The Jury (22 page)

Yes. And then?—I then asked her a few professional questions.

She made no further objection?—No.

Did she tell you she was in want of sleep?—Not exactly. I remarked that Mrs Tucker had told me as much and she did not deny it.

Did you tell her she was to have a sleeping-draught?—I did not use that particular phrase, but in effect I told her.

MR JUSTICE SARUM: Can you remember the words you used?—So far as I remember I said: “We'll see if we can give you a night's rest.”

MR JUSTICE SARUM: Did she make any answer to that?—I think not.

MR JUSTICE SARUM: Was any further reference made to a sleeping-draught, or to the subject of getting a good night's rest, either by you or by the patient?—Not so far as I remember.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
[continuing examination]
: When you left her she did not appear to be ill?—Not ill, in the ordinary sense of that term. Merely a little feverish.

Although she made no point of being in want of sleep you decided to give her a draught?—Yes.

Why was that?—From what she had told me on other occasions I believed her to be in a state of psychological stress.

And did you in fact administer a sleeping-draught?—Not in person. I gave it to the housekeeper, Mrs Tucker, with instructions how to administer it.

Of what did the draught consist?—Oscitalin. Two drachms.

Is that an ordinary dose?—Yes.

MR JUSTICE SARUM: Wait a moment. Did you say 'digitalin'?—No, my lord. Oscitalin. A proprietary preparation.

MR JUSTICE SARUM
[to Counsel):
Oscitalin? The
c
is hard?—ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, my lord. I fancy the name is derived from the Latin
oscitare.

MR JUSTICE SARUM: Quite so. And
[to witness]
is it, as the name suggests, a soporific?—Yes, my lord. A soporific drug in common use.

MR JUSTICE SARUM: Do you mean that it is supplied to the general public?—No, my lord. I mean it is frequently prescribed by physicians.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
[continuing examination]
: Were you sent for again next morning?—Yes.

And what did you find?—I arrived at the house at eight o'clock and found my patient dead. She appeared to have been dead for seven or eight hours.

That was a great shock to you?—A very great shock.

Did the appearance of the body give you any clue to the cause of death?—Cardiac and respiratory failure were indicated, but there was nothing distinctive.

MR JUSTICE SARUM: By that phrase we are to understand heart failure and failure in breathing?—Yes, my lord.

MR JUSTICE SARUM: Such indications would be given by any natural death, would they not?—In many cases, my lord. But in some cases, there would be major indications of other causes.

MR JUSTICE SARUM: You must have mercy on my ignorance, but the phrase you employed ('cardiac and respiratory failure', was it not?) would seem to a lay mind to be synonymous with death itself. It tells us nothing of the causes, does it?—I agree, my lord, that the cause of death is not manifested in those indications. That, if I may say so, was the effect of my answer.

MR JUSTICE SARUM: The question, members of the jury, was: 'Did the appearance of the body give you any clue to the cause of death?' The answer is 'No.'

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
[continuing examination]:
In the circumstances you did not feel justified in giving a certificate?— No.

In consequence of that decision did you ask certain questions of Mrs Tucker?—Yes.

And in view of her answers, and your own uneasiness, did you report the matter at once to the Coroner?—Yes.

Were you present at the post-mortem examination conducted by Dr Lampetter?—Yes.

Cross-examined by MR HARCOMBE: When you saw Mrs Strood on the afternoon of October the 30th, did she seem depressed?—No.

Her manner was normal?—Rather gay, if anything.

Would it be correct to say that she was a little excited?— Perhaps a little.

Even a little hysterical?—I think not.

Had you ever seen her in precisely that state of excitement before?—Yes. She was an excitable person.

What was her temperature-reading?—99.1.

That is definitely above normal, is it not?—Yes.

That symptom, the increased temperature, is sometimes observed in cases of chloral poisoning, is it not?—There was no indication of chloral poisoning.

I am not asking you that, Dr Cartwright. I am putting it to you that a heightened temperature is, or may be, a symptom of chloral poisoning?—Yes.

Thank you. Now I am not suggesting anything more than a possibility, but if that heightened temperature had in fact been caused by a dose of chloral, that dose of chloral, a purely hypothetical dose you will remember, must have been taken not many hours before your arrival on the scene. Is that so?— The times vary greatly.

Yes, but in view of the absence of other symptoms, in this hypothetical case I am putting to you, not many hours?—I agree.

What shall we say: two hours, three hours?—Certainly not more than three hours.

What in your opinion would be a fatal dose?—It varies with the idiosyncrasy of the patient.

Am I right in saying that twenty grains would be a fatal dose in the case of an adult?—It might or might not.

Such a dose has been known to prove fatal, has it not?— Yes.

Now as to this oscitalin prescribed by you. You know the formula for this preparation?—Naturally. Otherwise I should never have prescribed it.

Very well. You will be able to give me the benefit of your knowledge. Am I right in saying that oscitalin contains, among other things, chloral, urethane, and alcohol?—Yes.

And that chloral is in fact the major constituent?—Yes.

You prescribed two drachms?—Yes. That is a very usual dose.

Will you tell my lord and the jury what quantity of chloral would be contained in two drachms of oscitalin?—Fifteen grains.

In effect, therefore, you prescribed fifteen grains of chloral. Wasn't that cutting it rather fine?—Not in the least.

Without any previous knowledge of her reaction to chloral, you felt justified in giving as much as fifteen grains?—It was not the first time I had given her oscitalin.

On what other occasions had you given her oscitalin?— Once only. I think it was in September. She complained of insomnia and she was also suffering from neuritis.

The same dose? Two drachms?—Yes.

And the dose was justified by results?—Yes.

So that on this second occasion, October the 30th, you knew from the success of the September treatment that she could safely take such a dose?—Yes.

But for that precedent you might have hesitated?—It is quite a reasonable dose.

But might you not have hesitated?—I might have done.

Now when you gave what we will call the September dose you had no precedent to guide you, had you? I mean, of course, so far as this patient was concerned?—No.

Yet you did not hesitate?—No. Two drachms is not a dangerous dose.

Never a dangerous dose?—Given sound organs in the patient, never a dangerous dose.

On the soundness of which organ or organs in particular does this safety depend?—The heart.

Are you aware that Mrs Strood's mother died of heart failure?—No.

Yet I think you said you were acquainted with her medical
history?—I may have heard the fact mentioned. If so it has escaped my memory.

Now let us return to the oscitalin for a moment. Is it supplied to you in cachets or tablets of a specific uniform dosage?—No. It is in liquid form.

I see. And the dose of two drachms given to Mrs Strood on October the 30th, was it dispensed by yourself?—Yes.

Would you be good enough to describe the process for us?—I measured two drachms, which I diluted to a fluid ounce. The bottle containing this fluid ounce I handed to Mrs Tucker, instructing her to give it to the patient in a tumbler of ordinary drinking water.

The measuring of two liquid drachms is a delicate matter, I take it?—Not exceptionally so. It is a matter of ordinary care.

It is very easy to make a mistake, is it not?—Not at all. I am trained not to make such mistakes.

This is a case in which a small mistake would make all the difference, is it not?—No.

Come, Dr Cartwright. You have admitted that twenty grains of chloral can be a fatal dose, and you have told us that two drachms of oscitalin represents fifteen grains of chloral, have you not? Now that means, if my arithmetic is correct, that if by inadvertence you had dispensed two and two-thirds drachms, instead of two drachms, you would have given a possibly fatal dose. Am I not right?—Yes. But that would not have been a small mistake in dispensing: it would have been a very gross one.

Are you confident that it did not in fact occur?—I am quite confident. The suggestion is outrageous.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: You have conceded to my learned friend that chloral poisoning may induce a heightened temperature, such a temperature, in fact, as you found in your patient on the material date?—Yes.

Is heightened temperature a characteristic symptom of such a condition?—No.

What state of temperature is more generally found in such cases?—A subnormal temperature.

Are we to understand that a heightened temperature in such cases is comparatively rare? An exception rather than the rule?—Yes.

Further cross-examination by MR HARCOMBE: Do you agree that Mrs Strood's condition on October the 30th, when you saw her, was consistent with the theory that she had taken chloral within the past three hours?—There was no indication of any such thing.

Will you be good enough to answer the question as it was put?—There would have been other symptoms.

If chloral had been taken something less than half an hour before your arrival, would there have necessarily been symptoms?—No.

And there was nothing on the face of it to contradict such a theory?—No.

Then you
do
agree that Mrs Strood's condition was consistent with the theory, the possibility, that she had taken chloral before your arrival?—If you put it that way, yes.

CYRUS HARTMAN LAMPETTER, examined for the Crown by MR TUFNELL: I am a Doctor of Medicine and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and I am a pathologist. On October the 31st I made a post-mortem examination of the body of a woman who was identified, in my presence, as Daphne Strood. Dr Cartwright was present throughout the post-mortem examination. The deceased was five or six weeks advanced in pregnancy. I found no disease, either in the heart or elsewhere. But in various organs I found an aggregate of 19.7 grains of chloral and a smaller quantity of bromide. I also found traces of hyoscyamus and cannabis indica: these are not constituents of oscitalin. In the bladder I found an aggregate of 2.9 grains of urochloral acid and glycuronic acid, which are products of the decomposition of chloral. The amount of chloral and of chloral products actually found does not represent the total of the amount that must have been taken. As to the amount taken, it is impossible to be precise; but it is a fair inference that not less than thirty and perhaps as much as forty grains had been taken. In view of these results my opinion is that death was due to chloral poisoning, and that the poison was taken either in one dose or in a series of doses taken all within a short time, say an hour.

[In the course of an exceedingly lengthy cross-examination, by MR RONALD YOUNG, junior counsel for Defence, witness gave the results of his post-mortem examination in minute
detail, specifying the organs examined and the amount found in each. It was put to him repeatedly
(a)
that his findings could only be approximate, and
(b)
that the deduction he made from them as to the total amount of chloral taken by deceased was largely in the nature of guess-work; but to neither of these suggestions would he agree. He said that it was impossible to say how soon death ensued after the taking of the fatal dose: it might have been in less than an hour and it might equally well have been three or four hours after. He described in detail the tests he employed for the detection of chloral hydrate in the stomach and other organs and would not agree that there was any appreciable margin of error. He also described, in detail, Vitali's Test, which he had used, with positive results, for the detection of hyoscyamus. The amount of hyoscyamus indicated was minute; it was not a poisonous amount. He said further that the presence of so large a residuum of chloral in the stomach and intestines established an overwhelming probability, in the absence of other causes, that this chloral was in fact the cause of death. His attention was called to Dr Cartwright's statement that Mrs Strood had taken chloral on a previous occasion, but negatived the suggestion that this would have produced in the patient some degree of tolerance in respect of the poison. Re-examined, he said that though habitual taking of chloral sometimes produced a degree of tolerance, which was to say a degree of immunity, this was not by any means a necessary result. DR CARTWRIGHT, recalled, said (in answer to Mr TUFNELL for the Prosecution) that there was no bromide, no hyoscyamus, and no cannabis indica in the draught he had prepared for Mrs Strood, and that he was unable to account for their presence in the body. He repeated, with much emphasis, that the draught could have contained no more than fifteen grains of chloral. This concluded the evidence for the Prosecution.]

MR HARCOMBE: My lord, the case for the Crown having been closed, it is now my duty to submit to your lordship that this is a case which ought not to go to a jury, because upon evidence so scanty and inconclusive no jury could reasonably convict. With great respect I submit that it is your lordship's duty to give a ruling in that sense. I need not remind your lordship that long before this trial began my client was the subject of sensational news, and even more sensational conjecture, throughout the length and breadth of this land, that his behaviour and alleged motives were published to the world, and that before his trial began he was a murderer in the public estimation—in the estimation, my lord, of that public from which this jury has been selected, from which indeed every jury must be selected.