Beating the Devil's Game: A History of Forensic Science and Criminal by Katherine Ramsland
Authors: Katherine Ramsland
Tags: Law, Forensic Science
Ads: Link
guilty, and medical science proclaimed this a victory.
However, Dr. David Wells read about the way Salisbury had claimed to isolate aconitine and he knew that it was impossible, so he made a public rebuttal of what he considered a wrongful conviction. He insisted that Salisbury had derived a different substance that might taste like aconitine, but he certainly had not proven that he’d gotten that alkaloid. Wells wrote to the leading medical men and toxicologists, urging them to join in his protest. Many responded, and a joint letter was drafted to the governor of New York. They believed that the jury had been swayed by the confident manner of the expert witnesses, not by their so-called proof. Even as Hendrickson waited to be hanged, scientists across the nation rallied on his behalf, discussing the case at medical meetings. But the New York Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals both affirmed the verdict. Hendrickson’s new execution date was set, and despite a flurry of medical protest, he was hanged on May 5, 1854. Between two thousand and three thousand people waited outside the Albany prison to try to see, including a large contingent of the press. For the professionals involved, the case proved traumatic and they renewed their efforts to introduce better standards and safeguards into their profession. That a man could be executed on such flimsy and controversial evidence seemed ghastly to them.
In England, another costly error was made by Alfred Swaine Taylor, who had studied with the famous Orfila and become professor of medical jurisprudence at Guy’s Hospital Medical School. In 1836, he’d published
Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence
and would eventually become one of the century’s most eminent forensic scientists, although his early cases were setbacks for toxicology. Among them was a notorious serial poisoner.
In 1855, Dr. William Palmer, a gambler deep in debt, was accused of using strychnine to poison a friend named Cook, who had died and “left” him a considerable sum. He was allowed to attend the autopsy and was caught trying to abscond with a jar filled with the contents from the dead man’s stomach. Palmer was already associated with a string of sudden and unexpected deaths among friends, acquaintances, associates, and relatives, including his rich wife (whom he had insured for a grand sum) and his mother-in-law. A few of these people had died quite suddenly while staying with Palmer. He’d even insured his own brother, Walter, and invited him into a bout of drinking, whereupon Walter expired. The insurance company refused to pay, so Palmer insured someone else, who also quickly died. Suspicious investigators decided to exhume a few of these victims and they found a large dose of antimony in Palmer’s deceased wife.
Taylor analyzed the contents of Cook’s stomach, and while he found no strychnine, he did detect some antimony. Still, it was not in a sufficient quantity to kill a man. No one thought that Palmer’s possession of the stomach contents for a short time might have influenced the results, and Taylor’s testimony at the trial was unconvincing. The circumstantial evidence did Palmer in and he was hanged in 1856. The rope used was cut into pieces and sold for a good profit. Taylor had tried his best, but some poisons escaped the body in the form of gas. He simply could not prove the presence of something that was not there. His next trial, too, proved problematic, not just for him but the entire profession. In America, several toxicologists who had paid attention to the Palmer trial set themselves to the challenge of detecting strychnine. T. G. Wormley and John J. Reese both committed themselves to research and by the end of the decade were able to publish papers that contributed to future solutions. Clearly, toxicologists were determined to improve their examinations and proofs.
But in the meantime, other scientists were making discoveries applicable to the
However, Dr. David Wells read about the way Salisbury had claimed to isolate aconitine and he knew that it was impossible, so he made a public rebuttal of what he considered a wrongful conviction. He insisted that Salisbury had derived a different substance that might taste like aconitine, but he certainly had not proven that he’d gotten that alkaloid. Wells wrote to the leading medical men and toxicologists, urging them to join in his protest. Many responded, and a joint letter was drafted to the governor of New York. They believed that the jury had been swayed by the confident manner of the expert witnesses, not by their so-called proof. Even as Hendrickson waited to be hanged, scientists across the nation rallied on his behalf, discussing the case at medical meetings. But the New York Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals both affirmed the verdict. Hendrickson’s new execution date was set, and despite a flurry of medical protest, he was hanged on May 5, 1854. Between two thousand and three thousand people waited outside the Albany prison to try to see, including a large contingent of the press. For the professionals involved, the case proved traumatic and they renewed their efforts to introduce better standards and safeguards into their profession. That a man could be executed on such flimsy and controversial evidence seemed ghastly to them.
In England, another costly error was made by Alfred Swaine Taylor, who had studied with the famous Orfila and become professor of medical jurisprudence at Guy’s Hospital Medical School. In 1836, he’d published
Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence
and would eventually become one of the century’s most eminent forensic scientists, although his early cases were setbacks for toxicology. Among them was a notorious serial poisoner.
In 1855, Dr. William Palmer, a gambler deep in debt, was accused of using strychnine to poison a friend named Cook, who had died and “left” him a considerable sum. He was allowed to attend the autopsy and was caught trying to abscond with a jar filled with the contents from the dead man’s stomach. Palmer was already associated with a string of sudden and unexpected deaths among friends, acquaintances, associates, and relatives, including his rich wife (whom he had insured for a grand sum) and his mother-in-law. A few of these people had died quite suddenly while staying with Palmer. He’d even insured his own brother, Walter, and invited him into a bout of drinking, whereupon Walter expired. The insurance company refused to pay, so Palmer insured someone else, who also quickly died. Suspicious investigators decided to exhume a few of these victims and they found a large dose of antimony in Palmer’s deceased wife.
Taylor analyzed the contents of Cook’s stomach, and while he found no strychnine, he did detect some antimony. Still, it was not in a sufficient quantity to kill a man. No one thought that Palmer’s possession of the stomach contents for a short time might have influenced the results, and Taylor’s testimony at the trial was unconvincing. The circumstantial evidence did Palmer in and he was hanged in 1856. The rope used was cut into pieces and sold for a good profit. Taylor had tried his best, but some poisons escaped the body in the form of gas. He simply could not prove the presence of something that was not there. His next trial, too, proved problematic, not just for him but the entire profession. In America, several toxicologists who had paid attention to the Palmer trial set themselves to the challenge of detecting strychnine. T. G. Wormley and John J. Reese both committed themselves to research and by the end of the decade were able to publish papers that contributed to future solutions. Clearly, toxicologists were determined to improve their examinations and proofs.
But in the meantime, other scientists were making discoveries applicable to the
Similar Books
