Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal and Western Advertiser. Wednesday 06 Feb 1901
Page 6 Column 1
OAKE.
THE OAKE POISONING MYSTERY.
ADJOURNED INQUEST.
THE LONDON SPECIALIST'S REPORT.
“DEATHS DUE TO ARSENIC POISONING.”
MYSTERY STILL UNSOLVED.
VERDICT.
The adjourned inquest relative to the death of Mrs. MAUNDER and her three children, Lily, Thomas, and John, aged two and a-half, four, and six years respectively, four of the victims in the recent poisoning mystery at Oake, near Milverton, was held at Rendy Farm, Oake, on Thursday, before Mr. T. FOSTER-BARHAM? coroner for the district. Among those present at the enquiry were Dr. STEVENSON, of Guy's Hospital, London; Dr. BROWN, Taunton; Dr. RANDOLPH, Milverton; Superintendent DURHAM, Taunton; Sergeants LUKE, Wellington, and MASTERS, Taunton; and Mr. REED, the occupier of the farm.
The Coroner explained that the inquest was adjoured on the previous occasion in order that an analysis of the stomachs of two of the deceased children might be made by Dr. STEVENSON, of Guy's Hospital, by order of the Home Office. This had been done, and it was hoped that by means of further enquiries by the police evidence might be adduced to show by what means they had been poisoned – how it had been obtained and administered. They would have before them the evidence of Dr. STEVENSON, who had analysed the contents of the stomachs of John and Lily, which would show that in these two cases there was sufficient arsenic present to satisfy the doctor that death was due to arsenic. They had already heard that the father died from arsenic, and as the symptoms of the mother and other child were precisely the same he thought they would be able to say that the whole of the four deaths they were now enquiring into were from the same cause, but he was afraid there would be nothing to show, as far as he could ascertain, how the arsenic was taken.
Mr. Thomas STEVENSON, doctor of medicine and scientific analyst to the Home Office, residing at Sandhurst Lodge, London, stated that he received three sealed jars from P.C. STEWART, of Taunton, on the 24th December last containing the viscera of John MAUNDER. The stomach and bowels were inflamed as if from the presence of an irritant. They contained no solid food. The liver showed extensive fatty degeneration, and the heart and kidneys also, but to a lesser extent. These appearances were consistent with arsenical poisoning. The stomach and bowels contained 0.08, and the liver 0.14 grain, a total of 0.22 grain, which was the extreme medicinal dose for an adult. The body of the deceased must have contained over a grain of arsenic, which was a fatal dose for a child.
In answer to the Coroner witness added that fatty degeneration was the usual result of phosphorus poisoning in an extreme form, but it was not usual in arsenic poisoning. Undoubtedly, however, arsenic had been taken, and it was quite possible that phosphorus might also have been taken, but considering the length of the illness the phosphorus would have disappeared as such before the analysis was made. There was quite sufficient arsenic to account for death.
In reply to Superintendent DURHAM, Dr. STEVENSON said it was impossible to say how long the arsenic had been in the bodies before death. He had examined bodies from Manchester where the person had been cut off from arsenic for a month, yet he still found arsenic in them. As a rule, however, arsenic disappeared in seven or 14 days. The condition of the lungs pointed to the arsenic having been taken on the 10th December, but it might have been taken on subsequent days. If people take one dose of arsenic and die, they invariably die in a day or two – they rarely lived for a longer period, but all these people seemed to have lived for several days, which led him to believe that they must have taken it more than once. He found no evidence that solid arsenic had been taken, but solid arsenic might be added to articles of food, such as water and tea, and thus become liquid. It might very well have been taken in tea. The conditions were consistent with the presence of phosphorus, but not with phosphorus only. The whole of the symptoms during life pointed to arsenical poisoning. It might not be generally known that arsenic was tasteless, but phosphorus could not be taken without being perceived, as it had a peculiar smell and a nasty taste. The fatty degeneration was consistent with arsenic poisoning, but it was not common. The longer a person lived after taking arsenic the more likely was there to be fatty degeneration. He had had five cases from Manchester, however, in which there was no fatty degeneration whatever. He received the stomach and intestines, with contents, of Lily on the 1st January. He had carefully analysed the contents, and found one poison in arsenic to the extent of 0.04 grain, which was twice the medicinal dose for a child. He had also analysed two jars of cider taken from the house, but found neither arsenic, phosphorus, nor any other poison in them.
Superintendent DURHAM: I suppose you could not take arsenic in water alone?
Witness: Oh, yes; you could get as much arsenic in an ordinary wine glass of water as would kill an adult.
Superintendent DURHAM: And it would neither taste nor smell?
Witness: In water you would get a little taste – the water would not seem good. It would give it a faint, sweety taste. He had known an ounce of arsenic put into a pint rice pudding, and it was not found out till the person was ill. In an ordinary article of food arsenic might be taken without anyone having the slightest suspicion it was there. Tea would be a very likely thing for it to be taken in. He had examined the girl Laura, who stated that on the morning they were taken ill they had breakfast of tea, bread, and bacon, which reduced the vehicle the poison was taken in to very narrow limits.
Dr. RANDOLPH said Laura was too ill still to attend that day; she was hardly able to walk.
William RAFFLES, farm labourer, of Wellington, who lodged with the MAUNDERS for 12 months, and was with them up to the time of their illness, again gave evidence, but it was impossible to get an intelligent statement of the facts. He appeared to have had practically the same things to eat, and used the same water for drinking as the MAUNDERS family, but had suffered no ill effects. The only thing he did not have was some home-made plum jam, which he said they all had for breakfast almost every morning. - In reply to a juror witness stated that Mr. and Mrs. MAUNDERS had a row just before their illness, and Mr. MAUNDERS threatened to poison himself and all the lot of them.
The Coroner, however, attached little weight to this statement, for as he said witness appeared to answer “Yes” to every question that was put to him.
Eliza BROOM, wife of William BROOM, of the Royal Oak, Oake, who assisted in attending to the family during their illness, also gave evidence similar to that given by her at the previous enquiry.
The Coroner, in summing up, said this was the most incomprehensible case he had had anything to do with. There was no doubt as to what was the cause of death, but it was impossible to say how or by what means the arsenic was administered.
The jury, in accordance with a recommendation from the Coroner, returned a verdict to the effect that all the deceased died from arsenical poisoning, but there was not sufficient evidence to show how that poison was administered.