Medical Detectives (16 page)

The evidence for strangulation as cause of death was a bruise which Spilsbury had seen on the larynx of the dead woman. He had removed the tissue at post-mortem and placed it in formalin. Before Sidney Fox appeared at Sussex Assizes, Smith had the opportunity to examine the specimen in Spilsbury’s laboratory at University College Hospital. The two men had met before but this was their first professional consultation or, as it turned out, confrontation.

Spilsbury produced the larynx on which he had described seeing a bruise the size of half a crown. To start with, Smith could not conceive how such a substantial internal bruise could have been inflicted without leaving external marks. But his amazement was complete when, with Spilsbury looking over his shoulder, he examined the larynx but could see no bruise at all. ‘No. You can’t see it now,’ explained Spilsbury, ‘but it was there when I exhumed the body.’ Smith questioned him about the apparent disappearance of the bruise and was told that ‘it became obscure before I put the larynx in formalin’. Some tight-lipped discussion ensued in which Smith expressed his incredulity that a bruise of such a size could simply disappear. He acknowledged the difficulties in differentiating between bruising and patches of putrefaction and wondered if what Spilsbury had seen was not the latter. Spilsbury listened politely but declined to accept any alternative explanation; it was a bruise and nothing more, he contended.

What would have put the matter beyond argument would have been the microscopic examination of a section of the bruised tissue. Bruising is caused by the rupture of small blood vessels which allows blood to escape into the surrounding tissue where it clots to form a patch of discolouration. Blood forced into the tissues in this way is not affected by post-mortem changes and, hence, confirmation of such bruising can be easily established microscopically. Unfortunately, Spilsbury did not take a section because, as he had explained, the bruise had become obscure before he put the larynx in preservative.

So there it was and, in court, Spilsbury, with the aid of an anatomical model of the human neck, indicated where he had found the bruise which led him to believe that Mrs Fox had been strangled. An interesting point was brought out which was that while the delicate hyoid bone in Mrs Fox’s throat had apparently survived the strangler’s attack, Spilsbury himself had broken it inadvertently in two places while examining it in his laboratory.

Under cross-examination by the Attorney-General, Sir William Jowitt, Sydney Smith cast doubt on the accuracy of Spilsbury’s findings. Sir William seemed to be affronted that Smith dared to challenge the opinion of such a renowned figure.

‘Do you suggest,’ he asked, ‘that Sir Bernard Spilsbury would not know the difference between discolouration due to post-mortem changes and a bruise?’

Smith, too experienced a performer to be ruffled by such exchanges, answered, ‘I say no one can tell by looking at a stain whether it is a post-mortem stain or a bruise.’

The Attorney-General then asked, ‘Do you say that you would never say a bruise was a bruise until you put it under a microscope?’

‘No,’ replied Smith, ‘I should cut into it.’

Of course, he was quite correct and had Spilsbury adopted this procedure and, for good measure, taken a section for microscopic examination, the eventual confrontation of opinion need never have occurred. Thus, in a court of law where a man was on trial for his life, the cause of this victim’s death for want of any confirming evidence was resolved on the basis of one doctor’s observation.

In the event, Spilsbury’s view won the day because of the strength of his reputation rather than the infallibility of his methods. In fairness, Mr Justice Rowlatt, in his summing up to the jury, pointed out that, ‘No one can say that an individual, whatever his position and skill, is never likely to be mistaken. No one can claim for anybody infallibility.’ Nevertheless, the jury believed Spilsbury and Smith did not think they would have returned a guilty verdict but for the London pathologist’s evidence.

Commenting on Fox’s denial of the jury’s verdict that he had murdered his mother, Smith said he believed he was innocent. He would not have put the deed past him, particularly in light of the insurance he had taken out, but, despite the circumstantial evidence, he did not think he had strangled his mother. It was more likely in his view that Mrs Fox died of heart failure precipitated by the shock of waking up in a smoke-filled room. But at least one of Sidney Fox’s lies was undone by Mrs Harding, wife of the Hotel Metropole’s manager. In her efforts to calm the apparently distraught son who had discovered a fire in his mother’s bedroom, she cradled his head and ran her fingers through his hair. Later she told her husband, ‘That boy’s hair is full of smoke and he never went near the room!’

Sydney Smith’s place in Egypt had been taken by John Glaister who, to use the modern term, had been head-hunted for the position. Glaister was told that in Cairo he would see almost as many medico-legal cases in a week as he would see in Glasgow in a year. Certainly Egypt was a good training ground for the forensic pathologist and Smith was putting his experience of investigating murder by poisoning to good effect in a case that took him to Cornwall.

Annie Hearn, a lady in her early forties, had not enjoyed a happy life. Her husband disappeared a few days after their wedding in 1919 and despite a lack of any clear information about his fate, she took to describing herself as a widow. She lived in the Midlands with her invalid sister, Lydia Everard, who she called Minnie, until 1921, when they moved to Lewannick near Launceston in Cornwall. The move was undertaken for the benefit of Minnie, a chronic sufferer of gastric illness. Their neighbours in Trenhorne Farm were William Thomas and his wife Alice with whom they were very friendly. The two sisters and the Thomases often went out together for drinks in the countryside and, when Minnie was poorly, Alice Thomas made junkets and other delicacies for her.

This state of affairs continued for several years but in July 1930, after two or three bad bouts of gastric trouble, Minnie died. During her years of illness when she lived in Cornwall, Minnie had been treated by two doctors from the local practice and they were well aware of her condition. She was buried without fuss and her sad loss seemed to draw Annie Hearn closer to the Thomases. Their friendship continued as before and they enjoyed the occasional picnic; Annie’s contribution to these outings was to provide the sandwiches.

On 18 October 1930, several months after Minnie’s death, they went off on one of their afternoon excursions, equipped with sandwiches made by Annie with a tinned salmon filling. These refreshments were eaten at about 5 p.m. when they stopped for a cup of tea at a café in Bude. On the drive home, Alice Thomas was taken ill with what her husband took to be food poisoning. When they reached home, she was put to bed, suffering from vomiting and diarrhoea. A doctor was called and at around 9.30 that evening Dr Graham Saunders from Launceston attended the sick woman and diagnosed food poisoning; Annie Hearn offered to look after the patient.

Alice Thomas improved a little the following day but a relapse followed with delirium and severe cramps added to her previous symptoms. Dr Saunders now suspected arsenical poisoning and this tentative diagnosis was confirmed by a specialist called in from Plymouth. Alice Thomas died in Plymouth City Hospital on 4 November and at post-mortem a total of 0.85 grains of arsenic was found in her body. William Thomas was advised of the findings and local gossip led to speculation about Annie Hearn’s relationship with the Thomases. Two days after Alice Thomas’s funeral, Annie disappeared, leaving a note behind addressed to Mr Thomas:

Goodbye. I’m going out if I can. I cannot forget that awful man and the things he said. I am
innocent
,
innocent
, but she is dead and it was my lunch she eat. I cannot bear it. When I’m dead they will be sure I am guilty and you at least will be cleared. May your own dear wife’s presence guard and comfort you still.

Yours

A.H.

My life is not a great thing anyhow, now dear Minnie’s gone. I should be glad if you would send my love to Bessie
1
and tell her not to worry about me. I’ll be all right, my conscience is clear so I’m not afraid of afterwards.

William Thomas took what appeared to be a suicide note to the police. The letter writer was traced to Looe, where her coat was found on the cliff top and one of her shoes was washed up on the beach. It looked as if Annie Hearn had indeed committed suicide. Two weeks later, the inquest on Alice Thomas concluded that she had died of arsenical poisoning and the verdict was homicide by some person or persons unknown.

On 9 December, in light of Mrs Thomas’s demise due to arsenic poisoning, it was decided to exhume the body of Minnie Hearn, who had died four months previously. Dr Roche Lynch, the Home Office analyst, discovered arsenic in all the organs. An examination of the hair indicated that Minnie had been receiving arsenic for at least seven months before she died. This revelation stimulated the police to greater efforts in their hunt for Annie Hearn, not being entirely convinced that she had taken her own life. She was found after a few weeks in Torquay where she had taken work as a housekeeper using an assumed name. Her employer, Cecil Powell, recognised her from a photograph published in the
Daily Mail
, which offered a reward of £500
2
for information as to her whereabouts. On 18 January 1931, she was arrested and charged with the murder of Alice Thomas and her sister Minnie.

Walter West, Annie’s solicitor, approached Sydney Smith and asked him to review the medical aspects of the case. Smith did not dissent from the cause of death – Alice Thomas had died as the result of arsenical poisoning – what was not clear was how and when the poison had been administered. He was convinced that the picnic sandwiches eaten on 18 October had not been the source of the arsenic, although, in all probability, the salmon had caused food poisoning. The analyst’s findings made it more likely that Mrs Thomas had ingested the arsenic much nearer the time that she died.

In the case of Minnie, her medical history showed her to be a chronic sufferer of gastric troubles, although not of diarrhoea, which is one of the principal indicators of arsenical poisoning. Her own doctor had recorded death due to natural causes and Smith was inclined to agree. How then could the arsenic found in her exhumed body be explained?

When it came to poisoning by arsenic, there was probably no doctor in the British Isles more knowledgeable about the subject than Sydney Smith. He did not dispute that Dr Roche Lynch had discovered arsenic in the dead woman’s muscles, nails and hair, but he was highly critical of his calculations. The analyst had reported finding a total of 0.776 of a grain in the muscles. The calculation was based on analysing a sample of tissue weighing one-eighth of an ounce and applying a standard formula to arrive at a total for the body’s muscles as a whole. The sample yielded 1/6400 of a grain of arsenic which the analyst multiplied by a figure representing the mass of muscle, usually taken to be 40 per cent of the total body weight. In this instance, Roche Lynch had assumed a body weight of 80lb from which he calculated the muscle component as about 32lb.

Smith recognised immediately that 80lb is a very low body weight and the woman must obviously have been in an emaciated condition when she died. The experienced pathologist knew that in a badly wasting body, the muscles are the first to lose weight. Hence, he would have estimated the proportion of muscle to body weight in this case as nearer 15 per cent than the usual 40 per cent. In light of this, it appeared that the amount of arsenic in the body had been badly over-estimated. Of vital importance was the amount of arsenic found in the soil samples taken from the grave in Lewannick churchyard; the soil above the coffin contained 125 parts of arsenic per million and that below it, 62 parts per million. As Smith saw it, the presence of arsenic in the body would have pointed to poisoning if it had been buried in any other county of England but Cornwall. The county was known for its tin mines and, where there is tin, there is usually arsenic to be found. Arsenic occurs naturally in the soil and is a common impurity in many metallic ores.

Smith’s conclusion was that, while arsenic was undoubtedly found in the body of Annie Hearn’s sister, he doubted that its presence was an indicator of cause of death. He believed she had died of natural causes and that the arsenic had most likely infiltrated her corpse from the soil surrounding the grave in which she had lain for over four months. As for Alice Thomas, the indications were that the famous salmon sandwiches might have precipitated the food poisoning which she undoubtedly suffered but that the arsenic was administered after that time. In other words, the two cases provided less than conclusive evidence of Annie Hearn’s guilt and that was the substance of Smith’s report to her solicitor.

Annie Hearn’s trial had been fixed in the legal calendar to start on 15 June 1931 at Bodmin Assizes. In his reply to Walter West, Smith had mentioned that he would not be available to attend the trial owing to the pressures of his university teaching programme. He changed his mind when he received an urgent telegram requesting a meeting with Norman Birkett, the distinguished lawyer who had taken on the task of defending Annie Hearn. Birkett told him that he might not call him to give evidence but that he would like him by his side in court. By drawing out the points that suited his argument in his cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, and by calling Annie Hearn as the sole witness for the defence, Birkett secured the right to address the jury after the Crown had concluded its case.