Cook, John Parsons, -1855; Palmer, William, 1824-1856 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- England -- London
Then the next witness is Mr. Rogers. Now, this is a gentleman whom there
seems no reason to doubt; there seems no reason to doubt the facts that
he stated, and that he does sincerely entertain the opinion that he
expresses; and, according to his evidence, where there has been
strychnia mixed with impure matter, it may be expected that it would be
detected by skilful experimentalists, and by using the proper tests.
Then Dr. Letheby is called; he is the medical officer of health to the
city of London and of the London Hospital. I doubt not that Dr. Letheby
speaks sincerely, and according to his experience and opinion, but he
does say truly that cases vary very much, and that there may be cases
which he calls “exceptional,” alluding to the case of the lady at
Romsey; and it may probably be the fair result that enough of this
disease is not known to be aware of all its varieties, and that any
peculiarity that may arise where there is strong probability of
strychnia having been administered would not be anything like conclusive
evidence to rebut that result.
Then Mr. Robert Gray is examined. Now, gentlemen, here you have a case
of what is called idiopathic tetanus; but you are to say whether from
this you can infer that the illness of Mr. Cook was idiopathic tetanus.
The great weight of evidence seems to me to show that it was not
idiopathic any more than traumatic tetanus; but that whatever form of
disease it might be, it would not be idiopathic tetanus; and you will
find that the symptoms vary most materially in their appearance from the
case that is here detailed in the duration as well as the rest of the
course of events.
[Sidenote: Lord Campbell]
The next witness that was called was Mr. Brown Ross. Now, gentlemen, I
do not know for what purpose the case alluded to by Mr. Ross was brought
before you, unless to lead to an inference that Mr. Cook’s was a case of
tetanus of the same sort with this which is here described, because this
was tetanus; and I suppose it was intended that you are to infer that
Mr. Cook’s was of the same description; but whether you call it
idiopathic or traumatic, it was a case of tetanus--was directly to be
ascribed to wounds which were upon his body, and which are here
described. No such wounds were upon the body of Mr. Cook; and other
witnesses who were examined on the part of the defence say that this was
not a case of tetanus at all; but then, even in this case that has been
described, you see there were the symptoms so nearly approaching those
of strychnia that strychnia was suspected, but there was no ground for
it; and in the case described there was no ground for supposing
strychnia could by possibility be the cause of death.
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