Observations on the medical evidence in the case of the Queen v. Smethurst / by T.G. Geoghegan.

  • Geoghegan, Thomas Grace, 1807-1869.
Date:
1859
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Observations on the medical evidence in the case of the Queen v. Smethurst / by T.G. Geoghegan. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    7/20 (page 5)
    intestine, in the csecum, blood, and kidney. The amount of the former poison was estimated at about one-sixth of a grain, that of the antimony from one-fourth to one-half a grain—equivalent to about three times those quantities of tartar emetic* From the above epitome, it seems sufficiently obvious, that each of the recognised sources of medical evidence in such cases—the symptoms with the medical history—the morbid appearances—and the chemical researches, furnished * Notwithstanding all that has been written on the error in the case of the chlorate of potass mixture, (immaterial to the issue,) the disco- very of arsenic, as well as that of antimony, in the intestinal matters, remains unrefuted. Those who have a practical acquaintance with the subject, by comparing the opposite results of the examination of the two evacuations, under the use of the same re-agents, will recognise sufficient evidence that here the arsenic was not furnished by the copper gauze. Had the arsenic been derived from the action of intestinal chlorides and phosphates on the gauze (assuming their presence in the case before us,) we should expect that it would have been found in both of the dischai'ges. It is further most improbable that during the short time which would be occupied by the experiment detailed in evidence, such an amount of copper should have been dissolved as to yield arsenic sufficient to be verified as such. I have also shown elsewhere, that of the arsenic deposited upon copper in the procedure of Reinsch, nearly one half is retained by the latter metal, when heated for the purpose of obtaining arsenious acid. Had chlorate of potass been internally administered by the pri- soner, the liberation of arsenic in notable quantity, from its action on the gauze, would have involved solution of the latter, which is opposed to fact. The absence of antimony in the evacuation shows that the arsenic was not derived from the latter, viewed as tartar emetic, the larger crystals of which especially, sometimes contain traces of that poison. The idea that the poison was furnished by the two quarter-grain doses of sul- phate of copper prescribed seems scarcely to require serious notice- Finally, the discovery of arsenic, otherwise of much significance, was obviously not indispensable to the proof of death by poison in the present instance. In their multifarious correspondence, the English critics and accou- cheurs, who conducted the supplemental trial of the accused, and whose notions have been endorsed by the Secretary of State, studiously declined notice of the antimony.