proven the actual presence of
the poison itself. What defence could we rely upon to refute such
damning evidence as that? We were in a quandary. We went to our client
and revealed to him the gravity of his position, and we begged him to
suggest some way out of the dilemma. What was his reply? Gentlemen of
the jury, he said to me: 'I cannot invent any defence. I would not if
I could. I would not accept my life, or my liberty, by means of any
trick. But I know that I am innocent. Moreover, as a member of the
medical profession, and as an acquaintance of the experts who have
been at work for the prosecution, I rely upon their integrity and
skill, to discover the true secret of this death, which was as
shocking to me, as to the community.' Thus we were told by our client
to formulate no defence in advance, but to wait for the evidence of
the prosecution's expert witnesses, and from the very source from
which conviction would be expected, he bade us pluck his deliverance.
At the time, it seemed to us a hazardous dependence, but, gentlemen of
the jury, it has proven better than we had reason to expect, for it
will be upon the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, almost
exclusively, that we will look to you for an acquittal. In evidence of
what I have told you, I will ask you to recall the testimony of the
first witness, Dr. Meredith. He claimed that the characteristic
symptoms of morphine poisoning could alone indicate that death had
been due to morphine. Then you will remember that my associate, in
cross-examination, formulated a hypothetical question in which he
asked if it would not be possible for a patient dying of diphtheria to
take morphine, and whilst exhibiting symptoms of that drug, still to
die of diphtheria. I submit it to you, gentlemen, was not the
hypothesis suggested by that question an ingenious one? I think so,
and as such I think that my associate is entitled to credit. But,
gentlemen, it was the invention of a lawyer, conscientiously seeking
for a loophole of escape for his client; it was not the true, the only
proper, defence in this case. And it is this that explains the fact
that the question has not been propounded to the other experts. It
was, nevertheless, a shrewd guess on the part of Mr. Bliss, though
being only the guess of a lawyer groping blindly amidst the secrets of
medicine, it does not include the whole truth. But now, our defence
has been made plain, illuminated, as it were, by the sta