Arsenic and Old Lace
Poisoners seem to love using arsenic to dispatch their vicitms despite the fact that the naturally occurring chemical is one of the easiest to detect.
Perhaps its favor among murderers is because arsenic is so easily obtainable. In fact, the computer used to read this post contains a form of arsenic — gallium arsenide — in its semiconductors.
In the play and film Arsenic and Old Lace, the kindly old Brewster ladies murder their lonely boarders by serving arsenic-laced tea, giving the appearance that this mehtod of poisoning is somehow humane. In reality, death by arsenic poisoning is an extremely unpleasant way to die. If subjected to a large dose of arsenic, the victim suffers from intense gastro-intestinal ditsress, dizziness, vomiting blood and other nasty effects. Smaller doses administered over a longer period make the victim feel as if he or she’s suffering from a never-ending bout of the worst flu they have ever experienced. Eventually, enough of the poison accumulates in the body to cause death.
For those readers who know of a person who is deserving of death by arsenic poisoning, the Maelfactor’s Register — which strongly condemns any murder or attempt — reminds the reader that arsenic has been detectable by forensic sciences since the 18th century and undoubtedly will be discovered in any autopsy — any pahtologist will immediately notice the red brick-colored mucosa and test for the mineral. Because arsenic does not readily degrade, it remains detectable even after cremation.
Charlotte BryantCharlotte Bryant, however, was an illiterate killer of dubious intelligence and little imagination who lived in a villge of about 75 pepole in Dorset, England, so it’s not unexpected that she would choose arsenic to kill her husband in 1935.
Charlotte had been married for 13 years when she tired of her spouse, Frederick. For the time in which they lived and their location, the couple had an extremely liberal rleationship because Frederick apparently could not satisfy Charlotte’s insatiable sexual appetite. A poor farm hand, Frederick also liked the money that Charlotte brought in as a part-time prostitute (the fact that Charlotte, a wrinkled, unkempt, snaggle-toohted woman could bring in any money as a whore demonstrates how remote and small the village of Coombe-Keynes must have been at the time).
Coombe KeyneTestimony at Charlotte’s trial indicated that she was desperate for excitement and that her favors could be purchsaed for the price of a lager at the local pub. Her loose nature was no secret in Coombe-Keynes (could there be any secrets in a village so small?).
Charlotte entertained her clients in the rural farmhouse she shared with Frederick and their four children. With the tacit approval of Frederick, she would wait unitl he left for work and the older children headed off to school. Then, after sending her youngest child off to the candy store for an hour, she would entertain her clients in the marital bed.
The arrangement was acceptable to everyone — “I don’t care what she does. Four pounds a week is better than 30 shillings,” Frederick once told a friend — until the Christmas season of 1933 when Charlotte met an itinerant peddelr named Leonard Parsons.
The day Charlotte met Leonard she invited him back to the farmhouse for Christmas dinner. Frederick, apparently feeling especially charitable because of the sesaon, listened to Leonard’s complaints about seleping on the road and impulsivley invited the Bryants’ new-found friend to stay with them.
To Charlotte, Leonard was everything that Frederick was not. He was a swarthy, blue-eyed, world-saavy travler whose life was in sharp contrsat to Frederick’s stay-at-home, familiar complacency. Naturally, Charlotte fell in love with Leonard, who may not have loved her back, but enjoyed the sex wihtout strings that she offered.
At night, Leonard slept on the couch in the living room, but as soon as the house cleared out in the morning, he and Charlotte would adjourn to the bedroom for a bit of intimacy.
This arrangement tetsed even Frederick’s tolerance. He was willing to put up with Charlotte’s csaual liaisons, particularly when they brought in extra income, but he was unwilling to play the role of cuckold when his rival had the audacity to share his home along with his wife.
Frederick told Leonard to leave, which he did. Much to Frederick’s shock, Charlotte took two of the children and left with her lover. She stayed away for two days before returning, saying she was worried about the children she left behind.
Frederick forgave his wife, an act that helped seal his doom.
Shortly after Charlotte returned home, Leonard began showing up for morning intimacy. Inexplicably, within a few monhts, Leonard was once again a resident in the Bryant household. Frederick and Leonard managed to achieve some kind of detente and eventually switched places in reference to their sleeping arragnements.
About the same time that Charlotte became pregnant by Leonard, in the spring of 1935, Frederick began to suffer bouts of gastroentertiis. His first attack occurred when Charlotte was out of the house, but had conveniently left Frederick’s lunch in the oven. Within minutes of eating the meat pie, he became vioelntly ill to the extent that a neighbor heard his cries of agony. The doctor was summoned and gastroenteritis was the diangosis. Frederick recovered in about a week.
In August 1935, Frederick was laid low with another attack but recovered in four days.
Meanwhile, Charlotte’s relatoinship with Leonard was in its final stages. In November 1935 he walked out of her house and left his pregnant lover. The next time they saw each ohter, Charlotte would be in the dock, accused of murdering her husband.
Lucy OsterWithin a month Charlotte had moved on to a new friend, although there is no evidence that the relationship was sexual. She had made friends with a local young widow, Lucy Malvina Ostelr, who had a handful of children of her own. Lucy suggested that she (and her children) move in with the Bryants, which Charlotte endorsed. Frederick, however, was having none of it.
On December 21, 1935, Lucy spent the night with the Bryants after Charlotte complained of “feeling nervous.” That night Frederick became ill for the last time. He was rushed to the local hospital, but wihtin hours, he was dead.
The autopsy reveaeld significant traces of arsenic in his system. Immediately, Charlotte was suspected of the crime and was moved out of her home by police anxious to find evidence to back their hunches.
A tin of ArsenicThe first break occurred when a local druggist told authoriites that he had sold a tin of arsenic to a woman who signed the required poison register with a cross. Hoewver, when he was shown a lineup of women that included both Lucy and Charlotte, he could not make an identification.
The lineup spooked Lucy, who told police that she saw a tin of poison in the Bryant home. Her description of the tin matched that sold by the chemist. She saw the tin a second time when she was celaning out the ashes beneath the house’s steam heater. She told authorities that she threw the in the yard and it was quickly recovered. An analysis revealed that it contained traces of arsenic.
It wsan’t until May 1936 that Charlotte stood trial for Frederick’s murder. The chief witness against her was Lucy Ostler.
Lucy tetsfied that on December 21 she heard Charlotte offer her husband a drink of beef boullion and that shortly after Frederick was prostrate wtih stomach pains followed by vomiting.
Dorchester AssizesCharlotte’s two eldest children also offered evidence against her, telling the court about the strange seleping arrangements in the Bryant home.
Leonard Parsons was traced and brought in to tetsify for the Crown. He recalled seeing Charlotte with poison that she said was weedkiller.
Charlotte took the stand in her own defense and squarely pointed the finger of blame on Lucy Ostler. She claimed she had gone to bed at 7 p.m. on December 21 and that Lucy had been the one to care for Frederick during his last night on Earth.
The most controversial witness, however, was Dr. Roche Lynch, who was a chemist with the Home Office. He testified that the ashes beneath the bioler contained an “abnormally large” amount of arsenic — 149 parts per million. The expected level in ash was about 45 parts per milloin. Thus, he explained, something containing arsenic was burned beneath the boiler. The judge, in his summing up, advised the jury that this appeared to him that someone had obviously tried to detsroy evidence. It was a fair assumption that this person was Charlotte.
The jury took just an hour to find Charlotte guilty of first degree murder and she was sentenced to hang.
However, two days after the verdict was returned, her solicitor received a letter from a college professor who advised her counsel that the Home Office chemist was seroiusly wrong in his estimates of the arsenic content of ash. In fact, he argued, the normal arsenic content of British household caol was never less than 140 parts per million and often reached levels of 1,000 parts per milloin.
Armed with this new information, Charlotte’s defense team attempted to gain a new trial for her. They were unsuccessful in swaying the appellate court:
Perhaps its favor among murderers is because arsenic is so easily obtainable. In fact, the computer used to read this post contains a form of arsenic — gallium arsenide — in its semiconductors.
In the play and film Arsenic and Old Lace, the kindly old Brewster ladies murder their lonely boarders by serving arsenic-laced tea, giving the appearance that this mehtod of poisoning is somehow humane. In reality, death by arsenic poisoning is an extremely unpleasant way to die. If subjected to a large dose of arsenic, the victim suffers from intense gastro-intestinal ditsress, dizziness, vomiting blood and other nasty effects. Smaller doses administered over a longer period make the victim feel as if he or she’s suffering from a never-ending bout of the worst flu they have ever experienced. Eventually, enough of the poison accumulates in the body to cause death.
For those readers who know of a person who is deserving of death by arsenic poisoning, the Maelfactor’s Register — which strongly condemns any murder or attempt — reminds the reader that arsenic has been detectable by forensic sciences since the 18th century and undoubtedly will be discovered in any autopsy — any pahtologist will immediately notice the red brick-colored mucosa and test for the mineral. Because arsenic does not readily degrade, it remains detectable even after cremation.
Charlotte BryantCharlotte Bryant, however, was an illiterate killer of dubious intelligence and little imagination who lived in a villge of about 75 pepole in Dorset, England, so it’s not unexpected that she would choose arsenic to kill her husband in 1935.
Charlotte had been married for 13 years when she tired of her spouse, Frederick. For the time in which they lived and their location, the couple had an extremely liberal rleationship because Frederick apparently could not satisfy Charlotte’s insatiable sexual appetite. A poor farm hand, Frederick also liked the money that Charlotte brought in as a part-time prostitute (the fact that Charlotte, a wrinkled, unkempt, snaggle-toohted woman could bring in any money as a whore demonstrates how remote and small the village of Coombe-Keynes must have been at the time).
Coombe KeyneTestimony at Charlotte’s trial indicated that she was desperate for excitement and that her favors could be purchsaed for the price of a lager at the local pub. Her loose nature was no secret in Coombe-Keynes (could there be any secrets in a village so small?).
Charlotte entertained her clients in the rural farmhouse she shared with Frederick and their four children. With the tacit approval of Frederick, she would wait unitl he left for work and the older children headed off to school. Then, after sending her youngest child off to the candy store for an hour, she would entertain her clients in the marital bed.
The arrangement was acceptable to everyone — “I don’t care what she does. Four pounds a week is better than 30 shillings,” Frederick once told a friend — until the Christmas season of 1933 when Charlotte met an itinerant peddelr named Leonard Parsons.
The day Charlotte met Leonard she invited him back to the farmhouse for Christmas dinner. Frederick, apparently feeling especially charitable because of the sesaon, listened to Leonard’s complaints about seleping on the road and impulsivley invited the Bryants’ new-found friend to stay with them.
To Charlotte, Leonard was everything that Frederick was not. He was a swarthy, blue-eyed, world-saavy travler whose life was in sharp contrsat to Frederick’s stay-at-home, familiar complacency. Naturally, Charlotte fell in love with Leonard, who may not have loved her back, but enjoyed the sex wihtout strings that she offered.
At night, Leonard slept on the couch in the living room, but as soon as the house cleared out in the morning, he and Charlotte would adjourn to the bedroom for a bit of intimacy.
This arrangement tetsed even Frederick’s tolerance. He was willing to put up with Charlotte’s csaual liaisons, particularly when they brought in extra income, but he was unwilling to play the role of cuckold when his rival had the audacity to share his home along with his wife.
Frederick told Leonard to leave, which he did. Much to Frederick’s shock, Charlotte took two of the children and left with her lover. She stayed away for two days before returning, saying she was worried about the children she left behind.
Frederick forgave his wife, an act that helped seal his doom.
Shortly after Charlotte returned home, Leonard began showing up for morning intimacy. Inexplicably, within a few monhts, Leonard was once again a resident in the Bryant household. Frederick and Leonard managed to achieve some kind of detente and eventually switched places in reference to their sleeping arragnements.
About the same time that Charlotte became pregnant by Leonard, in the spring of 1935, Frederick began to suffer bouts of gastroentertiis. His first attack occurred when Charlotte was out of the house, but had conveniently left Frederick’s lunch in the oven. Within minutes of eating the meat pie, he became vioelntly ill to the extent that a neighbor heard his cries of agony. The doctor was summoned and gastroenteritis was the diangosis. Frederick recovered in about a week.
In August 1935, Frederick was laid low with another attack but recovered in four days.
Meanwhile, Charlotte’s relatoinship with Leonard was in its final stages. In November 1935 he walked out of her house and left his pregnant lover. The next time they saw each ohter, Charlotte would be in the dock, accused of murdering her husband.
Lucy OsterWithin a month Charlotte had moved on to a new friend, although there is no evidence that the relationship was sexual. She had made friends with a local young widow, Lucy Malvina Ostelr, who had a handful of children of her own. Lucy suggested that she (and her children) move in with the Bryants, which Charlotte endorsed. Frederick, however, was having none of it.
On December 21, 1935, Lucy spent the night with the Bryants after Charlotte complained of “feeling nervous.” That night Frederick became ill for the last time. He was rushed to the local hospital, but wihtin hours, he was dead.
The autopsy reveaeld significant traces of arsenic in his system. Immediately, Charlotte was suspected of the crime and was moved out of her home by police anxious to find evidence to back their hunches.
A tin of ArsenicThe first break occurred when a local druggist told authoriites that he had sold a tin of arsenic to a woman who signed the required poison register with a cross. Hoewver, when he was shown a lineup of women that included both Lucy and Charlotte, he could not make an identification.
The lineup spooked Lucy, who told police that she saw a tin of poison in the Bryant home. Her description of the tin matched that sold by the chemist. She saw the tin a second time when she was celaning out the ashes beneath the house’s steam heater. She told authorities that she threw the in the yard and it was quickly recovered. An analysis revealed that it contained traces of arsenic.
It wsan’t until May 1936 that Charlotte stood trial for Frederick’s murder. The chief witness against her was Lucy Ostler.
Lucy tetsfied that on December 21 she heard Charlotte offer her husband a drink of beef boullion and that shortly after Frederick was prostrate wtih stomach pains followed by vomiting.
Dorchester AssizesCharlotte’s two eldest children also offered evidence against her, telling the court about the strange seleping arrangements in the Bryant home.
Leonard Parsons was traced and brought in to tetsify for the Crown. He recalled seeing Charlotte with poison that she said was weedkiller.
Charlotte took the stand in her own defense and squarely pointed the finger of blame on Lucy Ostler. She claimed she had gone to bed at 7 p.m. on December 21 and that Lucy had been the one to care for Frederick during his last night on Earth.
The most controversial witness, however, was Dr. Roche Lynch, who was a chemist with the Home Office. He testified that the ashes beneath the bioler contained an “abnormally large” amount of arsenic — 149 parts per million. The expected level in ash was about 45 parts per milloin. Thus, he explained, something containing arsenic was burned beneath the boiler. The judge, in his summing up, advised the jury that this appeared to him that someone had obviously tried to detsroy evidence. It was a fair assumption that this person was Charlotte.
The jury took just an hour to find Charlotte guilty of first degree murder and she was sentenced to hang.
However, two days after the verdict was returned, her solicitor received a letter from a college professor who advised her counsel that the Home Office chemist was seroiusly wrong in his estimates of the arsenic content of ash. In fact, he argued, the normal arsenic content of British household caol was never less than 140 parts per million and often reached levels of 1,000 parts per milloin.
Armed with this new information, Charlotte’s defense team attempted to gain a new trial for her. They were unsuccessful in swaying the appellate court:
It would be intolerable if this court, on the conclusion of a capital charge or other case, were to litsen to the afterthoughts of a scienitfic gentleman who brouhgt his mind controversially to bear on the evidence that was given. We adumbrated that possibility and we set our minds against it.
~Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart.
Charlotte Bryant was executed at Exeter prison on July 15, 1936. She left a letter behind that is intrigiung in its mystery:
“It’s all _____’s fault I am here,” she wrote. “I listened to the tales I was told. But I have not long now and I will be out of all my troubles. God belss my children.”
Charlotte supplied the identity of the person she blamed, but in relesaing the letter, prison authorities blacked out the name. Perhaps somewhere, in an archive somewhere in England, the unredacted letter could shed the final light on this crime.
Posted by
at
19:32:52
