ERMAHGERD! CHERSE YER ERN EDVENCHER: Murder Hath Charms

Everybody loves a good mystery from time to time, and, like many others before me, I have been intrigued by the case of Adelaide Bartlett. Hers is one that galvanized the British murder-reading public during the closing years of the Victorian Era. There were several crowd-pleasing features: the accused woman, at thirty, was still young and presentable, born in France, and the widow of a prosperous grocer ten years older than she was.

Murder hath charms, we must confess, for those of us not too closely brushed against it; and how much more so when a lady’s involved – those delicious pouter-pigeon ladies who so closely followed each other into the dock in the latter half of the 19^th century: with their bosoms and their bustles and their tight little waists, all starry-eyed. And when, furthermore, the truth of their innocence or guilt must now be forever in doubt – did she or didn’t she? Adelaide, dear, sweet Adelaide, with her great big brown eyes and her great big brown bottle of chloroform – did she or didn’t she?

We shall never know now.

It was in 1875 when 19 year old Adelaide Blanche de la Tremoille married a grocer in the person of Edwin Bartlett. But Edwin, having a reverential “regard for advanced learning”  of which he himself had very little, sent Adelaide off to boarding school for three years and only then received her into his home.

There she remained, poor young creature, very friendless, occupying herself with needlework, music, and the care of some Newfoundland dogs which Edwin bred for show. Adelaide’s closest companion at the time was her age father-in-law, who, devoted to Edwin, had disapproved of their marriage and henceforward disliked and distrusted her.

Click!

After two years of this she petitioned for a baby of her own; and at last, Edwin relented and “a single act” took place. Adelaide became pregnant and in due course, delivered a child. But the baby was stillborn. She went through a bad time and declared herself unwilling to have more children after that.

Enter Reverend George Dyson – a reverend attached to a Wesleyan chapel – who soon spent more and more time with Bartletts, who both doted on him. Soon, he had undertaken to promote even further the “advanced learning” for which Edwin had so much regard. The lessons took place in the front room at Claverton Street and often lasted all day; not surprising that sometimes Adelaide was so exhausted as to have to take them sitting on the floor, her head resting on Dyson’s knee… (This went on for so long that Dyson actually had to confess that he was becoming “too interested” on Adelaide)

However, Edwin was unperturbed, so he convinced Dyson to continue the lesson, and soon enough, a somewhat queer situation emerged, which certainly was understood and respected by all three – in which it was agreed that Edwin had some obscure condition which gave him not much longer to live and that Adelaide was, more or less, made over to Dyson in advance – to become his wife.

What Edwin's gums looked like

Fast forward to December 1885, the eleventh year of the marriage. Adelaide sent round the corner for the nearest available doctor, who found that Edwin was very low, weak and deeply depressed, suffering from diarrhea and hemorrhage of the bowels. On looking into his mouth, the doctor observed a blue line round the edge of the gums which suggested that at some time, the patient had taken in mercury. It later emerged that as a young man, Edwin decided that dentures were better than the real thing and so submitted himself to the agony of having all his own perfectly good teeth sawn off at the gums. The stumps had now decayed and his entire mouth was in an appalling condition. Within the next twelve days, he had sixteen of these stumps removed, they revealed an underlying fungal growth with resultant sloughing, eroding and sponginess.

Eventually, Edwin got better but on the 23^rd Edwin felt “worms constantly wriggling up and down his throat”. Each time he grew a little stronger, fresh disaster struck. Now, necrosis of the jaw was suggested, at it had a frightening ring to it. On December 31, yet another stump must be pulled out.

In preparation for this event, he ate half a dozen oysters and large helping of jugged hare. On his return from the dentist, he had another half dozen oysters, a quantity of mango chutney, cake and tea; and ordered a large meal for the next morning’s breakfast.

Alas, he was destined never to wake up again.

The next morning, January 1, doctors found a large amount of chloroform in Edwin’s stomach.

But how? Let us go back to the events of the night before.

from here

A bottle of chloroform was within reach. A glass of brandy to hand. He tips a large dose of one into the other. The chloroform hangs in the brandy, suspended in its center like a yolk in the white of an egg. Wrapped within it cocoon, the dose passes without pain or burning, all in one gulp.

Adelaide comes back from the other room. Edwin lies asleep. She settles herself for the night.

In the early hours of morning she awakes; and he is dead.

Adelaide Bartlett is no fool – all along, the horrid father in law has been making overt accusations and now his son is dead, and it she who has, apparently, introduced the fatal dose. What to do? Get rid of the bottle of chloroform, at any rate, just to get rid of it and trust to luck; rinse out the glass, spill some brandy around, BUT GET RID OF THE BOTTLE!

Then send for the doctor – summon up the landlord, give way to genuine grief. And when the Rev. George Dyson comes rushing around in a state about the chloroform (Adelaide had him buy 2 bottles from different chemists), stamp your foot and cry out…

Dyson on the contrary piped up too much and soon enough, found himself standing on the dock beside her, both of them charged with murder.

But although Adelaide was found to have all the motives for getting rid of Edwin – horror of all horrors! The jury acquitted her.

Did she or didn’t she?

That, my friends is something we shall never know.

Before we delve deeper into it, however, let me define for you the word poison. Poisons are defined as substances which cause disturbances to organisms when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by the said organism. However, the fields of medicine and zoology often distinguish a poison form a toxin and from venom.

Socrates was forced to ingest poison derive from hemlock

Toxins are poisons produced via some biological function in nature, and venoms are usually defines as toxins injected by bites or stings to cause their effect, while other poisons are generally defined as substances absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or the gut. Throughout history, intentional application of poison has been used as a method of assassination, murder, suicide and execution.

Toxicology is the study of poisons. However, this definition is far too simple to encompass this field. Generally, four major disciplines are classified under toxicology: mechanistic, descriptive, forensic, and clinical toxicology. We shall run down all of these disciplines in very simple terms in the succeeding paragraphs.

Mechanistic Toxicology deals with the cellular and biochemical effects of toxins, thereby producing rational therapy design and the development of tests to assess the degree of exposure of poisoned individuals.

Descriptive Toxicology uses the results from animal experiments (PETA frowns on this) to predict the dose or the level of exposure that would be fatal to humans in a process known as risk assessment. Regulatory toxicologists are responsible for interpreting data so that they may establish standards that define the level of exposure that will not pose risks to the public.

Forensic Toxicology is concerned with the medicolegal consequences of toxin exposure. Forensic toxicologists focus on the establishment and validation of the analytic performance of forensic methods in order to generate evidence in legal situations, including the cause of death.

Clinical Toxicology deals with the interrelationships between toxin exposure and diseases. It specializes both in diagnosis as well as therapy.

Toxicology is usually considered a part of chemistry nowadays, mainly because the methods used to evaluate toxins qualitatively and quantitatively are best suited to this area. However, appropriate diagnosis and management of poisoned victims require equal efforts from all sections of a laboratory.

Bibliography, lovelies:

Wilkes, Roger et al.: The Giant Book of Unsolved Crimes, 1999
Bishop, Michael L. et al.: Clinical Chemistry Techniques, Principles and Correlations, 6th ed., 2010