The important results of an elaborate investigation into the mysterious case of Elizabeth Fenning: being a detail of extraordinary facts discovered since her execution, including the official report of her singular trial, now first published, and copious notes thereon. Also ... strictures on a late pamphlet of the prosecutor's apothecary [J. Marshall] ... With ... letters, written by the unfortunate girl while in prison / ... By John Watkins.

Date:
1815
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The important results of an elaborate investigation into the mysterious case of Elizabeth Fenning: being a detail of extraordinary facts discovered since her execution, including the official report of her singular trial, now first published, and copious notes thereon. Also ... strictures on a late pamphlet of the prosecutor's apothecary [J. Marshall] ... With ... letters, written by the unfortunate girl while in prison / ... By John Watkins. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    51/268 (page 33)
    81. Q. Had the prisoner made any yeast dump¬ lings for you the night before ? A. She had, for supper. I, and the other maid, and herself, partook of them : they were quite differ¬ ent from these dumplings in point of colour and weight, and very good. 82. Q. [By one of the Jury?] When the poison was missed, did you make any inquiry about it of the prisoner ? A. I did not. not appear concerned at their situation? (See Q. 51.) Did not Thomas King eat, the night before, of the “ 'very good” dumplings made by the prisoner, though he did not eat of the poisoned dumplings ? Why was not Thomas King a witness 1 Were THO¬ MAS KING, and Mr. OGILVY, the Surgeon, who were NOT WITNESSES on the Trial, EXAMINED BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL ? Q. 81. Gadsden says the dumplings the prisoner made the night before were very good, they differed in colour and weight from those of the next day. This bears her out in her previous recommendation of herself as a “ capital hand” at making them, when left to herself. Did not Thomas King, the other apprentice, partake of these “ very good” dumplings? If he did, why was he not named by the witness ? Q. 82. A very proper question. Gadsden admits that when the poison was missed he did not inquire of the prisoner respecting it. He does not appear to have been more indifferent to the loss of it than his master. (See Q. 67-) But if the prisoner “ would probably resort to the drawer, in which the poison was kept, for waste paper (See Q. 66.) — if “ her going to that drawer would not strike the witness as any thing extraordinary (See Q. 86.)— if Gadsden, “ and his fellow-apprentice, THOMAS KING, who was NOT A WITNESS,” had seen her go to that drawer many times, (See Q. 141.) why did he not mention to the prisoner the extraordinary circumstance of the loss of the arsenick from that drawer I [In the SESSIONS' FAPER REPORT the above very IMPORTANT QUESTION by one of the JURY, and the Answer, are OMITTED.] J)