, either in support of a theory, in
support of a reputation--God forbid that I should suggest that to the
prejudice of Dr. Taylor!--if there were anybody capable of so great a
wickedness as tampering with the jar, it might easily be done; and he
was anxious to have it kept by Dr. Harland and not committed to the
custody of Stevens. His conduct to Palmer had been vexatious and
annoying in the last degree; the fly was being got ready after Palmer,
we may suppose, had dined; and meeting the postboy Myatt, he asked him,
according to Myatt, whether he was going to drive Mr. Stevens to
Stafford. “I told him,” said Myatt, “I was. He asked me if I would upset
them?” Now the word “them” was first used in this Court to designate the
jars.
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