« PreviousContinue »
agreed that it had the odor of arsenic. I know of no substance which, in my opinion, has the same odor, or which resembles that of arsenic. It is stated that there are certain substances which give off an odor resembling that of arsenic -certain vegetable substances, but here there were none. Phosphoretted hydrogen is said to have the odor. I have manipulated it, and never found the odor. I account for the smell by the action of the carbon in vapor from the lamp coming in contact with the arseniate of lime, not already decomposed. If, in the examination of any mineral substance I had discovered the same results, I should have said there were traces of arsenic. I believe that was the odor of arsenic that I smelled."-"Authority goes to say that other substances than arsenic produce odors so like it that one may be deceived. A man can smell the shadow of a shade of arsenic. I cannot say what quantity will give the odor.""I have never been deceived when I have found arsenic by the blowpipe, in detecting it afterwards. It might have been arsenic, but not in sufficient quantity to be weighed, and then we apply the term, "traces of arsenic," in the description of the analysis of the mineral. It is the metallic substance that gives the odor."
This is the evidence of the existence of the peculiar odor of arsenic in the stomach of Mr. Chapman. You will observe, that here in searching for arsenic, by three several experiments, on different parts of the same matter, precisely the same result was produced, viz., the peculiar odor of the metal; of course, the existence of the odor cannot admit of doubt.
Then, taking the opinions of Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clemson, that no other matter was present that could have produced the same odor, you have the opinion of the chemists that arsenic was found in the stomach of Mr. Chapman. Unless these gentlemen have been deceived, under circumstances in which they seem to think deception almost impossible, arsenic was detected, and you as jurors will be justifiable in drawing that conclusion and in acting upon it. Thus, if you make this deduction, you have the proof by chemical tests, and the opinions of the chemists that arsenic was in
the stomach of Mr. Chapman in support of the position that he died by poison.
In support of this deduction, there is much corroborating evidence in the cause, a summary of which I am about to present to you for consideration.
1. The peculiar smell of the stomach, proved by Dr. Hopkinson and Dr. Mitchell, and the extraordinary fact, that another stomach into which a small quantity of arsenic was placed, and remained a considerable time, threw off precisely the same unusual odor. This, by itself, would weigh nothing, but as a coincidence, it is well worthy of consideration, the more especially as Christison speaks of a peculiar odor from a body dead by arsenic.
2. The preservation of the body, and more especially, the peculiar dryness of the small intestines. The soil in which the body was buried was very favorable for its preservation, but the fact that it was in a remarkable state of preservation is certa n. Dr. Hopkinson says that the small intestines appeared as he supposed they would be if they had been hung up to dry. This extraordinary appearance alone would be of little moment, but acquires some importance in connection with the other facts in the cause.
3. The symptoms of the disease, and the opinions of the attending physicians. His attending physicians were astonished at the fatal result of his disease. Dr. Phillips says that, at the time, he was not satisfied as to the cause of his death, and that he could not account for it; and Dr. Knight speaks to the same purport. Cholera morbus did not satisfactorily account to them for his death, although no suspicion of foul play then existed, yet the symptoms and death alone excited their astonishment, and neither are able to account for it. The symptoms, although each one may be referable to natural causes and death by cholera, all agree that the whole are such as probably would precede death by arsenic. Take the symptoms of such death as described by Dr. Togno, the medical witness of the defendant, and compare them with those which are proved to have existed in Mr. Chapman's case. Dr. Togno says the general symptoms of poisoning
by arsenic are "violent vomiting one, two or more hours after taking the poison-a constriction of the throat, pain and burning in the stomach, great lassitude, disabling the patient almost from moving after the vomiting has continued some time, thirst-purging follows. The circulation is slow, and participates in the general prostration of the system. Mr. Chapman had no symptom that a man would not have had who died by arsenic.
4. The opinions of medical men founded upon the post mortem examination, and the description they have had of the symptoms. Dr. Hopkinson says that death was caused by the action of some violent substance upon the stomach. Dr. Coates says, "From what I saw, and the evidence of Drs. Phillips, Knight and Hopkinson, I am of opinion that Mr. Chapman died by the action of some corrosive poison, or irritant poison, probably of an arsenical character." Dr. Mitchell, after giving his reasons in detail, says, “I am unable, after a careful and considerate view of the whole ground, to resist the conclusion that Wm. Chapman died because of the presence of arsenic in his stomach.'
Thus far, I have confined my examination to the chemical proof and medical opinions as to the death by poison, without regard to the other proof in the cause. If you place full reliance upon the integrity and skill of the witnesses, you will be justifiable in considering their opinions as proof of the facts upon which they are given.
But in corroboration of, and to be taken in connection with the foregoing, there is other evidence of a very important character. On the 16th of June, Mina bought poison, and that poison arsenic, upon what, so far as appears, was a false pretense. On the 17th of June, Mr. Chapman was taken sick with his mortal disease, now pronounced by the physicians, to be a death by poison. On the 20th and 21st of June, several chickens, and a large number of ducks coming out of the lot of Mr. Chapman, died in an extraordinary manner. The ducks at the time believed to die of poison. Now, although ducks are subject to an acute disease, that carries them off suddenly and in great numbers, yet these facts, under the
circumstances, are well worthy of consideration. On Sunday, the 19th, Mr. Chapman, was seen by Dr. Phillips. He had recovered from his illness, and was in no dangerous, or even uncomfortable situation. He continued thus till Monday afternoon, the 20th-then he had all the symptoms of poison by arsenic.
I have now presented a summary of the evidence of the death by poison, independently of the proof which has been given, showing the agency of prisoner, in procuring his death. But there is much evidence as to this latter question, which is applicable to the former. Indeed, all evidence that will support the position that she was his murderer will corroborate that which is given to prove that he died by arsenic, for it is certain, that if murdered at all, it was by arsenic. You will, therefore, still keep your attention awake to the applicability of the additional evidence, as well to the question of the death by poison as to that of her agency in procuring it.
2. Did Mrs. Chapman do the murder, or was she present aiding and abetting?
In presenting this part of the case to you, I at the same time think it my duty to make a point for the prisoner not made by her counsel-probably because they did not think it prudent. It is, that suppose Chapman was poisoned, and his wife in adulterous or criminal intercourse with his poisoner, her defense would exceedingly difficult, even if innocent, for those things which might be evidence only of criminal passion, for the murderer, might be construed as evidence of participation in the murder. This, certainly, is a possible case. Therefore, in examining the evidence, take the consideration I have presented, along with you, and if the facts and circumstances proved against her, can be accounted for on the supposition of criminal intercourse only without necessarily inferring the murder, you will put that merciful construction upon them.
Did Mina do the murder with her aid, or did she do it with his? The first question that strikes the mind in the inquiry is, why should she do the murder? What motive could she have for destroying her husband? The prosecution answers
this question by saying, that she was infatuated by a guilty passion for Mina, and an avaricious longing after the boundless wealth of which she believed him possessed, and leagued with him to destroy her husband, for the purpose of unrestrained gratification.
This allegation it is for the prosecution to make out by the evidence. Let us examine it in detail. (The JUDGE here recapitulated those parts of the evidence of Mary Palethorpe, Ellen Shaw, Esther Bache, Ann Bantom and Fanning, which go to show the improper intercourse between Mina and Mrs. Chapman, and the state of feeling between Mr. Chapman and Mina, and then continued):
That the prisoner was most strangely infatuated with Mina from the commencement of their intercourse up to the time of their final separation, cannot be questioned. If the testimony of Ellen Shaw is believed, acts utterly inconsistent with innocence are fully made out. If the prisoner did, at different times, kiss Mina, and suffer him to kiss her, and suffer him to rest in her arms singing love songs, it is very strong evidence of criminal intercourse between them. Taking the difference of their ages, the fact that she was a married woman, her infatuation, and the hasty and indecent marriage, ten days after her husband's death, in connection with those facts proved by Ellen Shaw, and the probability that they were living in adulterous intercourse is very great. That Mr. Chapman believed it is certain, if you credit Fanning or Ellen Shaw; yet, however improper or criminal their conduct towards each other may have been, there is no positive proof of adultery, nor of anything from which it must necessarily be inferred.
It is true that she seems to have had views of going to Mexico with Mina-that she considered her husband in the way of her ambitious or avaricious aspirings; and that she wished him "gone." These things add much weight to the other evidence; and taking the whole together, it is for you to say whether you can draw the conclusion, that adulterous intercourse existed between them. If it did, that fact will be of great weight in the question whether she is guilty of the mur