← Previous revisionRevision as of 15:40, 7 November 2026 Line 20: Line 20: == Trial == == Trial == The trial opened on 12 April 1886,{{Cite book |title=Blessed days of anaesthesia: how anaesthetics changed the world |author=Stephanie J. Snow |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-19-280586-7 |page=131}} attracting great press coverage both in the [[United Kingdom]] and abroad. At the opening of the trial, charges were read out against both George Dyson and Adelaide, but the prosecution immediately asked for the charges against Dyson to be dropped and he was formally acquitted. This enabled the prosecution to call him as a prosecution witness, but also made it possible for the defence to take advantage of his testimony.{{Cite book |title=The life of Sir Edward Clarke |author1=Derek Walker-Smith |author2=Edward Clarke |publisher=[[Taylor & Francis]] |year=1939 |page=178}} The trial opened on 12 April 1886,{{Cite book |title=Blessed days of anaesthesia: how anaesthetics changed the world |author=Stephanie J. Snow |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-19-280586-7 |page=131}} attracting great press coverage both in the [[United Kingdom]] and abroad. At the opening of the trial, charges were read out against both George Dyson and Adelaide, but the prosecution immediately asked for the charges against Dyson to be dropped and he was formally acquitted. This enabled the prosecution to call him as a prosecution witness, but also made it possible for the defence to take advantage of his testimony.{{Cite book |title=The life of Sir Edward Clarke |author1=Derek Walker-Smith |author2=Edward Clarke |publisher=[[Taylor & Francis]] |year=1939 |page=178}} The prosecution theorised that Adelaide had drugged her husband into unconsciousness with a small quantity of chloroform on a handkerchief before pouring a larger quantity down his throat, while the defence contended that Edwin had committed suicide. Adelaide Bartlett was defended by [[Edward Clarke (barrister)|Sir Edward Clarke]], who suggested Thomas Bartlett had committed suicide. Clarke's taking on the case was rumoured to be due to Adelaide's mysterious father's intervention.[[Colin Wilson]], in ''Unsolved Murders and Mysteries'' (ed John Canning), {{ISBN|1-85152-530-0}} The prosecution was in the hands (as was traditional in [[England]] and [[Wales]] until 1957{{Cite journal |last=Jones |first=Elwyn |year=1969 |title=The Office of Attorney-General |journal=The Cambridge Law Journal |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=43–53 |issn=0008-1973 |doi=10.1017/S0008197300088899 |s2cid=145400357}}) of the [[Attorney General for England and Wales|Attorney General]] at the time, Sir [[Charles Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen|Charles Russell]]. Adelaide Bartlett was defended by [[Edward Clarke (barrister)|Sir Edward Clarke]], who suggested Thomas Bartlett had committed suicide. Clarke's taking on the case was rumoured to be due to Adelaide's mysterious father's intervention.[[Colin Wilson]], in ''Unsolved Murders and Mysteries'' (ed John Canning), {{ISBN|1-85152-530-0}} The prosecution was in the hands (as was traditional in [[England]] and [[Wales]] until 1957{{Cite journal |last=Jones |first=Elwyn |year=1969 |title=The Office of Attorney-General |journal=The Cambridge Law Journal |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=43–53 |issn=0008-1973 |doi=10.1017/S0008197300088899 |s2cid=145400357}}) of the [[Attorney General for England and Wales|Attorney General]] at the time, Sir [[Charles Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen|Charles Russell]]. Line 26: Line 26: Adelaide was not able to testify in her own defence (something not possible for defendants until the [[Evidence Act|Criminal Evidence Act 1898]]){{Cite book |title=Practical Guide to Evidence |author=Christopher Allen |publisher=[[Taylor & Francis]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-415-45719-4 |page=89}}{{Cite journal |title=Reflections on the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 |author=R. J. C. Munday |journal=[[Cambridge Law Journal]] |volume=44 |number=1 |year=1985 |pages=62–86 |jstor=4506701 |doi=10.1017/s0008197300114448 |s2cid=146226540}} and the defence called no witnesses, although it did give a six-hour closing statement to the court. Adelaide was not able to testify in her own defence (something not possible for defendants until the [[Evidence Act|Criminal Evidence Act 1898]]){{Cite book |title=Practical Guide to Evidence |author=Christopher Allen |publisher=[[Taylor & Francis]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-415-45719-4 |page=89}}{{Cite journal |title=Reflections on the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 |author=R. J. C. Munday |journal=[[Cambridge Law Journal]] |volume=44 |number=1 |year=1985 |pages=62–86 |jstor=4506701 |doi=10.1017/s0008197300114448 |s2cid=146226540}} and the defence called no witnesses, although it did give a six-hour closing statement to the court. The main forensic aid to Mrs Bartlett is that the liquid chloroform reached the stomach without burning the sides of the throat and the larynx. Edwin did not have such burns on his body. This bolstered the suicide theory, for such rapid drinking suggested that the drinker rushed the poisoned drink down. When the jury returned to court after considering its verdict, the foreman said: "Although we think grave suspicion is attached to the prisoner, we do not think there is sufficient evidence to show how or by whom the chloroform was administered." The foreman then confirmed that the verdict was not guilty, which was greeted with "rapturous applause", public opinion having moved in Adelaide's favour during the course of the trial. The main forensic aid to Mrs Bartlett is that the liquid chloroform reached the stomach without burning the sides of the throat and the larynx. Edwin did not have such burns on his body. This bolstered the suicide theory, for such rapid drinking suggested that the drinker rushed the poisoned drink down. Additionally, the prosecution's case was contradicted by two of its own witnesses, Dr. Leach and George Dyson, whose testimonies both favoured the defence. When the jury returned to court after considering its verdict, the foreman said: "Although we think grave suspicion is attached to the prisoner, we do not think there is sufficient evidence to show how or by whom the chloroform was administered." The foreman then confirmed that the verdict was not guilty, which was greeted with "rapturous applause", public opinion having moved in Adelaide's favour during the course of the trial. The issue of how the poison got into Edwin's stomach without burning him internally in the throat led the famous surgeon Sir [[James Paget]] to make his famous quip: The issue of how the poison got into Edwin's stomach without burning him internally in the throat led the famous surgeon Sir [[James Paget]] to make his famous quip: