Cambridgeshire Murders by Alison Bruce

for Mrs Lucas’s burial, Elias Lucas had said that it was a bad job about his wife being poisoned. Tilbrook, in response, had asked, ‘Have you any poison in the house?’ Lucas replied, ‘Yes, half a pound of it, or three-quarters.’ He further explained that Mr Cross had asked him to dispose of it to avoid the turkeys or fowls getting at it and thereby being poisoned. He made no attempt to hide the fact that he had the poison in his possession when he spoke to Tilbrook, but Cramer testified that both Elias Lucas and Mary Reeder had denied that there was any poison in the house.
    Tilbrook also confirmed that the stomach, intestines and earth had been delivered to Professor Taylor, the next witness to take the stand. An analysis of the contents revealed that the intestines were very well preserved, but both the insides and outsides were extremely inflamed, with inflammation of the oesophagus and the stomach, which was distended and contained about ten ounces of fluid. Apart from this inflammation however, there were no signs of general disease and the professor said that this was consistent with the ingestion of an irritant poison. He found black particles in the stomach lining but no food and just a small amount of digested matter in the intestines giving him the impression that violent purging or vomiting had occurred. The stomach contents comprised mucous fluid, water and arsenic amounting to two grains with further arsenic embedded in the stomach walls. He summed up his findings, saying:
    I am prepared to say that death was produced by arsenic administered to the deceased in large quantities. The symptoms are vomiting, thirst, and purging and finally collapse. The recipient of arsenic generally feels at once as if struck with death. I am clearly of the opinion that the deceased died from arsenic and no other cause.
    Professor Taylor was asked to examine the parcel found in Lucas’s pantry. He took a small sample for testing and applied Reinch’s test, which is a common test for the detection of arsenic and produces crystals. When he returned to the stand he stated that, ‘it is undoubtedly metallic arsenic, uncombined with anything. I have produced the clearest crystal.’
    Mr Cross, called in to confirm that he had given the arsenic to Lucas, explained that it had been nearly a pound of arsenic and recalled ‘this is the parcel I gave him. I gave it to him in the lime house in the condition in which this is. He took it away. It was a week after Old Michaelmas Day 3 I gave it him.’
    Before leaving the stand he was cautioned by the judge: ‘For the future I would advise you to take care how you deal with so dangerous an article as that before you. You should have seen it destroyed yourself, and I would caution you against the possession of so large a quantity,’ to which Mr Cross responded that Elias Lucas had worked for him for four years and had never given him reason to think he could not trust him.
    While the cause of death and the availability of arsenic were vital to the defence’s case it was undoubtedly the human element that fascinated the public, and plenty of witnesses came forward with fascinating insights into the life and death of Susan Lucas.
    Henry Reeder testified that his daughter Susan had persuaded him that since his wife had died Mary would be better off living with her. Reeder was in the unenviable position of giving evidence that could incriminate one of his daughters at a trial intended to bring to justice the killer or killers of the other daughter. Perhaps it was this conflict of interests that led him to speak so openly about Susan’s personality. He claimed that she had had a violent temper and had often said that she would destroy herself by drowning. When cross-examined, however, he admitted that these suicidal outbursts had occurred before her marriage and that he had never heard her repeat these threats since. Elias Lucas also