The verdict rested upon two propositions which the tumult of the trial could not confound. John Gilmour died of the effects of arsenic. Yet the charge of murder against his wife, Christina Cochran Gilmour, was not proven. In Edinburgh, in January 1844, the jury thus left open the gravest question: who had introduced the poison into the young farmer’s body?
The pamphlet reporting the trial announces its partiality from the opening pages. It begins with a biographical notice favorable to the accused, followed by an account of the trial, medical reports, and documents pertaining to her apprehension in the United States. It is no verbatim official record. It is a contemporary narrative, published by W. Forrester in Edinburgh, whose prefatory notice takes up Mrs. Gilmour’s defense. One must read these scenes mindful of that prevailing voice, distinguishing what the jury accepted from what the physicians concluded or what the chronicler affirmed.
John and Christina were married in late November 1842. A month later, he fell ill. Witnesses described vomiting, intense thirst, and pains in the stomach and bowels; treatment commenced before any whisper of poison was raised. John’s father, other relations, and medical men visited the house. The young wife, according to several depositions, prepared food and remedies, remained by her husband’s bedside, and displayed no conduct that alarmed those present.
The first unsettling circumstance in the narrative arose from a simple errand. Mary Paterson, a servant in the household, stated that Christina had given her twopence to purchase arsenic to kill rats. The shopkeeper, William Tennant, recalled rather a sale of threepence and was uncertain of the day. The powder was said to have been wrapped and marked as poison. Paterson testified that Christina burned the packet after the servant reported the shopkeeper’s questions. In the witness box, these details varied in date and precision depending on who recounted them.
On January 6, Paterson discovered, near the boiler-house, a small black bag containing a parcel labeled “poison” and a phial. She handed the bag to Christina, who acknowledged it as her own. John was already languishing. The phial offered no proof, according to the record, that it had served to poison anyone: one witness remarked upon a sweet odor, and other observations followed. These objects drew attention; their presence pointed to no particular hand.
John’s utterances upon his sickbed did little to resolve the uncertainty. His nephew Andrew recalled a phrase addressed to his wife: “If you have given me anything, tell me before I die.” Alexander Muir reported a different version, omitting those final words, and described the dying man as altered and at times confused. The book sets down these depositions in turn; it does not reconcile them. As the sufferer weakened, words reported by kin became a central piece of evidence, yet they never constituted a direct observation of the administration of poison.
John died on January 11, 1843, and was buried five days later at Dunlop. The initial medical attendance had established no poisoning. The doctors called during his illness entertained other causes; one had treated what he believed to be a bilious affection. Only after death, when suspicions spread, did the authorities order an exhumation. Surgeons George Wylie and Daniel McKinlay examined the body on April 22. They described the alterations in the corpse and tissues, concluding that a corrosive poison, probably arsenic, was present.
Their initial examination was not their final word. In May, they conducted chemical analyses upon preserved samples. Professor Robert Christison subsequently examined contents and tissues transmitted under seal. All three physicians concurred in detecting arsenic in portions of John’s body; Christison stated he found it in the contents and substance of the stomach, as well as in the liver. These reports established their conclusion as to the material cause of death. They do not say who administered the arsenic, when, or by what means.
The inquiry then turned toward the purchases. In the declaration read at trial, Christina acknowledged having obtained a packet from an apothecary under an assumed name, but asserted she had bought it to take her own life. She maintained that the servant had purchased a first quantity, which she had subsequently burned. According to her version, the second packet remained in her pocket and was found by her mother several weeks after the death. She denied having poisoned John and suggested he might have taken poison himself, which he kept for rats. This declaration was that of an accused seeking to explain circumstances that had become damning; the prosecution contested its credibility.
There was also the matter of the marriage. The opening notice, favorable to Christina, insisted upon an earlier attachment to a man named Anderson and upon the pressure of the families in bringing about the match. At trial, witnesses recounted her regret at having married John; others, such as Robert Robertson, said she spoke of her griefs without agitation and showed herself attentive to her husband. The Lord Advocate fashioned this discontent into a motive. The defense replied that domestic sorrow proved neither a murderous design nor the administration of poison. The presiding judge himself directed the jury to consider several hypotheses: accident, voluntary ingestion by John, or the intentional act of a third party. He reminded them that suspicion alone could never justify a conviction.
On January 12, 1844, the trial opened before the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh. The record provides the depositions, read and debated before a crowded courtroom. In closing, the Crown presented a chain of circumstantial evidence: repeated purchases of arsenic, Christina’s opportunity while preparing food and remedies, the marital discord, and her flight from the country under an assumed name once the investigation began. Her departure had taken place in April 1843; the police later traced her aboard the brigantine Excel, where she traveled under the name of Mrs. Speirs.
The Crown’s pleading sought to draw these circumstances into an unbroken circle. It contended that the symptoms and analyses excluded accident, and that the hypothesis of John’s suicide could not stand. Yet no witness had seen Christina introduce poison into any food or medicine. The defense seized upon this absence, challenged the number and dates of the purchases, and recalled the attentive nursing described during the illness. Counsel did not deny the suspicious circumstances; he asked the jury not to mistake them for proof of the deed.
Following the arguments, the Lord Justice-Clerk summed up the case without dictating an outcome. If the jury found arsenic to be the cause of death, they had still to decide whether it had been administered intentionally, and whether the prisoner was the perpetrator. The pamphlet records a lengthy deliberation. When the jurors returned, their chancellor declared they were unanimous in finding death by arsenic, but that the libel, as framed, was “Not Proven” against the prisoner. The judge thanked them and rebuked the spectators who had burst into applause. Christina was dismissed from the bar.
The Scottish formula is both decisive and limited. “Not Proven” carries, like “Not Guilty,” the full legal effect of an acquittal: Christina was set at liberty. The verdict declares that the charge was not established against her; it proves neither her factual innocence nor her guilt. The jury found the poison in the body proven, but not the criminal agency of the wife. The pamphlet relates that she was led out quietly to escape the throng, departing that very evening on the Glasgow train. The scene closes the hearing, not the enigma.
Another portion of the volume traces the woman across the Atlantic. Apprehended in New York in June 1843 under her name of Christina Cochran or Gilmour, she was examined under the provisions of the Ashburton Treaty. Her counsel challenged the authority of the magistrates, the validity of the treaty, and the sufficiency of the evidence, demanding her discharge. A United States Commissioner concluded on July 21 that the evidence justified her commitment for trial had the crime been committed in New York. On August 12, Judge Betts refused a further writ of habeas corpus, holding that he could not review that determination nor arrest the surrender stipulated by treaty. These were procedural rulings on extradition, not an American adjudication upon her guilt.
The case thus leaves two parallel lines. The medical men detected arsenic and ascribed John’s death to that poison. The Scottish jury did not find the charge proven against Christina. Between the two remain a packet purchased on a disputed date, a black bag, a phial, conflicting recollections, and a declaration that failed to convince the Crown. The pamphlet does not bridge the chasm. It sets forth the documents, at times champions the accused, and halts where the judgment halted: before an explained death, and an unexplained hand.