скачать книгу бесплатно
"Yes. It is a plain indication of opium."
"Now then, Doctor, admitting that the contracted pupils are a sign of morphine, how did you determine, in that darkened room, that there was a contraction of the pupils?"
"I passed a candle before her eyes, and they gave no response, whilst the pupils were contracted minutely."
"How small?"
"As small as a pin's point."
"Now then, Doctor, you answered a lengthy question for Mr. Munson and you told us that these symptoms, that is, all of them occurring together, would not be found in any other condition than that which in your opinion would be the result of opium poisoning. Please listen to this question and give me an answer. Suppose that a patient were suffering with diphtheria, and were about to die of that disease, and that some time before she died morphine were administered in a moderate, medicinal dose, would it not be possible to have the contracted pupils such as you have described as a result of the morphine, whilst death were really caused by diphtheria?"
"I object!" cried Mr. Munson, quick to see the ingenuity of this question, which if answered affirmatively by the witness would leave the inference that Miss Sloane might have taken a non-poisonous dose of morphine and still have died of diphtheria.
"The question seems to me to be a proper one," said the Recorder.
"Your Honor," said Mr. Munson, "this witness is here to testify to facts. He is not here as an expert. That is a hypothetical question and does not relate to the facts in this case."
"It is no more a hypothetical question than one which the prosecution asked, your Honor. He asked if the described symptoms could occur in any other disease. The witness was allowed to answer that."
"Yes," said the Recorder, "but you made no objection. Had you done so, and claimed that this witness could not give expert testimony, I would perhaps have sustained you. I think you may leave your question until the experts are called, Mr. Bliss."
"Oh! Very well, your Honor. I should prefer to have an expert opinion upon it. If this witness is not an expert, of course his opinion would be of no value to us."
This was a rather neat manoeuvre, tending to further discredit the witness, without placing himself in opposition to the Judge, an important point always. Mr. Bliss then yielded the witness, and the Assistant District Attorney asked a few more questions in re-examination, but they were mainly intended to re-affirm the previous testimony, and so obtain a last impression upon the minds of the jury. Nothing was brought out which would add to what has already been narrated. Court then adjourned for the day.
CHAPTER VI.
DAMAGING TESTIMONY
On the following day the newspaper accounts of the trial, and especially of the sharp cross-examination of Dr. Meredith, attracted a tremendous crowd, which assailed the doors of the court-room long before the hour for opening. Every conceivable excuse to gain admission was offered. Men claimed to be personal friends of the prisoner, and women brought him flowers. Some essayed force, others resorted to entreaty, whilst not a few relied upon strategy, appearing with law books under their arms, and following in the wake of counsel. Thus when the Recorder finally entered, and proceedings were begun, every available seat, and all standing room was fully occupied by the throng, which, without any real personal interest in the case, yet was attracted through that curious love of the sensational, and of the criminal, which actuates the majority of mankind to-day.
The first witness was called promptly. This was Dr. McDougal, the Coroner's physician, to whom had been intrusted the autopsy. He gave a full account of the operations performed by himself and his assistants upon the body of the deceased. He described in detail each step of his work, and exhibited a thoroughness and caution which more than anything demonstrated that he was the expert pathologist which the prosecution claimed him to be. Indeed, it would be well in great trials, if those having charge of autopsies would emulate the example of Dr. McDougal. He explained how, before opening the body, it had been thoroughly washed in sterilized water, and placed upon a marble slab, which had been scrubbed clean and then bathed in a germicidal solution. Next new glass cans, absolutely clean, had been at hand, in which the various organs were placed as they were removed from the body, after which they were hermetically sealed, and stamped with the date, so that when passed into the hands of the analytical chemist, that gentleman might feel assured that he received the identical parts, and that nothing of an extraneous nature, poisonous or otherwise, had been mixed with them. It was evident that this careful man made a deep impression upon the jury, and that his statements would have weight with them, not alone as to his own evidence, but by strengthening the chemical report, since he had made it apparently assured that if poison had been found, it had not reached the body after death. Finally, Mr. Munson brought his witness to the point of special interest.
"From what you observed, Doctor," said he, "are you prepared to assign a cause of death?"
"I should conclude that she died of coma!" was the reply.
"Can you state whether this coma had been produced by a poisonous dose of morphine?"
"I should say that it was very probable that opium in some form had been exhibited, in a poisonous dose."
"State specifically why you have adopted that opinion!"
"I found the brain wet, the convolutions flattened; the lungs, heart, liver, and spleen, distended and engorged with dark fluid blood. The vessels of the cerebro-spinal axis were also engorged with black blood, and the capillaries of the brain, upon incision, vented the same fluid."
"And these signs are indicative of opium poisoning?"
"They are the only evidences of opium poisoning that can be discovered by an autopsy. Of course a chemical analysis, if it should show the presence of the drug, would go very far to corroborate this presumption."
"Then if the chemical analysis shows the actual presence of opium, would you say that this patient died of opium poisoning?"
"I would!"
"Doctor, it has been suggested that she died of diphtheria. What is your opinion of that?"
"I found evidences in the throat and adjacent parts, that the woman had had diphtheria, but, from the total absence of false membrane, I should say that she was well on the way to a recovery from that disease, at the time of her death."
"Then from these facts do you think that she died of opium poisoning?"
"I think it most probable, judging by what I found after death."
"It has been testified by the physician in charge of the case, that the symptoms of morphine poisoning were sufficiently marked for him to deem antidotes necessary prior to death. Would not that corroborate your own conclusions?"
"If correct, it would substantiate my opinion."
Considering the very positive and damaging nature of this evidence, it was thought that the cross-examination would be very exhaustive. To the surprise of all, Mr. Bliss asked only a few questions.
"Dr. McDougal," said he, "did you examine the kidneys?"
"I did."
"In what condition did you find them to be?"
"They were much shrunken, and smooth. Non-elastic."
"Is that a normal condition?"
"No, sir. It is a morbid condition."
"Morbid? That is diseased. Then this woman had some kidney disease? Do
I so understand you?"
"Unquestionably!"
"Can you state what disease existed?"
"I should say Bright's disease."
"Might she not have died of this?"
"No. There was evidence of the existence of Bright's disease, but not sufficient to adjudge it a cause of death."
"But you are certain that she had Bright's disease?"
"Yes, sir."
"That is all."
Professor Orton then took the stand for the prosecution. Under the questioning of Mr. Munson, he described himself to be an expert analytical chemist and toxicologist. He said that he was a lecturing professor connected with the University Medical College, and clinical chemist for two other schools, besides being president of several societies, and member or honorary member in a dozen others. Then, proceeding to a description of his work on this particular case, he explained in almost tedious detail his methods of searching for morphine in the organs taken from the body of the deceased. Some of these tests he repeated in the presence of the court, showing how, by the reaction of his testing agents upon the matter under examination, the presence or absence of morphine could be detected. Having thus paved the way towards the special evidence which he was expected to give, his examination was continued as follows:
"Now then, Professor," said Mr. Munson, "you have proven to us very clearly that you can detect the presence of morphine in the tissues. Please state whether you examined the organs of the deceased, and with what result?"
"I made a most thorough examination and I found morphine present, especially in the stomach and in the intestines."
"Did you find it in poisonous quantities?"
"The actual quantity which I found, would not have been a lethal dose, but such a dose must have been administered for me to have found as much as I did find."
"Well, from what you did find, can you state what quantity must have been administered?"
"I cannot state positively, but I should guess – "
"No! No! I object!" cried Mr. Bliss, jumping up. "You are here to give expert testimony. We do not want any guess-work!"
"Professor," said the Recorder, "can you not state what was the minimum quantity which must have been administered, judged by what you found?"
"It is difficult, your Honor. The drug acts variably upon different individuals. Then again, much would depend upon the length of time which elapsed between the administration, and the death of the individual."
"Then in this case your opinion would be a mere speculation and not competent," said the Recorder, and Mr. Bliss seated himself, satisfied that he had scored another point. But he was soon on his feet again, for Mr. Munson would not yield so easily.
"Professor," said he, "you said in reply to his Honor, that you could not answer without knowing how long before death the drug had been administered. Now with that knowledge would you be able to give us a definite answer?"
"A definite answer? Yes! But not an exact one. The drug is absorbed more rapidly in some, than in others, so that one person might take two or three times as much as another, and I would find the same residuum. But I could tell you what was the minimum dose that must have been administered."
"Well, then, supposing that the drug had been administered about three hours before death, how large must the dose have been, or what was the minimum quantity that could have been given, judging by what you found?"
"I must object to that, your Honor!" said Mr. Bliss.
"Your Honor," said Mr. Munson, "this is a hypothetical question, and perfectly competent."
"It is a hypothetical question, your Honor," replied Mr. Bliss, "but it contains a hypothesis which is not based upon the evidence in this case. There has been absolutely no testimony to show that morphine was administered to this woman about three hours before death."
"We have a witness who will testify to that later," replied Mr. Munson, and this announcement created no little sensation, for here was promised some direct evidence.
"Upon the understanding," said the Recorder, "that you will produce a witness who will testify that morphine was administered three hours before death, I will admit your question."
"We take an exception!" said Mr. Bliss, and sat down.
"Now please answer the question," said Mr. Munson, addressing the witness.
"Under the hypothesis presented I should say that the minimum dose must have been three grains."
"That is to say, she must have had three grains, or more?"
"Yes, sir; three grains or more."
"What is a medicinal dose?"
"From a thirty-second of a grain to half a grain, though the latter would be unusual."
"Unusually large you mean?"
"Yes. It would be rarely given."
"Then would you say that three grains would be a lethal dose?"
"It would most probably prove fatal. One sixth of a grain has been known to produce death."
"One sixth of a grain has proven fatal, and, from what you found, you conclude that three grains had been given to this woman?"
"Yes, provided your hypothesis as to the time of administration is correct."
"Oh, we will prove the hypothesis."
"Then I should say that three grains had been administered."
"Three grains or more?"
"Yes, three grains or more."
"You may take the witness," said the Assistant District Attorney, and
Mr. Bliss at once began his cross-examination.
"Professor, as an expert toxicologist now, leaving analytical chemistry for awhile, you are familiar with the action of drugs in the human body during life, are you not?"
"Of poisonous drugs. Yes, sir."
"Of poisonous drugs of course. Of opium and its alkaloids especially, is what I mean?"
"Yes, sir. I have studied them minutely."
"Now then in regard to morphine. You said to his Honor, awhile ago, that this drug acts variably upon different individuals. Is it not true that it also acts differently upon the same individual at various times?"
"Yes, sir, that is true."
"And is its action affected by disease?"
"It might be!"
"Supposing that the drug were administered continuously, might it not occur, that instead of being absorbed, the morphine would be retained, stored up as it were, so that the quantity would accumulate?"
"Yes, the records contain reports of such cases."
"Well, now, suppose that a patient had some kidney trouble, such as
Bright's disease, would not morphine be retained in this way?"
