Cook, John Parsons, -1855; Palmer, William, 1824-1856 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- England -- London
But then they take us to the appearances after death, and they say that
there are circumstances to be found which militate against this being a
case of strychnia poisoning. Let us see what they are. In the first
place, they say the limbs became rigid either at the time of death or
immediately after, and that ought not to be found in a case of tetanus
from strychnia. Mr. Nunneley says, “In all cases upon which I have
experimented I have found the animals become flaccid before death, and
they do not become again rigid after it.” I can hardly believe that
statement, and I certainly was not a little surprised when the very next
witness who got into the box (Mr. Herapath, of Bristol) told us he had
made two experiments upon cats, and killed them both. He described them
as “indurated and contorted.” Those were his expressions when he found
them some hours after death. The presence of rigidity in the body at or
immediately after death here is put forward on the part of Mr. Nunneley
as one of the grounds upon which he says this was not a death by
strychnia, although Dr. Taylor had told us that in the case of one of
the cats he killed the rigidity after death was such that upon taking
the animal by the hind legs and holding it up in the air, the body
maintained its horizontal natural position, as though the animal had
been upon its four legs upon a plain surface. Notwithstanding that
evidence, Mr. Nunneley had the audacity to say that he did not believe
this was a case of poisoning by strychnia, because there had been
rigidity of the limbs--because the feet were distorted, the hands
clenched, and the muscles rigid as the unhappy man exhibited prior to
his death. The very next witness called upon the other side produced two
instances in which the animals were indurated from one end of their
bodies to the other. As he says they were contorted in all their limbs,
and so they remained, it shows what you are to think of the honesty of
this sort of evidence, in which facts are selected because they make in
favour of the particular hypothesis of the party who brings them
forward.
[Sidenote: Attorney-General]
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