AssistantStatePathologist queriesShandyHallevidence!

DR MARGARET BOLSTER HAS ‘RESERVATIONS’ ABOUT THE SCIENCE USED TO CONVICT SUBJECT OF POPULAR MUSICAL

IT was the 19th century murder that shocked MidCork and beyond but now over 100 years after Dr Philip Cross was executed for the murder of his wife, Mallow based Assistant State Pathologist, Dr Margaret Bolster has expressed some reservations about the science used to convict him of the killing.

The story of Dr Cross and how he was hung for the murder of his wife has formed the basis of a highly acclaimed musical, Murder at Shandy Hall starring Patrick Bergin and the Briery Gap Theatre Group from Macroom which sold out this week at Cork Opera House.

Central to the musical, which is based on the book ‘Murder at Shandy Hall’ by reporter and author, Michael Sheridan, is the role played by brilliant young Professor of Medicine at Queen’s University Cork – now UCC – Prof Charles Yelverton Pearson. Prof Pearson was born in Kilworth in 1857 and attended the college where he graduated with a medical degree in 1878 and six years later he was appointed Professor of Materia Medica and Lecturer in Medical Jurisprudence.

He was also appointed Crown medical analyst and it was in this capacity that he was engaged by RIC District Inspector, Henry Tyacke to investigate the death of Mrs Cross whose remains he examined at autopsy seven weeks after her death at the Cross family home in Dripsey in 1887.

Born in County Cork in 1824, Dr Cross had served as a surgeon with the British Army in both the Crimea and the India, seeing the horrors of war at first hand at both Sebastopol and Lucknow before in 1869, marrying 29 year old wealthy Englishwoman, Mary Laura Marriott.

The couple lived initially in Canada where Dr Cross was stationed and where their first four children were born but upon his retirement from the British Army, they returned to the Cross ancestral home at Shandy Hall in Dripsey.

And it was at Shandy Hall that 21-year-old Scottish born governess, Effie Skinner entered their lives, hired to teach their youngest daughter before Mrs Cross became suspicious that her husband may be harbouring romantic intentions towards the attractive young Scotswoman and dismissed her.

But within six months of her dismissal, Effie Skinner was back at Shandy Hall – this time as the new Mrs Cross – marrying Dr Cross within a month of his wife’s sudden demise on June 1 1887 with Dr Cross registering her death as due to typhoid fever with the local medical officer.

But suspicions were aroused and when local RIC District Inspector Tyacke began an investigation and recruited Prof Pearson, it did not take long for the scientist to establish that Mrs Cross has been poisoned and his evidence was critical to Dr Cross’s subsequent conviction at trial.

But Dr Bolster, who had read Mr Sheridan’s book before attending the premiere of Murder at Shandy Hall in Macroom last year, has expressed some reservations about whether Prof Pearson’s work would have met the standards expected in a modern day criminal trial.

“I suppose the first thing that struck me when I read the book is that Prof Pearson was both pathologist, toxicologist and forensic scientist in that he performed the autopsy, took samples and tested them himself and also did the forensic work whereas now they are all separate roles.”

Dr Bolster said that today all samples are tested by accredited laboratories and pathologists are questioned on their expertise and experience even though it appeared that Prof Pearson stood up to some robust cross examination from the defence .

Another feature of the case was the fact that Prof Pearson did not take any soil samples from beside Mrs Cross’s grave in Magourney Cemetery where she was buried as the coffin was sealed at exhumation and he didn’t believe that the soil could have contaminated her remains.

However, Dr Bolster said that, notwithstanding the fact the coffin had remained sealed, a modern day criminal investigation would require soil samples to be taken and tested for levels of arsenic to rule out any other source for the build up of arsenic in the deceased other than poisoning.

“The other glaring omission is there is no mention of what medications Mrs Cross was taking. A lot of medications then would have contained arsenic and strychnine so you would need to know this to discount medication as a source for the arsenic and strychnine found at autopsy.”

Dr Bolster acknowledged forensic science was still developing and Prof Pearson may well have met the standards of the time but she wondered what a jury today would conclude even though there was also circumstantial evidence in that Dr Cross had bought arsenic some time previously.

“There was some circumstantial evidence in that Dr Cross had bought arsenic some time previously and of course he did marry the young governess within two weeks of his wife’s death which not only aroused suspicions but also formed part of the prosecution case against him.

“I’m not sure whether a jury today would want more objective concrete evidence before convicting but it’s a fascinating case and Prof Pearson was the main witness for the prosecution and ultimately it was evidence that was critical to Dr Cross’s conviction in the end.”