C. Ainsworth Mitchell

EARLY POISONING TRIALS

Murder of Sir T. Overbury—Mary Blandy—Katherine Nairn

Merely to mention the word “poisoner” calls up a long succession of notorious crimes of the past, not to speak of the still more frequent cases where poisoning was suspected, though probably, often enough, with but little justification. Less than three centuries ago the fact that illness and death had come suddenly to any well-known person, was often sufficient to raise the whisper of suspicion; and any disease that did not yield to the favourite treatment of bleeding, and for which the physicians were for the moment unable even to find a name, was sure to be attributed by popular gossip to the action of poison or witchcraft, or of both.

The mysterious effect of certain substances upon the animal system and the fact that a knowledge of the nature of poisonous herbs was part of the lore of the old women who dealt in love-philtres, fully explains this association of poison with black magic.

In one of the earliest trials for poisoning of which we have any detailed account—that of Richard Weston in 1615—this belief in the miraculous power of the poisoner was present in the mind of the Lord Chief Justice (Coke) when in his charge to the grand jury he said that “The devil had taught divers to be cunning in poisoning so that they can poison in what distance of space they please by consuming the calidum or humidum radicale in one month, two, or three or more as they list; which they four manners of ways do execute (1) gustu; (2) haustu; (3) odore; (4) contactu.”

Again, in the trial of Anne Turner, also for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury (1615), evidence was given that she was in possession of parchments, some of which contained the names of the blessed Trinity; others on which were written + B + C + D + E; and another with a figure in which was inscribed the word “corpus,” and to which was fastened a little piece of the skin of a man. “In some of these parchments were the names of devils who were conjured to torment the Lord Somerset and Sir A. Mainwaring if their loves should not continue—the one to the Countess and the other to Mrs. Turner.”

Reading over the evidence of this trial one can hardly doubt but that this alleged sorcery had considerable weight in the conviction of Anne Turner; for, as will be shown presently, there was no conclusive evidence of poison having been given at all.

The widespread hatred of witchcraft and the readiness with which any evidence of this description was accepted as a proof of poisoning, must have rendered it almost impossible for an unpopular character to be acquitted when accused of poisoning anyone.

The belief in witchcraft was very general in the seventeenth century, and medical men were even called in to give their expert opinion on behalf of the prosecution in the trials of those charged with being witches.

The most striking instance of this kind was at the trial of the Suffolk witches in 1665, before Sir Matthew Hale, Baron of Exchequer. It was alleged that the two women, Rose Cullender and Amy Duny, of Lowestoft, had bewitched a number of children with whose parents they had had disputes. The children, according to the evidence of various witnesses, had been afflicted in different ways, being sometimes blind, or deaf, or lame, and then suddenly recovering. And, in particular, it was stated that they would go into fits and after every fit would vomit crooked pins or twopenny nails with broad heads.

ANNE TURNER

Mr. Sergeant Keeling, who was present, was not satisfied with this evidence and considered that it was not sufficient to convict the prisoners.

Dr. Browne, of Norwich (the Sir Thomas Browne whose fame rests upon his Religio Medici), was then asked to state what he thought of the evidence, and said that he was clearly of opinion that the persons were bewitched.

He said further “That in Denmark there had been lately a great discovery of witches, who used the very same way of afflicting persons by conveying pins into them, and crooked as these pins were, with needles and nails. And his opinion was that the devil in such cases did work upon the bodies of men and women, upon a natural foundation (that is) to stir up and excite such humours super-abounding in their bodies to a great excess, whereby he did in an extraordinary manner afflict them with such distempers as their bodies were most subject to, as particularly appeared in these children; for he conceived that these swooning fits were natural, and nothing else, but only heightened to a great excess by the subtlety of the devil, co-operating with the witches, at whose instance he doth these villainies.”

This evidence is quoted at length, as showing the opinion of scientific men of that time upon the subject of witchcraft. It had great weight with the jury, and helped to make up for the lack of any real evidence against the poor women.

Further evidence was given “that at the least touch of one of these supposed witches, Rose Cullender by name, the children would shriek out, opening their hands, which accident would not happen by the touch of any other person.”

A test was therefore applied in court, and a number of those present were directed by the judge “to attend one of the distempered persons in the further part of the hall, while she was in her fits, and then to send for one of the witches to try what would happen, which they did accordingly: and Amy Duny was conveyed from the bar and brought to the maid: they put an apron before her eyes, and then one other person touched her hand, which produced the same effect as the touch of the witch did in the court. Whereupon the gentlemen returned openly protesting that they did believe the whole transaction of this business was a mere imposture.”

But even this test, which was plain proof of imposture, was distorted into evidence against the witches, and Mr. Pacy, the father of one of the children, declared “That possibly the maid might be deceived by a suspicion, that the witch touched her when she did not,” and that she apprehended that the person who had done her this wrong was near.Additional evidence was afterwards brought to prove other acts of witchcraft by the prisoners. The judge, in giving his direction to the jury, did not attempt to deal with the evidence “lest by so doing he should wrong the evidence on one side or other,” but contented himself with pointing out that there were such creatures as witches, as was shown by the Scriptures and the laws made by all nations against such persons.

The jury retired, and after deliberating for about half an hour, found both prisoners guilty, and the judge sentenced them to be hanged. They were repeatedly urged to make a confession, but were executed without having done so.

Campbell writing of this trial says: “Hale’s motives were most laudable; but he furnishes a memorable instance of the mischiefs originating from superstition. He was afraid of an acquittal or a pardon, lest countenance should be given to a disbelief in witchcraft, which he considered tantamount to a disbelief in Christianity. The following Sunday he wrote a ‘Meditation concerning the mercy of God in preserving us from the malice and power of Evil Angels’ in which he refers with complacency to the trial over which he had presided at Bury St. Edmunds.”

Towards the end of the seventeenth century the belief in witchcraft became less general, and the last trial in this country took place in 1712 at the Hertford Assizes, when the prisoner was convicted but not executed. It was not until 1821, however, that the statute with regard to witchcraft was repealed in Ireland.After the beginning of the eighteenth century there does not appear to have been any attempt made to prove the use of the powers of witchcraft in poisoning trials, and the evidence as to poisoning gradually became of a more convincing character than it was, for instance, in the series of trials of the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury in 1615 in the Tower of London, to which reference has already been made.

The prisoners in these trials included Anne Turner, Richard Weston, Franklyn, Sir Thomas Elwes (the Lieutenant of the Tower), and the Countess of Somerset.

It was alleged that the Countess of Somerset resented the interference of Sir Thomas Overbury, then a prisoner in the Tower, in her matrimonial schemes, or as Franklyn put it in his evidence: The Countess had told him that Sir Thomas Overbury “would pry so far into their affairs that it would overthrow them all.”

Richard Weston, who had been an apothecary’s man but had afterwards become under-keeper to the Lieutenant of the Tower, was arraigned on the charge that “he did obtain at the Tower of London certain poison of green and yellow colour called rosalgar (knowing the same to be deadly poison), and the same did feloniously and maliciously mingle and compound in a kind of broth which he did deliver to the said Sir T. Overbury with intent to kill and poison.”

He was also accused of giving on other occasions poisons called “white arsenick” and mercury sublimate, which he “put and mingled” in tarts and jellies.

Weston refused to answer, and stood “mute on God,” until it was pointed out by the Lord Chief Justice (Coke) that refusing to speak was punishable by the rack, exposure and starvation, and would have the same consequence as a conviction by a verdict or by confession.

Anne Turner, who was tried as one of the accomplices, was the widow of a physician, and a friend of the Countess. She pleaded “Not guilty” to the charge.

The evidence as to sorcery used by her has already been mentioned, but the chief witness against her was James Franklyn, who made the following confession:—

“Mrs. Turner came to me from the Countess and wished me from her to get the strongest poison I could for Sir T. Overbury. Accordingly I bought seven, viz.: Aqua fortis, white arsenick, mercury, powder of diamonds, lapis costitus, great spiders, and cantharides. All these were given to Sir T. Overbury, and the Lieutenant knew of these poisons.

“Sir T. Overbury never eat white salt but there was white arsenick put into it. Once he desired pig, and Mrs. Turner put into it lapis costitus. At another time he had two partridges sent him from the Court, and water and onions being the sauce, Mrs. Turner put in cantharides instead of pepper, so that there was scarce anything that he did eat, but there was some poison mixed. For these poisons the Countess sent me reward. She afterwards wrote unto me to buy her more poisons.”

It is obvious from this confession that the poisons supplied had no power, and it would seem that Franklyn was making an income for himself by supplying harmless preparations for the poisons for which he was being paid.

As far as it is possible to judge by reading the evidence there was proof that attempts had been made to poison Sir Thomas Overbury, but no proof that any poison was ever given to him.

However, the evidence appears to have been quite sufficient to convict the prisoners. In passing sentence upon Anne Turner the Lord Chief Justice informed her that she had been guilty of the seven deadly sins, and that as she was the inventor of that horrid garb, the yellow tiffany ruffs and cuffs, he hoped she would be the last by whom they would be worn.

To this end he ordered that she should be hanged in that garb she had made so fashionable. This was duly done, while as a further condemnation of the fashion to which the judge had taken exception the hangman wore yellow bands and cuffs.

It is said that the fashion of wearing yellow starched linen died with her.

After the execution of Mrs. Turner and Weston came the trial of Franklyn, who confessed that poison had not been the cause of Overbury’s death.

Weldon, who in 1755, published a history of the Kings of England describes how Franklyn and Weston “came into Overbury’s chamber and found him in infinite torment with the contention between the state of nature and working of the poison, and it had been very like that nature had got the better in that contention ... but they, fearing it might come to light by the judgment of physicians that foul play had been offered him, consented to stifle him with bed-clothes, which accordingly was performed. And so ended his miserable life, with the assurance of the conspirators that he died of poison, none thinking otherwise but these two murtherers.”

The account given by Weldon of the manner in which the Lord Chief Justice received this confession is well worth quoting: “And now poor Mrs. Turner, Weston and Franklyn began the tragedy. Mrs. Turner’s day of mourning being better than her life, for she died very penitently and showed much modesty in her last act. After that died Weston, and then was Franklyn arraigned, who confessed that Overbury was smothered to death not poisoned to death, though he had poison given him.

“Here was Coke glad to cast about to bring both ends together, Mrs. Turner and Weston being already hanged for killing Overbury by poison, but he being the very quintessence of the law presently informed the jury that if a man be done to death with pistol, poinard, sword, halter, poison, etc., so he be done to death, the indictment holds good, if but indicted for one of those ways; but the good lawyers of those times were not of that opinion, but did believe that Mrs. Turner was directly murthered by Lord Coke’s law as Overbury was without any law.”

After the trial and execution of the minor prisoners came the trial of the Countess of Somerset, the instigator of the crime, before the House of Peers.

The Clerk of the Crown asked her, “Frances Countess of Somerset, art thou guilty of the felony and murder, or not guilty?”And she, making obeisance to the Lord High Steward, answered “Guilty,” in a low timid voice.

The Attorney-General, Sir Francis Bacon, then praised King James in a fulsome manner, and held out hopes of pardon to the prisoner. The Lord Chief Justice Coke also talked in servile terms of the king, whose instructions for the investigation of the murder, he declared, “deserved to be written in a sunbeam.”

The Clerk of the Crown now asked the Countess “if she had any cause to allege why sentence of death should not be passed upon her.”

To this the prisoner replied in a low voice, which only the Attorney-General heard, “I can much aggravate, but cannot extenuate my fault. I desire mercy and that the lords will intercede for me to the king.”

An officer of the Crown then presented the white staff to the Lord High Steward, and sentence of death was passed.

The Lord High Steward (Chancellor Ellesmere) now addressed the weeping prisoner in the following words: “Since the lords have heard with what humility and grief you have confessed the fact, I do not doubt they will signify so much to the king, and mediate for his grace towards you.”

The next day the Earl was tried and was found guilty, but both he and the Countess received only nominal punishment. It was alleged that this leniency to the Earl and Countess was due to King James himself having been cognisant of the plot to kill Overbury.The trial of Mary Blandy, in 1752, at the Oxford Assizes for the murder of her father is remarkable as being the first one of which there is any detailed record, in which convincing scientific proof of poisoning was given.

Mr. Blandy, who was an attorney at Henley-on-Thames, was extremely fond of Mary, his only daughter, and according to the story told by the prosecuting counsel at the trial, “had pretended that he could give her £10,000 for her marriage portion in hopes that neighbouring gentlemen would pay their addresses. But this pious fraud, which was intended for her promotion, proved his death and her destruction.”

A Captain Cranstoun, who was recruiting at Henley, hearing she was to have £10,000 fell in love, not with her, but with her fortune, and concealed from her the fact that he already had a wife.

The father having heard rumours of the bad character of Cranstoun, refused to let his daughter have anything to do with him. She continued to see him, however, and listened to his proposal to get the father out of the way as soon as possible, so that he might get possession of the £10,000 of which the poor man had unfortunately said he was possessed.

In August, 1750, Mary Blandy began to prepare people for the death of her father by giving out that she had heard music in the house, this being looked upon as a certain portent of death.

Then Captain Cranstoun sent her a present of Scotch pebbles and enclosed with them a packet of a white powder which she was to put into her father’s food.She gave him some of this, which made him very ill, but as he recovered, Captain Cranstoun sent her more powder, and some of this she put into his gruel with the result that he again became violently ill, and died with symptoms suggestive of arsenical poisoning.

Before his death he was told that Mary had been putting poison into his food, and only said, “Poor love-sick girl. What won’t a girl do for a man she loves? I forgive her: I always thought there was mischief in these cursed Scotch pebbles!”

The scientific evidence at this trial was given in a very convincing manner by a Dr. Addington, who had attended the poisoned man and had examined the body and tested the white powder that had been sent by Captain Cranstoun. He stated that this was arsenic, and that he had found the same poison in Mr. Blandy’s gruel.

When asked in cross-examination why he believed this to be white arsenic he described the different tests he had applied to this powder and to a sample of pure white arsenic that he had purchased, and showed how the same results were obtained in each case, and concluded with the remark: “I never saw any two things in nature more alike than the decoction made with the powder found in Mr. Blandy’s gruel and that made with white arsenic.”

The judge in his summing up to the jury remarked that the case was one which was to be made out by circumstances. A great part of the evidence rested upon presumption, and if the jury regarded the presumption as a violent one, that is to say, one where the circumstances spoke so strongly that to suppose the contrary would be absurd, that amounted in law to full proof.

The jury, after deliberating for five minutes, found the prisoner guilty. She was executed on April 6th, and left a written confession in which she stated that she had not been aware that the powder she had given to her father was in any way noxious or poisonous.

Cranstoun was subsequently prosecuted and outlawed for his share in the murder.

If the scientific evidence in this early trial was a model of what such evidence should be, the same can hardly be said of that given at the trial of Katharine Nairn and Patrick Ogilvie at the High Court of Edinburgh in August, 1765, for the murder of Thomas Ogilvie, the husband of Katharine. They had only been married in January of that year, and it was at about the same time that Patrick Ogilvie, who was a lieutenant in the army, had returned from abroad. Almost immediately he supplanted his brother in the affections of his wife, and, a quarrel taking place between the two men, Patrick was forbidden to come to the house. Shortly afterwards the husband died, having shown symptoms of irritant poisoning.

According to the story of the prosecution, Katharine told a woman named Clark, who lived in the house with them, that Patrick had undertaken to procure poison for her, and that she was going to give it to her husband.

An unsigned letter to Patrick Ogilvie, alleged to be in the writing of Katharine, with reference to the poison, was put in as evidence.

Testimony was also given by a surgeon of Brechin that Lieutenant Ogilvie had obtained from him a small phial of laudanum which he said he required for his own health, and also half an ounce of powdered arsenic for the alleged purpose of killing some dogs that destroyed his game.

These he had sent to Katharine, who was believed to have put the arsenic in her husband’s tea.

The defence was that the deceased had died a natural death, and that Katharine Nairn was in the habit of taking small doses of laudanum and of salts for her health. Expert evidence was given on her behalf by a Dr. J. Scott to the effect that “he had made experiments upon arsenic and knew well that it would not dissolve in warm water.”

The evidence, which by the way is incorrect, went to prove that even if arsenic had been introduced into the tea it could not have caused death by poisoning.

A surgeon also gave evidence that the symptoms might have arisen from natural causes.

For the prosecution no proof of the powder being arsenic or that the husband had really died of arsenical poisoning was given, and no post-mortem examination was made.

The counsel for the defence put the position in the following form: “The incest is supposed to be certain because the husband is supposed to have been poisoned; and, on the other hand, the man is believed to have been poisoned, because there is supposed proof of incest.”

Both prisoners were found guilty and sentenced to death, but the execution was delayed pending an appeal to the Privy Council in London. The sentences were confirmed and Patrick Ogilvie was executed in November, but Mrs. Ogilvie, who was expecting the birth of a child, was kept in prison. A daughter was born early in 1766, and Katharine Nairn managed to escape from prison in March of that year.

The trial curiously foreshadowed the trial of Mrs. Maybrick a century later in many of its features, and, as in the modern case, convincing proof of guilt was wanting.

The question whether a particular substance is or is not a poison has frequently been raised in a court of justice, and on several occasions a prisoner has owed his acquittal to a conflict of scientific opinion upon the point.

This was the case in a trial that took place in 1836, at the Norwich Assizes, when two farm labourers were charged with having attempted to poison a fellow farm servant, by putting “a deadly poison,” blue vitriol (copper sulphate), into a glass of milk. The man noticed that the milk had a metallic taste and only drank a portion of it; but this was sufficient to make him ill for a short time. On the milk being examined it was found to contain copper sulphate, and suspicion pointed to its having been doctored by the prisoners.

The counsel for the defence raised the objection that the accused were indicted for having administered a “deadly” poison, and that medical opinion did not hold that blue vitriol was a deadly poison.

A medical witness called on behalf of the prosecution stated that he considered that copper sulphate was a deadly poison, but at the same time admitted that he had no experience of any case of poisoning in which that salt had been taken.

On the other hand, another doctor asserted that in his opinion the substance was not poisonous, and pointed out that it was not sold as a poison.

The judge, taking into account this conflict of opinion, decided that the matter was doubtful and the prisoners were acquitted.

In the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 it is provided that any attempt to administer any poison or other destructive thing to any person whether bodily injury be effected or not is guilty of a felony.

As copper sulphate, when taken in quantity, will certainly cause bodily injury, the case tried in 1836 at Norwich, would now probably be decided differently, even though no bodily harm had actually been caused.

This is borne out by the trial of Cluderay, on the charge of attempted poisoning by administering pods of coculus indicus.

No harm had resulted to the intended victim owing to the fact that although the berries themselves are poisonous, the pod in which they are contained is insoluble when swallowed, and this prevents the berries from producing their toxic effects upon the system.

It was decided by the judge, however, that the giving of the entire pod was an administration of poison within the meaning of the Act.

It is not an easy matter to find a suitable definition for a poison. According to Taylor it is “a substance which, when taken into the mouth or stomach, or when absorbed into the blood is capable of seriously affecting health or of destroying life by its action on the tissues with which it immediately, or after absorption, comes into contact.”

As applied to criminal cases this definition is obviously open to criticism, for it is applicable to a substance such as coffee which, when taken in excess, will “seriously affect the health.” Some reference to the quantity is therefore needed. A drug, such as morphia, may be of benefit when given in small doses, but becomes a poison when given in large quantity. In the case of Cluderay, however, it could hardly be contended that the administration of entire coculus pods, although not producing injurious results, could in any way be beneficial.

The trial of Tawell at the Aylesbury Assizes in 1845, on the charge of murdering Sarah Hart at Slough, presented several points of scientific interest.

The manner in which the electric telegraph was employed in effecting his capture has been described in another place.

At the trial Tawell denied that he had ever been to Slough at all, but the woman who had heard the screams of the victim had seen and spoken with him, and swore positively to his identity.

It was proved that on the day of the murder Tawell had bought some Scheele’s prussic acid in London, but he accounted for this by the fact that he was constantly in the habit of buying the poison for external use.

In the cottage, where the woman was found lying dead when the doctor arrived, were two empty tumblers and a bottle of porter, while a small amount of prussic acid was found in the stomach of the woman.

The counsel for the defence urged that there was no proof that the woman had died from the effects of prussic acid and that some sudden emotion might have been the cause of death.

As to the prussic acid found in the body, he suggested that it might have been derived from apple-pips eaten by the deceased.

Chemical evidence, however, was brought forward to prove that prussic acid could not have been formed as suggested in the process of digestion, and the only result of this novel defence was that for long afterwards the barrister was known as “Apple-pip Kelly.”

In his summing up of the evidence the judge, Baron Parker, said with reference to one of the contentions of the prisoner’s counsel: “If the evidence satisfies you that the death was occasioned by poison, and that poison was administered by the prisoner it is not necessary to give direct and positive proof of what is the quantity which would destroy life, nor is it necessary to prove that such quantity was found in the body of the deceased, if the other facts lead you to the conclusion that the death was occasioned by poison and that it was knowingly administered by the prisoner.”

Referring to the argument that there was no proof that the deceased might not have died from the effect of a sudden emotion he pointed out that they were not to have recourse to mere conjecture; that where the result of the evidence gave them the existence of a cause to which the death might be rationally attributed they were not to suppose without a reason for doing so, that it was to be attributed to any other cause.

As has already been mentioned, the evidence convinced the jury of the guilt of the prisoner, and he was sentenced to death.