Serjeant Shee surprised the Court with a most remarkable statement. 'I believe,' he said, 'that truer words were never pronounced than those uttered by the prisoner when pleading "Not Guilty" to this charge. I will prove to you the sincerity with which I declare my personal conviction of his innocence—when I meet the case foot by foot.'
The Attorney-General replied: 'You have just heard from my learned friend the unusual and, I may add, the unprecedented assurance of his personal faith in his client's innocence. When he made it—and I know no man in whom the spirit of truth is more keenly alive—he gave expression to what he sincerely believed. But what would lie diink of me if, imitating his example, I at this moment revealed to you upon my word and honour, as he did, what is my personal conviction from a meticulous review of the whole case?'
The Attorney-General could not, it seems, forget his private conversation with Frank Swindell, who had accused Dr Palmer of 'doctoring him for death' at Wolverhampton Races.
Among the witnesses, other than medical, called for the Defence and present in Court, were George Myatt, the Rugeley saddler; John Sergeant, a racing man; and, finally, Jeremiah Smith. Myatt testified that he had been at The Raven Hotel on the night when Cook complained of the brandy, and that nobody could have doctored Cook s brandy and water without his knowledge. He also testified that a great many people fell sick at the Shrewsbury Meeting, and that Dr Palmer himself had vomited violently out of the carriage window on his return to Rugeley by the six o'clock express. Cook, Dr Palmer, and himself had then discussed the prevalence of these symptoms and thought that the Shrewsbury water supply must have been tainted. Myatt swore that Cook had been very drunk, even before he took the brandy and water; and that Cook's words were not: 'It burns my throat dreadfully,' but: 'There's something in it.'
Sergeant testified that at the Liverpool Races, a week previously, Cook had asked him to look at his ulcered throat, and that he had made the same request on several other occasions. 'He also went to Dr Palmer,' Sergeant continued, 'and in my hearing applied for a mercurial lotion called "black wash".' From Sergeant's further evidence it seems probable that Cook's remark, 'It burns my throat dreadfully,' did not refer to the brandy, but was a retrospective complaint about an injury done him at Liverpool railway station. Gingerbread nuts were sold on the course— some innocuous, others containing cayenne pepper—and when the races had ended Dr Palmer humorously gave Cook one of the latter sort. At The Raven, Cook drunkenly suspected Dr Palmer of dosing the brandy too—the peppered ginger-nut being still active in his memory.
Jeremiah Smith testified to Cook's not possessing enough money, after the Shrewsbury Races, to pay him more than five pounds of the £41 10s. debt due, and saying: 'I can't let you have the remainder, Jerry, because I've given most of my winnings to Palmer, but you shall be paid when I've been to Tattersall's on Monday.' Smith also testified that he had waited for Dr Palmer's return to Rugeley on the fateful Monday night, and met him at ten minutes past ten outside The Talbot Arms Hotel. Cook, whom they then visited briefly, in his bedroom, complained: 'You're late tonight, Doctor. I didn't expect you to look in. So I took Dr Bamford's pills'—the inference being that he would not have taken them, had Dr Palmer come earlier. When Cook told them both: 'I was up this afternoon talking with Saunders and Ashmole,' Dr Palmer answered: 'You oughtn't to have done that.'
Afterwards, so Jeremiah Smith testified, Dr Palmer and himself walked to The Yard, a few hundred paces away, and spent half an hour in the company of old Mrs Palmer, who had important business to discuss. He then left Dr Palmer at The Yard, and went home. As for the allegedly poisoned broth, he had sent it as a gift to Cook, who was not well enough to accept an invitation to dine; this broth being the liquor in which his own leg of mutton had been boiled at The Albion Inn. That Mrs Rowley, the cook, should take it along the street in a saucepan, to be warmed up at Dr Palmer's and there poured into the invalid-cup, was very natural, considering the distance and the state of the weather. Jeremiah Smith also testified to having once watched Ben Thirlby, Dr Palmer's assistant, dress Cook's ulcered throat with caustic.
Nevertheless, the good impression thus made on the jury was entirely swept away by the Attorney-General's cross-examination of Jeremiah Smith, on matters irrelevant to the trial. Serjeant Shee knew that any objections to these he might lodge would be vain. Indeed, Smith gave such a lamentable exhibition of cowardice that the spirit of tragedy which had for days brooded over the Old Bailey gave place, at times, to farce.
the attorney-general. Have you known Palmer long ?
smith. I have known him long and very intimately, and have been
employed a good deal as an attorney by Palmer and his family. the attorney-general. In December, 1854, did he apply to you,
asking you to attest his brother Walter Palmer's proposal for
£13,000 in The Solicitors' and General Insurance Office?
smith. I cannot recollect; if you will let me see the document I will
tell you.
the attorney-general. Will you swear that you were not applied to ?
smith. I will not swear either that I was not applied to for that purpose, or that I was. If you will let me see the document I shall recognize my writing at once.
the attorney-general. In January, 1855, were you applied to by Palmer to attest his brother's proposal for £13,000 in The Prince of Wales Office?
smith. I don't recollect.
the attorney-general. Don't recollect? Why, £13,000 was a large sum for a man like Walter Palmer, wasn't it, who hadn't a shilling in the world? Didn't you know that he was an uncertified bankrupt ?
smith. I knew that he had been a bankrupt some years before, but not that he was an uncertified bankrupt. I knew that he had an allowance from his mother, and I believe that his brother William [the prisoner] gave him money at different times.
the attorney-general. During 1854 and 1855, where in Rugeley did you live?
smith. In 1854, I think, I resided partly with William Palmer, and
sometimes at his mother's.
the attorney-general. Did you sometimes sleep at his mother's ? smith. Yes.
the attorney-general. Did you sleep in his mother's room—on your oath, were you not intimate with her?—you know well enough what I mean.
smith. I had no other intimacy, Mr Attorney, than a proper intimacy.
the attorney-general. How often did you sleep at her house, though having an establishment of your own close by?
smith. Frequently. Two or three times a week. [Here one of the jurymen sniggered, and slowly a laugh spread through the Court.]
the attorney-general. Explain how that happened.
smith. Sometimes her son Joseph or other members of her family were on a visit there, and I went to see them. We used to play a game of cards, and have a glass of gin and water, and smoke a pipe perhaps; and then they would say: 'It is late—you had better stop all night.' And I did.
the attorney-general. Did that continue for three or four years?
smith. Yes; and I sometimes used to stop there when nobody was at home—when they were all away, the mother and everybody.
the attorney-general. And you have slept at the house when the sons were not there and the mother was ?
smith. Yes. Two or three times a week.
[More laughter.]
the attorney-general. But since there was no one to smoke and drink with, you might have gone home. Will you say on your oath that there was nothing but a proper intimacy between you and Mrs Palmer?
smith. I do.
the attorney-general. Now, I shall turn to another subject. Were you called upon to attest a further proposal for £13,000 by Walter Palmer, in The Universal Assurance Office?
smith. I cannot say; if you will let me see the proposal I shall know.
the attorney-general. Answer me, Sir, as an attorney and a man of business: did William Palmer ask you to attest a proposal for a £13,000 assurance on the life of his brother Walter?
smith. If I could see any document on the subject I daresay I should recollect.
the attorney-general. Do you remember getting a five-pound note for attesting an assignment of such a policy by Walter Palmer to his brother?
smith. I don't recollect positively.
the attorney-general {handing a document to witness). Is that your signature?
smith (after considerable hesitation). It is very like my signature, but
I have some doubt about it.
the attorney-general. Read the document and tell me, on your
solemn oath, whether it is your signature.
smith. I have some doubt whether it is mine.
the attorney-general. I will have an answer from you on your
oath, one way or another. Isn't that your handwriting?
smith. I believe that it is not my handwriting, but a very clever
imitation of it.
the attorney-general. Will you swear that it is not?
smith. I will.
mr baron alderson. Did you ever make such an attestation ?
smith. I don't recollect, my Lord.
the attorney-general. Look at the other signature there, 'Walter
Palmer'; is that his signature?
smith. I believe so.
the attorney-general. Look at the attestation and at the words 'signed, sealed and delivered'; are they in Mr Pratt's handwriting?
smith. They are.
the attorney-general. Did you receive that from Mr Pratt?
smith. I can't swear that I did. It might have been sent to William Palmer.
the attorney-general. Did you receive it from William Palmer? smith. I don't know; very likely I did.
the attorney-general. If that be the document he gave you, and if those are the signatures of Walter Palmer and of Pratt, is not the other signature yours?
smith. I'll tell you, Mr Attorney . . .
the attorney-general. Don't 'Mr Attorney' me, Sir! Answer my
question! Will you swear that it isn't your handwriting?
smith. I believe it is not.
the attorney-general. Did you apply to The Midland Counties Insurance Office in October, 1855, to be appointed their agent at Rugeley?
smith. I think I did.
the attorney-general. Did you yourself send them a proposal on
the life of Bate for £10,000?
smith. I did.
the attorney-general. Did William Palmer ask you to send that proposal?
smith. Bate and Palmer came together to my office with a prospectus, and asked me if I would write and get appointed agent for that company in Rugeley, because Bate wanted to raise some money.
the attorney-general. And you did so ?
smith. I did.
the attorney-general. Was Bate at that time superintending William Palmer's stud and stables at a salary of one pound a week?
smith. I can't tell his salary.
the attorney-general. After that, did you try to make the widow
of Walter Palmer give up her claim on her husband's policy?
smith. I did.
the attorney-general. Did you receive a document from Pratt to
lay before her at Liverpool? smith. William Palmer gave me one which had been directed to
him.
the attorney-general. Did the widow refuse to sign the document? smith. She said she would like her solicitor to sec it. So I said: 'By
all means,' and brought it back because I had no instructions to
leave it.
the attorney-general. Didn't she say: 'I understood from my husband that the insurance was for £1000?'—or words to that effect?
Serjeant shee objected to the question. What had passed between Walter Palmers widow and the witness could be no evidence against the prisoner.
the attorney-general explained that the question was intended to affect the witness's credit, and was most important in that respect.
the court ruled that it could not be put.
the attorney-general. Don't you know that Walter Palmer obtained nothing for nuking that assignment?
smith. I believe that he ultimately did get something for it.
the attorney-general. Don't you know that what he got was a bill for £200?
smith. Yes; and had a house furnished for him.
the attorney-general. Don't you know that the bill was never
paid?
smith. No, I do not.
the attorney-general. Now, I'll refresh your memory a little with regard to those proposals (handing witness a document). Look at that, and tell me whether it is in your handwriting.
smith. It is.
the attorney-general. Now, I ask you, were you not applied to by William Palmer in December, 1854, to attest a proposal on the life of his brother Walter for £13,000 in The Solicitors' and General Insurance Office?
smith. I might have been.
the attorney-general. Were you, or were you not, Sir? Look at that document, and say have you any doubt upon the subject?
smith. I have no doubt that I might have been applied to.
the attorney-general. Do not trifle, Sir, with the Court, and with the jury and myself! Have you any doubt whatever that in January, 1855, you were called on by William Palmer to attest a further proposal for £13,000 on his brother's life in another office? Look at the document and tell me.
smith. I see the paper, but I don't recall the circumstances.
the attorney-general. That piece of paper seems to burn your fingers?
smith. No, upon my honour, it does not. I might have signed it in blank.
the attorney-general. Do you usually sign attestations of this
nature in blank?
smith. I have some doubt whether I did not sign several blanks.
the attorney-general. On your oath, looking at that document,
don't you know that William Palmer asked you to attest that
proposal upon his brother's life for £13,000?
smith. He did apply to me to attest proposals in some office. the attorney-general. Were they for large amounts ?
smith. One was for £13,000.
the attorney-general. Now the truth is coming out! Were you asked to attest another proposal for a like sum in The Universal Assurance Office?
smith. I might have been.
the attorney-general. They were made much about the same time, were they not? You did not wait for the answers to the first application before you made the second?
smith. I don't know that any answers came back at all.
the attorney-general. Will you swear that you were not present when Walter Palmer executed the deed assigning the policy upon his life to the prisoner, William Palmer? Now, be careful, Mr Smith, because, depend upon it, you shall hear of this again if you are not!
smith. I will not swear that I was; I think I was not. I am not quite positive.
The Attorney-General's questioning of Jeremiah Smith's relations with old Mrs Palmer, and his previous questioning of George Myatt, the saddler, as to whether he ever slept in the same hotel bed as Dr Palmer, were both by way of revenge. Serjeant Shee, to throw discredit on Elizabeth Mills's testimony, had suggested that she was a woman of loose morals. Elizabeth Mills, however, answered with jaunty and mocking defiance, whereas Jeremiah Smith vacillated—torn between the fear of losing his character if he owned to being the bedfellow of a rich woman over twenty years his senior, and fear of offending her if he denied the imputation too indignantly. Very few of his answers were given without hesitance and a decided embarrassment, which left its imprint on the jury's mind.
Serjeant Shee tried to make good the damage when he reexamined Smith.
Serjeant shee. How long have you known Mrs Palmer?
smith. For twenty years. [In answer to further questions:] I should think she must now be about sixty years of age. "William Palmer is not her eldest son. Joseph, the eldest, resides at Liverpool, and is a timber merchant. He must b
e forty-five or forty-six years of age. George, the next eldest son, resides at Rugeley and was frequently at his mother's house. John, the youngest, a clergyman of the Church of England, lived there until two years ago, except when he was away at college. There is also a daughter, who lives constantly with her mother; and three servants are kept. The house is a large one, and contains many spare bedrooms. I slept in the room nearest the old church.
Serjeant shee. Is there any pretence for saying that you have ever been accused of improper intimacy with Mrs Palmer?
smith. I hope not.
Serjeant shee. I repeat: is there any pretence for saying so ? smith. There ought not to be.
Serjeant shee. Pray answer me directly! Is there any truth in the suggestion ?
smith. People may have made it, but they had no reason for doing so. Serjeant shee. But was there any truth in such a statement if made?
smith. I should say not. There ought not to be any pretence for
anything of the kind. [Laughter.]
mr baron alderson. No, Brother Shee. It was only two or three
times a week he slept there! [Loud laughter.]
The Attorney-General thereupon made a telling speech for the Crown, the ablest in his career, speaking without notes in a firm and resonant voice for eight hours or longer. He was secure in the knowledge that he had the last word, and need fear no rebuttal— though why the Prosecution always should have the last word in murder trials, we have been unable to fathom, unless the theory may be that the Judge in his summing-up will speak in the prisoner's defence, pointing out any false logic or distortion of facts contained in this final oration. Well aware, however, that the Lord Chief Justice could not be counted upon to do anything of the kind, Sergeant Shee boldly contended that since the Attorney-General had raised the new matter of Walter Palmer's life insurance, and the proposals for it made to various offices, the Defence was entitled to reply. But the Lord Chief Justice ruled: 'We are of opinion that you have no right to reply,' and Mr Baron Alderson supported him in this.