their origin and progress, of their relation in point of time to various meals, and of the mode and vehicle in which the supposed poison was administered. No unprofessional person can possibly go through such a narrative, without stating many circumstances which are wholly irreconcilable with the idea of poisoning generally, and still more of the administration of a particular poison.
I have met with two instances of imaginary poisoning, the nature of which was thus at once made obvious by a host of impossibilities in the narrative of the patient. One of these may be here given as an example. An elderly lady, who had certain expectancies of the death of a relation, conceived that the family of her relative had resolved to defraud her of her supposed rights. She afterwards imagined that an attempt was made to poison her, and camphor was the poison she fixed on as the article which had been administered. In its general or moral particulars the narrative was all plausible and suspicious enough; but unluckily for its consistency, she stated that the poison could only have been given in wine,—that she did not remark any particular taste in the wine,—that her illness did not begin till the day after she took it; and although she alleged, without any leading question on my part, that camphorous perspiration was exhaled on the subsequent day, the whole train of symptoms differed entirely in every other respect from a case of poisoning, and resembled closely in their origin and progress a case of slight general fever. The incompatibility of her story with the idea of poisoning with camphor will be readily understood by referring to what is afterwards said of the effects of that substance.
Feigned or pretended poisoning is more apt to escape suspicion, and when suspected is commonly more difficult to develope satisfactorily; for the actor has it in his power to lay his plans with care, and even to become acquainted with the properties of the poisons whose effects he intends to feign. Still he can rarely enact his part so well as to deceive a skilful physician both by existing symptoms and by his history of their origin and progress; much less can he contrive his scheme so adroitly that it shall not be unfolded by the refinements of chemical analysis.
The investigation of such a case will be directed of course in the first instance to the state and progress of the symptoms. Here, as in imaginary poisoning, it is of moment to conceal from the individual the suspicion entertained of his falsehood. For even if a person who has actually taken poison knows he is unjustly suspected of feigning, it is not improbable that he might try to mend his story with impossibilities, and so lead the physician into error. In a case of feigned poisoning an excellent mode of investigation is, after hearing out the individual's own story, to put a number of questions involving an alternative answer, one alternative being compatible and the other incompatible with the alleged nature of his illness. No unprofessional person can stand such a system of interrogation, if skilfully pursued. Not only will his answers be often wrong; but likewise his manifest perplexity how to answer will of itself supply evidence of falsehood.
