SEARCH FOR STRYCHNINE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 973, 16 May 1930, Page 1

SEARCH FOR STRYCHNINE

Experts Explain the Tests FIFTH DAY OF MUNN TRIAL Government Analyst’s Testimony ANALYTICAL experts described, in the Supreme Court today, the finding of traces of strychnine in the body of Mrs. Lillie May Munn, at the fifth day of the trial of Arthur Thomas Munn on a charge of wife-murder. The Government analyst at Auckland stated that he had recovered onefifth of a grain of strychnine from half the stomach.

Ttte public interest in the evidence showed no sign o£ diminution, large crowds again filling the galleries. Mr. Justice Herdman was on the Bench. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V R. Meredith, with him Mr. McCarthy conducted the Crown case. Mr. F. H. Northcroft, with him Mr. ilunro, represented the accused. Dr. Dudding was recalled this morning tor further questioning by the foreman of the jury. "How long before the stomach pump was inserted, had food or liquid been taken?” the foreman asked. •'[ can’t say definitely,” Dr. Dudding replied, "but no solid food had been taken for two or three hours. ’ “That would not apply to salts,” added witness, answering a further question. “Salts would probably have passed from the stomach.” His Honour: When did you insert the stomach pump?—About 12.50 o'clock. POISONS REGISTER

A NoVhcote chemist, Frederick William Grant Johnson, produced his poisons register, which showed a record of the sale of one dram of strychnine hydrochloride on November 25, 1929, to A. T. Munn, who signed for it. Munn said he wanted to poison wheat for rats, said witness. “I warned him to be very careful in using it and to put the wheat in some utensil, preferably an old tin. and destroy any poison left over,” said witness. The poison was wrapped in white paper, marked on one side “Not to be taken —strychnine,” and on the other side labelled "Poison.” The packet could not be opened in the usual way without destroying the label. On December 9, 1929, witness continued, Munn bought two drams of diluted prussic acid, which Munn said was to poison a cat. At no time after November 25 did Munn mention to witness the strychnine he had bought. The chemist could not remember any discussion with Munn in which Munn said the strychnine was ineffective and asked if he should mix it with treacle.

bottle of medicine The bottle of medicine produced was made up by witness for Mrs. Munn on Dr. Dudding’s prescription on February 4. There was no strychnine in the mixture and it would be impossible for this poison to have got into the medicine. The second bottle of this mixture was made up on the morning of February 10, Munn applying for the second lot and calling for the mixture. The morning of Mrs. Munn’s death Dr. Dudding called at witness’s shop, where the doctor produced some solution from a hypodermic case and tested it with sulphuric acid and potassium bichromate crystals. Two tests produced no result, but in the third the bichromate crystals assumed a dark purple colour, and "when a rod was drawn across them they left a purple smear. The crystals later turned dark, probably black. Two standard works on testing for strychnine were referred to. Dr. Dudding took away some clean unused bottles and returned in the afternoon With the bottles, then containing some fluids. After being sealed, the bottles were handed to witness’s message-boy to deliver to Mr. Parker. Cross-examined by Mr. Northcroft, witness said that when customers asked for a poison to destroy vermin °r rats, it was usual for them to ask for a particular poison, and he adside them as to its use. Mr. Northcroft: Prussic acid, I understand, is the best poison to kill a cat because it can be poured from the container into the animal’s mouth? — Yes.

And strychnine is in a powdered form?—Yes. Did Munn tell you what the strychnine was for?—He said it was to Poison rats. Is not strychnine so bitter that one Part in 70,000 can be recognised? —I don’t know.

You know one part of strychnine in 'OOO would be very bitter? —Yes. Isn’t it hard to get animals like rats !o take strychnine because instinct warns them?—l don't know. Do you know that most prepared tat poisons have the poison concealed in some palatable substance? —Y'es. So that a crude attempt to poison >ats by soaking wheat in strychnine “tight not be successful? —It might not be unless the animals were very hungry. It would facilitate the taking of Poison by rats if there was some sweet substance to conceal the presence of strychnine?—Yes. And it would not be unlikely that such a suggestion should be made by Munn that treacle should be used with it?—Yes. but I don’t remember it. The chemist said he could not recall any discussion with Munn when the prussic acid was purchased. Mr. Northcroft: How much grain would one dram of strychnine Poison?—A large quantity. Did j-ou expect Munn to poison pne .ot of wheat and be content with that ? Yes about four inches of grain in the bottom of a kerosene tin. How many grains would be required ri> Pht a fatal solution in the wheat?- — > haven’t had much experience in pois4'hing rats.

'Would he know, Mr. Northcroft?”

commented his Honour. “He is not a rat-catcher.” Mr. Northcroft argued that the witness was expected to know, seeing that he dealt with- poisons in his profession. SLIGHT BITTERNESS The witness said there was a difference of l-48th of a grain in the mixture as made up, and written by Dr. Dudding. There was a slight bitterness in the taste of two of the ingredients, sodium luminal and cascara. Mr. Northcroft: If you had a grain of solution in a cup of water what "would he the proportion?—One part in 5,000. Assuming the cup contained its full capacity of water and there was a grain of strychnine in it, would the solution be so weak that you could not recognise it?—l am used to testing with concentrated strychnine, 50 times as sti’ong.

A copy of prescriptions of mixtures obtained from witness’s predecessor was produced by Mr. Northcroft. On examining these the witness expressed the opinion the mixtures obtained in May, 1924, and July, 1926, were to delay, or check, a certain natural process.

Under re-examination, witness said that in 1924 Munn had obtained a tonic in which strychnine was one of the ingredients. A copy of all prescriptions affecting the Munn family had been given counsel for the defence.

The foreman of the jury was told by witness that Munn had not asked for any particular quantity of strychnine, and witness sold him Is worth. Evidence of delivering the attache case handed him by Dr. Dudding to Mr. Parker, analyst, was given by John M. Fielder, a message-boy.

ANALYST’S EVIDENCE Albert James Parker, public analyst and consulting chemist, of Ponsonby, said that on February 11 he received an attache case containing four bottles from Dr. Dudding. The bottles were labelled “fluid from jug,” “fluid from cup,” “urine,” and “gastric lavage,” each container being properly stoppered. He was asked to make a qualitative test for strychnine. The results of his tests showed that the “fluid from jug” and “fluid from cup” gave negative tests. The “urine” gave a distinct positive reaction for strychnine, quite complete, though not strong. The strychnine was first separated in a suitable way and the test was applied to the residue. Sulphuric acid and manganese dioxide were applied and the range of colours obtained from strychnine was first blue, running Into purple, cherry-red and tangerine-orange. This was a completely satisfactory change. He w-as perfectly satisfied by the test of the presence of strychnine in the urine. The gastric lavage save an immediate and very strong positive reaction for strychnine. He did not test the quantities of poison present in the liquids. He reported the results to Dr. Dudding. The w r ater in the jug and the cup were also analysed for Epsom salts, but got a negative result in both cases.

“PLAIN WATER” Mr Meredith: In your opinion what was in the cup and the jug?—Plain water. , ... And you never got any colour indication from either of these liquids?— Not at all. The witness said that the manganese dioxide was an alternative to bichromate of potash. Air. Northcroft: Would you consider the result negative if you did not get the range in the order you have given?—Y'es. Why ?—Because strychnine always gives those colours. Whether the changes of colour are slow or quick depends on the skill of the analyst?—Yes; it depends on the amount of strychnine. And the amount of sulphuric acid and manganese dioxide? —Yes. Inexperienced experimenters may have Che changes very rapid?—Y'es. In fact so fast as to make the recognition of changes difficult?—Yes. The witness added that the analysis was a job for an expert. Mr. Northcroft: From your test would you be justified in estimating the concentration of strychnine in the

urine? —Not beyond saying the amount of strychnine would be extremely small.

On what do you base your opinion that the fluid in the jug and the cup were water? —Both samples were virtually neutral in reaction to litmus paper and on evaporation both yielded a slight stain in the basin, like the stain left by a .little laboratory tap water which I evaporated at the same time.

NEED FOR CARE Mr. Parker added that if the testing for strychnine was not carried out carefully, some of the change of colours might be lost; the action might be so rapid that only one colour might be obtained. The Government analyst at Auckland, Kenneth M. Griffin, said -that on February 13, he received from Dr. Murray a jar containing the stomach, portion of the liver, a kidney and spleen of the dead woman. Later, a bottle labelled poison, a bottle of medicine, 11 whole packets of epsom salts, and two broken ones, were handed to him. He analysed the stomach and other organs and obtained a result showing the presence of strychnine in the stomach. From one quarter of the stomach he secured l-10th of a grain of purified strychnine and approximately 1-lOth of a grain from another quarter of the organ, so that there was l-sth of a grain out of half the stomach. He secured the colour test from the strychnine. He made a standard test by injecting stuff recovered from the stomach in frogs, which developed convulsions. He did not expect to recover all the strychnine present from the tissue substance. He based this opinion on his experience and on accepted works. He performed a number of control tests to ascertain the amount of strychnine recoverable and on no occasion had he recovered the amount used in the first instance. In his opinion there would be more than l-sth of a grain of strychnine in half the stomach. OPINION FROM TESTS

His Honour: Would it be reasonable to suppose that if you got l-sth of a grain from half the stomach there would be l-sth of a grain left?—That is an assumption, which I would give as my opinion. In 26 experiments, I have never recovered more than half the strychnine put in. A two-ounce portion of the liver produced a crystalline residue which hespurified by heating, and found a strong reaction for strychnine. A similar portion gave a residue from which there was a distinct test for strychnine. The spleen also gave a test for strychnine. The bottles labelled “poison” contained some white feathery crystals which weighed 2-sths of a grain, and were strychnine hydrochloride. On testing the medicine he could not detect any trace of strychnine, neither was theer any poison in any of the packets of Epsom salts. Mr. Northcroft applied for permission for Professor Worley to take a portion of the salts and the medicine. The request was granted. (Proceeding.)