SERIAL

North Canterbury Gazette, Volume I, Issue 1, 12 August 1932, Page 12

SERIAL

Science and the Criminal

[By HENRY T. F. RHODES, Editor of the “ Chemical Practitioner.’’] ft Exclusive to “ North Canterbury Gazette." World Copyright reserved by Reuters. I. HOW THE POISONER USED TO WORK. CHERE is no evidence Vat all that men of the sixteenth aucl seventeenth centuries were greater fools than we are even if they thought there was something magical about poison. It Avould have been remarkable had they thought otherwise. Poisoning is a very ancient art, The science of detection of poison did not even begin until the eighteenth century. The popular opinion that poisoning was mysterious and therefore perhaps magical was not so unreasonable after all. It was thought at the time, and would be agreed now, that to spend a convivial evening with Alexander VI. or his son, Cesare Borgia, was. an experience not unmixed with anxiety. .You never knew, in fact, what mysterious malady might not arise as the result of the supper. There is plenty of evidence which goes to show that the Borgias became experts in poisoning as the result of considerable practice upon animals and probably. upon human beings as well. They learnt ,how to use their poison so that it should not fail of its maximum effect, but in such a way, also, as to produce symptoms easily mistaken for natural illness. Quite as expert as any modern poisoner, means of detection did iiot exist, and they had it all their own way.

The poison used by the Borgias was known as Cantarrella, and although the evidence is indefinite there seems iio dollbt that the principal ingredient Was atsenic. It was at any rate a White powder, and produced symptoms very like those of arsenical poisoning. But that was not all. Strange things Were done in preparing the arsenic which were supposed to increase its potency. •An animal was killed, for instance, , and the viscera sprinkled With arsenic. The mixture was allowed to putrefy—arsenic, by the way, retards putrefaction somewhat — and the liquor strained from it was collected.

Here is another interesting recipe. A bear was poisoned with a large dose of arsenic and hung up by its hind-legs when the convulsions occurred. The froth was collected from its mputh in a silver bowl. The mixture was then bottled and sealed.

There is no definite evidence to show that these methods increased the potency of the poison, but they may well have done so. Putrefactive materials or the saliva of an animal mad with pain are at the best not suitable for human consumption, and combined with an irritant poison could certainly do nothing but aggravate its effect, if in fact they had any effect at all. It is. not generally recognised that although the Borgias probably poisoned on an extensive scale, there is not absolute proof in a single case that poison was used. ' That is to say on the evidence that has come down to us. A modern toxicologist would no doubt have collected more than sufficient. Let us look at the facts of one of the best-known instances. Cardinal Orsini was seized with violent pains after one of Alexander Borgia’s supper parties, by this time rather notorious. All the symptoms pointed to acute arsenical poisoning, the burning pains in the abdomen, nausea, thirst and salivation. He died within twenty-four 'hours. A man of good health, and the Cardinal appears to have been perfectly healthy, does not die naturally within twenty-four hours with such symptoms.

Alexander VI., however, to keep up appearances, ordered an autopsy to be made. This was carried out and plenty of publicity given to the solemn pronouncement of the p'hysieians that no poison whatever was found in the body. This proved—absolutely nothing, except that the Pope was much cleverer than the physicians. They would not have been able to detect the poison even if comparatively large quantities had been present. There was the final incident in the strange history of this great but dissolute and unscrupulous old man. Again there is some uncertainty, but Alexander VI. seems to have died of a poisoned cup intended for another; and his son, Cesare, also became desperately ill after the same ill-fated feast. The Pope lingered for about a fortnight but ultimately died, the symptoms again suggesting an, irritant poison. Cesare Borgia recovered probably more by reason of liis excellent constitution than by the remedies adopted. They were such as would hardly appeal to us now. The patient was plunged int-o the disembowelled body of a newly-killed bear. This bath of blood was. followed by immersion in one of cold water. Drastic purges and emetics were also included in the

treatment and probably the inevitable bleeding. Leaving aside the emetics, it is remarkable that the patient survived the combined effects of the poison and the remedies. It seems tolerably certain that the most infamous of the Borgias lived by poison and died bv poison at last, and that that poison was commonly arsenic. The so-called timed poisons were probably of the same origin. It is well known that arsenic can be used to poison slowly, by a gradual and skilful increase of comparatively small doses - , and there is no doubt that Alexander and his son understood the technique very well.

This would not account for the reported poisoning which was supposed to.have been effected by means of poisoned shirts, rings, and candles. Rumours of sudden death by these means were probably for the most part without foundation, hut poison rings exist and many of them have been preserved to this day. On the inner side of the ring is a small hollowed receptacle for the poison. It wa» further provided with sharp metal claws which, when the hand was gripped, pierced the flesh and so introduced the poison. Since these rings were actually made, they must have been believed to be efficient at the time. A solution of arsenic used in this way could not possibly have proved fatal. Hydrocyanic acid introduced thus under the skin might cause death, and there are some vegetable alkaloids which would also kill in these circumstances. Hydrocyanic acid was known in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, being one of the discoveries of' the alchemists, and vegetable poisons were a legacy from the ancients. There is no’ evidence that the Borgias used the deadly hydrocyanic acid, still one of the most violent poisons, known, but there is none that they did not. Cases where death had come to a Cardinal after consuming the Host at Mass suggest poisoning. It would be no easy matter to impregnate the thin wafer used in the Mass with sufficient arsenic to kill. Hydrocyanic acid would have been a more efficient agent. Supposed cases of poisoned shirts were recorded. It is conceivable that a shirt treated with a comparatively small quantity of the same poison might kill the wearer when he put it on through inhalation of the poisonous fumes, assuming that he suspected nothing when the smell of bitter almonds assailed his nostrils. Stranger things have happened. But they were nervous times which bred the most fantastic rumours.

It is worth recording that the Borgias were not so black as they have sometimes been painted. Incredible as it appears to us, poison was then regarded as a legitimate political instrument to remove dangerous enemies, and even Sixtus IV., a predecessor of Alexander Borgia on the throne of Peter, was probably not ignorant of its uses. 1492 to 1503 was hardly a peaceful time in Italy, and there is no very conclusive evidence that the public policy of Alexander VI. and his son was more objectionable than that

of their political rivals, who were probably less blameworthy only because they were less powerful. Machiavelli who, whatever his political theory, was above reproach in his public and private - life, not only, defended but extolled the policy of Cesare Borgia. But of the private life of Alexander and Cesare perhaps the less said the better. They were unmitigated scoundrels redeemed by undoubted political sagacity and vision. For our purposes we remember them for one thing. They popularised arsenic as a means of destruction.

This criminal fashion spread like an epidemic through Italy and France, and persisted during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. During the reign of Alexander VIII. a secret society of women was discovered headed by a woman named La Spara. She was a reported witch who supplied a tasteless poison graduated to kill quickly or slowly. It was used largely by women who wished to get rid of their husbands, and was undoubtedly arsenic. La Spara and thirteen confederates were convicted, and hanged, while many of their associates were publicly flogged in Rome.

Women were perhaps badly treated in the seventeenth century in Italy. Certain it is that these drastic measures failed to eradicate the evil. A few years later another secret society of women was discovered, this time in Naples with ramifications extending to Sicily.’ The head of this society was a woman named Toffana. or Toffania. She sold a liquid purporting to be a love philtre called Acqua Toffana or Acquetta de Napoli. The ease is interesting in that some real attempt at detection was made. A woman, an instrument of the Papal police, disguised as a lady of quality succeeded in gaining admission to the society. Not less than six hundred people died as the result of drinking Acquetta de Napoli. Toffana was convicted and executed in 1719.

Poisoners were by no means confined to Italy, although an Italian was at the bottom of the crimes, of Sainte Croix and Madame de Brinvilliers in France. The Italian, who was named Exili, was associated with one Glaser who had made a study of chemistry and written a book on the subject. In the seventeenth century it was quite common to make a living by compounding and selling poisons, and this was Glaser’s infamous profession. He was joined by Captain Sainte Croix, who was the lover of Madame de Brinvilliers. The poison supplied is said to have been a mixture of corrosive sublimate, ’silver nitrate, antimony and arsenic. It was described by Madame de Brinvilliers as “le poudre de succession” because it opened the way through successive murders to the inheritance of property. Brinvilliers’ father and two brothers were disposed of by this means. Poisoning would not apparently have been suspected had it not been that a box belonging to Sainte Croix was - opened and found to contain some of the powder and several incriminating documents.

Madame de Brinvilliers was arrested and tortured, with, the result that a confession was extracted from her. She was executed in 1676 at the age of .forty-two apparently quite unrepentant. The case caused great excitement in France.

We must pause to remark that the poisoner was still streets ahead of the detective. The poisoning was discovered by accident. Some crude attempts were made to identify the poison discovered in Sainte Croix’s box. It was thrown on the fire and said to burn with a blue flame, a fact of no significance whatever. An autopsy was carried out by the physicians upon one of the bodies. The cause of death was \ reported to be “malignant humours,” a convenient term which might, and was probably intended, to mean anything. The most horrible example, however, a miscarriage of justice, probably belongs to England of the seventeenth century. One man was murdered, of that there is no doubt, but no less than three other persons were executed on suspicion of having poisoned him on evidence which would not now swing the proverbial cat. Two of them on the evidence were innocent.

The victim was Sir Thomas Overbury. Anne 'Turner, Richard Weston, and James Franklyn, and the Lieutenant of the Tower were tried for poisoning him.

Richard Weston was an apothecary’s assistant and was accused of administering rosalgar, which is now known as realgar, a sulphide of arsenic, to Sir Thomas Overbury. He refused to answer until threatened with torture and told that his silence would convict him. Anne Turner pleaded not guilty. James Franklyn turned King’s Evidence. He confessed that fle had supplied Anne Turner at her request with the strongest poison he could. He bought seven. Aqua fortis, white arsenic, mercury, powder of diamonds, lapis costitus, great spiders, and cantharides. The Lieutenant of the Tower knew of these . poisons. All these things had been mixed continuously with the victim’s food. It was obvious from this evidence that the poisons supplied could not have been very deadly since they did not immediately act, or alternatively, that they had not in fact been administered at all. Attempts may (have been made to poison Sir Thomas Overbury, but there was nothing to show that they; succeeded. The evidence, however, was sufficient for the Lord Chief Justice. Weston and Anne Turner were found guilty and both executed.

The trial of Franklyn himself followed. On this occasion he confessed that poison had not been the cause .of Sir Thomas Overbury’s death although some had been administered to him. He and Weston had in fact stifled him with the bed-clothes.

The instigators of the crime, the Earl and Countess of Somerset, escaped with a nominal sentence, after pleading guilty.

This judicial crime is a stain upon the legal history of England. There was no evidence against Anne Turner at all beyond Franldyn’s confession which ought to have been accepted with great caution. The evidence against Weston was, for the same reason, very far from complete. The Earl and Countess of Somerset, the instigators of the crime, escaped practically without punishment. No language would be too strong to condemn the whole proceeding. There is, however, ah explanation of this judicial ferocity. Poisoning was then thought to be allied to witchcraft. Poison had been mentioned in connexion with the case, and Anne Turner was, in effect, tried as a witch. It was alleged at fire trial that parchments and other things were found in the possession of Anne Turner which proved that she dealt in witchcraft. In the seventeenth century to disbelieve in witches implied a disbelief in Christianity. The advent of science has done a good deal to mend this state of things. Anne Turner certainly could not have been executed on such evidence now. The science of detection would have been able to show if thei*e were poison in Sir Thomas Overbury’s body or not. The belief in witches has been killed by scientific knowledge. We no longer believe with the Lord Chief Justice (Coke) that “The devil had taught divers to be cunning in. poisoning so that they can poison in what distance of space they please. . . It was not for another hundred years that anything' like the scientific detection of poisoning began, hut about the middle of the eighteenth century methods, crude at first, began to be introduced which aimed at the definite detection of poison. This not only increased the chances of bringing the murderer to book, but ensured the accused a fair trial.

In August 1750 occurred the strange incidents which led up to the arrest of Mary Blandy for the murder of her father, Francis Blandy, an attorney ot Henley-on-Thames. To what extent the unfortunate girl

was aware of the nature and quality of her act remains uncertain. She was enamoured of a Captain William Cranstoun, a younger son of a Scottish peer. He was wild and of dishonest reputation, but the Blandys, at first attracted by his rank, encouraged his -

advances. It was subsequently discovered, however, that he was already married. By a trick he managed to obtain from his wife a letter disowning him as a husband, but Mr Blandy, now thoroughly suspicious of Captain Cranstoun, did not endeavour to conceal his hostility.

Cranstoun conceived the idea of poisoning Mary Blandy’s father, and used the girl as his tool.

He suggested to her that she should administer a- *‘love philtre to her father that would make the old man friendly to him. The girl swore to the end that she believed tit at the white powder given to her by Cranstoun was a love philtre. On the face ot it this appears improbable, hut the efficacy of such things was accepted at the time, and at least at first she seems to have been genuinely deceived. Her own letters to Cranstoun, however, told ( against her at the trial. But we are principally concerned with the v white powder which caused the death of Francis Blandy.

It was arsenic. That is not all. It was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be arsenic. Sir 'Anthony Addington one of the medical witnesses who gave evidence, explained that he had tested the white powder that had been sent to Mary Blandy by Captain Cranstoun. It was arsenic. He had tested the powder found in the food; that also was arsenic. Asked why ho believed it to be arsenic, Dr. Addington said he had compared it by numerous tests with pure white arsenic. They were tests much cruder than those employed now, hut they wore systematic and showed true scientific method. The colour was the same; both were tasteless; and when thrown on to redhot iron both gave off white fumes with a smell of garlic. Sir Anthony Addington also made some attempts at a chemical examination.. It was thus that the science of toxicology was horn in the year of grace 1752. Mary Blandy had a fair trial if ever a human being had. She was by far less culpable than her cowardly associate who escaped to France :on her arrest, leaving the girl to face the charge alone. But the verdict of guilty was in accordance with the evidence. The accused confessed that she had given the powder, but. to the last denied knowledge of its poisonous properties.

There were set-backs, but the era of scientific detection had begun. Of the set-hacks one flagrant example is on record some twelve years later. This talsoi, was a case of poisoning, but no evidence was produced in proof of the nature of the poison given, and, no post-mortem was made. In spite of these glaring defects in the prosecution’s case—the defence claimed tljat death had been from natural causes—both prisoners were convicted and one of them was executed. In one respect at least the eighteenth was more brutal than the seventeenth century—it knew better. 1 (To be continued).