Adelaide Bartlett and the Pimlico mystery
BMJ 1994; 309 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6970.1720 (Published 24 December 1994) Cite this as: BMJ 1994;309:1720All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Adelaide Bartlett's father was not, in my view, Adolphe Collot de la
Tremouille, Comte de Thouars d'Escury, even though this noble name is
entered on her marriage certificate (I am in possession of a copy of the
marriage certificate). According to Yseult Bridges - Poison and Adelaide
Bartlett - pp29 Adelaide was never adopted into this illustrious house,
but was given over to nuns soon after her birth.
It is more likely that, as popular belief would have it, she was the
illegitimate child of an English Lord, one who was in France during Queen
Victoria's State visit - 1855 - as part of her entourage.
It is also incorrect to say she stayed with an aunt and uncle at
Kingston. This was the address of Edwin Bartlett's brother, Charles.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Mr Farrell
I read your article with great interest as I have been researching this
case for the last 18 months. I have read just about everything I could,
including the trial inquest and police court proceedings, and newspaper
reports, and have also done considerable genealogical research. The
intent is to write a book, which hopefully will undo some of the prevalent
fallacies about the case. Since so much that has already been published
is untrue, I think you have done a wonderful job of avoiding the major
pitfalls, and have produced a well balanced article. I would be churlish
of me to correct you on small points of detail which I'm sure you would
have found for yourself if you had been immersed in the case in the same
way as myself. But you have not made the classic mistake made by so many
others of swallowing whole Adelaide's story and repeating it as truth. It
is a truly fascinating case, and very complex indeed. I have to add that
there is no doubt in my mind that she did poison Edwin. Chloroform will
not leave traces if it is in transient contact and the evidence suggested
that he had swallowed it in a seated position so only the stomach was
inflamed. If you wish to reply I would be happy to discuss the case with
you.
Linda Stratmann
Competing interests: No competing interests
Clearly, concerning chloroform.....
Pick, pick, pick
I rather enjoyed Dr Farrell’s article on Ada Bartlett. I think that
some of the points raised by readers are a little picky and so I am
reticent to raise another nit-picking point. The other remarkable thing is
how slowly people have raised points. Stratman wrote 6 years post
publication and Towers’ is close to the tenth anniversary.
Dr Farrell mentions in his paragraph ‘Trial at the Old Bailey’ that
Bartlett could not give evidence on her own behalf as the Civil Evidence
Act of 1898 had not been passed. It seems a little difficult to see how an
act on civil evidence could vary criminal procedure. But categorically
stating this, unreasonably throws doubt on the ingenuity, the legislative
legerdemain of Victorian parliamentary draughtsmen. I do not have a copy
of Smith & Hogan’s Criminal Law to hand, instead I have something
almost as good: -
“By the Criminal Evidence Act which passed into law in August 1898,
all prisoners were allowed to give evidence in their own defence. The
privilege was used cautiously at first by defending counsel, but before
Marshall Hall died, it had become a two edged sword. To such an extent
that some old fashioned advocates say that the old fundamental doctrine
that a man is innocent until he has been proven guilty has been seriously
impaired.” (1)
In 1898, there was some discussion about leaving an undefended
accused to the mercies of cross-examination of an experienced advocate,
and how unfair and biased such a contest may be. This was balanced by the
consideration that the accused maybe able to exonerate himself by
knowledge that only he possessed and therefore could not be presented to
the jury.
Farrell’s article and discussion refer to the strong odour of
chloroform during the dissection and the lack of it beforehand which led
to speculation that Ada Bartlett may have passed a nasogastric tube
instead of trying to persuade her husband to swallow the stuff. The
impossibility of getting people to swallow chloroform may have led to Sir
James Paget’s comment on her acquittal, - “…now all that remains is for
her to tell us how she did it.”
Readers who are interested in the criminal use of chloroform in other
cases are referred to the exhaustive and interesting review of Prof James
P Payne (2). In that article Prof Payne makes the contrary point that in
other cases, chloroform was used as an aphrodisiac, although Adelaide
Bartlett says she was using it to fend off the advances of her unloved and
crapulent husband.
Oliver R Dearlove FRCA
Ref. 1. Marjoribanks E Famous Trials of Marshall Hall Penguin Books
772 p 102
2.Payne JP The criminal use of chloroform Anaesthesia 1998 53 issue
7 page 685 July 1998 doi:10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.528-az0572.x
Conflict, – Both Sir James Paget and myself are Barts men – obviously
of different centuries
Competing interests:
as script
Competing interests: No competing interests