Cook, John Parsons, -1855; Palmer, William, 1824-1856 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- England -- London
credit, and that all the ablest of the chemists at the trial unanimously
repudiated it as a heresy, unworthy of credit, and whose fallacy they
had themselves proved by actual experiment; bear in mind, I say, all
this, and remember with what a harsh and angry denial you refused to
permit such an experiment, though upon it depended the blood of a man. I
say deliberately that if these chemists have sworn the truth, and that
there is no strychnia discernible in Cook’s body, then will William
Palmer be murdered as effectually under the semblance of English law as
ever the most innocent was butchered under the worst forms of the Papal
Inquisition; and that the most fearful responsibility of blood that ever
rested upon human head will be upon those who refuse to concede the test
which is now challenged. I ask that that experiment shall be performed,
which will set at rest for ever the imputation of judicial murder that
will sear your lordship’s character with the present and with the
future; an experiment which may probably clear your soul from the stain
of blood that it must risk if you oppose this application. What is
there unusual, what is there criminal, what is there illegal in
only asking for a respite until it be proved--as it can be proved
incontrovertibly--whether Cook died of strychnia or not? And if he did
not die of strychnia, then is my brother’s innocence made manifest, even
to your satisfaction! While, if it is shown that he did so die, then is
the voice of accusation silent for ever, and the much-vaunted majesty,
the supposed impartiality and purity of English law vindicated in
triumph before mankind. The precise mode in which this experiment might
be made it is not for me to suggest. I have no objection that it shall
be made in any way which may appear satisfactory to the Home Office,
provided only that neither Dr. Taylor nor Dr. Rees is entrusted with its
management. In this pair of worthies I have no confidence. The first
pronounced my brother guilty of poisoning on grounds the most ridiculous
that can be imagined, upon which even a Stafford Grand Jury did not
think there was sufficient to warrant them in finding even a _prima
facie_ case for investigation at the assizes. He wrote letters to the
newspapers branding the accused as a most desperate criminal; he largely
assisted in getting up the prosecution, and was busily engaged all
through the trial in writing notes and making suggestions to the
Attorney-General and the other prosecuting counsel; he smiled
perceptibly when the case was strong against my brother, and could not
conceal his chagrin as it grew weak. As to Rees, he seems to endorse all
that Taylor says, and I have no confidence whatever in him. A writer in
the papers, who is unknown to me, makes a suggestion which you may bring
if you choose before the Home Secretary; but it matters little by whom
the experiment is made so that it is done by an honest man. “If it is
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