|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| 复旦大学投毒案在上海市高院二审开庭 |
| 2014-12-15 |
|
|
2014年12月08日 14:18:38 来源： 新华网
新华网上海１２月１０日新媒体专电（“新华视点”记者黄安琪）“黄洋系爆发性乙型病毒性肝炎致急性肝坏死，最终因多器官功能衰竭死亡。”在复旦大学林森浩投毒案二审中，“有专业知识的人”胡志强给出的法医鉴定意见引起广泛关注，黄洋的死因成为二审中最大关注焦点。
“有专业知识的人”提出“肝炎致死说”
在８日的庭审中，法医胡志强作为“有专业知识的人”出庭。据辩护人介绍，他从事法医鉴定工作３０余年，曾在公安系统和检察系统工作多年。
胡志强认为，黄洋系爆发性乙型病毒性肝炎致急性肝坏死，最终因多器官功能衰竭死亡。“在被审查人黄洋的整个病程中，有过４次针对乙肝血清学标志物的检验：２０１３年４月３日上午９时只有乙肝病毒表面抗体阳性，是１６１．８；到了４月６日，乙肝病毒ｅ抗体和乙肝病毒核心抗体均变为阳性；４月８日、４月１２日乙肝病毒表面抗体、ｅ抗体和核心抗体仍然为阳性。这种情况其他原因不可能造成，唯一的解释是黄洋感染了乙型病毒性肝炎。”
胡志强还表示，如果是二甲基亚硝胺中毒就不会表现出乙肝病毒性抗体阳性的现象。“这是两个不同的事件，偶然地巧合在了一起，爆发性乙型病毒性肝炎独立存在，完全可以表现出黄洋的一系列症状，不需要二甲基亚硝胺的介入。”
同时，辩方律师表示，在此前中山医院的治疗中，４月７日的病历显示，当时消化科和血液科的专家有一个会诊意见：不排除爆发性乙肝引起肝衰竭。
对此，上海市人身伤害司法鉴定委员会专家、鉴定人陈忆九法医表示，黄洋符合二甲基亚硝胺中毒致急性肝坏死引起急性肝功能衰竭继发多器官衰竭死亡，并且是五位鉴定人的一致意见。
林森浩的辩护律师则认为，根据相关尸体检验的规定，应该在尸检时对尸体中的血液、尿液、肝脏进行毒物检测，上海市公安局和上海市司法鉴定中心两次尸检均未进行这样的检测，且在之前的全部检测中，只做了二甲基亚硝胺的定性检测，但二甲基亚硝胺广泛微量存在于人体血液、尿液、自来水等之中，只做定性分析，不做定量分析，是缺乏法律意义的。因为，之前的全部检测出的二甲基亚硝胺，可能是本身存在于人体中的。
对此，检方认为，“有专门知识的人”胡志强并未对黄洋进行尸检，只是根据文献、报告、病历等材料作出结论，就推翻此前的鉴定意见，并不认可。而且，死因应当是一个综合性的判断，而不是根据被害人的某项单独指标来进行判断的。
审判长当庭表明，胡志强所说的内容，不属于《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》规定的鉴定意见，应该作为对鉴定意见的质证意见，不能单独作为定案依据。
涉案毒物是否为致死的二甲基亚硝胺？
二审中，辩护律师坚称：“即使黄洋不是死于爆发性乙型病毒肝炎，也无法确定涉案毒物为二甲基亚硝胺。”
辩护律师提出，第一，根据吕巍巍等人的大鼠实验结果分析，不能确定该实验所购的化学品就是“二甲基亚硝胺”；第二，通过案卷发现推算，吕巍巍网上购买的二甲基亚硝胺单价为１００元１００克，而相关证人从上海某生物科技有限公司购买的二甲基亚硝胺，单价为１２００元／克，销售价格相差巨大；其三，林森浩获得的毒物二甲基亚硝胺系非法制作，“按照书本上的方法做的，又违反存储规定放置了那么多年，林使用的时候，它还是不是二甲基亚硝胺？”据此，辩护人多次要求检察机关出示质谱图，以确认涉案毒物是二甲基亚硝胺。
对此，检方表示，根据本案的全案证据，可以确定林森浩投入的是二甲基亚硝胺。首先，两家的鉴定机构在鉴定时肯定是用到了质谱图，相关的鉴定人、鉴定结果是中立的；其次，在本案的鉴定过程当中，其实涉及到三个方面的毒物质谱图之间的比对：一为被害人黄洋使用过的杯子，饮水桶里面的水样，被害人黄洋的尿液，经过分析之后产生的质谱图；二为本案中相关证人从上海某生物科技有限公司购买的作为比对品的二甲基亚硝胺，经过分析后产生的质谱图；三为本案中所使用的检测仪器所附带的质谱图。三方的质谱图在相关鉴定人的对比下是一致的，这样的鉴定过程是严谨的，三方之间的比对可以确定是二甲基亚硝胺。
“在上海市所有的毒物鉴定当中，在鉴定意见中都不附质谱图，不是因为这个案件的特殊性，故意不提供。”检察员表示。
投入剂量能否致人死亡？
在质证阶段，辩护人还提出，退一步说，即使林森浩投的毒是二甲基亚硝胺，黄洋咽下的剂量很低，远远达不到常规致死的剂量。
辩护人称，从我们的实验推算的剂量看，黄洋咽下的二甲基亚硝胺原液的剂量仅仅为０．１２９克左右，剂量极其微小，不足以致人死亡。并且，有资料显示，在自然界中，也存在微量的二甲基亚硝胺。即使根据公安的侦查实验的数据，黄洋喝入一口的量，也远远未到半数致死量。因此，应进行定量检测。
而检方认为，从全案的证据看来，定量检测其实是一个伪命题，二甲基亚硝胺在人体上的致死量、半数致死量，或者说中毒量，没有一个精确的、科学的、权威的数据来进行权威验证。
“因为我们不可能拿人去做这样的实验，而且定量检测是没有意义，也是不可能的。”检方进一步阐释道，根据现在的证据状况，饮水桶包括饮水机在案发之后被清洗过，已经不是林森浩投毒后没有做任何变动的饮水桶和饮水机。所以，想用后面的定量检测来证明林森浩当时投入了多少二甲基亚硝胺，是不现实的。黄洋的尿液中也检出了二甲基亚硝胺，但尿液是人体的排泄物，他和黄洋当时喝下的水中含有多少二甲基亚硝胺，中间没有必然联系，也不能从黄洋尿液当中的二甲基亚硝胺含量来倒推他当时喝进去有多少二甲基亚硝胺。
目前，此案二审庭审已经结束，法院将择日作出终审判决。今年２月，上海市第二中级人民法院对此案作出一审判决，被告人林森浩因犯故意杀人罪被判处死刑，剥夺政治权利终身。
转载自新华网 |
|
|
> |
dibancheng.com 发表评论: ( 2014-12-16 17:01:49 )
|
| |
|
|
|
> |
Michael Kors outlet 发表评论: ( 2015-1-14 13:30:22 )
|
| |
|
Website-Designer Gro?britannien, Web - Design Gro?britannien , Creative Web Design UK , Beste Website-Designer Gro?britannien, Top-Web- Designer Gro?britannien, g??nstige Web Design Gro ?
Scarletts Gesicht nicht ?ndern, aber ihre Lippen ging wei?- wie eine Person, die astunning Schlag ohne Vorwarnung und wer empfangen hat, in den ersten Momenten des Schocks, nicht erkennen, was hashappened . So war immer noch ihr Gesicht, als sie sah , dass er Stuart , nie analytisch , dauerte es f??r sie nur grantedthat ??berrascht und sehr interessiert war .
related links:
[linlei0114]
|
|
> |
xvxvc 发表评论: ( 2015-1-2 13:59:23 )
|
| |
|
|
|
> |
11 发表评论: ( 2015-1-6 16:47:53 )
|
| |
|
艾迪是一家的专业的工厂辅料提供商，现在旗下有，等品牌，历经十载，你值得信赖。 |
|
> |
miss 发表评论: ( 2015-1-8 9:43:19 )
|
| |
|
It was only after the partition of Poland that Russia began to play a great part in Europe. To such statesmen as she had then that act of brigandage must have appeared inspired by great political wisdom. The King of Prussia, faithful to the ruling principle of his life, wished simply to aggrandise his dominions at a much smaller cost and at much less risk than he could have done in any other direction; for at that time Poland was perfectly defenceless from a material point of view, and more than ever, perhaps, inclined to put its faith in humanitarian illusions. Morally, the Republic was in a state of ferment and consequent weakness, which so often accompanies the period of social reform. The strength arrayed against her was just then overwhelming; I mean the comparatively honest (because open) strength of armed forces. But, probably from innate inclination towards treachery, Frederick of Prussia selected for himself the part of falsehood and deception. Appearing on the scene in the character of a friend he entered deliberately into a treaty of alliance with the Republic, and then, before the ink was dry, tore it up in brazen defiance of the commonest decency, which must have been extremely gratifying to his natural tastes.
As to Austria, it shed diplomatic tears over the transaction. They cannot be called crocodile tears, insomuch that they were in a measure sincere. They arose from a vivid perception that Austria??s allotted share of the spoil could never compensate her for the accession of strength and territory to the other two Powers. Austria did not really want an extension of territory at the cost of Poland. She could not hope to improve her frontier in that way, and economically she had no need of Galicia, a province whose natural resources were undeveloped and whose salt mines did not arouse her cupidity because she had salt mines of her own. No doubt the democratic complexion of Polish institutions was very distasteful to the conservative monarchy; Austrian statesmen did see at the time that the real danger to the principle of autocracy was in the West, in France, and that all the forces of Central Europe would be needed for its suppression. But the movement towards a partage on the part of Russia and Prussia was too definite to be resisted, and Austria had to follow their lead in the destruction of a State which she would have preferred to preserve as a possible ally against Prussian and Russian ambitions. It may be truly said that the destruction of Poland secured the safety of the French Revolution. For when in 1795 the crime was consummated, the Revolution had turned the corner and was in a state to defend itself against the forces of reaction.
In the second half of the eighteenth century there were two centres of liberal ideas on the continent of Europe: France and Poland. On an impartial survey one may say without exaggeration that then France was relatively every bit as weak as Poland; even, perhaps, more so. But France??s geographical position made her much less vulnerable. She had no powerful neighbours on her frontier; a decayed Spain in the south and a conglomeration of small German Principalities on the east were her happy lot. The only States which dreaded the contamination of the new principles and had enough power to combat it were Prussia, Austria, and Russia, and they had another centre of forbidden ideas to deal with in defenceless Poland, unprotected by nature, and offering an immediate satisfaction to their cupidity. They made their choice, and the untold sufferings of a nation which would not die was the price exacted by fate for the triumph of revolutionary ideals.
Thus even a crime may become a moral agent by the lapse of time and the course of history. Progress leaves its dead by the way, for progress is only a great adventure as its leaders and chiefs know very well in their hearts. It is a march into an undiscovered country; and in such an enterprise the victims do not count. As an emotional outlet for the oratory of freedom it was convenient enough to remember the Crime now and then: the Crime being the murder of a State and the carving of its body into three pieces. There was really nothing to do but to drop a few tears and a few flowers of rhetoric upon the grave. But the spirit of the nation refused to rest therein. It haunted the territories of the Old Republic in the manner of a ghost haunting its ancestral mansion where strangers are making themselves at home; a calumniated, ridiculed, and pooh-pooh??d ghost, and yet never ceasing to inspire a sort of awe, a strange uneasiness, in the hearts of the unlawful possessors. Poland deprived of its independence, of its historical continuity, with its religion and language persecuted and repressed, became a mere geographical expression. And even that, itself, seemed strangely vague, had lost its definite character, was rendered doubtful by the theories and the claims of the spoliators who, by a strange effect of uneasy conscience, while strenuously denying the moral guilt of the transaction, were always trying to throw a veil of high rectitude over the Crime. What was most annoying to their righteousness was the fact that the nation, stabbed to the heart, refused to grow insensible and cold. That persistent and almost uncanny vitality was sometimes very inconvenient to the rest of Europe also. It would intrude its irresistible claim into every problem of European politics, into the theory of European equilibrium, into the question of the Near East, the Italian question, the question of Schleswig-Holstein, and into the doctrine of nationalities. That ghost, not content with making its ancestral halls uncomfortable for the thieves, haunted also the Cabinets of Europe, waved indecently its bloodstained robes in the solemn atmosphere of Council-rooms, where congresses and conferences sit with closed windows. It would not be exorcised by the brutal jeers of Bismarck and the fine railleries of Gorchakov.
As a Polish friend observed to me some years ago: ??Till the year ??48 the Polish problem has been to a certain extent a convenient rallying-point for all manifestations of liberalism. Since that time we have come to be regarded simply as a nuisance. It??s very disagreeable.??
I agreed that it was, and he continued: ??What are we to do? We did not create the situation by any outside action of ours. Through all the centuries of its existence Poland has never been a menace to anybody, not even to the Turks, to whom it has been merely an obstacle.??
Nothing could be more true. The spirit of aggressiveness was absolutely foreign to the Polish temperament, to which the preservation of its institutions and its liberties was much more precious than any ideas of conquest. Polish wars were defensive, and they were mostly fought within Poland??s own borders. And that those territories were often invaded was but a misfortune arising from its geographical position. Territorial expansion was never the master-thought of Polish statesmen. The consolidation of the territories of the Serenissime Republic, which made of it a Power of the first rank for a time, was not accomplished by force. It was not the consequence of successful aggression, but of a long and successful defence against the raiding neighbours from the East. The lands of Lithuanian and Ruthenian speech were never conquered by Poland. These peoples were not compelled by a series of exhausting wars to seek safety in annexation. It was not the will of a prince or a political intrigue that brought about the union. Neither was it fear. The slowly-matured view of the economical and social necessities and, before all, the ripening moral sense of the masses were the motives that induced the forty three representatives of Lithuanian and Ruthenian provinces, led by their paramount prince, to enter into a political combination unique in the history of the world, a spontaneous and complete union of sovereign States choosing deliberately the way of peace. Never was strict truth better expressed in a political instrument than in the preamble of the first union Treaty (1413). It begins with the words: ??This union, being the outcome not of hatred, but of love?? ?? words that Poles have not heard addressed to them politically by any nation for the last hundred and fifty years.
This union being an organic, living thing capable of growth and development was, later, modified and confirmed by two other treaties, which guaranteed to all the parties in a just and eternal union all their rights, liberties, and respective institutions. The Polish State offers a singular instance of an extremely liberal administrative federalism which, in its Parliamentary life as well as its international politics, presented a complete unity of feeling and purpose. As an eminent French diplomatist remarked many years ago: ??It is a very remarkable fact in the history of the Polish State, this invariable and unanimous consent of the populations; the more so that, the King being looked upon simply as the chief of the Republic, there was no monarchical bond, no dynastic fidelity to control and guide the sentiment of the nations, and their union remained as a pure affirmation of the national will.?? The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its Ruthenian Provinces retained their statutes, their own administration, and their own political institutions. That those institutions in the course of time tended to assimilation with the Polish form was not the result of any pressure, but simply of the superior character of Polish civilisation.
Even after Poland lost its independence this alliance and this union remained firm in spirit and fidelity. All the national movements towards liberation were initiated in the name of the whole mass of people inhabiting the limits of the old Republic, and all the Provinces took part in them with complete devotion. It is only in the last generation that efforts have been made to create a tendency towards separation, which would indeed serve no one but Poland??s common enemies. And, strangely enough, it is the internationalists, men who professedly care nothing for race or country, who have set themselves this task of disruption, one can easily see for what sinister purpose. The ways of the internationalists may be dark, but they are not inscrutable.
From the same source no doubt there will flow in the future a poisoned stream of hints of a reconstituted Poland being a danger to the races once so closely associated within the territories of the Old Republic. The old partners in ??the Crime?? are not likely to forgive their victim its inconvenient and almost shocking obstinacy in keeping alive. They had tried moral assassination before and with some small measure of success, for, indeed, the Polish question, like all living reproaches, had become a nuisance. Given the wrong, and the apparent impossibility of righting it without running risks of a serious nature, some moral alleviation may be found in the belief that the victim had brought its misfortunes on its own head by its own sins. That theory, too, had been advanced about Poland (as if other nations had known nothing of sin and folly), and it made some way in the world at different times, simply because good care was taken by the interested parties to stop the mouth of the accused. But it has never carried much conviction to honest minds. Somehow, in defiance of the cynical point of view as to the Force of Lies and against all the power of falsified evidence, truth often turns out to be stronger than calumny. With the course of years, however, another danger sprang up, a danger arising naturally from the new political alliances dividing Europe into two armed camps. It was the danger of silence. Almost without exception the Press of Western Europe in the twentieth century refused to touch the Polish question in any shape or form whatever. Never was the fact of Polish vitality more embarrassing to European diplomacy than on the eve of Poland??s resurrection.
When the war broke out there was something gruesomely comic in the proclamations of emperors and archdukes appealing to that invincible soul of a nation whose existence or moral worth they had been so arrogantly denying for more than a century. Perhaps in the whole record of human transactions there have never been performances so brazen and so vile as the manifestoes of the German Emperor and the Grand Duke Nicholas of Russia; and, I imagine, no more bitter insult has been offered to human heart and intelligence than the way in which those proclamations were flung into the face of historical truth. It was like a scene in a cynical and sinister farce, the absurdity of which became in some sort unfathomable by the reflection that nobody in the world could possibly be so abjectly stupid as to be deceived for a single moment. At that time, and for the first two months of the war, I happened to be in Poland, and I remember perfectly well that, when those precious documents came out, the confidence in the moral turpitude of mankind they implied did not even raise a scornful smile on the lips of men whose most sacred feelings and dignity they outraged. They did not deign to waste their contempt on them. In fact, the situation was too poignant and too involved for either hot scorn or a coldly rational discussion. For the Poles it was like being in a burning house of which all the issues were locked. There was nothing but sheer anguish under the strange, as if stony, calmness which in the utter absence of all hope falls on minds that are not constitutionally prone to despair. Yet in this time of dismay the irrepressible vitality of the nation would not accept a neutral attitude. I was told that even if there were no issue it was absolutely necessary for the Poles to affirm their national existence. Passivity, which could be regarded as a craven acceptance of all the material and moral horrors ready to fall upon the nation, was not to be thought of for a moment. Therefore, it was explained to me, the Poles must act. Whether this was a counsel of wisdom or not it is very difficult to say, but there are crises of the soul which are beyond the reach of wisdom. When there is apparently no issue visible to the eyes of reason, sentiment may yet find a way out, either towards salvation or to utter perdition, no one can tell ?? and the sentiment does not even ask the question. Being there as a stranger in that tense atmosphere, which was yet not unfamiliar to me, I was not very anxious to parade my wisdom, especially after it had been pointed out in answer to my cautious arguments that, if life has its values worth fighting for, death, too, has that in it which can make it worthy or unworthy.
Out of the mental and moral trouble into which the grouping of the Powers at the beginning of war had thrown the counsels of Poland there emerged at last the decision that the Polish Legions, a peace organisation in Galicia directed by Pilsudski (afterwards given the rank of General, and now apparently the Chief of the Government in Warsaw), should take the field against the Russians. In reality it did not matter against which partner in the ??Crime?? Polish resentment should be directed. There was little to choose between the methods of Russian barbarism, which were both crude and rotten, and the cultivated brutality tinged with contempt of Germany??s superficial, grinding civilisation. There was nothing to choose between them. Both were hateful, and the direction of the Polish effort was naturally governed by Austria??s tolerant attitude, which had connived for years at the semi-secret organisation of the Polish Legions. Besides, the material possibility pointed out the way. That Poland should have turned at first against the ally of Western Powers, to whose moral support she had been looking for so many years, is not a greater monstrosity than that alliance with Russia which had been entered into by England and France with rather less excuse and with a view to eventualities which could perhaps have been avoided by a firmer policy and by a greater resolution in the face of what plainly appeared unavoidable.
For let the truth be spoken. The action of Germany, however cruel, sanguinary, and faithless, was nothing in the nature of a stab in the dark. The Germanic Tribes had told the whole world in all possible tones carrying conviction, the gently persuasive, the coldly logical; in tones Hegelian, Nietzschean, war-like, pious, cynical, inspired, what they were going to do to the inferior races of the earth, so full of sin and all unworthiness. But with a strange similarity to the prophets of old (who were also great moralists and invokers of might) they seemed to be crying in a desert. Whatever might have been the secret searching of hearts, the Worthless Ones would not take heed. It must also be admitted that the conduct of the menaced Governments carried with it no suggestion of resistance. It was no doubt, the effect of neither courage nor fear, but of that prudence which causes the average man to stand very still in the presence of a savage dog. It was not a very politic attitude, and the more reprehensible in so far that it seemed to arise from the mistrust of their own people??s fortitude. On simple matters of life and death a people is always better than its leaders, because a people cannot argue itself as a whole into a sophisticated state of mind out of deference for a mere doctrine or from an exaggerated sense of its own cleverness. I am speaking now of democracies whose chiefs resemble the tyrant of Syracuse in this, that their power is unlimited (for who can limit the will of a voting people?) and who always see the domestic sword hanging by a hair above their heads.
Perhaps a different attitude would have checked German self-confidence, and her overgrown militarism would have died from the excess of its own strength. What would have been then the moral state of Europe it is difficult to say. Some other excess would probably have taken its place, excess of theory, or excess of sentiment, or an excess of the sense of security leading to some other form of catastrophe; but it is certain that in that case the Polish question would not have taken a concrete form for ages. Perhaps it would never have taken form! In this world, where everything is transient, even the most reproachful ghosts end by vanishing out of old mansions, out of men??s consciences. Progress of enlightenment, or decay of faith? In the years before the war the Polish ghost was becoming so thin that it was impossible to get for it the slightest mention in the papers. A young Pole coming to me from Paris was extremely indignant, but I, indulging in that detachment which is the product of greater age, longer experience, and a habit of meditation, refused to share that sentiment. He had gone begging for a word on Poland to many influential people, and they had one and all told him that they were going to do no such thing. They were all men of ideas and therefore might have been called idealists, but the notion most strongly anchored in their minds was the folly of touching a question which certainly had no merit of actuality and would have had the appalling effect of provoking the wrath of their old enemies and at the same time offending the sensibilities of their new friends. It was an unanswerable argument. I couldn??t share my young friend??s surprise and indignation. My practice of reflection had also convinced me that there is nothing on earth that turns quicker on its pivot than political idealism when touched by the breath of practical politics.
It would be good to remember that Polish independence as embodied in a Polish State is not the gift of any kind of journalism, neither is it the outcome even of some particularly benevolent idea or of any clearly apprehended sense of guilt. I am speaking of what I know when I say that the original and only formative idea in Europe was the idea of delivering the fate of Poland into the hands of Russian Tsarism. And, let us remember, it was assumed then to be a victorious Tsarism at that. It was an idea talked of openly, entertained seriously, presented as a benevolence, with a curious blindness to its grotesque and ghastly character. It was the idea of delivering the victim with a kindly smile and the confident assurance that ??it would be all right?? to a perfectly unrepentant assassin, who, after sawing furiously at its throat for a hundred years or so, was expected to make friends suddenly and kiss it on both cheeks in the mystic Russian fashion. It was a singularly nightmarish combination of international polity, and no whisper of any other would have been officially tolerated. Indeed, I do not think in the whole extent of Western Europe there was anybody who had the slightest mind to whisper on that subject. Those were the days of the dark future, when Benckendorf put down his name on the Committee for the Relief of Polish Populations driven by the Russian armies into the heart of Russia, when the Grand Duke Nicholas (the gentleman who advocated a St. Bartholomew??s Night for the suppression of Russian liberalism) was displaying his ??divine?? (I have read the very word in an English newspaper of standing) strategy in the great retreat, where Mr. Iswolsky carried himself haughtily on the banks of the Seine; and it was beginning to dawn upon certain people there that he was a greater nuisance even than the Polish question.
related links:
[chenrenfan108]
|
|
> |
nnso 发表评论: ( 2015-2-15 8:32:34 )
|
| |
|
rapidly platform networks major director latest landscapes networks monetary markets impact foundation steps storage flatten stomach appeal fascinating lose 10 pounds impact |
|
> |
meiqing 发表评论: ( 2015-3-23 14:52:33 )
|
| |
|
|
|
> |
粮农 发表评论: ( 2015-3-23 17:09:03 )
|
| |
|
www.faochina.com
www.faochina.com
www.faochina.com
www.faochina.com
www.faochina.com
www.faochina.com
|
|
> |
linda 发表评论: ( 2015-4-2 11:08:19 )
|
| |
|
n returning to the kitchen to go on with her work, the exhaustion against which Marie had hitherto fought successfully, overpowered her the moment she sat down; her heavy head drooped, her eyes closed in spite of her, and she fell into a broken, uneasy slumber. Madame Duparc and her daughter, seeing the condition she was in, undertook the preparation of the day??s dinner themselves. Among the dishes which they got ready, and which they salted from the cellars on the dresser, were two different kinds of soup ?? one kind for themselves, made from fresh ??stock???? ?? the other, for Marie and the nurse, made from old ??stock.?? They were engaged over their cookery, when Monsieur Duparc arrived from the country; and Marie was awakened to take the horse he had ridden to the stables, to unsaddle the animal, and to give him his feed of corn. While she was thus engaged, Madame Duparc and her daughter remained alone in the kitchen. When she left the stable, it was time for her to lay the cloth. She was told to put plates for seven persons. Only six, however, sat down to dinner. Those six were, Madame De Beaulieu, Monsieur and Madame Duparc, the youngest of their two sons, Madame Beauguillot (sister of Madame Duparc), and Monsieur Beauguillot (her son). Mademoiselle Duparc remained in the kitchen to help Marie in serving up the dinner, and only took her place at table after the soup had been put on. Her elder brother, after summoning his father home, had not returned to the house.
After the soup had been taken away, and while Marie was waiting at table during the eating of the second course, young Duparc complained that he felt something gritty between his teeth. His mother made precisely the same remark. Nobody else, however, agreed with them, and the subject was allowed to drop. When the second course was done with, the dessert followed, consisting of a plate of cherries. With the dessert there arrived a visitor, Monsieur Fergant, a relation of Madame Duparc??s. This gentleman placed himself at table with the rest of the company.
Meanwhile, the nurse and Marie were making their dinner in the kitchen off the soup which had been specially provided for them ?? Marie having previously placed the dirty plates, and the empty soup-tureen from the dining-room, in the scullery, as usual, to be washed at the proper time. While she and her companion were still engaged over their soup, young Duparc and his mother suddenly burst into the kitchen, followed by the other persons who had partaken of dinner. ??We are all poisoned!?? cried Madame Duparc, in the greatest terror. ??Good heavens! I smell burned arsenic in the kitchen!??
Monsieur Fergant, the visitor, hearing these last words, politely stepped forward to echo them. ??Burned arsenic, beyond a doubt,?? said Monsieur Fergant. When this gentleman was subsequently questioned on the subject, it may not be amiss to mention that he was quite unable to say what burned arsenic smelled like. Neither is it altogether out of place to inquire how Madame Duparc happened to be so amazingly apt at discovering the smell of burned arsenic? The answer to the question does not seem easy to discover.
Having settled that they were all poisoned, and having even found out (thanks to those two intelligent amateur chemists, Madame Duparc and Monsieur Fergant) the very nature of the deadly drug that had been used to destroy them, the next thing the company naturally thought of was the necessity of summoning medical help. Young Monsieur Beauguillot obligingly ran off (it was apparently a very mild case of poisoning, so far as he was concerned) to the apothecary??s shop, and fetched, not the apprentice this time, but the master. The master, Monsieur Thierry, arrived in great haste, and found the dinner-eaters all complaining of nausea and pains in the stomach. He naturally asked what they had eaten. The reply was, that they had eaten nothing but soup.
This was, to say the least of it, rather an unaccountable answer. The company had had for dinner, besides soup, a second course of boiled meat, and ragout of beef, and a dessert of cherries. Why was this plain fact concealed? Why was the apothecary??s attention to be fixed exclusively on the soup? Was it because the tureen was empty, and because the alleged smell of burned arsenic might be accounted for on the theory that the remains of the soup brought from the dining-room had been thrown on the kitchen fire? But no remains of soup came down ?? it had been all consumed by the guests. And what is still more remarkable, the only person in the kitchen (excepting Marie and the nurse) who could not discover the smell of burned arsenic, was the person of all others who was professionally qualified to find it out first ?? the apothecary himself.
After examining the tureen and the plates, and stirring up the wood-ashes on the fire, and making no sort of discovery, Monsieur Thierry turned to Marie, and asked if she could account for what had happened. She simply replied that she knew nothing at all about it; and thereupon her mistress and the rest of the persons present all overwhelmed her together with a perfect torrent of questions. The poor girl, terrified by the hubbub, worn out by a sleepless night and by the hard work and agitation of the day preceding it, burst into an hysterical fit of tears, and was ordered out of the kitchen to lie down and recover herself. The only person who showed her the least pity and offered her the slightest attention, was a servant-girl like herself, who lived next door, and who stole up to the room in which she was weeping alone, with a cup of warm milk-and-water to comfort her.
Meanwhile the report had spread in the town that the old man, Monsieur De Beaulieu, and the whole Duparc family had been poisoned by their servant. Madame Duparc did her best to give the rumor the widest possible circulation. Entirely forgetting, as it would seem, that she was on her own showing a poisoned woman, she roamed excitably all over the house with an audience of agitated female friends at her heels; telling the burned-arsenic story over and over again to every fresh detachment of visitors that arrived to hear it; and finally leading the whole troop of women into the room where Marie was trying to recover herself. The poor girl was surrounded in a moment; angry faces and shrill voices met her on every side; the most insolent questions, the most extravagant accusations, assailed her; and not one word that she could say in her own defense was listened to for an instant. She had sprung up in the bed, on her knees, and was frantically entreating for permission to speak in her own defense, when a new personage appeared on the scene, and stilled the clamor by his presence. This individual was a surgeon named H??bert, a friend of Madame Duparc??s, who announced that he had arrived to give the family the benefit of his assistance, and who proposed to commence operations by searching the servant??s pockets without further delay.
The instant Marie heard him make this proposal she untied her pockets, and gave them to Surgeon H??bert with her own hands. He examined them on the spot. In one he found some copper money and a thimble. In the other (to use his own words, given in evidence) he discovered ??various fragments of bread, sprinkled over with some minute substance which was white and shining. He kept the fragments of bread, and left the room immediately without saying a word.?? By this course of proceeding he gave Marie no chance of stating at the outset whether she knew of the fragments of bread being in her pocket, or whether she was totally ignorant how they came there. Setting aside, for the present, the question, whether there was really any arsenic on the crumbs at all, it would clearly have been showing the unfortunate maid of all work no more than common justice to have allowed her the opportunity of speaking before the bread was carried away.
It was now seven o??clock in the evening. The next event was the arrival of another officious visitor. The new friend in need belonged to the legal profession ?? he was an advocate named Friley. Monsieur Friley??s legal instincts led him straightway to a conclusion which seriously advanced the progress of events. Having heard the statement of Madame Duparc and her daughter, he decided that it was his duty to lodge an information against Marie before the Procurator of the king, at Caen.
The Procurator of the king is, by this time, no stranger to the reader. He was the same Monsieur Revel who had taken such an amazingly strong interest in Marie??s fortunes, and who had strongly advised her to try her luck at Caen. Here then, surely, was a friend found at last for the forlorn maid of all work. ??We shall see how Monsieur Revel acted, after Friley??s information had been duly lodged.
The French law of the period, and, it may be added, the commonest principles of justice also, required the Procurator to perform certain plain duties as soon as the accusation against Marie had reached his ears.
He was, in the first place, bound to proceed immediately, accompanied by his official colleague, to the spot where the alleged crime of poisoning was supposed to have taken place. Arrived there, it was his business to ascertain for himself the condition of the persons attacked with illness; to hear their statements; to examine the rooms, the kitchen utensils, and the family medicine-chest, if there happened to be one in the house; to receive any statement the accused person might wish to make; to take down her answers to his questions; and, lastly, to keep anything found on the servant (the bread-crumbs, for instance, of which Surgeon H??bert had coolly taken possession), or anything found about the house which it might be necessary to produce in evidence, in a position of absolute security, under the hand and seal of justice.
These were the plain duties which Monsieur Revel, the Procurator, was officially bound to fulfill. In the case of Marie, he not only neglected to perform any one of them, but actually sanctioned a scheme for entrapping her into prison, by sending a commissary of police to the house, in plain clothes, with an order to place her in solitary confinement. To what motive could this scandalous violation of his duties and of justice be attributed? The last we saw of Monsieur Revel, he was so benevolently disposed toward Marie that he condescended to advise her about her prospects in life, and even went the length of recommending her to seek for a situation in the very town in which he lived himself. And now we find him so suddenly and bitterly hostile toward the former object of his patronage, that he actually lends the assistance of his high official position to sanction an accusation against her, into the truth or falsehood of which he had not made a single inquiry! Can it be that Monsieur Revel??s interest in Marie was, after all, not of the purest possible kind, and that the unfortunate girl proved too stubbornly virtuous to be taught what the real end was toward which the attentions of her over-benevolent adviser privately pointed? There is no evidence attaching to the case (as how should there be?) to prove this. But is there any other explanation of Monsieur Revel??s conduct which at all tends to account for the extraordinary inconsistency of it?
Having received his secret instructions, the Commissary of Police ?? a man named Bertot ?? proceeded to the house of Monsieur and Madame Duparc, disguised in plain clothes. His first proceeding was to order Marie to produce the various plates, dishes, and kitchen-utensils which had been used at the dinner of Tuesday, the seventh of August (that being the day on which the poisoning of the company was alleged to have taken place). Marie produced a saucepan, an earthen vessel, a stew-pan, and several plates piled on each other, in one of which there were the remains of some soup. These articles Bertot locked up in the kitchen cupboard, and took away the key with him. He ought to have taken the additional precaution of placing a seal on the cupboard, so as to prevent any tampering with the lock, or any treachery with a duplicate key. But this he neglected to do.
His next proceeding was to tell Marie that the Procurator Revel wished to speak to her, and to propose that she should accompany him to the presence of that gentleman forthwith. Not having the slightest suspicion of any treachery, she willingly consented, and left the house with the Commissary. A friend of the Duparcs, named Vassol, accompanied them.
related links:
[SuJuan0402]
|
|
> |
poloralphlaurenpascher 发表评论: ( 2015-4-24 11:31:20 )
|
| |
|
| | | | | |
