Note 58 — Chapter IV · (continued 3)

“The controversy,” as to the non-discovery of strychnia by Dr. Taylor, says Mr. Justice Stephen, “was foreign to the merits of the case, inasmuch as the evidence given for the prisoner tended to prove, not that there was no strychnia in Cook’s body, but that Dr. Taylor ought to have found it if it was there. In other words it was relevant, not so much to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, as to whether Mr. Herapath and Dr. Nunneley were better analytical chemists than Dr. Taylor. The evidence could not be even considered relevant to the shaking of Dr. Taylor’s credit, for no part of the case rested on his evidence except the discovery of the antimony, as to which he was corroborated by Mr. Brande, and not contradicted by the prisoner’s witnesses.” (One does not see how this could have been accomplished, as they were not present at the analysis.) “His opinion as to the nature of Cook’s symptoms was shared by many other medical witnesses of the highest eminence, whose credit was altogether unimpeached. The prisoner’s counsel was placed in a curious difficulty by this state of the question. They had to attack, and did attack Dr. Taylor’s credit vigorously, for the purpose of rebutting his conclusion that Cook might have been poisoned by strychnia: yet they had to maintain his credit as a skilful analyst. For if they destroyed it, the fact that he did not discover strychnia went for nothing. This dilemma was fatal. To admit his skill was to admit their client’s guilt; to deny it, was to destroy the value of nearly all their own evidence. The only possible way was to admit his skill and deny his good faith; but this too was useless for the reason just assigned.”—History of Criminal Law in England. Vol. III., 418.