THE 
SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
THE TRIAL OF 
Dr. PAUL SCHOEPPE, 
In the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Cam- 
berland County, Pa. 
CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF 
MISS MARIA M. STENNECKE, 
BY POISON. 
Hon. JAMES H. EEAHAM. President Judge, HUGH 
STUART and T. P. BLAIR, Associate Judges. 
THE COUR'T CONVENED ON 
JMZOJNTIDJL'Z', MAY 24TH, 
PHILADELPHIA: 
M. DAHLEM, PRINTER, 324 CHESTNUT STREET 
.1869. THE TRIAL. 
The Court of Oyer and Terminer con- 
vened in Carlisle, at 10 o'clock, A. M., on 
Monday, May 24th, 1868. After disposing 
of a small amount of miscellaneous busi- 
ness, the case of Adam Titus, charged with 
the murder of HejTry Stahm, was called 
up, on motion of the District Attorney, it 
was passed by, and the case of Dr. Paul 
Schoeppe, charged with poisoning Maria 
M. Stennecke, was called, when his 
Attorneys reported that they were prepared 
to proceed with it. The Court then took a 
recess to await the arrival of Jurors by the 
11 o'clock train. At 11.35 A. M., the De- 
fendant, Dr. Paul Schoeppe, was duly 
arraigned by the District Attorney, C. E. 
Maglaughlin, Esq., who, in conjunction 
with William J. Shearer, Esq., appeared for 
the Commonwealth, and Wm. H. Miller, 
Esq., Hon. Samuel Hepburn, Henry New- 
sham and Samuel Hepburn, Esqs., appear- 
ing for the Defendant. The Defendant 
pleaded " not guilty." 
The following Jurors were then called, 
and having answered the usual questions 
propounded were sworn: 
Jacob Rhoads, of West Pennsborough 
Township; Thomas J. Early, of South- 
ampton; James Anderson, of Silver Spring; 
John Barrick, of Mifflin; Martin Kunkle, 
of Hopewell; William Keller, of South 
Middleton; W. H. Weakley, of South Mid- 
dleton; Henry F. Drawbaugh, of Newville; 
Jacob E. Mohler, of Upper Allen; James 
Graham, of Hopewell, William Balsley, 
of Hampton; D. Wherry, of Newberg. 
The case for the Commonwealth was 
eloquently opened by C. E. Maglaughlin, 
Esq., District Attorney. 
The first witness called was H. L. Burk- 
holder, who being sworn, testified as follows: 
Was proprietor of the Mansion House on 
the 27th of January last; Miss Stennecke 
came there 19th of January. On morning 
of 28th January last, about 6 o'clock, I sent 
the porter to her room to make up the fire 
in her stove, after some little time he came 
down, fifteen minutes afterwards the 
chambermaid came to me ; from what she 
said, sent for Dr. Schoeppe; I sent for Dr. 
Herman. Schoeppe did not come. He was 
not at home. Between 8 or 9 or about 9 
o'clock, I saw Doctor Herman and Doctor 
Schoeppe both at my house. Maria Sten- 
necke died on the evening of the 28th Jan- 
uary last, about ten or fifteen minutes after 
6 o'clock, word came to me that she 
was dead. Died in my' house. On the 
evening of the 27th, knowing that she was 
sick, I went to her room. It was on the 
morning of the 27th, she was reported to 
be dying It must have been the morning 
of the 28th, I went to her room, for she 
died the same evening. On the night of the 
27th, between 9 and 10 o'clock, I went to 
her room, thinking that she might stand in 
need of something. I rapped at her door 
two or three times without getting any 
answer. The ventilator was open above the 
door. I called to her two or three times, 
and got no answer. I didn't disturb her 
further but left the room.-The body was 
taken away from my house the morning 
after the death. 
Lewis A. Smith, sworn-I am the teller 
in the Carlisle Deposit Bank. On the morn- 
ing of the 27th of January, 1869, between 
9 and 10 o'clock, Maria Stennecke was at 
the Bank. She appeared to be in about the 
same state of health she always was. I 
noticed no change. This check was drawn 
by her and cashed on that day. Filled up 
by Mr. Hassler and signed by her. It was 
on the 27th of January, 1869, the money 
was received by her, on this check. 
Cross-Examined:-Nothing more than date 
of the check fixes my recollection. She was 
at my desk. There was nothing out of the 
way to attract my attention. I cannot say I 
was busy more than ordinary. I cannot say 
that I observed anything out of the way. I 
cannot say whether she had a veil on or not. 
In ChiefThis check came to the counter 
without a stamp. And the stamp was not 4 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
cancelled at the time the check was cashed 
but afterwards. 
lie-Cross Examined:-At the time the 
Bank Book was settled up I observed several 
checks with the stamps not cancelled. I 
am not positive as to the date. I know 
there was a stamp on it when it was paid, 
but was not cancelled. Nothing prevented 
the cancellation that day. I have nothing 
more definite than the date on the paper. 
Re-In-Chief:-This is the bank book.- 
The account was settled some time after the 
10th of February. 
Mrs. Mary Parker, sworn-I was board- 
ing at Mr. Burkholder's Hotel on the 27th 
of January last. I saw Miss Stennecke on 
the morning of the 27th at breakfast. It 
was on Wednesday, she was not at dinner. 
I missed her at the dinner table and went 
to her room to see her, and found hei' com- 
pletely prostrated. She seemed very lan- 
guid and I left. It was 2 o'clock, P. M.. 
when I went in. I was not in her room 
that day again. I saw her next on 
Thursday morning, a little after G o'clock. 
In the morning a little after 6 o'clock, I saw 
her insensible. She was lying insensible, 
breathing rather heavily. In the morning 
when I first saw her I thought her eyes a 
very little bit open. I saw her again at 
12 o'clock and her eyes were not so 
much open, were closed. There seemed to 
be a perspiration on her face at noon. I 
went back to her room before 6 o'clock that 
evening, before she died, and remained 
until her death; I left a few moments 
afterwards. I saw Doctor Schoeppe about 
12 o'clock, near Hughes's shop, just above 
the Hotel, he came out of the Hotel and told 
me she (Miss Stennecke) was very poorly. 
I asked him why he gave her the vomit the 
day before, on Wednesday, and he told me 
he only gave her two grains of Tartar- 
emetic, and ten of Epicacuana. He asked 
me if I was well. I said I was all right. 
He said Miss Stennecke had a poor appetite. 
I told the Doctor that Miss Stennecke had 
told me that the Doctor had given her 
something to make her sleep. He shook 
his hands very much and said: "no! no!" 
" I didn't give her anything to make her 
sleep." Miss Stennecke told me end Mrs. 
Schindel not to come into the room. We 
offered to remain with her, but she refused 
ns. On Wednesday afternoon I found her 
very drowsy, (the day before her death.) 
Cross-Examined:-The Doctor did not 
say to me that Miss Stennecke wanted him 
to give her anything to make her sleep. 
She was lying on her left side in an easy 
position. The room seemed to be very 
close. I opened the door, and left it open 
while I was there. I was there in the morn- 
ing not more than twenty minutes. I was up 
close to her bed. I put my hand on her fore- 
head. Her forehead and hands seemed some- 
what clammy rather cold. I was under the 
impression that her forehead and hands did 
feel natural, that she was under the influence 
of morphia, and when that went off she 
would be well. There was no unusual odor, 
but the room was very close and it was very 
unpleasantto be in it until the door was open. 
No odor of peach leaves or bitter almonds. 
No froth about heu mouth, there seemed in 
the morning as though there was something 
running out of her mouth, but it was not 
froth. Did not observe it afterwards. Her 
breathing did not amount to a snore, but 
made quite a noise. It seemed to me the 
noise was when she exhaled. There was 
no distortion of features that you could see. 
None of displaced. Nothing 
like convulsions. The breathing was not 
regular. It would apparently stop for 
awhile. There was no rigidity of the 
muscles. About the same condition when 
I was there afterwards. I think I talked 
with him once more. I can't say that his 
manner is always excited, I thought he 
seemed somewhat excited when he made the 
remark that he did not give her anything. 
Dollie Turner, (colored), sworn-I was 
chambermaid at Mr. Burkholder's Hotel 
when Miss Stennecke was there. I attended 
to her room. I know Dr. Schoeppe when I 
see him. He came to see Miss Stennecke 
pretty often. I saw him there pretty often. 
Can't say how often. He generally came in 
the morning. I saw him there the day she 
took sick. She told me he was to come 
that morning. I saw him there bet. 10 & 11 
in the morning. I met him in the entry. He 
went into her room, and after he was there 
she called me to bring a spoon. I took it 
to the door and handed it to the Doctor. 
He took it from me. I didn't go into the 
room. He met me at the door, and I 
handed him the spoon. After the Doctor 
was gone she called me to empty her bucket. 
He had given her something she told me, to 
throw the heaviness off her chest. It was 
after the Doctor left she had the vomit, 
after the cars had gone down. I don't 
know how long, I think it was after eleven. 
After I emptied the bucket she laid down. 
She said the Doctor said she should lie 
down. In the afternoon, at 3 o'clock, after 
the Doctor came to the kitchen and called 
me, and told me Miss Stennecke wanted the THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
5 
chambermaid at her room. I went to her 
room. She was lying in bed, she didn't 
seem to be very ill in the afternoon. I just 
went to the door. I went again to her room 
between 7 and 8 o'clock, the same evening, 
and I found her seeming to be very sick 
and sleepy. That is the way I left her 
that night. She got up, undressed and 
went to bed ; she had a wrapper on. I 
helped her to undress; I helped her to get 
out of bed. When I wouldn't speak she 
would doze off, sitting on the chair, when I 
would call her to arouse her. I didn't see 
her then until the next morning at 6 o'clock. 
I saw her then in bed. I went to her, shook 
her and called her, but? she never moved 
nor answered a word. Her breathiug was 
very hard. 
Cross Examined. - She didn't appear to 
take long breaths. I didn't notice particu- 
lar but she was breathing very hard. There 
was nothing convulsive about her that I 
noticed. I did not feel her hand or fore- 
head. The Porter was the first to go in her 
room. I went in about six o'clock. I didn't 
notice any unusual odor or smell about the 
room. Didn't notice any particular smell 
at all. I took her some pipper up,-some 
beef-steak, some bread and butter and a 
cup of tea.-I left it in her room. This was 
before I undressed her for bed. I was in 
the room, oft'and on the day she died. Didn't 
notice any frothing about her mouth. Was 
not in the room when she was laid out. No 
rattling in her throat that I noticed. 
Mrs. Lavina Schindel (affirmed)-I was 
boarding at Burkholder's Hotel at the time 
Miss Stennecke was there. I saw her at 
the breakfast table on the morning, of the 
27th of January, the day she took sick. 1 
did not see her after that until the morning 
of the 28th between 7 and 8 o'clock. I saw 
her in her own room in an unconscious state, 
breathing quite heavily. I felt her pulse, 
it felt strong, a little quick, I felt her hand 
and forehead, they appeared moist and in a 
natural condition. 1 was talking that day 
to Dr. Schoeppe, the day she died, the 28th, 
between 9 and 10 o'clock. He told me he 
had given her a vomit the day before and 
when he returned about twelve o'clock, he 
found her very much prostrated. He was 
there several times in the afternoon, and in 
the evening between 8 and 9. That at that 
time she was in her full senses, and said she 
spoke of the eclipse of the moon. That she 
asked him for something to put her to sleep, 
that the refused to give it to her saying she 
was too weak. That she said she would 
take something herself; that he shook his 
finger at her and told her not to do so, and 
left the room. That he asked her about 
locking the door, and she said she was too 
weak and tired to get up and would trust to 
Providence. 
Cross-Examined.-I was there most of that 
day, and found her during the day about the 
same she was in the morning. I was there 
when she died. She was in the same posi- 
tion, breathing harder of course. Her 
breathing was long and heavy not rapid gas- 
ping. Frequent intervals of a moment or 
so in her breathing. I didn't observe any 
convulsions. No distortion of the features 
or face. Her tongue and mouth were a little 
twisted on one side, the left, the side she 
was lying on. Her tongue protruded the 
least bit There was no contraction or rigi- 
dity of the hands and feet. Did not observe 
any unusual odor, nothing like bitter al- 
monds or peach leaves. I was near enough 
to have heard her breathe. There was no 
foaming about the mouth, but a little saliva 
escaping from it, during the day. I saw her 
feet. There was no contraction or rigidity. 
Her eyes were closed from the time I went 
in. I was about her when she was laid out. 
I did not notice any spasmodic contraction 
about the mouth. Dr. S. was there, asked 
me to get mustard for a plaster, and he 
spread it and applied it. He was there 
quite frequently during the day. We had 
applied a hot brick before he came in the mor- 
ning. He rubbed her feet with a flesh brush. 
In-Chief:-She was lying a little upon her 
left side, with her face from the wall. 
W. H. Cornman, Sworn: - I boarded at 
the Mansion House on the 27th of January 
1869. On that evening I came from the 
Lodge and passed from the Bar-room through 
the sitting-room at twenty minutes past 
eight in the evening, passed out into the 
hall, saw Dr. Schoeppe come running down 
the stairs. I waited at the foot of the stairs 
until he passed down. 
Cross-Examined;-I never took particular 
notice of his walking. I generally run down 
the stairs myself. 
C. L. Lochman, Sworn:-T boarded at the 
Mansion Honse at that time. I saw Miss 
Stennecke, in the morning at breakfast on 
the 27th of January '69. On the morning 
of the 28th I was called into her room about 
7 o'clock. I found her lying on her left side 
insensible. Her respiration was slow and 
laborious. The temperature of her body 
seemed natural, the skin rather moist. Her 
limbs were warm but her feet were cold. 
Her muscles seemed to be very much relaxed. 
The mouth was partially open, some accu- 6 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
mutation of saliva, and rather pendant from 
its flaccidity to the left, she was reclining 
very nearly entirely on the left side. Her 
eyes were closed, I made no Examination of 
them, the lids being closed. Her pulse see- 
med natural, a little excited. We looked for 
articles, bottles or parcels, out of which she 
might have taken medicine. We found a 
bottle of sulphuric ether partly filled, on a 
table near her bed, and a bottle of tooth- 
wash on the mantle piece, that had the smell 
of carbolic acid, which is generally used as 
a disinfectant, closely to creosote. Found 
also on the mantle a bottle of liquor. That 
is all we found. Carbolic acid has a strong 
odor. The bottle was opened, and was han- 
ded to me to see what it was. Some thought 
it had the smell of Laudanum. I told them 
what it was. 
John H. Rheem, Sworn : - At | past 8 
o'clock, A. M., on the 28th of January, I 
was sent for ; I went to her room, and found 
her in an insensible condition. I then went 
for Dr. Schoeppe; went to his office; he was 
not there; went to his boarding house on 
South Street; saw his father; told him to 
tell the doctor Miss Stennecke was sick ; 
heard him call the doctor. I then went back 
to Miss Stennecke's room. In a few moments 
Dr. Schoeppe came in, very much excited 
and almost out of breath. The doctor went 
up to the bed and made some examination, 
and said he must go for his stethescope. I 
gave directions then to have arrangements 
made to have Miss Stennecke bled. The 
doctor came back in a very short time. I 
don't know how long; made an examination 
of Miss Stennecke with his stethescope. He 
then said : "I am not take it on my consci- 
ence to bleed. I would like to have Dr. Her- 
man." I went for Dr. Herman and could 
not find him. I came back and asked Dr. 
Schoeppe if I had not better go for Dr. Zit- 
zer. He answered and said, "no, Dr. Her- 
man would be mad." I then went again to 
find Dr. Herman, but did not succeed. Came 
back into the room; .heard Dr. Schoeppe 
say, "Might she take something?" Saw 
him examine a tumbler, and say, "that, is 
nothing;" then examine a small phial, and 
say, "that is for her eyes-that has strych- 
nine in it." I then went again for Dr. Her- 
man, and this time succeeded in finding him- 
He came up to the room. He and Dr. 
Schoeppe consulted in German. I don't know 
what they said. I was there several times 
during the day. In the evening, about six 
o'clock, was sent, for, and found her dead ; 
Went for Miss Comfort, to lay her out, and 
for Mr. Ewing, the undertaker. Then went. 
around to Dr. Schoeppe's Office. He said she 
told him to get a lawyer to look at her pa- 
pers, if she would die. I then suggested to 
him to get Mr. Adair, as they were friends. 
He said, "no, Mr. Adair is out of townhe 
said he wanted Mr. Miller. We started out 
together to go to Mr. Miller's. On the way 
going I suggested to get Mr. Humrich. He 
insisted on Mr. Miller. We went to Mr. 
Miller's house, and made arrangements with 
him to meet us at 8 o'clock the next morning. 
I then went back to the hotel with Mr. 
Ewing, and found the corpse laid out. Mr. 
Ewing took charge of it. He went and got 
a towel and laid it jiver the face, and cove- 
red up the body. I locked the trunks put 
the keys in my pocket, locked the door, and 
gave the key to Mr. Burkholder. Went back 
the next morning to the hotel; met Mr. 
Burkholder coming out of her room, went 
down into the bar-room, and waited for Dr. 
Schoeppe. The Doctor came, and I said we 
had not much time. He and I went together 
to her room. I knelt on the floor and took 
out of her trunks all the papers 1 could 
find I handed them to Dr. Schoeppe, and he 
laid them on the table. Among the papers 
was a large envelope, marked "last Will and 
Testament of Maria M. Stennecke." About 
this time Mr. Miller came in. I gave him 
the will to read. While the will was being 
read, when Mr. Miller read the bequest to 
my mother, Dr. Schoeppe said "is that all 
she leaves you." I answered him and said, 
"she don't leave me anything, it is my mot- 
her she leaves it to." He then said, "that 
is too bad ! too bad!" After the will was 
read, 1 asked Mr. Miller, what to do with 
the papers He said, "take the Will with 
you to Baltimore. Seal the others up and 
put them in the Bank." Dr. Schoeppe put 
all the papers in a port-folio and we went 
out together, wrapped them up in a large 
sheet of paper, went t o his office (Schoeppe's) 
sealed them stamped them with his stamp 
and deposited them in the Carlisle Deposit 
Bank. Then went back to the hotel and 
made arrangements to take the corpse to 
Baltimore. The Dr. told me he was going 
along. He did go along to Baltimore, where 
we arrived in the evening, about six o'clock. 
He went to the hotel, and 1 went to the 
house where the corpse was taken. I went, 
then, to the Eutaw House, the same evening, 
and found Dr. Schoeppe there. Some time 
during the evening, I told him that the next 
morning, about 9 o'clock, I would go to del- 
iver the Will, key, &c., that I had, to the 
Executor. The next morning, about 9 o'clock 
I did go to the office of the Executor, and THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL 
7 
delivered up the papers, and at 1 o'clock 
Dr. Schoeppe and myself went to the funeral 
together. I told Dr. Schoeppe the Executors 
requested me to remain until 11 o'clock on 
Monday and go into the Orphans' Court 
room. I did not see Mr. Schoeppe until 
dinner time on Monday, about 2 o'clock. 
Then again in the evening at tea, and he 
tapped me on the shoulder, and said, "Did 
Mr. Eichelberger tell you anything ?" I 
answered him, "tell me what ?" He said, 
"did he not tell you that Miss Stennecke left 
another will ?" I said, "another will?" in 
answer to him. He said, "yes! you get so- 
mething ; I get her personal property; 
everybody gets something," (throwing up 
his hands). Miss Stennecke came to Carlisle 
thelast time about the 20th of November 
last, as near as I can tell. She had been 
here during the summer before. During the 
summer she met Dr. Schoeppe. The first 
time she was here she stopped with Mrs. 
Woods, my aunt, in Pomfret street. Dr. 
Schoeppe's office is a couple of doors from 
where she lived. He asked me once whet- 
her she was not wealthy. I told him she was 
very well off; I don't recollect anything more. 
Cross-Examined: - Was examined before 
Judge Graham. As near as I recollect, it 
was the same. Did not then state, "too bad ! 
too bad!" It was a few weeks after the oc- 
currence I was examined. I cannot be po- 
sitive as to all I'said. I do not recollect of 
having said anything more at that time. I 
stated in substance that Miss Stennecke de- 
sired to have her papers examined, to Mr. 
Miller. I did not do the talking. 
Dr. Charles M. Worthington, Sworn- 
I am and have been for some time a Druggist 
in this borough. Dr. Schoeppe, some days 
before the 19th of January last, bought of 
me a half ounce of diluted Prussic acid. A 
short time after that he came to me and told 
me it was not good, that he had given, 2, 5 
and 10 drops to a lady patient, and that it 
would produce no sleep. He then asked me 
it we would order him some from the city. 
I told him we could, if he must have it imme- 
diately, that we expected a salesman from 
the city in a few days, and would order it 
through him, if he could wait. He said he 
would wait. Some time during the winter 
he got muriate of Morphia from me, and also 
tincture of nux-vomica, and Fowler's, solu- 
tion. He got both this a number of times. 
I think it was a day or two after he got the 
Prussic acid that he told me it was not 
worth anything; before the 19th. Fowler's 
Solution is a preperation of arsenic and po- 
tassia-a poison-the muriate of Morphia is 
also a poison. He bought a great many me- 
dicines that were not poisonous, at the same 
time. 
Cross-Examined: - Dr. Schoeppe was a 
practicing physician. The poisons that I 
have mentioned are often sold as medicines, 
except Prussic acid, and that we sometimes 
sell as medicine ; not very often. I sold 
these articles to other physicians, except the 
muriate of morphia. I have sold morphine 
in other forms. It is very rarely used here, 
but is not more poisonous. Prussic acid is 
used as a medicine for nervous deseases. 
The preparation I sold him was not Scheel's 
it was called United States. From 3 to 5 
drops is what is used in commencing. The 
Sulphate of Morphia is mostly used here. 
Fowler's soluton is used in inermitteut 
fevers. They commence with from 1 to 5 
drops of Prussic acid. It is too uncertain 
a medicine to estimate. It is proper to give 
it until you notice its effects. Prussic acid 
has a bitter almond smell, something similar 
to the smell of pounded peach leaves. The 
odor is quite strong. I gave it to him in 
what I think had been a perfumery bottle 
with a ground glass stopper. I can't say 
whether it was labelled; I don't think I 
would give it out without one. He wanted 
the bottle I had it in, but I would'nt give it 
to him. My impressien is it was an ounce 
bottle about half full. I am not certain, 
however, it may have been a half ounce or 
a four ounce bottle. It was not the first acid I 
had taken out of that bottle. It was a white 
flint bottle ; we kept a blue wrapper around it, 
and kept it in the dark. I can't say how 
long I had it on hand before this. I have 
no more of that acid remaining. 
Dr. A. J. Herman.-(Affirmed.-) I am 
a practicing Physician in this place. I have 
been eng ged in the practice since 1839. On 
the morning about 11 o'clock, of the day 
she died on, I received orders to come to 
Burkholder's to see Miss Stennecke. I went 
to Burkholders and went up to her room, 
there I met Dr. Schoeppe, he told me he had 
a case of "half-palsy" and I think he said 
he wanted to kuow whether bleeding was 
called for in her case. She was lying there 
inclined to her left side. I was standing at 
the foot of her bed at the time this talk took 
place. I wanted to be satisfied, her lying 
on her left side, knowing she was a mushy 
woman, whether her face was crooked or 
not. I then told in Fngiish what a half- 
palsy was, that the face would have to be 
lopsided to have it. A lady present said she 
always had a crooked face. I then made no 
other explanation about the "hemi plegia." 8 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
I then went up to her bed-side, wanted to 
feel her pulse. I felt both arms and found 
no pulsation in either, then drew the eye- 
lids apart, to see if there was any difference 
in her eyes. 1 found them both alike, a 
contracted state of the pupils. That amoun- 
ted to about all I did. The Doctor told me 
he had applied warm applications to the feet. 
I told the Doctor then I thought she was 
past bleeding and there was no use to 
do any thing else that she was past 
taking remedies. I did not look upon it as 
hemi-plegia at all. I was puzzled to know 
what was wrong. I had never seen hemi- 
plegia in that condition before. The singu- 
lar expression was the matter that troubled 
me. When I opened the eyas it just put me 
in mind of a chicken hawk that was poisoned 
with a compound poison. That made me 
think she was rather over-dosed with medi- 
cine of the same kind. This hawk was so 
much relaxed with taking these drugs that 
the tongue would fall to either side the head 
was leaned to and the contracted pupil. Her 
physiognomy showed about the same appea- 
rance. The drugs administered to the hawk 
were opium pills and Prussic acid - opium 
pills or laudanum mixed with bread crumbs; 
and gave it corrosive sublimate too. The 
hawk lived two or three days. The symp- 
toms indicated no natural disease. 1 never 
saw a form of sickness like it before. I could 
not tell the cause of her death. It was a sin- 
gular form of sickness that I could not ac- 
count for at all. Morphine is the active 
principle of opium. Dunglison says that 
Prussic acid has a contractive effect upon the 
pupil of t he eye. Dunglison on Poisons cases. 
Cross-Examined:- The singularity of the 
case was, she laid there tn a weak, relaxed 
condition, as a person feels af*er taking a 
prostrating dose of Tartar-emetic. I think 
I have stated all the particulars I recollect 
of. I saw the eyes very plainly. They were 
contracted in the same condition as they 
would be if poisoned by an overdose of 
opium or morphia. In many cases of death, 
you often find the one eye dilated, the other 
contracted. I can t call to my memory at 
present. In all affections that come from the 
brain the, eye would be dilated. In apoplexy 
. 1 have invariably found the pupil dilated. 
I never saw a case in the human subject that 
I knew to be a case of Prussic acid. I don't 
pretend to say that Prussic acid has the 
same effect on hawks and other animals, that 
it has on the human system. All experiments 
are made on inferior animals. I don't know 
that, it is laid down in the books that experi- 
ments made on fowls are no criterion for the 
human system. I never saw Mitchell's work 
on experiments with opium on pigeons. 1 
never saw a hawk poisoned with a simple 
poison. One poison is frequently used as 
antidote to another poison in the human sys- 
tem-this is laid down in all the books. At- 
ropia is an antidote to Prussic acid. A good 
many years ago the experiment was made 
on the hawk-it was between 1837 and 1842. 
One drop of the prussic acid, a pinch of cor- 
rosive sublimat e-a couple of grains-and as 
much laudanum as would stay in a piece of 
bread was the mixture- doses of this were 
given at intervals" of three and four hours 
until the hawk died. If my memory serves 
me right atropia is the antidote to prussic 
acid. I will show the authority for this. Dr. 
Schoeppe, Mrs. Schindel, and Mrs. Parker, 
were in the room when I examined the eye 
-there was also another lady present. I 
don't remember any other lady, there may 
have been another. It was the lady I didn't 
know the name of who said she always had 
a crooked face. She spoke this out while 1 
was at the foot of the bed. I passed no opi- 
nion. I merely expressed in English what 
the doctor told me. If 1 said it was half- 
palsy they must have misunderstood me as 
to what 1 explained to them the doctor told 
me. I couldn't say what I didn't think. They 
were sitting in a row back of me. She might 
have stood back of me or at my side which 
I didn't notice. I did not reply to Mrs. Harn 
it is a stroke. I did not say, although it was 
so put down, that I was satisfied it was pro- 
duced by narcotics-not at least in that way 
-all I meant was it was not any one nar- 
cotic. I don't recollect that I said that. She 
was in articulo mortis and there was no use 
to apply remedies. I did not think nor did 
he that she would live till we went out and 
came back again. I have used Prussic acid 
I would have given her combined antidotes 
if I had given her anything. I would have 
given iron to turn it into Prussian blue. I 
would have used electricity to stir her up. 
But she was too old a subject and too far 
gone to use anything. Could have used sto- 
mach pump but it would ha ve killed her, she 
was so far gone, he thought so too, we coin- 
cided. He told me he had done all that 
could be done. I noticed no peculiar odor. 
In-Chief-.-The eyeball had a kind of 
conical appearance-more elongated-that 
was the singular appearance of the eye. 
After we left the house, the doctor and I, 
we walked out towards my house. I told 
him that folks told me before I came to the 
house, that she had too much morphia, and 
was dying in consequence of it. He told THIS SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
9 
me he had not given her any, if she had 
any she must have got it somewhere else. 
It seemed to effect him very much when I 
told him that. He seemed to be kind of 
scared, and said if she had taken any mor- 
phia it might be found in her. I said I 
guess not, that I thought it would be all 
lost in the system before it could be found. 
Yes says he by Post-mortem examination 
there have already been found as high as 
three grains in the brain. He seemed to 
be scared and I pitied him really, and said 
it was given for her benefit. These Post- 
mortem examinations I said would be left to 
Physicians and they wouldn't be over 
anxious to make the examination too soon 
and the contents would be left lie around 
until they would be accidently lost. That 
no person who had corns was apt to tread 
on other fellows' corns, That any accident 
that way would be overlooked, and I thought 
it consoled him very much, that it met with 
his approbation. At the time that he heard 
they were making a Post-mortem examina- 
tion in Baltimore, he met me in front of the 
Court House, then spoke about this exam- 
ination- the Post-mortem-asked me whether 
I had a work on medical jurisprudence, I 
told him that I had, but there were a lot of 
books taken from my office, and I couldn't 
lay my hands on them at present. I told 
him Shearer's office was handy, he *could 
get one from him. We went in and got one. 
1 then left Mr. Shearer's office, and he had 
the book. The Doctor said if they don't 
find anything in the subject what can they 
do ? 
A. B. Ewing, sworn-I had a conversation 
with Dr. Schoeppe the Sunday a week after 
Miss Stennecke's death; in front of the 
door of Mrs. Colwell, up Main Street, is 
where he met me and said he wanted to see 
me. 
He asked me if I had heard anything 
more of the gossip of the town. I said I 
had. He asked me what I had heard, and 
I told him to save trouble he had better go 
to Baltimore and have the body raised at 
his'own expense, He said that would cost 
one hundred dollars, and he hadn't the 
money. I told him he had better borrow 
the money, that if he did not go to Balti- 
more and have that body raised it would be 
raised next Tuesday. He said he had not 
the money and there was no use for him to 
go, because the medicine she had taken 
would have evaporated before this time 
These are the words he used as near as I 
can tell. I told him in justice to the com- 
munity in which he lived he had better go. 
He said he had no money and could not go. 
There we parted. 
Cross-Examined'.-The medicine she had 
taken would have evaporated before this 
time, are the words he used. Did not 
speak of the kind of medicines taken by 
her. He did not say he had given her any 
medicines. 
J. P Hassler, sworn-Check dated 27th 
of January, 1869, offered, and identified as 
having been drawn by witness on morning 
of January 27th, 1869, for Miss Stennecke, 
at her request, in the Carlisle Deposit Bank. 
She signed the check at the counter, and I 
paid her the money. So far as I can re- 
member, it was in the forepart of the day, 
after the opening of the Bank. We open 
the Bank at 9 o'clock in the morning. 1 
am, and was at that time Cashier of the 
Carlisle Deposit Bank. 
Dr. J. S. Conrad, (of Baltimore,) sworn-L 
I am the Resident Physician of the Baltimore 
Infirmary; have been for a little more than 
a yearf Have been engaged in the practice 
of medicine since 1862. We treat about 
two hundred new cases per month. I per- 
formed the Post-mortem examination in the 
case of Miss Stennecke. The appearance 
of the face was discolored, most nearly 
resembling a saffron color. The shoulders 
were rather livid. The other parts of the 
body had a few greenish spots, or discolor- 
ations upon them ; the finger nails were of 
a livid color; the hair obscured the scalp 
so that its color could not well be seen. 
The jaws were nearly closed, the teeth 
quite approximating, the number absent 
not being observed. An incision was made 
across the scalp, extending from ear to ear> 
down upon the bone. This incision bled 
freely a dark fluid blood. The scalp then 
was drawn forward and backward from the 
line of incision, and secured in their 
places to permit of the removal of the 
superior portion of the skull itself by a 
saw. This was removed from some attach- 
ments with difficulty, from some portions 
easily. This portion of the skull was 
removed whole, by a kind of chisel for the 
purpose. The dura-mater was removed 
with that portion of the bone. The mem- 
branes of the brain were then cut to permit 
its removal. The vessels of the pia-mater 
which cross the brain immediately were 
gorged with blood, but were not distended, 
were not turgid, were flaccid. The blood 
was dark and fluid. The brain was then 
removed by cutting the membranes which 
held it, together with the cerebellum. The 
brain itself was not disturbed in the re-< 10 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
moval. But the fourth ventricle was torn 
through by its softening before the cord 
was cut which attached it to the spinal 
column. The hemispheres of the brain 
were removed by parallel incisions, as far 
as the corpus callosum; this corpus callosum 
was cut through by an anterior-posterior 
incision, and This exposing the 
lateral ventricles, these contained fluid, but 
no appearance of blood or clots. The brain 
was then incised perpendicularly, that is, 
I cut down from the plate on which it 
rested. The corpus striatum was previously 
cut. Again the brain was cut perpendicu- 
larly, throughout almost its entire extent. 
The chest was next examined by a longi- 
tudinal incision, extending from the neck 
nearly to the umbellicus, and a similar 
incision along the line of t he clavicle, inter- 
secting the longitudinal one. The soft 
parts were dissected back. These incisions 
scarcely bled at all. The chest was then 
opened by cutting through the cartileges of 
the breast-bone. The pericardiuih was 
next opened, exposing the heart. The per- 
icardium did not contain more than its 
normal amount of fluid, and appeared 
healthy. The heart was then removed; 
the parts of the aorta. An incision was 
made in the heart-before incision into the 
inferior portion, the blood in the heart was 
fluid ; an incision was made into the heart 
at the apex of the left ventricle, and water 
was poured into the aorta from a phial as a 
test for the healthy condition of the valves, 
which proved to be healthy, and did not 
prevent the water passing through. The 
ventricle itself was then laid open, which 
permitted me to examine the valves by the 
touch, for the presence of any calcification 
or nodes upon it, none of which were 
present. The right ventricle was simply 
laid open and examined, and was healthy. 
The lungs was next extracted. There were 
no pleural adhesions. Sections of the lungs 
were thrown into a bucket of water, and 
floated, showing no consolidation. A small 
fragment of calcification was found, about 
the size of a pea. The abdomen was next 
opened by a longitudinal incision its entire 
length, and its contents examined by in- 
spection, first before any incisions were 
made into its viscera; the intestines were 
distended by air, and were rather pale- 
they appeared healthy on sight. There 
was not as much odor from the body as 
might have been expected at that date, al- 
though there was considerable. The stomach 
was next removed by two ligatures first pas- 
sed around its two openings and secured. It 
was removed by careful dissection to avoid 
any incision into it, and none was made, as 
it presented the same distention as it did 
when the abdomen was first opened. It was 
placed in a tin bucket, brought for the pur- 
pose by Prof. Aiken. The liver was next 
examined by its external appearance alone. 
This appeared healthy-not enlarged or un- 
naturally small. The spleen was examined 
in the same way, with the same result. The 
section of intestines (the ilium,) about 18 in- 
ches in length, was removed by two ligatures 
at each end of this lenght, secured before 
the removal of that section. It also preser- 
ved its distention by air, which proved that 
it had not been cut before being removed. 
It was placed in a glass jar provided for the 
purpose by Prof. Aiken. Another section 
of the same intestine was removed in the 
same manner. This section was removed 
lower down, near its junction with the colon. 
This was disposed of in the same manner as 
the previous one. All of these parts were 
taken possession of by Prof. Aiken, and car- 
ried in a basket, provided for the purpose, 
to the Baltimore Infirmary, and on a clean 
plate the stomach, and I think also the intes- 
tine, was laid open (not positive which, sto- 
mach or intestine.) There were no unnatu- 
ral oders discovered. This closed the exa- 
mination. Dr. Ridgely assisted in making 
the examination 
Cross Examined:-Discovered no unusual 
odor while making examination. - Did not 
discover anything like odors of bitter al- 
mond or peach leaves. Was a large amount 
of blood in the cranium, cannot say how it 
came. Could not have been by hemorrhage 
because there was no clot, examined minut- 
ely and if there was hemorrhages did not 
detect it. I could have told whether blood 
was effused between or upon the membrane, 
in the vertricles or ih the substance of the 
brain, preceding death. Made an examina- 
tion with that view-Examined by observa- 
tion. If there had been a clot it would not 
have stuck there. I saw it as clearly as my 
hand.-I found dark, fluid blood post mor- 
tem, no clot ante-mortem. I did not discover 
any evidence of ante mortem blood. There 
was no effusion between the dura-mater and 
the skull. No effusion between the pia-ma- 
ter and the brain. If the patient had died 
of appoplexy there might have been an effu- 
sion. Found no blood coagulium in the 
substance of the brain. Did not examine for 
special hemorrhage. No ante-mortem small 
blood spots found in the brain. Did not look 
for cavities in the brain, my incisons would 
have revealed them. Hsematin would have THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
11 
been left which is positive evidence of ap- 
poplexy. Ante-mortem blood, if effused 
would have been clotted and if absorbed 
would have remained in the shape of disco- 
loration. Made no examination of the kid- 
neys. Deemed it unnecessary. As I cut 
through smaller vessels of the brain oozed 
dark fluid blood at small points. 
To the question "in what order are the 
organs of the brain affected by appoplexy," 
witness answers as follows: 
1, Corpus striatum, thalamus, and hemisu- 
here above them ; 2, corpus striatum alone ; 
3, hemisphere obove the centrum ovale ; 4, 
thalamus alone ; 5, lateral lobes of crebel- 
lum ; 6, mesocephalon ; 7, posterior lobe of 
cerebum; 8, before the corpus striatum ; 9, 
pons Varolii. 10, middle lobe of cerebel- 
lum; 11, meninges; 12, peduncles and oliv- 
ary body. 
Dr. A. J. Herman, (recalled to finish 
Cross Examination): - I met the folks who 
told me, I think Mr. Burkholder one and 
Mrs. Parker another and several others as 
I passed through the entry. I don't remem- 
ber who the others were. I didn't tell 
Schoeppe she had taken morphia. I thought 
he knew thal himself. 1 thought she had 
been taking it. If it uttered my lips that 
she didn't take morphia, I didn't mean it. 
I don't believe I did say from the appearance 
of her eyes she had not taken morphia. If 
I did say it, I said it unthinkingly. I was 
not asked any portion of my conversation 
with Dr. Schoeppe. I don't think I detailed 
any of it in my former examination. I un- 
derstood him medical juris prudence. I 
didn't give any thing definite. I don't think 
I could have said that. My feeling towards 
Dr. Schoeppe have not been at all of a bad 
kind. I have no feeling against him at all. 
I have said nothing to any one meaningly 
against him. If any one said anything 
against him, I may have assented, but not 
with the intention of injuring him. 
Re-in Chief:-The appearance of her eye 
indicated hydrocyanic acid, according to 
Dunglison, I found the books the gentlemen 
asked for and find them just as I stated. 
Dr. Nicholas G. Ridgely, (Sworn):- 
I am a practicing physician in tne city of 
Baltimore. I assisted in the Post' mortem Ex- 
amination of the body of Miss Stennecke. I 
knew her very well in life. It was her body 
upon which the Postmortem examination was 
performed. I acted merely as an assistant. 
And the only evidence that I can give is that 
I found no organic pathelogical lessions of 
any kind. No cause for any disease. 
Cross Examined:-There were slight in- 
gorgements of the pia-mater, not of the brain 
itself. Made examination for hemorrhages 
of the spine. Merely a cursory examination 
of the kidneys, but not a thorough one. The 
whole brain was examined. It was divided 
in the middle and cut into small pieces so 
that we could see every part. A part of the 
brain was softened but I cannot say what 
part. I can't say there was any effusion of 
blood in the brain. No appreciable cerum. 
I discovered no cause of death of any kind. 
I am a distant relative of Miss Stennecke. 
She was not in a habit of complaining as 
I remember. I don't remember my first 
examination. She was in the habit of 
what I considered grunting, not what I 
consider complaining. I did not discover 
any unusual odor, such as bitter almonds, 
&c.. in the examination. Grunting as I 
understand it is complaining without a 
cause. Complaining is with a cause. 
Re-in-Chief:-This examination was held 
on Ash-Wednesday in February, 10 or 11 
days after her burial, I think. She wasbu- 
riee on Saturday. At that time I didn't 
think there was anything the matter with 
her, and the Doctor agreed with me. 
Dr. William P. A. Aiken, (Sworn')My 
occupation is that of an analytical and con- 
sulting chemist. I have been a teacher of 
chejnistry for 38 or 39 years ; since 1837, 1 
have been Professor of Chemistry and Phar- 
macy in the University of Maryland. I was 
requested by Mr. Stewart to have the exa- 
mination of the body of Maria M. Stennecke 
made. Selected Dr. Conrad to make the post 
mortem examination. Was present at the 
disinterment and at the subsequent exami- 
nation. I was present at the examination. 
I requested Dr. Conrad to remove the parts 
which I was subsequently to examine. We 
applied ligatures to each orifice of the sto- 
mach and removed it unopened entirely. I 
placed that in a clean vessel provided for 
the purpose. He then applied ligatures to 
two different points of the intestine and re- 
moved the piece between the ligatures, un- 
opened. That wras placed in a seperate 
vessel When the Dr. had finished his dis- 
sections we returned to the city. On the 
way to my Laboratory I st opped at the Infir- 
mary. The was there. I took the ves- 
sels to his room. Secured some clean plates, 
took the stomach and intestine on plates and 
requested the Dr. to lay them open. We 
found both empty, nothing but a little film of 
adhesive mucus secretion on the inside, it 
was a little moist. I then took them to my 
Laboratory for Chemical examination. The 12 
THE 8CHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
parts appeared to be sound and healthy. No 
indication of disease, no evidence of inflam- 
matory action of any kind. The absence of 
any acrid poison is a point of importance in 
my mind-no irritation. I took the material 
before me, the coats of the stomach, the in- 
testine-there being no appreciable differ- 
ence between them. I cut both in small pie- 
ces and mingled them together. The ming- 
led mass I divided into 2 parts. I used the 
first for ascertaining whether there was any 
hydrocyanic acid, and as the result of that 
examination satisfied myself that there were 
traces of Prussic acid. 
Cross Examined:-I found Prussic acid just 
as one finds anything. I found nothing more 
than a perceptible trace, a trace distinct but 
slight. 
My first work was to introduce the pieces 
1 had to examine-about | of the whole mass 
into a glass vessel called a retort for the 
purposes of distillation. - I then added a 
proper quantity of water and a small 
quantity of sulphuric acid. 1 then 
applied heat. I had previously prepared a 
condensing apparatus so that any steam 
should be condensed in my apparatus in the 
shape of liquid. After I had collected some 
few ounces of that liquid representing I sup- 
pose about | of the bulk of the contents of 
the contents of the retort. I then knew I 
must have in the distillate any Prussic acid 
if any had been present. I then proceeded 
to examine that liquid to ascertain whether 
it contained any Prussic acid.' There are 
two modes of enquiry-to examine for the 
liquid and to examine for the vapor of Prus- 
sic acid. Either I would consider reliable 
-the vapor process the most reliable of the 
two. Taking both together I cannot con- 
.ceive the possibiliiy of a doubt existing. The 
liquid test was with solution of Potash and 
a solution of sulphate of Iron (green vitriol) 
and afterwards a few drops of muriatic acid. 
Those materials added to anything contain- 
ing Prussic acid will give inevitable Prussian 
blue as a product. If t he liquid examined 
is limpid and colorless as in this case then a 
very slight shade of color will become per- 
ceptible. If the liquid you are examining is 
itself colored that may be confounded with 
any color you produce and is therefore un- 
reliable-in this case the liquid was color- 
less. The color I obtained was what 1 thought 
ought to be produced by Prussic acid-blue 
-such as to satisfy me of the presence of 
Prussic acid. That color is what I designa- 
ted as a faint trace. It was a blue color, a 
faint trace of blue, not of red, or any other 
.color, but unequivocally blue, very little co- 
loring matter. No great depth of color for 
the want of sufficient quantity of coloring 
matter. The moment I distinguished the 
color I set it aside.-All I did was to satisfy 
myself that a blue color resulted and that 
satisfied me that Prussic acid was there. 
Another portion of the same liquid for the 
purpose of satisfying myself whether I could 
detect Prussic acid in vapor. Fob that pur- 
pose I placed a portion of this distillate in 
an evaporating dish. I placed over it an- 
other evaporating dish as a cover. This dish 
of course was upside down. On the inside 
of the cover I placed a few drops of a sul- 
phur compound, (sulphide of ammonium, 
hydro sulphate of ammonia). Its value there 
was because it contained sulphur and ammo- 
nia in the condition I desired. 1 then applied 
heat to the vessel which contained the distil- 
late. 1 w'as thus certain to convert into va- 
por any Prussic acid wdiich might be present. 
That vapor, if it were formed would neces- 
sarily come in contact with' the sulphur 
compound which I had placed inside of the 
upper vessel or cover. As the necessary re- 
sult of such a contact there wmuld be a cer- 
tain chemical change produced, and that re- 
sult would be the production of a compound 
called sulpho-cyanide of ammonium. My 
next business was to determine whether any 
sulpho-cyanide of ammonium had been found. 
I removed the cover, added a few drops of 
distilled water to dissolve any new compound 
which might have been made by the action 
of the Prussic acid vapor on the sulphur 
compound in the evaporating dish. The so- 
lution which 1 got by the action of the dis- 
tilled water on the sulphide of ammonium 
which I placed in the uppSi' dish; that so- 
lution must contain sulpho cyanide of am- 
monium if any Prussic acid had been con- 
tained in the lower vessel. To determine 
that point I added the iron solution and ob- 
tained a red color ; a few drops of the iron 
-(sesqui-chloride of iron). The result of 
that addition was the production of a red co- 
lor-a faint red color-all these colors were 
faint. That red color again confirmed the 
conclusion from the production of the blue 
color. The red must have been produced 
as a consequence of the Prussic acid in the 
liquid to which I applied the heat. The 
other portion 1 used for the purpose of exa- 
mining for the vegetable alkalis and mineral 
poisons. The results were negative. I 
found no traces, no other traces. I looked 
for all the mineral poisons such as prepar- 
ations of arsenic, lead, mercury, antimony, 
and vegetable poisons. I more particulary 
looked for morphia and strychnia, and would THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
13 
have found any others were they present. 
I didn't find any vegetable alkalis or mineral 
poisons. I never before examined a subject 
in a criminal case for the presence of Prus- 
sic acid, never for the presence of Prussic 
acid in a human stomach. 
In Chief:-I observed no odor until I ob- 
tained the distillate. The distillate had a 
faint odor that reminded me of Prussic acid, 
but too faint to be of any importance by it- 
self, only important in connection with the 
two colored tests, the blue and red colors. 
It reminded me of bruised peach leaves. It 
is my duty as Professor of Chemistry to ex- 
plain to the medical class the best methods 
of detecting all known poisons. That expla- 
nation comes every year to each medical 
class. I have actual experiments, and tests. 
I have made these tests for discovering the 
presence of Prussic acid regularly since 
1837. Prussic acid is very volatile in its 
nature, the proper term is unstable. My po- 
sition as a chemist enables me to tell the 
propeiiies of different poisons and the quan- 
tity of each it takes to destroy human life. 
From what is known of the nature of 
Prussic acid, its unstable character, the pres- 
ence of Prussic acid in the liquid, I exami- 
ned makes is perfectly certain to my mind, 
as a matter of opinion, that a much larger 
quantity must have been present in that sto- 
mach 10 or 12 days before. What I found 
was the mere residue of the original amount. 
As to the actual quantity by weight or mea- 
sure, present at any time, either at the time 
I examined or any period before there are 
no data for determining. My position as a 
chemist requires me to become aquainted 
with the action of all the poisons on the hu- 
man body. Morphia is a very active veget- 
able alkali. A valuable medicine in small 
doses and poisonous in large doses. The 
length of time at which it would be found 
after death would depend upon the quantity 
in the body at the time of death. When pre- 
sent in very small quantities at the time of 
examination it is somewhat difficult to detect. 
As a general rule the vegetable poisons are 
less permanent than mineral poisons. If 
present in the dead body would disappear 
sooner. As to the time a sufficient quantity 
of morphia to kill would disappear after 
death, I can only give an opinion, I have no 
personal knowledge-the opinion is neces 
sarily a vague one. 
Prof. Aiken on Stand:-The offer made by 
Commonwealth on last evening to give opin- 
ion of witness in reference to effect of Mor- 
phia, overruled. 
By Commonwealth :- Can you state how 
short a period after death, caused by mor- 
phia, the presence of it has failed to be dis- 
covered. Objected to by Defence. On the 
ground that he is not a Physician but a mere 
chemist and that he has already stated that 
his opinion in reference to effects of morphia 
are vague. 
Prof. Aiken-I am a physician. I form- 
erly practiced medicine, but do not practice 
now. 
By Com.-Are there any other than the 
tests applied by you to detect Prussic acid ? 
There is a test for Prussic acid called Ni- 
trate of Silver test. I consider it valuable 
to detect Prussic acid in the, state of vapor. 
I think it objectionable because the result it. 
produces is a white Cyanide of Silver and 
therefore may be confounded with the white 
Chloride of Silver, which would be produced 
if there was Muriatic acid present. The 
white Cyanide of Silver and the white Chlo- 
ride of Silver when present in small quanti- 
ties cannot be distinguished by the eye. 
They can be distinguished by chemical tests. 
If the Cyanide of Silver is in sufficient quant- 
ity, it can be collected and dried, introduced 
into a glass tube and heated. It will give 
off Cyanogen gas, which isrrecognized by its 
being combustible and by its peculiar rose- 
colored flame. If the Cyanide of Silver is in 
sufficient quantity it may be treatedf with 
muriatic acid, when it will give off Prtissic 
acid. Then the only mode of verifying thaV 
would be to use the Sulphur test or the Iron* 
test. The white Cloride of Silver could give 
you no such results as those obtained from 
the Cyanide of Silver. The use of Nitrate 
of Silver can only produce a Cyanide which 
must afterwards be verified by the Sulphur 
and the Iron tests. For very minute quant- 
ities of Prussic acid the Nitrate of Silver 
test is objectionable and unsatisfactory be- 
cause one may not get enough Cyanide of 
Silver, to be able to distinguish readily be- 
tween the Cyanide and Chloride? The appa- 
rent production of Cyanide of Silver in the 
use of that test, the Nitrate of Silver test, 
can furnish no conclusive proof until by sub- 
sequent chemical examination the apparent 
Cyanide is proved to be a real Cyanide. 
Therefore when I have to examine for very 
minute quantities of Prussic acid, I rely 
upon the Iron test and the Sulphur test. 
The Sulphur test has the recommendation 
that it is infallible in detecting the vapor of 
Prussic acid. The product of the Sulphur 
test gives a red color, with a Sesqui Salt of 
Iron-which produced under those circum- 
stances cannot be confounded with any other 
known red compound of Iron. The Sulphur 14 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
and the Iron test will therefore give results 
apparent to the eye when dealing with quan- 
tities of matter too small to be manageable 
in the ordinary way. I may sum up them 
by saying, that instead of using Nitrate of 
Silver to show the presence of Prussic acid 
by producing a compound from which I af- 
terwards would be obliged to seperate that 
Prussic acid before I could be sure of its 
presence, I preferred the more direct mode 
of proceeding to procure from any Prussic 
acid present certain colored products recog- 
nizable by their color and not to be mistaken 
for any thing else if the ordinary precautions 
were observed. The only uncertainty will 
arise from a doubt as to the color. The depth 
of color, the intensity of color will depend 
on the quantity of coloring matter or colored 
particles present, and, therefore, the depth 
of the color will bear a very close relation to 
the quantity of Prussia acid found in the 
substance, a faint blue color is as equally 
conclusive as a deep blue in the one case, 
and a faint red is as equally conclusive as a 
deep redin the other. The only difference 
is that with the faint color there has been 
less, and with the deep color more Prussic 
acid present. In the use of the Sulphur and 
the Iron tests the only essential in the pro- 
ducts is that the color shall be sufficient to 
be distinct. If the one is blue and the other 
red I would consider the conclusion irrisis- 
tible. These constitute my reasons for using 
these two tests and for not using the Nitrate 
of Silver. From what I saw of the post mor- 
tem examination standing by there was no- 
thing apparent in the condition of the organs 
to account for her death (The last answer 
was objected to on the ground that the wit- 
ness had stated he was not a medical expert./ 
Re-V/ross Examined; - I am unable to say' 
from having read Taylor very lately what 
tests he has laid down to discover Prussic 
acid. I presume you will find there the iron, 
sulphur and nitrate tests. He is considerd 
good authority. I did not give any reasons 
in Baltimore why I did not use the silver 
test. I did not think I had a sufficient 
quantity of material to use all three tests. I 
had the whole stomach and piece of int estine 
both empty. The results which I obtained 
were so conclusive by the first two tests that 
1 did not use the silver test. This was one 
reason ; the other was, I was satisfied that 
the quantity of Prussic acid present was so 
small that it would not yield enough Cyanide 
of Silver to enable me to identify it. I used 
all the stomach and intestine in all my expe- 
riments. 1 commenced my experiments the 
day I procured the stomach. As well as I 
now recollect, the Prussic acid investigation 
was finished the next day: it might have 
been the subsequent one. I kept the material 
during that time in my laboratory. My la- 
boratory is in the Medical College building, 
Green street, Baltimore. I reside on Hamil- 
ton street, between | and £ a mile from the 
College. 'I he Janitor alone can enter my la- 
boratory in my absence. So far as I know 
Students are never admitted in my absence. 
The Janitor's orders are to admit no one in 
my absence. This examination was made 
in the session room but not in the presence 
of the students laboratory and lecture room 
are one and the same; I have a side room in 
which I place anything I wish to preserve. 
Students are never in the room when I go 
there. I always go there first, by several 
hours ; I cannot sit in the side room ; there 
is no fire there. I use it simply as a deposi- 
tory ; I performed the iron test first, It is 
difficult to say how long I was at it. All the 
work that went before was a necessary prep- 
aration for it I might have said that tihis test 
was inconclusive ; that I would not have 
relied on that alone. I commenced the test 
when I commenced to cut up the stomach. 
Whether it was 36 or 56 hours I cannot say ; 
whether the day after or the day subsequent 
I cannot say. My impression is I finished 
the next day. I commenced preparing for 
both tests at the same time. The distillate 
was prepared for both tests. I passed from 
the iron to the sulphur test. I completed 
both tests together ; I used the balance of 
the week in the other tests, waiting for the 
different processes to go on ; not actively en- 
gaged all the time. These tests were for 
vegetable and mineral substances. C Do not 
find in using tests what is not looked for ; as 
a general rule find only the specific substance 
sought The small quantity I found re- 
maining so'tong was to me physical proof. 1 
did not propose that question*; Tam sure 1 
never could have been guilty of using lang- 
uage so vague as that, Titer e was nothing 
in my experiment to show when the material 
I found had been put there. 
Ques. Was there anything by which you 
could determine that there ever had been 
more than what you found ? 
Ans. There was no physical proof that 
any more had been present. There was 
nothing in itself to show the quantity that 
had been put there at a former time. The 
trace, I said in Baltimore, might indicate a 
larger but unknown quantity. Have no 
particular recollection of using the word 
"uncertain." I said I deduced my con- 
clusions from known facts, which may or THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
15 
may not be correct. I am not infallible. 
Have not seen the depositions since I came 
here. If the quautity I found there had 
been placed there the day or the hour before, 
my conclusions would then not be infallible, 
if otherwise they would be positive. I had 
no data by which I could estimate the 
quantity in weight or measure that had 
been placed there; or that might have ex- 
isted at a prior period. The quantity is 
determined by grains weighed or drops 
measured. It is "unknown" what quantity 
existed in the stomach at a former time. 
Prussic acid disappears most rapidly in 
contact with decaying animal matter, during 
life by absorption. Prussic Acid is water 
containing a certain definite amount of 
hydrocyanic or prussic acid gas in solution. 
I have no personal knowledge as to how 
long morphia has been found after death. 
I am uncertain as to what the books state ; 
I have not a sufficient recollection of what 
the books state; I have not a sufficient re- 
collection of what they state as to the time 
it may be found after death. I have only a 
vague recollection of the longest time they 
state. It is difficult to institute a compari- 
son between the stability of hydrocyanic 
acid and morphia; morphia is much more 
permanent than Prussic acid if both are in 
phials. 
I received a note from Mr. Stewart, of 
Baltimore, requesting me to undertake the 
analyzation. I felt incompetent to make 
the post-mortem examination, and called 
upon Dr. Conrad, requesting him to do the 
work. I -expected a professional fee for 
professional services; it was not a conting- 
ent fee. I received the fee I always charge 
for examining the stomach of a dead per- 
son, $250; I received it from Mr. Stewart; 
or I should say out of the estate, I received 
it from Mr. Stewart's hands. I think I 
heard of those two substances, Prussic acid 
and morphia ; nobody asked me specially to 
look for them; had no conversation with 
anybody. My attention was directed by 
myself to those two substances. I dot not 
know whether I got the impression that 
those two substances might be found from 
reading the papers, or from conversation 
The understanding was that I was to search 
for anything and everything. Mr. Stewart 
wrote me a note; I made the examination by 
myself. 
In Chief".-In the human body morphia 
would be adsorbed much more rapidly than 
hydrocyanic acid, during life. When I have 
work of this kind going on, I have a private 
lock which the Janitor cannot open. I use 
that so that no one can have access to any 
subject matter I have in course of experiment. 
Cross-Examined-I have no evidence, save 
what the books say that morphia would be 
absorbed more rapidly in a living body than 
hydrocyanic acid. I presume you would 
find it in Taylor. I cannot tell from what 
particular book I got my knowledge 
Dr. J. S. Conrad, recalled-I have per- 
formed a great many post-mortem examina- 
tions ; do not know how many ; performed 
them for 3 years, during the war frequently, 
and since the war almost daily for two 
months at the Alms House, and performed 
them during the last ten months preceding 
this examination. I perform them weekly 
at the Infirmary; I have performed a 
hundred during my life ; I found no lesions 
of any kind indicating any form of disease 
of which she could have died. 
Cross-Examined-Never made any exam- 
ination of any subject supposed to have 
died from Prussic acid. Never examined a 
body before that had been buried ten days. 
The majority of my examinations were 
made from 24 to 48 hours, perhaps three 
days after death. I did not examine the 
kidneys, I thought it was not necessary. 
Dr. S. B. Kieffer, affirmed-am a prac- 
ticing physician; have been for 19 years; 
I have heard the testimony of witnesses in 
the case, of Dr. Herman, Dr. Conrad and 
other witnesses. (Subsequent questions 
objected to and ruled out. 
Lewis A. Smith, recalled-Am acquainted 
with the signature of Dr. Schoeppe; I have 
seen the Doctor writing his name ; (paper 
shown to witness.) From my knowledge of 
his handwriting I believe this to be his 
signature. (Check shown to witness.) This 
check was presented on the morning of the 
29th of January, about 10 o'clock by Dr. 
Schoeppe. He laid the check on the 
counter near my desk. I took it and looked 
at the Doctor, I said Doctor I don't think 
Miss Stennecke signed this check, or I may 
have said, did she sign this check ? He 
looked rather confused at the time, and re- 
marked, surely she signed it just before 
her death! I paid the money, $50. I am 
familiar with Miss Stennecke's signature. I 
have seen her write her name quite often ; 
I do not consider this Miss Stennecke's 
signature. 
Cross-Examined- Paid the money and 
charged to Miss Stennecke's account ; It 
remains charged there ; I remember it was 
the morning Miss Stennecke's' body was 
taken to Baltimore and the Doctor was 
going with it. 16 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
John H. Kelso, Jr., sworn-I knew Miss 
Stenpeck<vfor twenty years ; was acquaint- 
ed with her handwriting; I have never seen 
her sign her name in that manner, so large 
and so heavy ; I shouid believe it is not her 
signature. 
C ross-Examined-most of the signatures I 
have seen the wjiole could be written in the 
space occupied by her last name. No. 1. 1 
cannot say whether it is her signature or 
not. No. 2, I believe it to be her hand- 
writing. No. 3, resembles it somewhat. I 
cannot say. No. 4, resembles her hand- 
writing very much. No. 5, witness doubts 
very much. No. 6, would not express an 
opinion. I am interested in her estate in 
no way except as an executor. Mr. Stewart 
and I are her executors. 
William A. Stewart, Esq., sworn-I 
knew Miss Stennecke very well in her life- 
time ; was her attorney for a few years 
before her death. I have seen her write fre- 
quently ; have corresponded with her while 
she was in Carlisle, (Check marked J. H. 
G., No. 5, handed witness.) It is not Miss | 
Stennecke's signature in my opinion. This 
paper endorsed the Last Will and Testa- 
ment of Maria M. Stennecke, marked, ex- 
hibited, proved and filed the first day of 
February, A. D., 1869," recorded same day. 
February 1st, 1869, John H. Rheem, of Car- 
lisle, swears this Will was found in Miss 
Stennecke's trunk, and knows of no other 
Will. These two letters handed me were 
not handed me by Mr. Rheem, but were ob- 
tained by me in conjunction with Mr. New- 
sham, at the Carlisle Deposit Bank, on 5th 
of February, 1868. Letters spoken of by 
witness, marked J. H. G., Nos. 6 and 7. 
Cross-Examined-No. 2, witness says he 
believes to be Miss Stennecke's writing; 
No. 4 is somewhat like her writing ; I would 
not be positive. No. 5 I do not think is her 
writing. No. 6 resembles it, but I do not 
think it is hers. No. 1 I do not think hers, 
although is bears a striking resemblance. 
No. 3. I think is hers. I believe the body 
pf No. 7 to be in Miss Stennecke's hand 
writing. It was found in the same port- 
folio which I obtained from the Carlisle 
Deposit Bank, with Mr. Newsham. This 
paper is dated January 14th, 1869. 
W. R. Bullock, sworn-I am a clerk in 
the Register of Wills' Office, in the city of 
Baltimore. The paper in my hand was 
produced in Court, and has been on file 
there: I don't know' who produced it. 
Paper dated 1869, endorsed Maria M. 
Stennecke's Last Will and Testament, iden- 
titled by witness; Filed 1st February, 1869, 
never has been proven. The paper was 
filed in the Register of Wills' Office in Bal- 
timore city. I am' clerk, and, in the 
absence of the Register, am his deputy. 
Wm. A. Stewart, recalled-Paper spoken 
of by last witness shown Mr. Stewart. 
Shown to me after the Will which had been 
read to me had been approved by the 
Orphans'Court; I went into the Orphans' 
Court upon a notice served upon me by the 
Bailiff of that Court, and met Mr. Webster 
and Dr. Schoeppe there, on the 1st of Feb- 
ruary, about 12 o'clock; Judge Daniels told 
me a new Will was introduced by Mr. 
Webster and Dr. Schoeppe. I read it in the 
presence of those gentlemen, and then re- 
turned it to the Orphan's Court. I turned 
around to Dr. Schoeppe, and remarked to 
him and the Court that it was a very 
singular Will. The value of Miss Sten- 
necke's property, I think, was in the 
neighborhood of $45,000 
Paper purporting to be the Last Will and 
Testament of Maria M. Stennecke, dated 
3d of December, 1868, to be followed by 
proof that it is a forgery, offered in evi- 
dence. Paper read to jury, of which the 
following is a copy: 
I, Maria M. Stennecke, of the city of 
Balt imore, State of Maryland, being of sound 
mind, memory and understanding, do make 
and publish this my last will and testament, 
hereby revoking and making avoid all former 
wills by meat any time heretofore made. 
As to such estate as it has pleased God to 
intrust me with, I dispose of the same as 
follows: viz: 
1 give and bequeath to Paul F. Schoeppe, 
M. D., to his own use and benefit absolutely, 
my whole estate and property, what soever 
and wheresoevor, of what nature, kind and 
quality soever the same may be. 
Mr. W. A. Stewart, Attorney at Law in 
Baltimore, State of Maryland, will give nea- 
rer information over my estate and prop- 
erty. 
And I do hereby constitute and appoint 
the said Paul F. Schoeppe, M. D., sole exe- 
cutor of this my last will and testament. 
In witness whereof, I Maria M Stennecke, 
the Testatrix have to this my will written 
on one sheet of paper, set my hand and seal, 
this the third day of December, A. D. one 
thousand eight hundred and sixty eight. 
Signed, sealed, published and declared by 
the above-named Maria M. Stennecke, as 
and for her last will and testament, jn the 
presence of us and who have here untosub- 
scribed our names at her request as wit- THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
17 
nesses thereto in the presence of the said 
estatrix and of each other. 
M.M. Stennecke. 
[my seal.] 
Dr. Schoeppe. 
F. Schoeppe. 
Louis A. Smith, recalled:-Commonwealth 
by this witness proposed to prove that the 
signature to the will is a forgery ; to which 
the defendant's counsel objected ; and in ad- 
dition to this offer, offer to prove that the 
defendant at that time was desirous to have 
money, and was in needy circumstances. 
Also objected to by defendant's counsel. 
John D. Adair, Esq., sworn. - I am an 
attorney at this Bar. I know Dr. Schoeppe, 
his handwriting, I shouid say this paper was 
written by him [paper of 3d December, 
1868.] 
The Doctor came into my office either the 
day after Thanksgiving or the day after 
Christmas, and asked me if I had the form 
of a will ? I took "Dunlap's Book of Forms," 
and showed it to him, and gave him the 
form of a will. He asked me for a half sheet 
of paper, and I gave it to him. He then 
took his lead pencil and copied the entire 
form of the will from thebook. After he had 
finished, here marked voluntarily that he 
wanted it for an old man in his father's con- 
gregation. I asked him if there was any 
real estate to be devised ? He said, yes. 
I told him he should be very careful in wri- 
ting the will, and referred him to several 
clauses for devising real estate on the oppo- 
site page ; telling him at the same time that 
he had better get some attorney who under- 
stood drawing a will. This was all the con- 
versation that occurred atrthat time, and the 
Doctor left the office. The form is on page 
878 of Dunlap's Forms, in Book shown to 
witness. Dunlap's Book of Forms offered 
in evidence. Objected to, and objection in- 
cluded in last exception. 
From thebook read to Jury by Common- 
wealth. 
John R. Kelso, sworn-I was intimately 
acquainted with Maria M. Stennecke during 
her lifetime. I knew her between 45 and 
50 years. I never knew her as a child. She 
was over 20 years old when I first knew her. 
Cross Examined:-She was a well set wo- 
man ; rather robust in her appearance ; not 
very tall. 
Commonwealth offers letter of Dr. Schoep- 
pe to Miss Stennecke, asking for money. 
Letter dated November 1, 1868. Objected 
to by defendant as par last objection. Ex- 
ception noted. Letter read by Common- 
wealth. • 
The following is a copy of the letter read 
in evidence ; 
Miss Maria Steneecke ] 
Baltimore. J 
Carlisle, the 7th of November 1868. 
Dear Miss Stennecke, 
As I have been rather busy in the last weeh 
I could not answer so soon as I wished your 
esteemed letter of the 20th of October, which 
I received with much pleasure. But now I 
cannot endure to preserve longer silence, 
and I have devoted a part of this day to an- 
swer your last letter-feeling very grateful 
for the long letter you have sent me. At first 
allow me to express you that the sincere in- 
terest which fills my heart toward you is no 
wise altogether professionally. I keep the 
'friendship of a magnanimous and noble lady 
higher than the interest of my business. 
That you have been getting along comfor- 
tably without any inconvenience or derange- 
ment since you left Carlisle, I cannot help 
seeing in it an observable effect of the Me- 
dicine. I have been astonished when I was 
reading in your letter that you are eating 
semetimes at tea some warm rolls and biscuit 
without having felt any inconvenience from 
them. Indeed the unpunished success of this 
action of your free will and indepence seems 
to me to be a very good sign of not having 
taken the medicine without a delightful 
effect. I hope and wish that this good state 
of your health may be of duration. Altough 
I have not expressed these hopes without a 
soft doubt of their reality. For I know as 
a physician how deceitful sometimes this 
subjective well feeling is. You have written 
me that the oculist you have selected for the 
treatment of your eye, has already relieved 
one gentleman and others of blindness of 
some years standing-and that you see in 
this a proof of his being not only nominally 
but truly a man of great and distinguished 
ability. But with regard to this I keep my- 
self obliged, as a true friend of yours, to ex- 
press to you that this alone is not yet a full 
sign of a really able and good Oculist. There 
are many cases of blindness of which to 
relieve men is not too hard. I keep myself 
confirmed in my opinion so much the more 
as you have written me that you cannot but 
feel sad, and that your eye is no better. If 
the mode of treatment your eye physician 
is pursuing with your eye, is very apt to 
cause a false leech bite, I cannot understand 
why he does not use natural leeches, which 
are to be, got in a city very easily, and 
are a good deal cheaper than the genera- 18 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
tion you must suffer. But, however, I feel 
very grajpful for the detailed description 
of treatment of your eye you have given 
me, and I hope yet you will have a good 
success of it. I will not leave off, looking 
in God in your behalf, for I know that 
all human effort is vain without the help 
of the Almighty God and of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. As you wished, I have called at 
Hannon's Hotel, for a pleasant 
room for you. 1 got the answer that you 
can get it when you come, and that the 
Hotel keeper will do all he can to make 
your residence here pleasant, I would be 
very glad if 1 should see you in a short 
time, and I hope I will get this pleasure. 
Returning you my sincerest thanks for 
your kind inquiry after the state of my 
health, I cannot but say, that I am, thus 
far, quite well. As a friend I will tell 
you that I would make a very successful 
business if I had the sufficient money. Dr. 
Herman, whom you are knowing perhaps, 
is going to leave us for ever. He has a 
very large practice here, as well in town 
as in the country, which he has offered 
me, if I would buy at the same time his 
three here, for which he is asking 
$5,000. He wants momentary $2,000, which 
I would pay now, and will allow me to 
pay the rest of $3,000 in four years. Out 
of his books, which I have looked in, 1 
have seen that his practice brings him in 
$10,000 a year. If I could hold only the 
half of his practice I would make well 
and good $5,000 a year, so that the three 
houses were paid in one year. But for 
want of these $2,000, I am afraid another 
happier man will get this fine business. 
Meanwhile I am quiet; the will of my God 
may be done. 
What you have written in regard to gal- 
lantry to the fair lady whom gossips said 
I were flirting around, I could not understand 
at first the sense of your words, as I could 
not recollect having waited on a lady. Be- 
fore, I had not heard one word of this gos- 
sip, but now, after having made inquiries, 
I know that the origin of this gossip has 
in my medically treating of a lady, who hav- 
ving been sick, sent for me. 
People who did not know the reason of 
my visits may have thought perhaps I were 
flirting around this lady on account of cour- 
ting her. But now as she is well already 
long time, I think this gossip, which I do 
not care at all much, may be grown dumb. 
Besides my life is very solitary and joyless. 
I know God will give what is the best for 
me, and that is my consolation. 
I hope you will kindly excuse this long 
epistle which comes late, and in which I am 
convinced may be many errors of the Eng- 
lish language. But I trust you will not. 
look so critically on the words but on the 
heart out of which these words are coming. 
In this hope, I am your sincere friend, 
Dr. P. SCHOEPPE. 
Mrs. Mary Parker, recalled. - Her 
cheeks appeared to be swollen a little. Her 
breathing, I thought, had no effect upon 
them. She breathed very heavily, amount- 
ing to a snore. I saw Mr. Moore under the 
influence of morphia ; he breathed heavily, 
amounting to a snore; not such a snore as 
a person sleeping ; it was rather distressing. 
As well as I recollect her chekes remained 
quiet. 
Mrs. Lavina Schindel, recalled-There 
was no flapping or moving of her cheeks ; 
they were quiet. I was there most of the 
day. 
Dr. Conrad, recalled-I did not examine 
her kidneys, because there were no other 
evidences of disease, or other di- 
sease of the kidney, which had they been 
present, would certainly have attracted my 
attention ; the chief of those were the oede- 
ma and ammoniacal odor which attend that 
disease, both before and after death, and are 
so prominent, when found, as to attract the 
attention of any medical man. Any micros- 
copical examination of the kidney would 
have been useless at that period after death. 
I believed there to be no death from that 
source. I have had a number of persons in 
the past year, before this examination, suf- 
fering from this disease, (Brights'). There 
was no change of the tissues, to which I 
could attribute any disease with which lam 
acquainted. I mean there was no natural 
cause to account for her death. 
Cross-Examined. -1 do not know whether 
the oedema and ammomiacal odors are pre- 
sent so long after death. I can only speak 
from experience. 
In Chief-Had this lady died from Brights 
disease, there would have been fluid in the 
abdominal cavity to an abnormal amount, 
which would have been found there on the 
post mortem, I believe. 
Cross Examined: - I cannot imagine the 
fluid to have penetrated the entire tissues 
and escaped, in twelve or thirteen days after 
death; this fluid being in a fibrous sac. 
Ques. Has not death taken place from 
Bright's disease without causing any mor- 
bid change in the body, or leaving any trace 
except in the kidneys ? 
Ans. I do not know an instance in my THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
19 
experience nor do I remember one from 
books of the best authority. I do not recog- 
nize Flint's or Watson's Practice of Medicine 
as authorities on this subject. I did not ex- 
amine uro-genital organs of the deceased. 
Mrs. Matilda Woods, sworn.- I was 
present at the time Mr. Rheem, Dr. Schoeppe 
and Mr. Miller were reading Miss Sten- 
necke's will. While Mr. Miller was reading 
the will, reading the legacy, Dr. Schoeppe 
threw up his hands and said, "is it possible ! 
is it possible ! is that all!" The legacy she 
left to Mr. Rheem's mother. I know of noth- 
ing more at that time. 
Dr. Conrad, recalled-Question - State 
from your experience or knowledge derived 
from books, what drugs or medicines might 
make the symptoms you observed. 
Ans. I have no experience From books 
Wharton & Stille's Jurisprudence, and from 
Stille's Therapeutics or Maderia Medica; 
the description in those two books of the 
post mortem appearances of a body dead from 
Prussic acid resembled this body very clo- 
sely. The former work, Wharton, first at- 
tracted my attention to the close similarity 
to the description of the appearance of the 
body so that I was induced to look further 
in the latter book for corroboration of the 
first. The first description resembled it so 
closely that with few exceptions it could not 
have been better written if it had been writ- 
ten from this body itself. Those were the 
only two books in which I observed anything 
of the kind spoken of. They were shown me 
some time after the first post mortem. I was 
ignorant of them before. 
Crosj Examined-.-I read the books within 
a week after the post mortem. The appear- 
ance of the body and the result of my exami- 
nation, was the same as stated in my testi- 
mony a few days ago, with one exception 
I did not state in my testimony before, dur- 
ing this trial, and the previous examination 
a circumstance I now remember, and which 
is the exception, One of the gentlemen, Dr. 
Ridgley or Kelso, asked me to look at the 
hand of th0 body, for a ring. In looking, 
my attention was attracted to the contracted 
hand and fingers. 
Dr. A. J. Herman, recalled - According 
to the symptoms that I have seen in the sub- 
ject, and from the description of Dr. Conrad's 
post mortem appearances of the body, that it 
had no traces of natural disease, that the 
brain, lungs and heart and kidneys were all 
in a perfectly normal condition, no signs of 
any disease, in the body af the tirqe he exa- 
mined ; and taking the condition of the 
blood which is a fluid condition said to be 
occasioned by Prusic acid, I am led to be- 
lieve by the compounding of Prussic acid 
and morphine, that was the cause of her 
death. 
Cross Examined ;-I do not know of a case 
where any body was poisoned by such com- 
pound. I never read of one. The condition 
of the blood is according to Stille that pro- 
duced by Prussic acid. Prussic acid being 
a very quick poison, taken by itself, in con- 
junction with 2 grains of tartar-emetic, acts 
as a powerful sedative in old persons, de- 
pressing and relaxing. The eifects of the 
morphia along with it, with repeated doses 
of morphia in every two or three houts, I 
think would have a tendency to stay the ef- 
fect of the Prussic acid that long in .he sub- 
ject, prolonging her sufferings. I revealed 
a case where these combinations were used. 
I do not know of any case recorded, where 
this compound had been used, with or with- 
out these results. The morphia and Prussic 
acid would act as sedatives to the system, 
then the morphia given to hold up 
the action of the system as a stimulant, a 
considerable time and prolong life. I am 
satisfied these results would follow from the 
use of this compound, without experiment. 
I am satisfied of this from my own reasoning 
on the subject and willing to testify to it. 
Dr. S. B. Kieffer, recalled-A hypothe- 
tical case having been put to witness, embo- 
dying the facts as proven (or alleged by the 
Commonwealth) the witness was asked, from 
the statement, what would be his opinion as 
to the cause of death. 
The following is the hypothetical case 
propounded to the several medical experts : 
If a woman aged over 65 years was on the 
morning of the 27th of January, at 9 o'clock 
on the street and in the Bank, transacting 
business, her writing indicating no nervous- 
ness, and a little after 11 o'clock of the same 
morning vomited from some substance ad- 
ministered to her about half past ten o'clock ; 
was found prostrate and languid, about 2 
o'clock in the afternoon of that day, at 3 
o'clock in bed, but not seeming very ill; in 
the evening between 7 and 8 o'clock found 
very sick and sleepy so much so that when 
sitting on a chair, while beiAg undressed she 
would fall asleep in the arms of the person 
undressing her, and would have to be arou- 
sed by calling her ; at 9 o'clock of the same 
evening not aroused by knocking at her door 
or calling ; at 6 o'clock the next morning 
found in bed insensible; breathing very 
hard, not convulsively, not being a snore, 
but making a noise in breathing, her eyes a 
very little open, lying in an easy position, 20 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
inclining to her left side; her forehead clam- 
my with perspiration, no froth about the 
mouth, no puffing out of the cheeks in brea- 
thing, no distortion of features, no convul- 
sions, the breathing not regular, no rigidity 
of the muscles, about 7 o'clock of same mor- 
ning respiration slow, temparature of the 
body about natural, skin moist, her head 
nearly entirely on the left side as before, the 
pulse seeming natural, muscles much relax- 
ed, some accumulation of saliva. At 11 o'- 
clock pulseless, eyes closed, pupils of the 
eyes contracted both alike, having a conical, 
rather elongated shape, the patient lying 
without change or motion until 6 o'clock in 
the evening of that day, and then dying, and 
after burial having been exhumed 12 days 
after the death, and presenting the appear- 
ances described by Dr. Conrad, in his testi- 
mony as to the Post mortem examination of 
the body of Maria M. Stennecke, what would 
be your opinion as to the cause of death. 
This offer is objected to. 
1st. Because it is not a case similar to the 
facts of this case. 2d. It is a selection of 
some statements made by different witnesses 
and contradicted by others, and for which 
there is no evidence to support them as a 
connected body of facts. 3d. It is a state- 
ment in which many of the importaut and 
leading facts are entirely omitted. 4th. It 
is in no former case to be submitted to the 
witness and on which he can properly give 
an opinion. 5th. It is nothing but an ag- 
gregation of statements that suit their 
theory and an omission of all facts that 
tend to contradict their theory, in order to 
get an expression of opinion not justified by 
the evidence, and improperly influencing 
the minds of the jury. 
Ans. I must premise my answer by say- 
ing that a medical gentleffian would be 
unwilling to base an opinion upon the judg- 
ment, or the interpretation of symptoms, by 
what might be called the laity in our pro- 
fession and in my opinion whilst I may con- 
sider these facts by the laity as to symptoms, 
I must be influenced by the facts and inci- 
dents connected with the early history of 
the case. Dr. Uerman's observations, the 
facts there in detailed the autopsic appear- 
ances in detail, and from all these consider- 
ed as related one to the other, I know of no 
natural causes that would produce these 
results. What I mean by natural cause, is 
disease. I have an opinion and yet I do 
not know that it would be right to express 
it as an unqualified fact, because it is based 
partly on hypothetical, partly on construc- 
tiveprinciples and partly on my own obser- 
vations and experience. If on this ground, 
I am justified in giving an opinion, then 1 
will give it. The negative facts proving 
clearly that she died from no natural causes 
are clear to my mind, but the positive data, 
whilst I believe they show clearly that the 
subject received both prussic acid and mor- 
phia, I cannot say unconditionally that they 
caused her death. To give an uncondition- 
al opinion I would ask for more positive 
evidence than we have. 
Cross Examined:-I did say I would not 
dare to base an opinion, but I saw it would 
not convey my idea and dropped it. 
Dr. W. W. Dale, sworn-Hypothetical 
case read to witness, and question put as to 
cause of death: 
Ans. I could not from the Post mortem 
examination see the results of any disease 
that caused her death. She died from no 
natural cause, evidenced by the Post mortem 
examination. My opinion, from the Post 
mortem examination as detailed by Dr. Con- 
rad, is that she died from no natural cause. 
Such being the case and coupled with the 
symptoms detailed here, the conviction 
would irresistibly force itself upon my mind 
that the immediate cause of her death was 
opium or some of its preparations. That 
state might have been influenced, or rather 
the predisposing condition may have been 
caused by other means, or the taking of 
other drugs or medicines. 
There may have been some predisposing 
cause; the emetic taken the day before may 
have been the remote cause, and doses 
which would not have been poisonous or 
dangerous would become so. The combina- 
tion of symptoms detailed I could not 
account for in any other way than by 
opium, or some of its preparations. 
Cross-Examined:-The symptoms I rely 
upon are, on the evening preceding her 
death the drowsiness manifested, amounting 
almost to a stupor, her comatose condition 
in which she was found next morning, the 
character of her breathing, the contracted 
condition of the pupils of the eye, the re- 
laxed condition of the muscles, upon these 
taken together I found my opinion. 
Dr. G. W. Haldeman, sworn-Am a prac- 
tising physician, have been for 15 years. 
(Hypothetical case put to witness.) 
Ans' The results of the post mortem ex- 
amination made by Dr. Conrad show no 
evidence of any disorganization of any of 
the parts examined; that all the organs 
presenting a healthy appearance as ex- 
amined. T have no hesitancy in giving it as 
my opinion, by some cause or causes, other THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
21 
than natural, must have produced Miss 
Stennecke's death. Her eyes being partially 
closed, her breathing nearly natural, flac- 
cidity of muscles, absence of stertor, and 
the blowing sound in breathing, the con- 
traction of the pupils of the eye, a comatose 
condition from which she could not be 
aroused, I would naturally conclude with- 
out personal observation, that the immedi- 
ate cause of her death must have been 
owing to a too free use of or administration 
of opium or some of its hundred preparations. 
Cross-Examined:-There was no evidence 
of death from natural causes. 
In- Chief:-Morphia is one of the prepar 
ations of opium. 
Cross-Examined:-The paper was read to 
me after dinner, as read in Court, 
Dr. Daniel Cornm'an, affirmed:-Am a 
practising physician, have been for 22 years. 
(Hypothetical case stated to witness and 
question propounded as to cause of death.) 
Ans. Predicting an opinion upon the hy- 
pothesis here stated, and upon the testi- 
mony of Dr. Conrad, as to the post mortem 
examination, I cannot conceive that the 
individual died from any natural cause, and 
that death must have resulted, but from some 
narcotic poison, either opium or some of its 
salts. 
Cross-Examined:-I base my opinion upon 
the symptoms mentioned in this paper, the 
pupils of the eyes being contracted, the 
comatose condition of the individual from 
which she could not be aroused at a certain 
time, her lying upon her side all the time, 
and from the post mortem appearances as 
related by Dr. Conrad, the fact of her 
.gradually getting into that comatose condi- 
tion, from her sleeping and falling into the 
arms of her nurse. 
In-Chief:-In addition the clammy con- 
dition of the skin, the accumuluation of 
saliva at the mouth would be evidence. 
There are no other facts mentioned in this 
paper which would induce me to change my 
opinion I have already expressed. 
Dr. Samuel P. Zeigler, sworn-I have 
been a practising physician over 23 
years. 
(The hypothetical case put, and the 
question asked if in his opinion she died of 
a natural cause, and if not, what in his 
opinion caused her death.) 
Ans. In reviewing the symptoms as set 
forth in that paper, and detailed up to the 
post mortem examination, and taking the 
result of that post mortem examination by 
Dr. Conrad in detail, I find no natural 
cause of death. Taking the symptoms as 
detailed in that paper it occurs to my mind 
that death must have been caused by some 
unnatural injudicious overdose of opium or 
some of its preparations. Morphia is one of 
these preparations. 
Cross Examined:-I base my opinion on 
the drowsiness of the supposed case grow- 
ing gradually into a stupor, and an entire 
comatose state of the brain, from which she 
could not be aroused by any external 
application, from her heavy stetorrious 
breathing, from her eye-lids being partially 
open, and the pupils of both eyes being con- 
tracted alike, from the entire relaxation of 
the muscular system, and the clammy per- 
spiration. 
Alexander Ewing, recalled-I had another 
conversation a day or two after my first one, 
with Dr. Schoeppe. He told me a few days 
afterwards, he said either he had been 
offered a sum to go away and save trouble, 
or he would go if he was offered a sum of 
money. In connection with the first con- 
versation he told me that after this gossip 
was all over and everything fixed up, he 
would have the money, and he would make 
those parties who published his name to the 
world suffer for it. 
John H. Rheem, recalled-During the 
time of Miss Stennecke's sickness, some 
time during the day she died, the 28th of 
January last, he said (Dr. Schoeppe said) 
she had symptoms of small-pox and typhoid 
fever. She was very fleshy about the chin 
in life. It is my opinion that her face 
inclined to one side. 
Cross-Examined-I never before mention- 
ed that the Doctor told me she had symp- 
toms of small-pox or typhoid. It must 
have been some time ago that I told it to 
the counsel. The reason I did not tell it 
before is because I have not an infallible 
memory. It was in her room he told me. 
I don't know what part of the day it was. 
I can't tell who was present at that time. 
D. S. B. Kieffer, recalled-By the term 
"unconditional opinion" I used yesterday, I 
meant that whilst I believed from the facts 
detailed in that paper and the post mortem 
examination that both Prussic acid and 
morphia had been received, and that we 
had the evidence of their combined in- 
fluence, while I am familiar with the the- 
rapeutic action of morphia, and also have 
considerable experience with the same 
action of Prussic acid, yet, my experience 
and knowledge of the action of Prussic 
acid is not such as to justify an uncondi- 
tional opinion in the case, in the absence of 
chemical proof by analysis. 22 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
EVIDENCE EOR DEFENCE. 
At 9.30 A. M., Friday, the case on the 
part of the defendant was opened to the 
jury by W. H. Miller, Esq. 
J. D. Adair, Esq., sworn-I took these 
notes of testimony on the hearing of the 
habeas corpus. Dr. Herman was sworn and 
examined as a witness on that occasion. 
My recollection is that I took almost every 
word that fell from the lips of the witness. 
I have the notes before me of what he said 
on that occasion. Witness reads from his 
former notes. 
I took down almost every word. Have 
no recollections of testimony except my 
notes. Dr. Herman spoke so distinctly that 
I heard almost every word he said. Only 
one word I recollect of not hearing was 
"hemi-flegia." Account published in 
Carlisle Herald fuller than my notes. 
S. Hepburn. Jr., sworn-I was one of the 
counsel for Dr, Schoeppe in the hearing of 
the Habeas Corpus. I took notes of Dr. 
Herman's testimony. All that Dr. Herman 
said is not all on my notes, but there is 
nothing in them he did not say. 
Henry Newsham, sworn-I was a counsel 
for Dr. Sehopppe, I took notes, partial ones, 
there was more said than was taken down. 
(Witness read from notes.) 
Catherine Linn, sworn--Came to Car- 
lisle before the Holidays. I was not well. 
I was not well for this long time. I was 
very nervous. I went to Dr. Schoeppe 
He gave me medicine. He gave me drops. 
I don't know for sure how many I took at 
first. I do not remember if it was three or 
five. It did mb no good. I increased it to 
ten drops by the directions of the Doctor. 
It was increased to fifteen drops. I guess, 
took them two times a day, in the morning 
and evening. He would not let me go home 
and told me I had to stay here and keep on 
taking the drops, that if anything should 
turn up with me I should give him word 
right away. 
Cross-Examined:-He began to give me 
them after New Years'. I had not been in 
town long before Holidays, came in the day 
before. I took medicine through January 
from him. The week after the Holidays I 
first saw Dr. Schoeppe. It was soon after 
New Years'. He gave me some powders and 
drops the first time I saw him. That was 
the time he gave me the three drops. That 
was the first week after New Years'. He 
told me to take them in sugar and water, 
he gave me the drops and told me to be par- 
ticular and not take more than he told me. 
They were in a small bottle. I kept it on the 
bureau. I stayed with my father near Mr. 
Fells in town. I have not the bottle threw 
it away. I guess I took it all. I took 15 drops 
twice a day, two or three weeks, did not take 
the first week quite so much. I lived in the 
country eleven miles from here. Stayed here 
four weeks. Nobody told me to throw away 
the bottle. I guess I threw it away I do not 
know where it is. 
Mrs. Mary Parker, sworn:-I never no- 
ticed anything crooked about Miss. Stenn- 
ecke's face or mouth. I did not tell Dr. 
Herman the day of her death that she had 
a crooked mouth, heard no one telling him 
so. Did not notice her tongue protruding, 
her mouth inclined a little to the left, more 
so in the afternoon than in the morning. 
Mrs. Lavinia Schindel, sworn:-Never 
saw anything crooked about Miss Stenneck's 
face before her jllness. I did not tell Dr. 
Herman that she had a crooked face, did 
not hear any one telling him so. Her 
mouth was drawn to the left side and her 
tongue also, a little protruded, her nose 
was also turned a little, turned to that side, 
more than I ever observed, also a little dis- 
colored. 
Cross-Examined:-Both tongue and mouth 
inclined to the side on which she was lying, 
the left side. She had rather a full face. 
Mrs. Linn, Re-Cross-Examined:-1 did 
not perceive any smell about the bottle of 
drops at that time. I dropped the drops 
myself and took them. I have the power of 
smelling now and before too. 
Re-in-Chief-I thought I had a little cold 
in my head. 
Miss A. Comfort, sworn:-I was present 
after Miss Stennecke died, and helped to 
lay her out. There was no evidence of 
purging. Her limbs were not rigid. She 
was warm when I laid her out. I can 
scarcely remember how she was when I saw 
her after death, appeared to be reclining on 
her side. 
Cross-Examined:-Miss Dickey helped me 
to lay her out. Miss Eliza Dickey. I went 
there at half-past six in the evening. Mrs. 
Woods and Mrs. Keeney were both there, 
nobody else in the room at the time. Mr. 
John Rheem came for me-Mr. Ewing was 
not there when I came. Was not there 
before. 
Mrs. Hannah Horn, sworn-I reside in 
Baltimore. I was at Burkholder's when 
Miss Stennecke died. The chambermaid 
told me between 6 and 7 o'clock in the 
morning. I was in bed. I went into her 
room about 7 o'clock. I found her in an THE-SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. / 
23 
unconscious state. She was lying with her 
mouth open, tongue drawn to one side, 
breathing heavily, short breaths, not very 
short, not natural, snores, occasionally very 
slight stoppage in her breathing, her nose 
drawn somewhat to the left side, did not 
examine her eyes, they were closed when 
I went in, they remained closed all day. 
I was in her room nearly all day, felt her 
pulse, it was not regular, became weaker 
soon after I went into her room, it was 
stronger when I went in, but weakened 
rapidly. I applied warm applications to 
her feet, found them cold as high as the 
instep, her left hand was cold and not the 
right, sent for the Doctor in the morning 
about 7 o'clock, sent for Mrs. Woods, her 
cousin, Mrs. Woods came brought Mr. 
Rheein there. Mr. Rheem went for Dr. 
Schoeppe. Dr. Schoeppe when he came in 
fell upon his knee and put his ear to her 
chest. He then said he would go for the 
stethescope. He afterwards said he would 
like to have another Physician called in. 
Mr. Rheem asked him who he should call in, 
and he signified it immaterial. He did 
not say so, I think he said it didn't matter. 
When Mr. Rheem said Dr. Herman he said, 
yes Dr. Herman. He said his object in sen- 
ding for another Physician was to-know whe- 
ther she would bear blood-letting. Dr. 
Schoeppe asked me if I could tell how many 
hours she had lain in that condition. He 
then said if it had been but two or three 
hours then she could bear blood-letting but 
he was afraid she was too weak now. He 
then ordered mustard plasters to be applied 
to her chest. Dr. Herman came in about 
II a'clock. They spoke together in German, 
I could not understand it. Dr. Schoeppe 
pronounced it a stroke when he came in, 
some time afterwards. I remained in the 
room all day, except twice when I went to 
my meals. When Dr. Herman came there 
at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, I was standing 
at the Doctor's side, being the only person 
near to him, Dr. Herman said, "It is a 
stroke." I went around to the other side, 
and said, then Doctor there is no hope, he 
said, "very little." I never told Dr. Herman 
that Miss Stennecke had a crooked face. I 
did not even see her full face, and didn't 
know any such a thing as that it was croo- 
ked. I noticed in the afternoon that she 
was in a profuse perspiration on the right 
side, and not on the left. Her left hand 
was cold. Dr. Schoeppe seemed to be very 
much distressed about it and seemed as 
though he would like to give her something 
to relieve her if he could. The skin on the 
right side felt natural when I felt it. The 
Doctor uncovered her feet and examined 
them. 
Cross Examined. - Went to dinner at 1 
o'clock, and was out of the room about fifteen 
minutes ; I was told it was 3 o'clock when 
Dr. Herman was there the second time ; I 
undressed her, felt her right side; she was 
lying on her left side ; at that time I merely 
felt her left hand and arm, and remarked on 
the difference. On her left side'I felt noth- 
ing but her hand and arm and no other 
portion of her side, except her face. The 
left side of her face was cold and the right 
warm. It was some time between 3 o'clock 
and dark, I felt her several times, the last 
time between 3 and 5 o'clock. 
Wm. Drew, (colored) sworn- I live with 
Mr. Saxton, I waited at the table when Miss 
Stennecke boarded at Hanon's ; attended to 
her at the table ; she complained frequently 
of giddiness in her head. I met her between 
10 and 11 o'clock on the Episcopal church 
Square the day before she died, on Wednes- 
day ; I heard of her death the next morning. 
I asked her how she was: she told me she 
felt very dull and bad; she had been eating 
beefsteak the evening before, and she was 
walking, trying to walk it off. She was a 
very hearty eater; she generally would 
take little things with her from the table, 
wrapped in the napkin, to eat bet ween times. 
I met her on Wednesday ; next day she died 
sometime after breakfast ; Doctor Noble told 
me. 
C. P. Sanno, sworn.-The warrant for Dr. 
Schoeppe wks put in my hands ; I made the 
information ; these charges had been talked 
about in town for several weeks; Dr. 
Schoeppe was frequently on the street dur- 
ing the time ; I found him in his office when 
I went to arrest him; I told him I wanted 
him to go with me to Squire Dehuff's office. 
He asked me if I had a warrant for him ? 
I said, yes, I had ; asked me if I would go 
with him to Mr. Millers office ? I told him. 
yes. He asked me whether there was any 
word from Baltimore from the examination ; 
I told him there was; he said it had been 
going on for several days ; that he had seen 
it in the papers. From Mr. Miller's office 
we went down to 'Squire Dehuff's office. 
Cross-Examined: - He was somewhat ex- 
cited when I arrested him ; he appeared to 
be very nervous. We started out to go to 
Mr. Miller's office and he forgot his spectac- 
les; he went back and got them; took his 
hat along. 
Wm. Kennedy, Esq., sworn.-I boarded at 
Hannon's last year, and occupied the front 24 
THE SCHOEPPE 
MURDER TRIAL. 
room over the lower parlor. Some time in 
the fall, Miss Stennecke came there and was 
placed in the room immediately in the rear 
of mine, the entry making a turn, and the 
doors almost joined ; the transoms were us- 
ually open in the evening. One night, whilst 
she was there, sometime between midnight 
and daylight, I was awakened and startled 
by a noise as of some one in great pain or 
distress, or as persons attempt to cry out un- 
der the influence of nightmare. 1 was satis- 
fied the noice proceeded from Miss Stenneck's 
room, and had almost made up my mind to 
go and see what was the matter, when I 
heard a deep drawn sigh, and then a cough, 
and some one moving in her room, or in bed. 
I heard her voice calling one of the servants 
about daylight in the morning, to look at 
her fire, I think. 
Cross-Examined:-I could not tell whether 
she had anything like nightmare, or was 
dreaming. Did not hear of her being sick 
next morning. • > 
Dr. Stevens G. Cowdrey, sworn - Am 
Assistant Surgeon in the regular army ; took 
my degree in October two years ago; am 
acquainted with Flint's 'Practice of Medicine' 
it is supplied to the army, and is also a text 
book in most if not all the medical colleges 
in the U. States, in the Eastern part of the 
country at least. 1 have a knowledge of 
Bright's disease; I was called to see, a pat- 
ient in a comatose condition, in New York 
city; there had been no previons physician 
there. The patient died within twelve hours. 
1 could not give a certificate of death with- 
out an autopsy, and this showed a disease 
of the kidneys, the small granular kidney, 
it was Bright's disease, this is that form of 
kidney that is often not attended with oede- 
ma. Winter before last I attended nearly 
all the autopsys at Bellevue Hospital, a very 
large proportion of the cases showed disease 
of the kidneys, many of them having no 
swelling, no dropsy, or oedema; the oedema 
is an infiltration of the tissues. When the 
kidneys do not excrete the water collects in 
tissues. The proportion was about one in 
every four or five, which showed no oedema. 
That case required an autopsy, to find the 
cause of death, in order to give a certificate. 
As far as an examination by the naked eye 
isboncerned, it might be a principle of me- 
dical science that death can occur, leaving 
all the organs of the body in a healthy con- 
dition-that is, that death might be caused 
by some means discoverable only by the 
microscope. I have never seen it laid down 
as a medical principle in any of the books. 
Cross Examined. - (Edema is not the only 
symptom attending a disease of the kidneys ; 
before the introduction of the microscope it 
was considered the important symptom. The 
symptoms are numerous and varied ; when 
the blood becomdfe poisoned by the urea, it 
may discover itself in an affection of almost, 
any organ. Sometimes the patient oomplains 
alone of dyspepsia, sometimes of dizziness 
of the head; a common symptom is an af- 
fection of the eye, dimness of vision, pain in 
the left side, albumen is found in the urine 
and casts of the urinferous tubes, which is 
the surest symptom. 
In the post, mortem I made, I discovered no 
lesions in the organs, except the kidneys. 
The blood was in a fluid condition. I did 
not apply chemicel tests for urea in the 
blood. 1 judged from the kidneys ; I judge 
the blood was poisoned by the urea; it cau- 
sed the coma. The patient died from the 
small red granular kidney; the kidney 
becomes diminished in size; I think it 
ife, but I do not know which is the smallest 
form; there are three. We judge that the 
kidney excretes the water without excreting 
the urea. Urea in the blood might be de- 
composed into carbonate of ammonia. Never 
discovered the odor from the breath, the 
case I speak of was a living patient. I never 
saw it laid down as a symptom ; I do not 
know in which sex Bright's disease occurs 
most frequently; do not remembor the sta- 
tistics; I believe there is a slight difference. 
I saw a case in Roberts, in which a person 
of sixty-threeyears had undoubtedly Brights 
disease. 
The brain varies in different cases; in 
cases of dropsy, there is usually effusions of 
serum in different parts of the cavities of the 
brain, in other cases, none ; the whole per- 
son is usually pale, blood deteriorated, ene- 
mic in a measure Granular kidney may 
produce functional heart disease, not or- 
ganic. The most frequent cause of Bright's 
disease is a cold, exposure to cold, exposing 
the surface of the body to cold, chilling the 
skin gives the kidneys too much to do. 
Prof. C. F. Himes, sworn.-I am Pro- 
fessor of Natural Science in Dickinson Col- 
lege, of this place. I began to teach chemistry 
in 1855, by text books and lectures; have 
been engaged in teaching and studying chem- 
istry since then ; have been connected with 
Dickinson College for four years, since 1865. 
I pursued those studies for one and a half 
years at the University of Giesen, in Hesse 
Darmstadt, Germany, in the laboratory of 
Prof. Liebig, under the instruction of Prof. 
Wills, the latter author of a textbook on An- 
alytical Chemistry, used extensively in this THE schoeppe murder trial 
country and Europe. I heard the testimony 
of Dr. Aiken; if I remember aright he ap- 
plied the iron and sulphur tests; he stated 
that he distilled the contents of the stomach 
with sulphuric acid, and obtained about four 
ounces of distillate. A portion of this he 
treated with caustic potsrsh, then added a 
prota and sesqui salt of iron, and then a few 
drops of hydo-chloric acid. He stated if 
Prussic acid had been present in the distil- 
late, Prussian blue would inevitably be pro- 
duced. He stated in the examination in chief 
that a faint blue color was produced ; in the 
cross examination he stated that this was not 
in itself conclusive. Upon such a statement 
from the chemist, I could scarcely state posi- 
tively that Prussic acid was present; if not 
conclusive to him, it cannot be to me. In 
addition, this mixture will not necessarily 
show the presence of Prussic acid. There 
are fallacies connected with every test. If 
an insufficient quantity of hydro chloric acid 
were added, a precipitate would be produced 
of a dirty green color, or, according to some 
authorities, of a bluish color. Admitting, 
however, that the whole test was properly 
made, it was stiH inconclusive. The next 
test, called the sulphur test, was made by 
exposing sulphide of ammonium to any va- 
pors arising from the distillate before men- 
tioned. It was then treated with per chloride 
of iron (the doctor may have used the term 
sesqui for per chloride of iron) a faint red 
coloration was produced, which would indi- 
cate the presence of Prussic acid in the dis- 
tillate. In the absence, however, of any 
confirmatory test, I could not, from the state- 
ment made, as a chemist, infer the presence 
of Prussic acid, because of the extreme 
delicacy of this test, leaving out of account 
any fallacy there may have been in testing. 
By this statement I mean to say that, how- 
ever clear it may appear to Dr. Aiken's mind, 
I would be unwilling to accept the fact for 
an inference of my own. In addition, in all 
cases in which the contents of a stomach are 
to be examined for Prussic acid, an effort 
should be made to ascertain whether there 
may not be present in the stomach substances, 
harmless in themselves, which may produce 
Prussic acid in the subsequent chemical 
treatment. Such substances as ferro-cyanide 
of potassium, (or common name, yellow prus- 
siate of potash,) or ferri-cyanide of potas- 
sium, (or red prussiate of potash.) The first 
mentioned is an article mentioned in the 
dispensatory as a mediciue. It is the sub- 
stance used for the manufacture of Prussic 
acid by treating it with sulphuric acid, and 
distilling, as was done with the contents of 
this stomach. The presence, therefore, of 
Prussic acid in the distillate might only indi- 
cate the presence of this harmless compound 
in the stomach. There might be trace of 
Prussic acid produced from a normal con- 
stituent of the saliva. There is present in 
the spittle a substance called sulpho-cyanide 
of soda. I would amend by saying, a com- 
pound of sulpho-cyanogen, and in conse- 
quence, the saliva or spittle, if dist illed with 
a strong mineral acid, such as sulphuric, 
would give decided indication for Prussic 
acid. The absence of the silver test, and 
the iron test had given no conclusive reac- 
tion, and the sulphur test had given a fair 
indication, was a serious omission Accord- 
ing to most recent authorities, it is the most 
delicate of the three tests. Even had the 
reason assigned by Dr. Aiken for not using 
this test been correct, it would still have 
afforded a negative fact that would have been 
fatal to the previous tests. Or to explain. 
If nitrate of silver had been applied to a 
portion of the distillate, or vapor arising from 
the distillate had been allowed to act. upon a 
drop of solution of nitrate of silver, and no 
positive evidence of the presence of Prussic 
acid been given, it would have proved as 
conclusively the absence of Prussic acid, and 
would have allowed us to infer that the faint 
trace obtained by the sulphur test was due 
to accidental and fallacious circumstances, 
such for example as accidental impurity of 
the re-agents, that is the chemicals or vessels 
employed. Hence I would conclude by say- 
ing that the reactions, obtained by Dr. Aiken, 
however satisfactory himself, would not ena- 
ble me. or permit me to say positively that 
Prussic acid was present in the contents of 
the stomach. There is an additional fact 
that if Prussic acid is obtained by means of 
the iron test and an immediate blue colora- 
tion is produced, I would look upon it as my 
duty, as examining chemist, to set aside the 
vessel containing the test until a precipitate 
of Prussian blue should be formed, which 
precipitate could be producedin open Court. 
Another point; there were four ounces of 
distillate, two ounces of which were used, in 
testing for Prussic acid, a few drops of 
which would have answered for the silver 
test. It is not absolutely necessary to testa 
precipitate obtained by nitrate of silver, by 
the iron and sulphur tests to ascertain whether 
it was produced by Prussic acid. .Chloride 
of silver and cyanide of silver might both be 
present; microscopic examination would show 
a crystaline form for cyanide of silver, and 
an amorphous, uncrystaline form for chloride 
of silver. Again, if a precipitate obtained THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
by nitrate of silver contains chloride of sil- 
ver, that fact will become apparent by pla- 
cing it in (the precipitate) in the sunlight, 
when chloride of silver will acquire a violent 
tint or color, and the cyanide of silver would 
remain unchanged. The chloride and cyanide 
of silver are both white when first precipi- 
tated. As stated in all the books on the sub- 
ject, light decomposes, and thus destroys 
Prussic acid. 
Cross-Examined.-All these are good in 
their way, and corroborative of each other 
Can't say which is the best test. The silver 
is the most delicate, sulphur more delicate 
than the iron. Have seen Taylor's Medical 
Jurisprudence. If Dr. Aiken added only a 
few drops of hydro-chloric acid a fallacy 
may have been produced. Can't say that I 
have a reason for supposing that Dr. Aiken 
used too much potash for the quantity of 
acid. 
No other substance in nature would have 
given these indications, with the smell, but 
Prussic acid. I do not know of any sub- 
stance that would have produced the red 
color which Dr. Aiken procured but Prussic 
acid, except that the per-chloride of iron 
(the re-agent used,) has a yellowish red color 
itself, which might be mistaken for Prussic 
acid. A few drops with the distillate used 
would not have produced a perceptible color. 
The silver test would have been a more de- 
cisive test. Glemiu's Hand Book of Chemis- 
try has the results of analysis of saliva. If 
there were any saliva in the stomach, treat- 
ment with sulphuric acid would produce 
Prussic acid. Hydrocyanic acid is not a gas, 
it is a liquid ; a very volatile liquid. Nitrate 
of silver is a test in itself. 
(A great deal of testimony in this cross 
examination is not reported because of its 
general unimportance.) 
Counsel for the Commonwealth now notify 
the counsel for the defence that, they will 
offer, as evidence in chief, after discovered 
testimony as to the purchase of Prussic acid 
by Doctor Schoeppe, at Harrisburg, shortly 
before the death of Miss Stennecke ; or as 
rebutting evidence Objected to by counsel 
for the defence. 
After argument testimony admitted. 
C. E. Maglaughlin (Sworn.-I saw wit- 
ness yesterday afternoon that I now propose 
to offer Yesterday noon after the adjourn- 
ment of Court, 1 procured a subpoena from 
Mr. Bixler, clerk of the Court, I procured it 
yesterday or had it from Thursday for other 
witnesses. 1 took it to Mr. Campbell Chief 
Burgess, directed him to go to Mr. Herron's 
drug store and ascertain when there, whether 
they had not sold Prussic acid to Dr. Scho" 
eppe immediately before Mrs. Stennecke's 
death. That he should with him subpoened 
all the persons in the store, but that if he 
would send with him the person who he 
could be confident could identify Dr. Scho- 
eppe as the person who had procured the 
Prussic acid, and that he should bring any 
witness he could obtain by the evening train 
if possible, if they could not reach the cars 
to bring them up by private conveyance. 
That if he found any witness he should tele- 
graph to me as to his success. 1 received 
this telegram. 
Harbisbubg, May 27, 1839. 
Mr. Herron sold it. He comes with me 
this evening. J. Campbell. 
After the evening train came in L saw Mr. 
Herron enter the door of the Court room and 
I walked down the aisle to meet him. I 
brought him up to the railing surrounding 
the Bar, and asked him if he recognized the 
Doctor, he looked at him, 1 pointed to the 
Dr. with his spectacles, he shook his head, 
and said I don't think that is the man. After 
Court adjourned met Herron going out of 
Court room, he then told me that he believed 
he was the man but he would like to see him 
again. I requested him then, that he should 
be in front of the Court House this morning 
at the opening of the Court, that he could 
then see him with bis hat on and then let me 
know whether he recognizeji him. I saw 
Mr. Herron ; he then told me lie was certain 
he was the man. . 
EVIDENCE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH. 
Dr. W. W. Herron, Sworn :-I am a drug- 
gist. Do business in the Jones House, Har- 
risburg. 1 saw Schoeppe in our store. 1 
have an entry of the 23d of January. 1 know 
it was about that time because we were pain- 
ting the store. He asked for an ounce of 
hydrocyanic acid diluted, I mean diluted 
Prussic acid. He got it. I charged him 30 
cts. and he objected to the price. 
Cross-Examined.. It was put in an ounce 
bottle with a glass stopper, a round bottle, 
the same kind of package that Lubin's ex- 
tract. Don't know whose preparation of 
Prussic acid it was, the original label was 
on the bottle, ours was not. He got one bot- 
tle. There was no wrapper on it, I wrapped 
it up. They generally have a blue wrapper 
oir, but we have them in our chemical case 
unwrapped, of course I would sell the un- 
wrapped one first. They are blue bottles- 
not necessary to be covered. I can't say 
whether it had ever been open or not. I 
have no idea how long it had been standing 
on our shelves. " Prussic acid 30 cents, THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
27 
German physician," is the entry in my book. 
Sell Prussic acid to physicians, sold some 
yesterday morning before I came here. We 
sell a great deal of it, have a great many 
physicians who deal with us, who purchase 
it. Came up yesterday afternoon, evening 
train. Mr. Maglaughlin brought me to the 
Bar, pointed out to me the Dr. I shook my 
head, did not say what Mr. Maglaughlin 
said, could not see the Dr. well, had but a 
side view, could not tell him without his hat 
on, that I would see him when he went out 
of the Court room. I did not make the re- 
mark Mr. Maglaughlin said-I think "I said 
I cannot tell." Saw the Dr. yesterday even- 
ing, and him this morning with his hat 
on. It was the same kind of a hat. It was 
a hard silk hat. I saw him in the store and 
yesterday, never saw him before. I don't 
suppose the Dr. was in the store more than 
five or six minutes, but a few moments-Mr. 
Maglaughlin came to see me before the April 
Court about this matter. It was the month 
of March. I told him that I sold to a Ger- 
man physician, that of late we had sold 
several times, and that we had several Ger- 
man physicians as customers. I looked over 
the memorandum, with Mr. Maglaughlin and 
another gentleman, to find entry, and did 
•not find it, found it yesterday, looked in the 
same book, did not look fully, told him I 
could hunt it up. Got a letter from Wierman 
which made me look for memorandum- 
dispatch to Maglaughlin, did not send 
it; called once at Maglaughlin's office'wanted 
to go to the jail to identify the Doctor, Mr. 
Maglaughlin was not there. Have sold drugs 
a dozen times to Juniata German physician, 
don't know his name. I think he never 
bought Prussic acid from me, because no 
entry-that is the only entry I have of Prus- 
sic acid. Memorandum lies open to the pub- 
lic, and contains every item sold-from 1 
cent in value td $50-lies on silver mounted 
show case-all items are included, if many, 
in brackets, sometimes name of purchaser is 
put sometimes not. 
Re-in-Chief-I have no doubt that the Dr. 
is the man that bought the Prussic acid. 
EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE, RESUMED. 
Dr. M. F. Robinson, Sworn:-Have been 
practising medicine 22 years-heard Dr. 
Conrad's testimony of post mortem examina- 
tion. She might have died of uremia, which 
would not have been revealed by the exami- 
nation. The kidney is the only organ show- 
ing the pathological condition causing the 
disease. 
Cross-Examined ;-This disease when ter- 
minating in death, is accompanied with 
symptoms. Symptoms are appearances be- 
fore death. The pathological lesions which 
produce the symptoms of this disease may 
be connected with a contracted kidney. 
Ques. Is not the contracted kidney, the 
granular kidney ? Ans: I am not able to 
say positively. 
Ques. Does not urea exist in the blood in 
all cases of contracted kidney and uremia ? 
Ans. Urea exists in the blood in health. 
Ques. In what proportion does it exist. 
Ans. I am not wise above what is written. 
I have never seen the proportion written. I 
do not know that urea exists in the blood in 
the proportion of 30 drops to the thousand. 
I may have seen it, but I did not charge my 
memory with it. Never read Dalton's Trea- 
tise on Physiology, (dated 1861.) Don't 
know that it exists in the proportion of 16 
hundredths in the thousand. Until recently 
it has been a mooted question whether urea 
exists in the blood or whether it is the result 
of secretion of urine in the kidneys. The 
recent experiments of Hammond have set- 
tled that question in the majority of medical 
minds. Uremia is a blood poisoning, produ- 
ced by the checking or any material lessen- 
ing of the elimination of the substance, (urea) 
from the blood. The kidney is both a se- 
creting and excreting organ. 
Q. Is not urea decomposed in the blood 
and exhaled from the lungs as ammoniacal 
gas. 
A. I am not sure I am right in that man- 
ner, but that it produces its poisonous eifects 
without undergoing decomposition. 
I do not regard Bright's disease and 
uremia as identical. Contracted kidney is 
one of the conditions of Bright's disease. 
Never held a post mortem for Bright's dis- 
ease. Never held one in a case of death oc- 
curing from uremia. Our knowledge of 
uremia is but recent. I mean the whole 
medical profession. The disease until 
recently has been mistaken for apoplexy 
and in post mortem examinations for apo- 
plexy, and where there were no lesions of 
the brain, it was called nervous apoplexy. 
It is now generally believed that, the cases 
called nervous apoplexy, were cases of 
uremic poison. I am not able to say what 
the eifects upon the blood after death would 
be from uremic poison. 
Dr. Jacob Zitzer, sworn-I have been 
a practicing physician about 22 years. I 
practiced eighteen years in this country, 
and the balance, three years, in the old 
country. I have in my experience seen 
cases of death from Prussic acid; about 
six or seven cases of those dying from Prus- 28 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
sic acid, and three of them 1 had the chance 
to see the post mortem examination ; was 
present when it was made. In reference to 
prusic acid, I would commence. When a 
person or patient takes prussic acid that 
would fall in a disease, and then would fall 
in three stages. The first stage would be as 
soon as the poison is received into the 
stomach; it would cause a faintness, dixzi- 
ness, loss of speech, a parlytic condition of 
the whole system, the face somewhat con- 
gested, the eyes brilliant, the pupil en- 
larged, irregular action in the heart, a 
beginning of shortness of breath, unable 
any more to speak. These would be gener- 
ally the symptoms of the first stage of the 
intoxication from prussic acid, which stage 
will last from three to seven minutes. 
After the second stage commences, the 
physiognomy of the features of the face 
will turn to a kind of bluish, blowed up 
congestion, cyonantic condition; on both 
sides the causted parts will project, that is 
the ends will project; the nervous system 
of the face becomes enlarged, the eyes 
become wild, quivering pretty much like in 
epilepsy, the breathing very hard, almost 
impossible to get sufficient air, and in the 
latter part of the second stage the breath- 
ing becomes wheezing and almost convul- 
sive, the heart irregular and almost jumping, 
so that it can be seen almost through the 
clothes, slight heat over the body, trembling 
of the muscles, These would be the general 
symptoms of the second stage, lasting from 
what I saw, from five to ten minutes. The 
third stage generally commences from 
changing the features from a bluish to a 
pale ashy color, a perspiration over the face, 
the eye sunk, loses a brilliant sight, 
becomes watery, the breathing spasmodic, 
almost impossible to get breath, the pulse 
from jumping becomes wearisome, irregular, 
until it finally has ceased circulating, the 
breath ceasing in a short convulsive expira- 
tion, the pupil of the eye fixed, cloudy, 
watery, sunk, the head dropping toward the 
breast, the whole process ending in about 
from twenty to thirty minutes, in the cases 
I saw. These were the external symptoms 
that I saw in poisoning from prussic acid. 
In the post mortem examinations of those 
I saw where death was from prussic acid, 
about seven or eight days after death, the 
external appearance was not very plain, 
except a kind of a bluish discoloration 
about the neck. By exposing the brain, 
under the pia-mater, almost congestion of 
the blood, diffused on the top of the brain. 
By dissecting the brain, it showed an en- 
gorged condition of every part of the brain, 
and an effusion of a bloody, watery fluid. 
The bronchia was congested, dark red, the 
epithelium filled with a dark, bloody slime ; 
the lung congested, so that each lobe of the 
lung showed an engorgement of blood ; the 
aesophagus was, near the stomach, congested, 
the stomach the same, only the inside of the 
stomach had none of a blackish appearance. 
The liver didn't show much of a change. 
The rest of the organs in the abdomen were 
pale ; the secretion organs were empty, and 
the spine showed no change. This is what 
I saw in three cases. 
In.reference to morphia: I saw one post 
mortem, two deaths in which I did not see 
the post mortem. 
The symptoms that I observed were the 
stimulating effects of the opium, which 
lasted a short time, an houi* or an hour and 
a half. When I found the patient delirious, 
somewhat wild, flighty, his eyes red and 
congested, watery, and the eyelids half 
shut; the speech stammering or broken, 
the pulse very frequent, the skin hot, quick 
breathing, and a good deal through the 
nose, the tongue very dry, and a wheezing 
sound through the wind-pipe. The rest of 
the extremities natural and warm; these 
were about what I would take for the first 
stage in an overdose of opium or any one of 
its compounds. Morphia the same. That 
condition I observed lasted five or six hours. 
Then his eye became sunk, his face 
his mouth sunk, his tongue dry, a 
wheezing sound inbreathing, in inspiration; 
the expiration scarcely perceptible; by 
touching or shaking him he would fly up, 
scare up, but soon fell in a stupor again. 
The cheek and body in a heavy sweat, (this 
I would not like to say is a general sym- 
ptom, as I used a good deal of camphor and 
other stimulehts as an antidote ;) the heart, 
the pulsation was very fast, irregular, spas- 
modic, contraction of the muscles of the ex- 
tremities, quick and quivering, unable to 
swallow-that, I thought, was about the se- 
cond stage of the disease from intoxication. 
It lasted six or eight hours. After I found 
congestion was produced, the feature to com- 
mence to change to a kind of pale ash color, 
his eyes became watery, slimy, his lips drawn 
up, couldn't make any impression on his 
mind ; his tongue drawn back and dry, his 
pulse irregular and wearisome, heart jump- 
ing, with a long interval; the exhalation of 
the breath very long, his inspiration inter- 
rupted, convulsive, his skin clammy, and the 
extremiticMkCold. In that condition I left him. 
and he died about an hour afterwards. The THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
29 
third stage lusted about six or seven hours. 
Post mortem after death from morphia, I 
was present at one. I state only the organs 
that were found abnormal. By exposing the 
brain, an effusion of blood was found between 
the small and the large brain. The brain 
itself was hard congested, by each incision 
the presence of coagulated blood, quantities 
of effused cerum and blood, between the ven- 
tricles of the brain, and particularly on the 
base of the brain. There was along the spine 
a slight discoloration of congestion, conges- 
tion of the lungs; a good many spots of ef- 
fused blood between the lobes of the lungs, 
the intestines full of gas, melt and liver nor- 
mal, bladder and urethra were full of urine. 
This was all. I heard the testimony of Dr. 
Conrad, of the post mortem of Miss Sten- 
necke. It was not complete, because not all 
the organs of the body were examined. Se- 
condly, I thought by opening of the skull, 
the dura mater and the adjoining sinus was 
accidently opened by the saw, so that it 
couldn't be told where that blood had escaped 
in opening the skull, had come from; and 
third, I would have paid some attention, to 
the softening of that part of the brain spoken 
of. In opening the skull, the dura-mater 
ought to have been preserved, turned the at- 
tention to that softening of the brain; the 
examination of the spine, kidney, and I 
think, the sexual organs, ought to have 
been examined. I think it absolutely es- 
sential that these organs should have been 
examined to determine the cause of death. 
I thought the blood ought to have been ex- 
amined, to see whether it was blood or blood 
water; if blood water, it would become 
black in that length of time under the ground, 
from decomposition. Softening of the brain 
Would not occur, unless something was the 
matter. The dark color of the blood would 
often result from decomposition. 1 heard 
Mrs. Horn's testimony. 
Question. On the supposition that, that 
testimony is true what would you suppose 
to be the cause of Miss Stennecke's death. 
Answer. The symptoms which she de- 
scribed, would make a person think, without 
taking the post mortem, as if she had died 
of apoplexy. Softening of the brain, or the 
encephals malacia, of itself would be a 
sufficient cause of death. What disease would 
the condition of the brain, as described by 
Drs. Conrad and Ridgley in the post mortem 
indicate as the cause of death? Ans.-It 
might indicate different diseases. For 
instance, the softening of the brain itself 
might produce death ; the escaped blood, not 
knowing where it came from, if it had been 
confined in a certain place, would have indi- 
| cated apoplexy. 
From Mrs. Horn's testimony and the post 
i mortom, as detailed by Drs. Conrad and 
Ridgley, what disease would be indicated as 
the cause of her death ? 
Ans. From that testimony and from that 
effused blood escaped in the skull at the 
time, by the opening of the skull and if that 
blood had been confined in a certain place 
it would indicate apoplexy. 
Cross-Examined :-I meain softening 
of the brain before death. A part soft- 
ened and the rest in its normal condi- 
tion would indicate that softness arose 
from disease. A skillful physician on a 
post mortem examination could tell 
whether a softening of the brain occur- 
ed during life or was caused by decom- 
position. First, chemically, secondly, 
by the microscope, the nutrition of the 
part itself; third, the pathologic, anato- 
mic changes. Softening can be caused 
by the obstruction of a blood vessel 
which nourishes a certain lobe of the 
brain. Such a part would go sooner 
into decomposition than if it had been 
healthy. Then again it would be less 
able to resist a certain force of blood in 
circulation than if in its normal state.- 
It would depend on the anatomical con- 
struction of the different parts. The 
brain mass goes under the same rule as 
to decomposition. 
Ques. If different parts of the brain com- 
prised of the same material, one part healthy 
and the other diseased at the time of death 
would it indicate any difference bet ween the 
healthy and different parts in decomposi- 
tion ? 
Answer. Of course it depends on the na- 
ture of the disease whether the diseased 
part would be longer decomposing. 
If tke whole brain was alike decomposed 
it would indicate that decomposition had 
commenced at the same time. If the whole 
brain were soft the patient wouldn't last 
long. A part of the brain is hard, the pons 
variolii, the upper part is more soft. I have 
seen a body taken up after lying twelve or 
fourteen days. I have seen a body hurried 
five days in which decomposition had not 
commeneed. I have seen them after being 
there when decomposition had not taken 
place. * 30 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
In Chief.-Where a person was killed and 
thrown into a castle, six months after you 
could see where the injure was done to the 
brain. 
Re-Cross-Examined,-I have seen cases of 
rapid decomposition, especially in warm 
weather. 
Prof. T. G. Wormley, sworn. - I reside 
in Columbus, Ohio ; am by profession a phy- 
sician and chemist. I occupy the chair of 
Chemistry and Toxicology in Starling Medi- 
cal College, Columbus, Ohio, and of Chemi- 
stry in the Capitol University in the same 
city, I have occupied the position in the 
latter Institution since 1851, in the former 
since 1855. Toxicology means science of 
poisons. From the year 1856 or 1857, I de- 
voted my attention almost exclusively to the 
effect and chemical properties and methods 
of detection of all the principal poisons. I 
make it my object to supply myself with all 
systematic treatises upon the subject; and 
also with the leading journals relating to 
the subject as published in this country and 
in Europe. 1 have published a systematic 
treaty upon the subject the title of which 
is ''Micro Chemistry of Poison." (This is 
a copy of the book). 
Prussic or Hydrocyanic acid is a transpa- 
rent, colorless, volatile liquid, composed of 
the elements carbon, nitrogen and hydro- 
gen, and having a rather peculiar, character- 
istic odor. As found in the shops, it is in 
a state of mixture or solution with water, 
constituting a mixture containing, according 
to the U. S. pharmacoporid 2 per cent of 
the anhydrous acid, the pure Prussic acid, 
undiluted with water. The dilute acid, as 
found in the shops, is subject to considerable 
variation in regard to its strength, among a 
number of samples examined, in the state in 
which they came from the hands of Ameri- 
can manufacturers, none was found to con- 
tain 2 per cent of the pure acid, and one 
sample was found to contain not a trace of 
the acid, (Micro Chemistry of Poison. 
Page 168.) All these samples were of Ame- 
rican manufacture. 
In some instances the acid proves almost 
instantly fatal. «1 should say within a few 
minutes, without any marked symptoms, 
other than entire loss of sensation and cons- 
ciousness. In others, there is quickly in- 
duced loss of sensation, and motion, the 
face becomes livid ; the jaws closed and fixed 
the eyes prominent, open, and glaring, pu- 
pils dilated, froth frequently tinged with 
blood, escapes from the mouth ; the finger 
nails are frequently blue, the fingers and 
toes contracted, the pulse is small 
ly absent, the respiration entirely arrested 
or convulsive, with comparatively long inter- 
vals between the acts of respiration. In a 
number of cases in voluntary evacuations 
have been observed. If life is prolonged 
for some minutes, there is generally violent 
convulsions. In regard to the time of death 
from Prussic acid, death takes place usual- 
ly within fifteen or twenty minutes after the 
taking of the poison. It has occured withi n 
two minutes. The longest period in any 
well authenticated case, during which the 
patient survied, in five hours. This case is 
cited by Prof. Casper of the University of 
Berlin. It was in a case of poisoning by 
cherry laurel water. Page 88 Volume 2d 
Casper's Forensic Medicine. In this case 
there were most violent convulsions. I be- 
lieve it is generally admitted that Caspar 
has had, on account of his official position, 
the largest personal observation in cases of 
poisoning. The next case in regard to time 
is that known as the Wakefield case, in 
which death occurred in three hours. It is 
recorded in Taylor on poisons, London edi- 
tion, 1859, pages 696 and 664. - The next 
case is one in which the acid proved fatal 
in abont one hour and ten minutes in St. 
George's Hospital Reports, 1868, London, 
page 220, both in this case and the Wake- 
field case the poison was oil of bitter al- 
monds, and in the last case cited, there 
were violent convulsions and dilated pupils. 
The longest case in which Paussic acid as 
such, was used, so far as I can find recorded 
is the Marcooly case, in which death occur- 
red in about one hour. (Taylor on poisons, 
page 639.) In another case death occurred 
in about 55 minutes. The next case is the 
one of t in seven Parisian epileptics, in which 
death occurred in 45 minutes. There is a 
case cited by Boecker, in which Prussic acid 
w.as taken, and death did not occurr for 
thirty six hours. Boecker himself however 
attributed the death to the consequences of 
bl< eding and the want of diligent attention. 
This case is referred to in Taylor on Poisons 
664. Taylor does not consider it one of 
poison by Prussic acid, although it is collatt- 
ed under the head of poisons. I know of 
no other systematic writer on the subjec- 
who cites this Boecker case, as a case of 
poison by Prussic acid. 
In regard to the* symptoms by Prussic 
acid, as well as the postmortem appearances, 
I would refer the Court more especially to 
to Tardieu's Medico-legal and clinical trea- 
tise upon Poisons. Paris, 1867. This is a 
treatise upon this subject from an entirely 
new standpoint, being confined chiefly tothe THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL 
31 
medica-legal relations of the symptoms and 
post mortem appearances, the treatise being 
not exactly on.poisons, but rather on the 
subject of poisoning. I would ask attention 
to the celebrated Pralet case, which was a 
case of apoplexy, and in which there was a 
conviction by poisoning from Prussic acid, 
based upon an undefined odor, present in the 
body at the time the analysis was made, the 
body having been disinterred six or seven 
days after death ; and also, upon some colo- 
rations observed during the chemical analy- 
sis. An abstract of the case and the reports 
made to the court, will be found in Christ- 
ison on poisons 518, 1845, and Taylor on 
poisons, 1859, 657, who mentions it as Pra- 
let's case. The entire history of the case 
and the facts upon which the person charged 
with the poisoning was finally acquitted will 
be found in Orfila's treatise upon Toxicology, 
Paris, 1852. volume 2, page 394, and the 
epitome found in Christoson and Taylor, 
gives the principal facts in the case, except 
the grounds of the chemical evidence. These 
principal facts are (witness here read from 
Christoson, page 518). I might refer here 
to the principal elements in the chemical 
analysis, (passed for the present). 
Post mortem appearances. The body usu- 
ally exhales the odor of Prussic acid, the 
face livid, the body rigid, and frothy matter 
is usually found around the mouth, these 
are the principal external appearances. The 
blood vessels of the brain and the lungs are 
usually engorged, the stomach is sometimes 
reddened, the liver spleen and sometimes 
the kidneys are congested. The latter is so 
common that Casper states page 63, vol. 2. 
that "Congestion of the liver, kidneys and 
inferior cava has been always present." The 
veinous system throughout the body is en- 
gorged with blood, while the arteries are 
erppty. The blood throughout the body is 
usually liquid and of dark color. The brain 
and internal organs, and more especially the 
blood exhaless the odor of Prussic acid, In 
regard to the post mortem appearances, I 
would refer more especially to Tardieu, 1035, 
also, to Taylor on poisons, 649, (witness 
propose to give translation from Tardieu, 
overruled by court as incompetent for wit- 
ness to give such translation as an expert to 
be read to jury. Counsel may read it before 
Jury in argument. With regard to the im- 
port of the staring condition of the eye con- 
tinuing so long after death, I would refer to 
Christision, page 596. The staring expres- 
sion of the eye, is so marked, so peculiar, 
that it has been claimed by some persons to 
furnish proof of the evidence of death of 
Prussic acid. This condition lias been ob- 
served in death from other causes. 
Tardieu is considered one of the greatest 
living authorities on the subject, his perso- 
nal experience being perhaps only second to 
the late Casper. I mean "on the subject of 
poisoning, the symptoms and post mortem 
appearances. 
The dark colored fluid blood is the condi- 
tion in which it is generally found in cases 
of sudden death ; it is not peculiar to death 
from Prussic acid. It has been claimed in 
death from Prussic acid, that the blood had 
rather a peculiar bluish appearance. In ca- 
ses of sudden death the blood is usually found 
in a fluid condition, whether from Prusic 
acid or not. Can not designate any time 
during which this fluid condition is con- 
tinued. 
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. 
I have heard Prof. Aiken's testimony. For 
the detection of Prussic acid; we have several 
tests. The most recent is that proposed by 
Schroeter, which depends upon a blue color 
produced on paper, or imparted to paper by 
prussic acid, the paper having previously 
been moistened with a solution of guiacum 
and sulphate of copper. This test has very 
recently been proposed, and is said to be ex- 
ceedingly delicate. As yet, however, I have 
had no practical experience as to the real 
delicacy of the test, and the fallacies to 
which it may be subject. 
The silver test consists in the production 
of a white precipitate of cyanide of silver, 
when a solusion of nitrate of silver is added 
to a solution containing hydrocyanic acid. 
The reagent will also produce white precipi- 
tates, when added to solutions containing 
chlorine, (you might substitute solutions 
containing hydrocloric acid, and chlorine) 
phosphates, carbonates, or any one of sev- 
eral other salts. Fhe cyanide of silver is 
readily distinguished from all these white 
precipitates, excepting that from hydrocloric 
acid, in that they are readily soluble in cold 
diluted nitric acid. The cyanide of silver, 
when present in notable quantity, may be 
distinguished from the chloride of silver, in 
that it is insoluble in ammonia. A very 
small quantity of cyanide of silver might, 
speedily disappear under the action of am- 
monia. The chloride and cyanide of silver 
may also be distinguished, by washing, and 
drying the precipitate and heating it in a 
tube, having a very contracted, or capillary 
neck, when the cyanide pf silver would give 
off cyanogen gas, which if ignited will burn 32 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
with a rose-colored flame. This test when 
applied to hydrocyanic acid in solution, will 
produce a visible reaction, if the solution 
contains even no more than the one hundred 
thousand part of its weight of the poison, 
and this result may be observed, if only one 
drop of the solution be experimented upon. 
The method of distinguishing between the 
cyanide and the chloride of silver, by heat- 
ing, and observing whether an inflammable 
gas is produced, will with care, serve to in- 
dicate the one five hundredth part of a grain 
of hydrocyanic (prussic) acid. The silver 
test for the detection of the vapor of prussic 
acid, I shall now refer to. When a solution 
of muriate of silver is exposed to the vapor 
of prussic acid, the liquid speedily acquire a 
white film of the cyanide of silver, which is 
crystaline in its form, as thus produced. 
Although there are several other vapors, 
such as chlorine, iodine, bromine, that may 
produce under the same conditions a white, 
or whitish film or deposit, under the action 
of the test, that resulting from all of these 
latter, is destitute of crystaline form, i. e. 
amorphous. The crystaline form, therefore 
serves to distinguish the action of the vapor 
of prussic acid, from that of all other vola- 
tile substances. In this manner, i. e. by the 
test applied in this manner, the vapor from 
one grain of liquid, containing only the one 
hundred thousandth part of a grain, of prus- 
sic acid, will yield under the microscope, as 
satisfactory evidence of prussic acid as any 
other quantity of poison, however large. 1 
mean, it would be as satisfactory evidence of 
the poison, as a few grains of wheat would 
be of its character, as a bushel would be. 
(Plate 4 Figure 2nd. Wormley on Poisons, 
represents the action of the one one hun- 
dredth thousandth part of a grain, as seen 
through the microscope under an amplifica- 
tion of one hundred and twenty five diame- 
ters.) As there is some discrepancy in the 
books as to the value of the nitrate of silver 
tests, I might state, that alt hough it has been 
for a long time known, that when a solution 
of nitrat e of silver was exposed to the action 
of the vapor of Prussic acid, a white film or 
deposit was formed, yet so far as I know, 
that the deposit was crystaline in its nature, 
was not observed until about 1857. The 
mere fact that it was crystaline is stated by 
Taylor in his work on Poisons, edition of 
1859. In his work on the Practice and prin- 
ciples of Medical Jurisprudence, English 
edition of 1865, he enters into some detail 
in regard to the test. Dr. Guy of King's 
College London, in the 3d and last edition 
«f his Forensic Medicine, 1868, also men- 
tions the fact in connection with this test. 
With these exceptions, 1 believe there is no 
other systematic work on the subject of pois- 
ons, excepting my own, that treats of this 
method of the application of the test. All 
the facts relating to this test, as detailed in 
my own work, are the results of a long series 
of oft repeated experiments, by myself. 
I will next consider the iron test. This 
depends upon the production of Prussian 
blue; when a solution of Prussic acid is treated 
with caustic potash, and a solution of proto 
and sesqui-chloride of iron, hydrochloric acid 
being then added, to redisolve the precipita- 
ted oxide of iron. The only precaution ne- 
cessary in the application of this test, is that 
a sufficient quantity of hydrochloric acid be 
added, to redisolve these oxides of iron, as a 
precipitate from these may have a blue color 
even in the absence of the production of 
Prussian blue. 1 would refer to my own work 
page 181, on this point. The Prussian blue, 
produced from very dilute solutions of Prus- 
sic acid, has at first a greenish color, but 
finally, after many hours, it will subside as a 
blue deposit, even if only the twenty-five 
thousandth part of a grain of hydrocyanic 
acid be present in one grain of liquid. 1 
might say that this Prussian blue is very per- 
manent, and can be preserved for soms length 
of time, as has been done in medico-legal in- 
vestigations. 
The sulphur test. This consists in treat- 
ing the Prussic acid solution with a solution 
of yellow sulphuret of ammonium, when 
sulpho-cvanide of ammonia will be produced, 
which, after driving off the excess of sulphur 
by a moderate heat, will strike, or produce, a 
deep blood red color when treated with the 
per-salt of iron. From very dilute solutions, 
this test produces only a faint red, but even 
one drop, containing the ten thousandth part 
of a grain of Prussic acid, will, under the ac- 
tion of the test, yield an orange-red color- 
action. This test may also be applied for 
the detection of the vapor of Prussic acid. 
The fallacies attending this test are me- 
conicacid, and alkaline acatates, the former 
of which will also strike a blood red color, 
under the action of the test ; whilst the 
latter may produce a coloration, which 
might easily be confounded with that pro- 
duced with very dilute solutions of Prussic 
acid. It, therefore, becomes necessary 
in all cases to decide to which of these sub- 
stances the red coloration is due. If it be 
due to hydrocyanic acid, it would be quick- 
ly discharged by a solution of corrosive 
sublimate, whilst if due to the solution of 
meconic acid it would undergo no change THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
33 
under the action of this reagent. Again, 
the coloration due to hydrocyanic acid, re- 
sists the action of diluted hydrochloric acid, 
whilst that due to meconic acid, and the 
alkaline acetates is quickly discharged by 
hydrochloric acid. The books state that 
this test, when applied to the detection of 
the vapor of hydrocyanic acid, is free from 
any fallacies. That is true, upon the as- 
sumption that the reagents are free from hy- 
drochloric acid in any form, and from me- 
conic acid and alkaline acetates, which can 
only, however, be established by direct proof. 
In this case, so far as I understand the evi- 
dence, there has been no proof of the purity 
of the reagents, and vessels employed. I 
would further remark, as is well known, the 
sulphuret of ammonium, if exposed to the 
vapor of hydrocyanic acid in a laboratory, 
will speedily absorb the poison, with the pro- 
duction of sulphocyanide of ammonia, the 
substance in question. I would ask att ention, 
with regard to the purity of reagents, to my 
work, page 59. In the form of vapor, there 
would be a marked reaction, with the one 
ten thousandth part of a grain of Prussic 
acid; in one grain of water, and in a liquid 
form with the one twenty-five thousandth 
part of a grain. One grain of water is equi- 
valent to one drop. 
For the purpose of detecting the presence 
of free hydrocyanic acid, the subject under 
examination should be placed in a wide 
mouthed bottle, or some smiliar vessel, and 
an inverted watch glass containing a drop of 
the solution of nitrate of silver ; or of pot- 
ash, if intended to apply the iron test; or of 
sulphurette of ammonium, if intended to 
apply the sulphur test, and the glass be al- 
lowed to remain for some minutes, or longer 
it then being removed and examined for a 
white precipitate, or by the iron or sulphur 
tests to ascertain wheter the poison is pres- 
ent. If either of these tests should now indi- 
cate the presence of the poison it would fol- 
low that it, the posion, existed in its free 
state, in the substance submitted to examin- 
ation, or possibly existed in the state of an 
alkaline cyanide, for either may be formed. 
Should this method fail to reveal the pres- 
ence of the poison, the suspected substance 
might be introduced into a retort, taking 
care, however, not to and sulphuric acid, 
and then subjected to distillation at a moder- 
ate temperature. After the distillation has 
progressed until a portion of the fluid has 
passed over, the distillate, which should be 
received into a receiver known to be pure 
or free from any foreign substance may then 
be examined by the ordinary test. If the 
poison should now be detected in the distil- 
I late it would indicate that it existed in its 
' free state, or possibly in the form of an alk- 
aline cyanide, in the substance submitted to 
examination. Should sulphuric acid be em- 
ployed in the distillation, then hydrocyanic 
acid would appear in the distillate, whether 
it existed in its free state in the substance 
submitted to distillation, or as an alkaline 
cyanide, ferro-cyanide, or as a sulpho-cyan- 
ide. This method of procedure would 
evolve the poison, whether it existed 
either in its free state,' or that of a 
simple cyanide, or a ferro cyanide, 
or as a sulpho cyanide. By a free state I 
mean in the state we find it in the shops. 
i The alkaline cyanides are about equally 
poisonous, with free Prussic acid. Ferro 
cyanide is destitute, or nearly so, of poison- 
ous properties, and is used medicinally. The 
sulpho-cyanides are either inert, or have no 
very active properties. From what has 
been stated, therefore, if the distillation had 
taken place under the action of sulphuric 
acid, and even if hydrocyanic acid was found 
in the distillate, it would be impossible in a 
chemical point of view, to state that that 
acid, or poison, existed, as such, in the sub- 
stance submitted to examination. With re- 
gard to the sulpho-cyanides, one of them 
viz : the sulpho-cyanide of potassium, which 
would evolve Prussic acid as already stated, 
exists normally in human saliva, which not 
unfrequently finds its way, in a very notable 
quantity, into the stomach. The quantity 
of the sulpho-cyanide of potassium in the 
saliva is subject to considerable variation. 
The smallest quantity that has been discove- 
| red is known to be in the proportion of four 
i thousandths of one per cent , the maximum 
about one-tenth of one per cent. In other 
words it seems to form to from one one-thou- 
j sandth to one twenty-five thousandth part, 
by weight, of the saliva in its natural state. 
It is- true that sulpho-cyanide of potassium 
does not contain its own weight of Prussic 
acid. Thus assuming the constitution of 
sulpho-cyanide of potassium, as stated by 
the most or all observers, to be composed of 
one equivalent of potassium, two of sulphur, 
two of carbon, and one of nitrogen ; then 97 
parts of the salt would be equivalent to 27 
parts of pure Vftissic acid. ''It is now uni- 
versally admitted that sulpho-cyanide of po- 
tassium is one of the constituents of human 
saliva, I refer to Lehman's Physiologcial 
Chemistry, or Gmelin's Chemistry, and Tay- 
lor on Poisons, 633. That the saliva passes 
into the stomach I believe is not questioned 
Some of the most striking experiments upon 34 
this subject are those of Pereira's, vol. 2, 
1033, 1851, Materia Medica and Therapeu- 
tics, It has been already stated that per- 
chloride of Iron, strikes a red color with 
meconic acid, and Dr. Christison held this 
red coloration was sufficiently characteristic 
to prove the presence of that substance, viz : 
Meconic acid. Professor Pereira contended 
on the other hand, that the production of 
the red coloration, was not sufficient in it- 
self to prove the presence of this substance 
-Meconic acid; since the sulpho-cyanides 
would also produce a red coloration under 
the action of the iron reagent and* more- 
over, that one of these Sulpho-cyanides, na- 
mely, the Sulpho-cyanide of Potassium, was 
frequently found in the contents of the sto- 
mach. To substantiate his position be exa- 
mined a number of bodies in the dissecting 
room, and his results were that in a large 
majority of cases he found that the saliva 
and t he contents of the stomach would strike 
a red color, under the action of the Persalt 
of Iron. He states "the reaction is distinct 
and unequivocally." In regard to the fact, 
whether Ferro-cyanides and Sulpho-cyani- 
des will yield Prussic acid in the distillate 
when distilled with diluted sulphuric acid, 
1 would refer to my work, page 189, where 
the subject is discussed at considerable 
lenght; and, also, to Taylor on poisons, 
page 680, at bottom of page, where he sets 
forth, that if the poison be found in the dis- 
tillate, and no sulphuric acid or any other 
acid has been used in the distillation, then 
there is no question but that the poison exis- 
ted in its free state in the subject subjected 
to distillation ; whereas if sulphric, phos- 
phoric, or tartaric acid had been added to 
the mixture, then even if hydro-cyanic acid 
was not present in the mixture subjected to 
distillation, but there had been present a 
ferro-cyanide, which is a medical substance, 
or sulpho-cyanide which is found in the sa- 
liva, then Prussic acid would appear in the 
distillate. I would remark that you will 
find it stated by some very good writers on 
the subject, that sulphuric acid should be 
used in the distillation. These are works, 
written before ferro-cyande of potassium 
was used as a medicinal agent to any consi- 
derable extent, and prior to the establishing 
of the fact that sulpho-cyanide of»potassium 
was a normal constituent of the saliva, 
which frequently founds its way into the 
stomach in very notable quantities. There 
have been some remarks as to the indications 
of the discovery of traces of Prussic acid in 
the stomach, in the course of the analysis, 
as to whether it indicated a larger quantity 
present nt the time of death., Although it i» 
a fact that the discovery of a trace of poison 
at the time the examination is made, is, in 
itself, no evidence that a larger quantity did 
not exist in the body at the time of death, 
yet on the other hand it is, within itself, no 
evidence that a larger quantity actually did 
exist in the body at the time of death, or 
that even a trace of the poison was present 
at that time. > The presence of the poison, in 
a larger quantity or any of the poison at all, 
can only be established by the symptoms, 
post mortem appearances and attending cir- 
cumstances. Moreover if in the case of hy- 
drocyanic acid, sulphurft? acid has been ad- 
ded to the mixture subjected to distillation, 
and even granting the presence of the poi- 
son in the distillate, HiSre from a chemi- 
cal point of view, no evidence that a trace 
of hydrocyanic acid, as'sdch, existed in the 
to distillation. What 
was the source of the poison, under these 
circumstances, could only be determined by 
an examination of the suspected liquid, or 
matter, prior to the addition of the sulphuric 
acid, Tlie'mbment that sulphuric acid was 
added, it put it beyond the range of chemis- 
try, in case Prussic acid was discovered in 
the distillate, to determine whether the poi- 
son existed as such, in the stomach, or whe- 
ther it was derived from some of the sub- 
stances already named. 
If, as 1 understand, sulphuric acid was 
added to the subject subjected to distillation 
in the analysis of Prof. Aiken, I would not, 
for the reasons stated, consider it sufficient 
for an ordinary examination, I should cer- 
tainly be unablc*to say whether the matter 
subjected to distillation contained a trace of 
Prussic acid. . 
Morphia is by far the most stable in its 
character, Prussic acid being unstable and 
liable to undergo decomposition. Stats 
claimed to have detected morphia thirteen 
months after death, (Taylor on poisons, 
634; Tardieu, 902.) The longest period 
after death that Prussic acid has been dis- 
covered is seventeen days. 
Taylor on Poisons 625, states that he has 
preserved meconate of morpha, in contact 
with organic matter for fourteen months 
without decomposition, "Strong opiate mix- 
tures" is Taylor's expression. I know of 
no cases or series of experiments, upon the 
subject of the counteraction or retardation 
of Prussic acid by the use of Morphia. I 
have examined the books somewhat at length 
and have been unable to find a case of com- 
pound poisoning by Prussic acid and Mor- 
phia. Tardieu speaks of that subject and THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
35 
states that it would be impossible to know 
what would be the result of the administra- 
tion of two or more poisons ; with which my 
experiments fully coincide, and with which 
opionion I fully agree. 
Morphia has been frequently detected in 
the stomach. I have detected it in the hu- 
man stomach, on several occasions, and in a 
great many instances, in the stomach of in- 
ferior animals, upon which my experiments 
have been made. 
I am a regular graduate of a Philadelphia 
School of Medicine, and did general practice 
for a few years. Then I turned my atten- 
tion almost exclusively to the study of the 
effects and chemical properties of poisons, 
relinquishing general practice. In the study 
of the subject of poison, my attention was 
directed to the symptoms, post mortem ap- 
pearances, the time in which poisons proved 
fatal, endeavoring by every means to learn 
the most rapidly fatal, most prolonged cases 
that had been recorded and reported under 
the action of each of the principal poisons. 
The greater part of my time has been devo- 
ted to the study of the chemical properties 
of poisons, studying the exact time and the 
fallacies attending the various tests that 
have been proposed and adding many new 
tests, and studying their fallacies and limit. 
The whole of the chemical part of my work 
on the new chemistry of poisons is the result 
of direct and oft-repeated experiments. 
Cross-Examined: 
I have received two hundred dollars from 
the defendant here, and expect nothing more. 
That includes my expenses. I have been 
promised no more in any event. I have 
it laid down in my book that the action of 
one poison may be modified by the presence 
of another. I can't say how it may modify. 
To what extent or how, is a region not es- 
tablished in the case of any two poisons I 
know of. Reads from page 503 of Wormley's 
work. It is a fact that the tests for the dis- 
covery of morphia are inferior in delicacy 
to the tests for some other poisons. It is a 
fact a person may die of a very large over- 
dose of poison, and no trace of it be dis- 
covered at the time of death. In case no 
emetic had been used we would expect the 
presence of the poison. If it had been used 
we could account for its disappearance. 
Emetic to be taken after the poison, or the 
stomach pump had been used. This would 
in a large measure explain its absence. 
Q. Do not the books show that a few days 
suffice to dissipate all traces of the poison 
from morphia or opium, &c. ? 
A. There are cases on record of that kind. 
In a great number of cases, especially in the 
older cases recorded, there was a failure to 
detect the poison a few days after death. 
Five hours is shortest space of time in which 
traces of morphia were dissipated after 
death. The next shortest time I can't re- 
call. 
Re-Examined-in-Chief.-For certain quanti- 
ties the test of morphia is as certain as for 
other poisons. 
Wm. Kennedy, re-called. 
Heard Dr. Herman's testimony on the 
hearing of the habeas corpus ; I took notes 
at the time ; the Doctor said "they, or some 
one told me she had taken morphia. From 
the condition of her eye or eyes I did not 
think that was the case;" as near as I can 
now remember, such was his language as 
taken down by me, and printed in the Vol- 
unteer •, he also said "I could not say, or I 
did not think (can't remember the exact ex- 
pression,) she died from narcotics I re- 
freshed my recollection by reference to my 
paper a few days ago. 
Dr. C. Worthington, re-called. 
A day or two after Dr. Schoeppe's return 
from Baltimore, after the funeral, he came 
to the store, and I told him of the rumors 
that were in town of his killing Miss Sten- 
necke with morphia, and advised him to 
have the body raised and examined by a 
chemist, and in that way hush the mouths of 
the people who were talking; he said that 
he could not afford to go to that expense to 
satisfy rumor. If a direct charge was made 
of that kind he would then endeavor to do 
it; two or three days after that conversation 
he asked me if I thought morphia could be 
found so many days after her death ? I told 
him I thought not, but that Taylor's Juris- 
prudence was authority, and discussed the 
matter fully ; he asked me where he could 
get a copy ; I told him Mr. Shearer had it, 
I believed; that same day I think, or shortly 
afterwards, he brought a copy of Taylor to 
me ; he said if it was possible to find morphia 
so many days after death he would have a 
post mortem examination of the body, and a 
chemical analysis of the stomach, in order 
to satisfy the people; he said if morphia 
could be found the chemist would say so, 
and if it could not be found he would say he 
could not find it for that reason ; that, he 
said, would have no effect towards clearing 
the minds of the people, or satisfying them 
as to his guilt or innocence. 
I examined saliva; precipitate a blue 
color ; do not know what it was ; treated it 
with gyacum and a solution of sulphate of 
copper. 36 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
J. D. Adair, re-called. 
Dr. Schoeppe, before he went to Balti- 
more with Miss Stennecke's body, wore a 
felt hat, with soft crown and stiff brim, 
turned up at the sides ; 1 never saw him 
wearing any other kind of a hat except a : 
straw one, and a German student's small 
cap; I saw him almost every day. 
Fredrick Schoeppe, sworn. 
Am father of the defendant. He wore a 
round hat before he went to Baltimore, close 
fitting, with soft crown. He never had a | 
high, silk hat before going to Baltimore. He j 
brought a silk hat from Baltimore. The hat 
was too large and I took it. The Dr. bought 
another at Callio's. 1 can't tell when he got 
the hat from Callio's. 
Defence closed 10 a. m., Friday morning, 
June 1, 1869. 
Dr. Conrad here explains, when asked 
the question by counsel for the defence, 
whether 1 remembered a case in Bright's 
disease where fluid did not exist in the cava- 
ties, my answer was I did not remember one. 
Since that time I have remembered a case, 
and on referring to it find it so stated that 
it does not exist, i. e., these fluids in the 
cavities; 1 feel it my duty to state to the . 
Court and informed Mr. Hepburn and the 
other counsel of the fact. 
Defense now offer, under permission of 
the Court, a receipt in the hand-writing of 
Miss Stennecke, dated January 14th, 1869, 
at Carlisle, and signed by Dr. Schoeppe. 
Receipt read, as follows : 
Carlisle, Pa., Jan. 14. 1869. 
k Received of Miss M. M. Stennecke. one 
bond, of the State of Missouri, of one 
thousand dollars, ($1,000,) date 16th day of 
October, 1858, (No. 979,) city of Jefferson, 
being part of the amount of five thousand 
dollars, the sum agreed upon by Miss M. M. 
Stennecke and D. Paul Schoeppe, to be paid 
to D. Paul Schoeppe by Miss M. M. Sten- 
necke, under the proviso that Miss M. M. 
Stennecke, has (by this contract for mar- 
riage) the entire control, possession and 
right to her own estate, personal and real, 
and to the management of the same. 
(Signed,) P. Schoeppe. 
Defence closed finally at 11.07, A. M., on 
Tuesday, June 1, 1869. 
REBUTTING TESTIMONY. 
Dr. Conrad, recalled. ~ 
1 saw nothing in this softening, at that 
point spoken of, to lead me to believe that it 
differed from the general softening of the 
brain ; at the time it occurred I believed it 
to have been caused by dragging upon it, 
and I held the brain in my hand before I cut 
the communication of the medulla with the 
cord ; at the time I believed it to be post 
mortem, anJ have seen no reason to change 
my mind since. 
Mrs. Mary Parker, recalled,-I took hold 
of her hands each one, put them in mine; 
her hands were both warm; her face felt 
natural, some perspiration on it; 1 made no 
examination to discover the temperature of 
different sides of her face; her hands felt 
as her face did: at twelve o'clock was the 
last time I remember feeling her hands. 
Cross Examined:-It was in the morning 
when 1 went in after six; did not feel her 
side at all. 
Mrs. Lavinia Shindel, recalled,-Exam- 
ined her face; can't say that I felt both 
cheeks ; felt one side of her forehead ; I am 
not positive whether 1 felt her right hand or 
not; felt her left hand; found it warm; 
felt it more than once during the day ; 
several times ; it was always the same tem- 
perature. 
Cross-Examined:-Do not remember feel- 
ing her hands after three o'clock ; it might 
have been after dinner, it was the fore part 
of the day ; could not say positively that I 
felt her hands after dinner ; I would not say 
positively that I ever felt her hands after 
dinner; I would not say positively that I 
ever felt' her right hand ; dinner hour is one 
o'clock ; she was reclining to the left side; 
it was the left hand ; the one on the outside 
of the bed; I felt the lower hand. 
C. L. Lochman, recalled,-Felt both hands 
and wrists; in the morning about 7 o'clock; 
felt her face; it was naturally warm; I 
thought, natural moisture. 
Cross-Examined:-It was in the morning, 
bet ween 7 and 8 o'clock ; did not examine in 
the afternoon. 
Mrs Mary Comfort, recalled:-I went 
there at 6£ o'clock the evening Miss Sten- 
necke died ; I found the entire body warm ; 
the entire body was moist; she was dead 
when I came to the room; I undressed her 
and dressed her; the clothing was damp 
with perspiration. 
Cross-Examined :-Her feet were warm. 
Dr. J. J. Zitzer, recalled for Defence.-If 
there was a general softening of the brain 
it would indicate that the person might have 
died from disease: if decomposed that would 
be a different thing ; softening would indi- 
cate a pre-disposition to congestion, and the 
brain of course, could not resist the force 
of the circiflation of the blood, and be the THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL 
37 
cause of apoplexy; I refer to Wunderlich's 
Pathology, vol. 3., page 574. 
The Counsel for the Commonwealth, pre- 
paratory to the argument, before the jury, 
submitted to the Court the following chemi- 
cal and medical authorities upon the subject 
of poisons, symptoms and post mortem ap- 
pearances, from which they design quoting 
the course of discussion. 
Tavlor on Poisons, Edition 1848, pages 
643, 544, 545, 559, 43, 482, 494, 495, 496. 
Wormley on poisons, pages 503, 49, 52, 40 
and 186. 
Casper's Forensic medicine, London Edi- 
tion, 1869, volume 2, pages 67-8-9 and 62. 
Christison on poisons, pages 559, 549. 64 
and 740. 
Flint's Practice of Medicine, pages 83, 
726. 
Wharton & Stille's Medical Jurisprudence, 
page 477, sec. 712, pages 488, 491. 
Dalton's Physiology, Ed. 1861, page 108. 
Taylor's Medical Jurisprudedco, 7th 
edition, 1861, pages 151, 157, 164; 8th 
edition, pages 181-6, 172, 166; Ed. '61, 
pages 31-2-3. 
The counsel for the defense cited the fol- 
lowing chemical and medical authorities, 
upon the subjects before mentioned : 
Wharton & Stille's Medical Jurisprudence, 
sec. 706, page 485 ; sec. 711, page 488. 
Casper's Forensic Medicine, vol. 2, pages 
62, 88, 63, 47, 49, 51 and 68. 
Pardieu's Medico-Legal and Chemical 
Treatise on Poisons, pages 1033, 1035, 874, 
910, 914, inclusive, and 902. 
Taylor on Poisons, American Ed., pages 
524 and 137. 
Taylor on Poisons, London Ed, pages 663- 
4, 657 and 680. 
Wormley on Poisons, page 186 and 185. 
American Journal of Medical Science, of 
Jan., '69, page 37. 
Taylor's principles and practice of medi- 
cal jurisprudence, London Edition, 1865, 
page 343. 
Gmelin's hand-book of chemistry, -page 
12. 
Peireira's, Materia Medica and Therep- 
euties, pages 1033 and 785. 
Flint's practice of medicine, 565, 739-40 
and 72. 
Bennett's practice of medicine, pages 
120-1. 
Wood's practice of medicine, volume 2, 
page 619-20. 
Niemeyer's Pathology, 2d volume, Edition 
of Berlin, 1868, pages 194 and 212. 
Com. Legal Authorities-3 Greenleaf, vol- 
ume 3, sec. 135, page 114. 
Burrill on circumstancial evidence, page 
389-90. 
Roscoe, criminal evidence, page 658. 
Wills on circumstantial evidence, Edition 
of 1857 Top page 203, 204. 
Wharton on Homicide, 329. 
Wills on circumstancial Ev. Law, hil, 
Ed. page 200, 201, 221, 231-32-33. 
Mr. J. Shearer in his remarks to the 
jury, said in substance, that he congratulat- 
ed the jury upon the rapid approach of the 
termination of this trial, and that they could 
look forward to an early discharge from their 
tedious duties. The counsel for the Com- 
monwealth in his opening said to you that if 
you entertained a reasonable doubt as to the 
guilt of his client, under the benign provis- 
ions of the criminal law. it was your duty 
to acquit. Such was the law ; but the Com- 
monwealth would show that there could be 
no doubt in this case, which was one of a 
class not peculiar to the United States. 
Poisoning was a crime perpetuated in Italy, 
France and Germany, and is not common to 
America. It was a late German importa- 
tion which might be regarded as one of the 
essential leading features of this case. 
If we might judge from the levity of the 
prisoner, and his gay conduct, it might safely 
be assumed that he had in his mind the case 
of Castaing his compeer in guilt, where, by 
the skillful administration of poison its pres- 
ence failed to be detected. Year by year 
advances are made in the science of chem- 
istry, and the administrations of poisons, 
and now they can be looked back upon and 
regarded as the mile stones marking out its 
progress. 
Mr. Shearer here took up the occurrences 
the day prior to Miss Stennecke's death, the 
presence of the Doctor at her room, the pur- 
chase of Prussic acid from Dr. Worthington, 
the condition in which Miss Stenneckes was 
found in the morning of the 28th of January, 
the symptoms attending her death and the 
testimony of Drs. Conrad and Ridgley, who 
made the post mortem examination. 
He then said " in laying down the line of 
his argument he would follow the course 
marked out by his colleague when the legal 
authorities were submitted to the court. It 
was not necessary to prove the particular 
kind of poison employed, and all that is was 
incumbent upon the prosecution to show was, 
that death resulted from poison, that the 
prisoner had the opportunity, and the mo- 
tive to administer it. The theory of the de- 
fendants counsel was that death resulted 
from natural causes, but this was disproved 
by the testimony of Dr. Conrad and his as- 38 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
sistants. The commonwealth 
from compound poisoning the death of Miss 
Stennecke was caused, following the case of 
Castaing. The defence say that death re- 
sulted from apoplexy, but we show that the 
symptoms were not those attending this'dis- 
ease. They next say that it might have 
been kidney disease, as described by Flint's 
practice, but the symptoms are not those as 
laid down by him. Their theory that it was 
from nervous apoplexy is disproved by the 
testimony of Dr. Robinson, their own wit- 
ness, who says it is now conceded by the 
majority of medical men that there is no 
such disease. 
The relative merits of Profs. Aikens and 
Wormly were then discussed, and the con- 
duct of Prof. Wormly, criticised. Said the 
speaker. Truth is main object of in- 
quiry, yet we find Prof. Wormly standing 
here in the double capacity of chemist and 
counsellor. In his testimony he lays down 
certain scientific truths, but in his book, 
published before this trial he flatly and di- 
rectly contradicts himself. Medical and 
scientific works from which we have read, 
also contradict him, showing scientific de- 
ductions which have passed the ordeal of 
time. But says the Professor, Prussic acid 
may be present in the stomach, contained in 
the saliva, but Dr. Aiken tells you that there 
was nothing in the stomach, and as a conse- 
quence away goes Prof. Wormley and his 
spittle." 
Mr. Shearer here took up the testimony 
of Mr. Burkholder, L. Smith, Mrs. Parker 
and other witnesses, as to appearances of 
Miss Stennecke when they were summoned 
to her room, arguing that the symptoms and 
appearances did not indicate apoplexy, but 
its total absence; the testimony showing the 
conduct of Dr. Schoeppe about the hotel, the 
different hours he was there; Miss Stenneckes 
weakness on the evening of the27th of Janu- 
ary, when she could not be kept awake by 
the chamber made, Dollie Turner, that be- 
tween 9 and 10 o'clock the same evening she 
could not be aroused by loud knocking at 
her door, and yet under these circumstances 
the Dr. told some of the witneses that she 
talked to him about the eclipse of the moon, 
and asked for something to put her to asleep, 
when she could not be kept awake. The Dr. 
then put her to sleep, ana she never awoke 
save in eternity. 
On the subject of poisoning by Prussic 
acid ; " the possession of it by the prisoner 
was proven, the defence say that he pro- 
cured it from Dr. Worthington, it was not 
good, and that the prisoner had given 2, 5 
and 10 drops to somebody and it did not 
produce sleep, that he called at Dr. Worth- 
ington's and said it was not good, that the 
druggist would send for some if he wished 
it, but saying that an agent would be around 
in a few days, the prisoner remarked he 
could wait. " The singular feature about 
this was, that a woman who had been want- 
ing to go sleep, as alleged by the defense, 
had taken this diluted acid, and failed in its 
intended effects, and yet the prisoner could 
await an indefinate time, for days, until the 
druggist could await the arrival of an agent. 
The woman whom they said had taken it was 
called, and not asked if she had taken Prus- 
sic acid, or if she wanted anything to make 
her sleep. No she did not take Prussic acid, 
but Prof. Aiken found it in the stomach of 
Miss Stennecke. We prove that the pris- 
oner went to Harrisburg for an additional 
supply, and as an evidence of his guilt he 
does not deny it. They could show if he 
was not there, where he was. Dr. Herron 
says he can not be mistaken as to the pris- 
oner's identity, but did not know him with- 
out his hat. The differance is between the 
appearance with a hat on and with it off; and 
not as to the wearing of another kind of hat. 
The defence said he had not a high hat be- 
fore he went to Baltimore, but a criminal 
would have adopted this very disguise, or 
something similar, when he made his calcu- 
lation for perpetrating this murder. 
As to the motive of the prisoner. They 
were clear. The temptation was the money 
of Miss Stennecke, and as evidence of the 
villany of the prisoner we produce letters 
written by him in which he tried to impress 
upon her has religious character, and his 
affection for her; we show that he had a will 
purporting to have been made by her, giving 
him all the property. What good is a will 
during life ? His counsel say the will was 
genuine, and that it would show a stronger 
motive, than if a forgery; we were not per- 
mitted to show it was a forgery, but we take 
the argument of the opposing counsel. From 
the receipt, it appeared that the prisoner 
received $1000, as part of $5000, in consid- 
eration of a contract of marriage. Marriage! 
did this gay young man, in whom the pas- 
sions of youth are strong, want this old wo- 
man's body, or her money ? Was his con- 
duct that of a lover ? Did his smirks and 
smiles during the detailing of the evidence 
of the post mortem examination, indicate the 
affection of the lover ? 
Do not allow justice to be defeated. You 
have the intelligence, and discrimination to 
track the prisoner through his tortuous path. THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
39 
Mr, Shearer closed his remarks by adver- 
ting to the circumstances of the case, show- 
ing other striking points, which in his 
opinion, indicated the guilt of the accused. 
Ma. Miller to the Jury.-Life never 
presents a more solemn duty than the one 
you have now to perform. It is the more 
imposing from the fact that it rests upon you 
individually, and leaves no power to place 
the responsibility of a fatal mistake on others. 
A young man, far from his native land, 
has come to us full of health, eager with the 
hopes of youth, to seek for friends, country 
and home. Aside from a trembling old father, 
he stands alone. By some mysterious Provi- 
dence he is thrown into your hands to say, 
whether he shall live or die. The scene is 
witnessed from Heaven, and an All-Powerful 
and Righteous God watches your delibera- 
tions with a jealous eye. Can you present 
your verdict at his throne and say, "this 
man has sinned, therefore he shall die ?" 
The jurors ought to be clear and certain, 
beyond all doubt, who utter such a judgment 
as this. Life rashly taken, besmears the 
hands with blood indelibly and forever. 
After refering to life as the gift of God 
and that He alone has the right to take it 
away, and that this right has been delegat- 
ed to man in but one single instance, as a 
punishment for the crime of murder - that 
at first, after the production of the will in 
Baltimore, clamors were raised, and a the- 
ory put forth as to the guilt of the accused, 
and expressing the hope that these clamors 
had abated, he referred to the clamor of the 
multitude for the blood of Tocrates, quoting* 
his sublime farewell: "It is now time that 
we part; you to live ; I to die; but which 
has the better destiny in unknown to all ex- 
cept God." Posterity has judged him as in- 
nocent and that his judges were murderers. 
We have still a greater example. Whilst 
i would not compare Divinity with humani- 
ty, or in any wise weigh the sufferings of a 
God with that of a sinful mortal, yet noth- 
ing illustrates the results of the clamors of 
the multitude as the scence on Calvary, 
when a pitying and dying Savior looked 
down on His murderers and prayed. "Fa- 
ther forgive them for they know not what 
they do." That blood still clings after 1900 
years, like an enternal ciirse, to posterity. 
Pilate might well wish to wash his hands of 
it; but, oh! no, no. The "smell of blood" 
is there, and "all the perfumes of Arabia" 
could not sweeten them. 
If your minds are now guarded, let us pro- 
ceed, referring to the rules of law which are 
to govern us in our investigation. 
Mr, Miller here laid down the rules of 
law which governed the case. He said the 
charge naturally divides itself into two 
branches. 
1st. That Miss Stennecke died from the 
effects of Prussic acid, morphia, or Prussic 
acid and morphia combined. 
2nd. That the defendant was the guilty 
agent in administering whatever poison was 
the cause of death. 
The first charge, rest entirely on the in- 
dications of nature, and must be determined 
by an examination ; 1st of the symptoms ; 
2d. of thej»os< mortem examination ; 3d. the 
chemical analysis of the stomach. 
The Commonwealth have been rambling 
wildly over the whole field of poisons, assis- 
ted by guesses of physicians to find a cause 
of death. Nature's law are certain, but 
man's knowledge is limited. As the laws of 
Nature are harmonious, all branches of sci- 
ence must approach to absolutely certainty, 
although that can not be attained because 
of the imperfections of man. 
Let us proceed to refute this charge. 1st. 
Is there any evidence that Prussic was giv- 
en ov found'! None whatever that it was 
given. Commonwealth say he bought Prus- 
sic acid, but the inference from this is lesse- 
ned when we remember that the prisoner is 
a practicing physician. 
There was no evidence that Prussic acid 
was found. This branch of the argument 
led in a general discussion of the chemical 
tests of Prof. Aiken. It was argued that 
they were fallacious, and that its errors 
were exposed by Prof. Himes and Wormley. 
They are equals of Prof. Aiken and stand 
upon the same footing as he does. Their 
testimony has shown that there were falla- 
cious in the analysis, and therefore, des- 
troyed its value as evidence. 
Again, Prussic acid was not found, be- 
cause the symptoms contradict its presence. 
Again. The length of time Miss Stennecke 
lived, after the prisoner, was last known to 
have been in her room, absolutely precludes 
the idea of death from Prussic acid. Again 
The different stages in the progress of the 
effects of Prussic acid on the system, as des- 
cribed by Dr. Zitzer who saw several cases 
of death from Prussic acid, show that it 
was not present, because all the different 
stages-were absent. 
Secondly. Is there any evidence that 
morphia, or opium, was given or found ? 
Neither, Dr. Aiken sought for it, but did 
not find it. The symptoms of it were ab- 
sent. 
Thirdly. Is there any evidence that Prus- 40 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
sic acid, and morphia combined, were given 
or found ? He argued that there was no 
such evidence. As there was no evidence 
that poison had been administered, the next 
subject discussed was, What was the cause 
of death ? The Commonwealth built up a 
theory on these propositions. 
1st . The absence, as they allege, of any 
assignable, natural cause of death ? 
2nd The appearance of Prussic acid in 
the stomach. Both, it was argued, were 
false and fallacious. The post mortem exa- 
mination was then taken up. and it was ar- 
gued that it was too vague to allow a medi- 
cal man to base an opinion upon it. Death 
might have resulted from uraemia, or from 
apoplexy, and as Prussic acid was not prov- 
ed to have been absolutely and certainly pre- 
sent, its existence was at least doubtful, and 
if it be in doubt, the inquiry is ended. You 
can never establish a result from a particu- 
lar cause without first proving the cause to 
have been present. A flight, harmless 
trace, as a result of the analysis, is no cer- 
tain indication of a greater quantity at the 
time of death. If it was, or not, the repre- 
sentative of a greater but unknown quantity 
there is no proof that there was a fatal 
quantity present. An uncertain quantity, 
unsupported by symptoms, can never prove 
that it was a fatal quantity, a fortiori, it can 
not prove it, when death from Prussic acid 
is contradicted by the symptoms, because it 
is uncertain from what she died. This is the 
factum probandum. The' Commonwealth say 
there was a sufficient quantity, because sho 
died ; they might as well say there was a 
sufficient quantity to cause death, and thus 
argue around the circle continually. 
Finally, the symptoms and apdearance of the 
body at the time of death contradicted death 
from Prussic acid. 
Having failed to prove death from Prussic 
acid, have they certainly proved death from 
Morphia ? They have this also on two pro- 
positions. the absence of any assignable 
cause of death ; the symptoms, they said in- 
dicate it. But "indications" will not do, 
and the inferences of the medical witnesses 
are drawn from contradictory symptoms. 
The question "was there any evidence of 
death from a combination of Morphia and 
Prussic acid?" was then argued. The Corfi- 
monwealth base their theory upon •other 
propositions here, the absence of any other 
cause of death, and the combined evidence 
of the chemist who made the analysis and 
the opinion of physicians based upon the hy- 
pothetical case. 
It was then argued that these opinions 
were based upon contradictory symptoms, 
and that all the symptoms, as well as the 
manner of Miss Stennecke's living indicated 
and invited apoplexy. 
As to second charge, was the prisoner the 
guilty agent in administering poison to Miss 
Stennecke? This charge he would leave to 
his colleague, Judge Hepburn, to discuss. 
He referred to the prisoners conduct as evi- 
dence of innocence, remaining in the com- 
munity, where suspicions and anathemas 
were ringing in his ears. 
The remarks made by Mr. Miller were 
closed by saying "that he had done his duty 
and laid before you the points of this case. 
It will soon be your province to take it in 
your hands. Let Mercy go with you. lean 
upon your 'arm and whisper in your ear. 
'There is a beautiful allegory that when 
God contemplated the destruction of man, 
He called around him his ministers, Faith, 
Justice and Mercy. Truth and Justice 
sternly demanded his destruction : saying: 
"he will fill the earth with blood, and with 
widows and orphans." God arose in his 
wrath, and was about to destroy, when 
Mercy said "spare him for my sake, I will 
watch over him; when prone to error, I 
will lead him back." God said, "Mercy, 
thou art My darling child, for thy sake 
man shall live." 
Take this case gentlemen and give it your 
calm and serious attention, so that when 
you render your verdict you can bear 
through your lives no reproaches from a 
disapproving conscience. 
Judge Hbpburn opened his remarks to 
the Jury by saying: "I have no appeals to 
make to your prejudices or your passions. 
Standing in the performance of my duty, it 
will be best performed by adverting to the 
evidence of the case, yours by taking it into 
your careful consideration. Let there be 
one spot upon this earth where a man can 
escape from the dangers, which prejudice 
throws around those who are to sit as judges 
of his guilt or innocence in the trial of a 
case, the issue of which must result in re- 
storing him to liberty, or in the forfeiture 
of his life. Tried by the rules of law, this 
defendant has nothing to fear. It is a 
principle of law, that everyman is to be pre- 
sumed innocent ubtil proven guilty. In my 
whole experience, I have never seen a case 
tried as this has been. We appear to be 
called upon to prove our innocence, and the 
Commonwealth appears to be relieved from 
that rule which requires it to establish our 
guilt. We ask you to give this defendant 
the benefit of no doubt that is not given to THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
41 
the humblest in the land. Every single 
stone in the Commonwealth's arch has been 
taken from it, and Prof. Wormley removed 
the keystone. Prof. Himes stood before you 
manfully, and although his has been referred 
to as teaching boys, he has taught an older 
man before his returned to Baltimore, prin- 
ciples of the science of chemistry, with 
which he was before unacquainted. We do 
not quarrel with science, but we do quarrel 
with those who prove theriiselves behind the 
times in matters of science. Professor 
Aiken's analysis was right so far as it went, 
but it did not go far enough. So, too, with 
Dr. Conrad in his post mortem examination, 
it was not carried to such an extent as 
would permit any one to say that death did 
not result from natural causes. Prof. 
Wormley is a gentleman of world-wide rep- 
utation. a former resident of our own town, 
and stands before you without a prejudice 
in this case, and simply as a witness to speak 
to you of the fallacies which appear in the 
chemical analysis as conducted by Prof. 
Aiken. 
I shall now take up the case on the testi- 
mony, commenting upon it without pervert- 
ing, as was done by the gentleman (Mr. 
Shearer,) who first addressed you. 
The testimony of Mr. Burkholder, Mrs. 
Parker, Mr. C. L. Lochman, and Dollie 
Turner, was now quoted by the counsel, and 
his argument was, that the symptoms as de- 
tailed by these witnesses, showed conclu- 
sively that death was caused by apoplexy, 
to sustain the argument, extracts from a 
number of medical works were read, ex- 
hibiting the symptoms of death from 
Prussic acid, and symptoms of death from 
apoplexy, with which latter, it was argued 
that those attending fhe death of Miss Sten- 
necke fully corresponded. The opinions of 
the medical witnesses were then referred to, 
and in the course of the argument the testi- 
mony of Dr. Herman was thus referred 
to. 
"Dr. Herman's testimony presents the 
awful picture of a man of standing in the 
community, of long experience in his pro- 
fession, the family physician of many of us, 
placing himself in the disgraceful position 
of perverting the truth for the purpose of 
securing the conviction of the defendant, 
his former friend. A more humiliating 
spectacle was never presented. Dr. Her- 
man swore to what was not true on the 
hearing of the habeas corpus, or he swore 
so before this Court. I feel for him, and 
deeply regret that he should have placed 
himself before you in such a position as he 
has. His testimony is unworthy of your 
credit, and we have asked the Court to 
instruct you to disregard it in this case in- 
volving the life of the prisoner/' 
The different chemical tests for the de- 
tection of Prussic acid were then reviewed, 
the line of argument being that the analysis 
was,incomplete, because of the omission to 
use the nitrate of silver test. The testi- 
mony of Profs. Himes and Wormley was 
again compared with that of Prof. Aiken. 
That death could not have resulted from 
morphia, was the next point in the argu- 
ment. The symptoms as laid down in the 
books were totally different from those at- 
tending the death of Miss Stennecke. 
After an elaborate review of the testi- 
mony, in which it was contended that the 
moral evidences of guilt were of no weight, 
that as argued by the counsel for the Com- 
monwealth, the making of a will and the 
reputed marriage agreement were of no 
importance in this case, as showing a 
motive, "because if followed to its logical 
conclusion, every man having a rich wife, 
every son of a wealthy father, would be in- 
terested in getting rid of them for the pur- 
pose of procuring their money," the counsel 
closed his remarks, stating to the Jury that 
there could be no conviction for man- 
slaughter, it mGst be for murder in the first 
degree or acquital, and from all the testimony* 
giving she prisoner the benefit of all 
doubts, an acquittal must necessarily fol- 
low. 
C. E. Maglaughlix to the Jgry-More 
than 1800 years ago. He who died for a sin- 
ful world, laid down his life on Calvary- 
Time has rolled around, and now a world 
gather around the altar, and their worship 
goes up to the Divine Throne. Those days 
when violence was rife, have given place to 
better and happier ones. Under the in- 
fluence of the gospel, the world has gone on 
its march of improvement, and Christiani- 
zation. Laws have been enacted fixing just 
penalties for tjie perpetration of crimes, yet 
when an old woman is murdered and the 
murderer is brought before the bar of 
justice, this enlightened, intelligent com- 
munity is compared to the rabble that, as- 
sembled around the foot of the Cross, and 
the murderer to Him who died upon it. I 
leave it to you gentlemen to say whether 
this comparison is a just one. If there is 
clamor in the community it tells the counsel 
for the prisoner, that there is a deep in- 
terest in the punishment of the offender. 
You hear, day after day, the hum of busy 
industry, as men seek by honest labor to 42 
THK 8CH0EPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
earn a competence for themselves and 
families. To originate a false sympathy for 
a man who seeks to acquire a fortune by 
foul means, is to close the door to justice. 
The poisoner, if this mock sympathy is to 
prevail, will then be busy with his subtle 
cup, and the crack of the pistol, and the 
gleam of the knife will be heard and seen 
on every hand. Judge Lynch will then 
take the place of your Courts, and every 
tree become a gallows. 
But our Courts are open for a far different 
purpose. Here criminals are awarded a fair 
trial, before an impartial jury of their coun- 
trymen. For the earnest effort to perform 
my duty, as the Commonwealth's Attorney, 
I know I have been denounced and traduced 
over the counters of beer shops, but I hereby 
say to all, that I despise and contemn these 
attacks whether they are echoed in beer 
shops, or find a mouthpiece in the counsel 
for the prisoner, before the Court and Jury. 
The Commonwealth does not seek the pun- 
ishment of the prisoner because he is a for- 
eigner. Our country invites to liberty, but 
it is liberty regulated by law. To those laws 
this defendant must conform, or be visited 
with punishment for their transgression. 
The fact that he is a foreigner is no evidence 
of his guilt, yet it is not on the other hand, 
as argued no evidence, of his innocence. 
Although the counsel for the defense have 
consumed four hours in their addresses, they 
have said nothing, but appealed to you to 
give them the benefit of the doubt-doubt- 
doubt-and a remarkable fact is, that not 
one of them has insisted upon the innocence 
of the accused. 
The two questions that arise are: Did 
Miss Stennecke die from natural disease or 
from poison? If from poison,, did the pris- 
oner administer it ? 
The coUnsei here took up the hypothetical 
case, and in answer to the allegations of the 
prisoner's counsel that it did not embody the 
facts as proved in the trial, referred to the 
testimony of Mr. Burkholder k Mrs. Parker, 
Mrs. Schindle, Dollie Turner and the other 
witnesses, and comparing them closely, 
showed that the case as put to the medical 
witnesses, was drawn from the testimony, 
and was in all respects, a parallell case to 
that on trial. In this connection the opinions 
of the medical witnesses, Dr. Kieffer, Dr. 
Dale, Dr. Herman, Dr. Zeigler and Dr. 
Haldeman that death was not from natural 
causes was commented upon. In his com- 
ments upon the testimony of Dr. Kieffer, he 
referred to the expression used by the Dr. 
as to his inability to give an " unconditional 
opinion," and explained to the Jury that the 
evidence that the Dr. was not permitted to 
consider, was that upon which they would 
be requin d to pass, in connection with the 
other testimony. He called attention to the 
fact that although there were numberless 
physicians throughout this and adjoining 
counties, they call but three, and of neither 
of these did the counsel for the defence, ask' 
the question, " whether Miss Stennacke died 
from natural disease pr not." They say they 
proposed to ask it, but had not time to write 
a hypothetical case! Not time to write a 
hypothetical case when Mr. Miller tells us 
he has travelled all over the country con- 
sulting chemists, and yet he could not find 
time to write this form of a question!" 
The theory of the defence that death re- 
sulted from apoplexy was then discussed, 
and the argument used was that the symp- 
toms, were totally different from those as 
described in medical works. The theory as 
to death from uraemia, was . then attacked, 
and the testimony of Dr. Cowdrey, a witness 
for the defence was skilfully & forcibly used, 
as also Flint's Practice of Medicine, to re- 
fute the argument advanced by the counsel 
for the defence. The speaker said that 
" Dr. Zitzer, who is styled an old physician, 
was not asked whether death resulted from 
uraemia, but they ask Dr. Cowdrey who says 
that it is an infallible rule that in death from 
uraemia the blood is pale and enemic. whereas 
in the case of Miss Stennecke it was dark 
and fluid." They did not ask Dr. Zitzer this 
question, because they knew his answer 
would have gone crashing like a thunderbolt, 
through the superstructure of doubt which 
they were attempting to build. So far they 
have not dared to attempt a refutation of our 
theory as to the cause <ff death." 
The attack upon Prof. Aiken was next met 
by the argument that if Prof. Aiken received 
$250 for his services, it was a professional fee, 
which he would have received whether poison 
had been found or not, whilst Dr. Wormley 
the Ajax for the defence, the itinerant wit- 
ness, received $200 for his voluntary atten- 
dance as a witness, and yet, although he 
claims to be a physician, the question as to 
the cause of death was not asked him. 
The argument was then confined to the 
appearance, and softening of the brain, 
which the counsel for the defence alleged 
might have caused death, but this softening 
in a part, as Dr. Conrad detailed, was post 
mortem. The testimony of Dr. Zitzer, who 
when asked if there had been a general soft- 
ening would it not have caused immediate 
death, remarki d that had it been anti mor- THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
43 
tern " she would not have walked far," fully 
confirms Dr. Conrad. 
The results of Prof. Aikens' analysis and 
his testimony, were next commented upon, 
the argument being that the Prof, detected 
the Prussic acid, from the odor, and the use 
of the iron and sulphur tests. A high tribute 
was here paid to Prof. Himes for his straight 
forward manner in delivering his testimony, 
and a criticism passed upon Prof. Wormley 
" with his basket full of books," who did not 
dispute that Prussic acid was there, but 
said that the use of Sulphuric acid or the 
presence of chemical substances in the, 
stomach, from a deposit of saliva, might 
have produced it. As to the presence of 
Morphia, and the possibility of its detection, 
whilst Prof. Wormly cited a case where it 
had been detected thirteen months after 
death, he said that in a vast majority of ca- 
ses from three to four days were sufficient 
to dissipate all traces of it, and cited a case 
where it had wholly disappeared in four 
hours after death. 
In reply to the allusion to the testimony 
of Dr. Herman the counsel said, "An attack 
has been made upon Dr. Herman, by one of 
the gentlemen who addressed you, but Dr. 
Herman stands too high in this community 
as an honest, truthful man, as a skillful, ex- 
perienced physician, to be injured by an as- 
sault from those by whose side he will stand 
in no unfavorable light." 
A general argument sustaining the posi- 
tion of the Commonwealth as to death from a 
compound poisoning was now entered into, in 
which the probable manner of its adminis- 
tration was sketched, the carefully prepared 
plan for the perpetration of the crime sur- 
veyed, and the argument used that from the 
knowledge the prisoner possessed of the 
effects of poison, he would administer noth- 
ing which would be instantaneous, and lead 
to immediate suspicion, but that from the 
counteraction of poisons by which all the 
symptoms of death from any one would be 
changed, death had been caused. 
The argument then turned upon the moral 
evidences of guilt-closely connecting all the 
facts of the case, the attention of the prisoner 
to his patient, his want of money, his allusion 
to the interest other than professional which 
he pretended to have for her, his mockery of 
making professions of a Christian hope for 
her recovery, the production of the will 
whereby $45,000 in value of property was 
bequeathed to the prisoner, the purchase of 
the poison at Dr. Worthington's in Carlisle, 
and Dr. Herron's at Harrisburg, his pres- 
ence at her room different hours of the day 
and evening preceding her death, the re- 
ceipt for $1,000, in which a contract of mar- 
riage was mentioned, &c., &c. 
In conclusion Mr. Maglaughlin said: The 
case is now in your hands. The Common- 
wealth does not ask a conviction if you en- 
tertain a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of 
the prisoner. One of the counsel for the 
defence cried out to you nothing but doubt, 
doubt, doubt; the other appealed to you for 
mercy, using an allegory in which the mi- 
nisters Truth, Justice and Mercy were cal- 
led upon to speak as to the destruction of 
Man. You have nothing to do with a ques- 
tion of mercy, and I would remind the coun- 
sel for the defence of that couplet which 
says: 
"That mercy I to others show 
That mercy show to me." 
If the prisoner is wronged upon this trial 
he has his remedy in the Supreme Court, 
beyond it stands the Governor with the par- 
doning power ; and high above all the great 
Tribunal before which you will have noth- 
ing to fear, if from all the circumstances of 
the case, you find the prisoner guilty. The 
punishment is death, but with that you have 
nothing to do, the prisoner will pass into 
the hands of the Court, and be dealt with as 
the laws command. Leave future results 
out of your view, and give this case your 
serious consideration, confident that you will 
have done your duty in the sight of Him who 
aoeth all things well. 
Charge of the Court to the Jury. 
The prisoner at the bar, Paul Schoeppe, I 
indicted for the murder of Maria M. Sten- 
necke, by administering, to her dangerous 
and poisonous drugs, on the 27th of January 
last. 
The charge is one of most grave import, as 
murder is the highest grade of crime known 
to our criminal law, and involves the life of 
the defendant. The case therefore requires 
and doubtless will receive your deliberate 
and serious considsration. 
On the indictment you may find the defen- 
dant guilty of murder of the first degree, of 
murder of the second degree, Or of voluntary 
manslaughter. The definition of murder at 
common law is, where a person of sound 
memory and discretion unlawfully kills any 
reasonable creature in being, and in the 
peace of the Commonwealth with malice afor- 
thought, either express or implied." In 
Pennsylvania murder at common law is of 
two grades or kinds,-murder of the first or 
murder of the second degree. The act of 
1794, re-enacted in 1860, provides, "that all 
murder which shall be perpetrated by means 44 
THIS SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
of poison, or lying in wait, or by any other | 
kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated 
killing, or which shall be committed in the ' 
perpetration, or attempt to perpetrate any 
arson, rape, robbery or burglary, shall be 
deemed murder of the first degree, and all | 
other kinds of murder shall be deemed mur- 
der of the second degree ; and the jury be- 
fore whom any person indicted for murder 
shall be tried, shall, if they find such per- 
son guilty thereof, ascertain in their verdict 
whether it be murder of the first or second 
degree." 
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of 
another, without malice, either express or 
implied. From the language of the Act of 
Assembly, which we have read, you will see 
that murder prepetrated by poison is mur- 
der of the first degree, unless it is givtn 
through accident or mistake, and then it 
would not be a criminal offence. But where 
poison is. wilfully administered with the in- 
tention to kill, it is murder of the first de- 
gree, it is necessarily wilful, deliberate and 
premeditated, for the victim is selected, the 
means procured, the time and place to pre- 
petrate the act appointed. To constitute ' 
murder in the first degree there must be an 
intention to kill, to constitute murder in the 
second degree the intention to kill must be 
wanting, and this is the distinguishing fea- 
ture between the two grades of murder. 
Murder of the second degree is, where 
is no intention to kill, but the death of an- 
other is caused in the commission of an un- 
lawful act. Malice is implied from the un- 
lawful nature of the act, or from the use of 
a dangerous weapon nsed in the heat of 
blood without sufficient provocation to re- 
duce the grade of crime from murder to 
manslaughter, where there is no intention to 
kill. If an intention to kill existed at the 
time, the crime cannot be murder of the 
second degree. It will be either murder of 
the first degree or manslaughter. If you 
find death was caused be the prisoner by 
wilfully administering poisons to the decased 
with the intention to kill, this mould be mur- 
der of the first degree. If poisonous medi- 
cines were given to the deceasd by the pri- 
soner, but not with intention of causing her 
death, then the prisoner may be guilty of 
manslaughter or he may not be guilty of 
any crime, as we will explain to you in a sub- 
sequent part of our charge. 
The Commonwealth allege that the death 
of Miss Stennecke was caused by dangerous 
and poisonous drugs, by prussic acid or by 
morphia, or the two combined, administered 
to her by the prisoner4 with intent to destroy 
her life. 
From the evidence it appears that Miss 
Stennecke was an elderly lady, propable 
about sixty-five years of age, who resided in 
the city of Baltimore. She was possessed of 
a considerable estate, amounting to $40,000- 
In the summer of 1868, she visited Carlisle, 
and was at Mrs. Woods, a distant relative. 
The office of Dr. Schoeppe was within a few 
doors of Mrs. Woods residence, and the doc- 
tor and Miss Stennecke became acquainted 
during that time. From the acquaintance 
formed at that time. Dr. Schoeppe addres- 
sed a letter to her after her return to Balti- 
more, which is dated 7th of November, 1868, 
stating that he could make an advantageous 
purchase of Dr. Herman's real estate and 
good will, if he could procure $2,000, and 
other advantages he considered he would 
derive from the purchase. Miss Stennecke 
returned again to Carlisle, in November, and 
put up at Mr. Hannon's Hotel. She left 
Mr. Hannon's and went to the Mansion 
House, kept by Mr. Burkholder, on the 19th 
of January. 1859. On the morning of the 
27th January, (Wednesday,) she was at 
breakfast, and on the street that morning, 
at Bank after 9 o'clock, signed a check and 
received the money. Mr. Smith, the teller 
in the Bank, says she appeared in her usual 
state of health. On that day she was not at 
dinner. Mrs. Parker, a boarder at the 
house, states that she missed Miss Stennecke 
at the dinner, and went to her room at 2 
o'clock. She found her completely prostra- 
ted. and seemed very languid and very 
drowsy. Witness was not in her room again 
until Thursday morning, a little after 6 o'- 
clock. Witness says she then found Miss 
Stennecke lying insensible, breathing rather 
heavily. Thought her eyes a very little bit 
open, in the morning when she first saw her. 
Witness saw her again at 12 o'clock, her 
eyes were closed, and there seemed to be a 
perspiration on her face. She went back to 
Miss Stennecke's room before 6 o'clock in 
the evening and remained to her death. Wit- 
ness further stated that deceased was lying 
on her left side, in an easy position. Her 
forehead and hands somewhat clammy, rat- 
her cold, was under the impresion that they 
felt natural and considered her under the 
influence of morphia, and when that went 
off she would be well. No unusual odor in 
the room, no odor of peach leaves or bitter 
almonds. No froth about her mouth. Her 
breathing did not amount to a snore but 
made quite a noise. No disortion of feat- 
ures, nothing like convulsions. Her brea- THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
45 
thing not regular, apparently stops for a 
while, no rigidity of the muscles. Mrs. 
Parker states that she saw Dr. Schoeppe the 
day of Miss Stennecke's death, and asked 
him why he gave her the vomit the day be- 
fore, and he said he only gave her two 
grains of tartar emetic and ten of epicac. 
Witness said Miss Stennecke had told her 
that the doctor gave her something to make 
her sleep. That the doctor shook his head 
very much and said, no ! no! I did not give 
her anything to make her sleep. 
Dolly Turner, a colored girl, and one of 
the chambermaids at the hotel, who attended 
to Miss Stennecke's room, says, that Dr. 
Schoeppe came to se6 Miss Stennecke pretty 
often. That he was there the morning she 
took sick, between 10 and 11 o'clock. He 
went into Miss Stennecke's room, and called 
to witness to bring him a spoon. The doc- 
tor met her at the door and took the spoon. 
After the docter left, witness was called by 
Miss Stennecke to empty her bucket. Miss 
Stennecke said he had given her something 
to throw the heaviness oif her chest. That 
she vomited after the doctor left. In the 
afternoon at 3 o'clock, the doctoi" told wit- 
ness Miss Stennecke wanted a chamber- 
maid. Witness went to her room door, Miss 
Stennecke was lying on bed, did not seem 
very ilk She went to her room again bet- 
ween 7 and 8 o'clock, and found her seem- 
ing to be very sick and sleepy, witness hel- 
ped her out of bed and to undress her, and 
when witness would not speak to her, would 
doze off sitting on the chair, Witness next 
saw her at 6 o'clock next morning when she 
did not speak or move. Witness on cross- 
examination says she did not notice any un- 
usual odor in the room, nor any frothing 
about the mouth. 
Mrs. Schindle, who boarded at same house 
states that she saw Miss Stennecke at break- 
fast on the morning of the 27th, did not see 
her again until morning of 28th, when she 
saw her in her own room between 7 and 8 
o'clock, in an unconsious state, breathing 
quite heavily, her pulse strong, a little 
quick. Hei' hands and forehead appeared 
moist and in a natural condition. Before 
her death, witness states her breathing was 
long and heavy, not rapid and gasping, fre- 
quent intervals of a moment or so in her 
breathing, showed no convulsions, no dis- 
tortions of the features. Her tougue and 
mouth a little twisted to the left side on 
which she was laying. No contraction or 
rigidity of hands or feet, no unusual odor ; 
nothing like bitter almonds or peach leaves ; 
no froth about the mouth, a little saliva 
escaping from it; eyes closed; no spasmod- 
ic contraction about the mouth. Mr. Loch- 
man saw her on the morning of the 28th, 
about 7 o'clock ; he remembers her as lying 
on her left side, insensible ; breathing slow 
and labored; temperature of her body na- 
tural ; skin moist; her hands warm and 
feet cold ; museles seemed very much relax- 
ed ; mouth partly open; eyes closed ; pulse 
natural, a little excited. Dr. Schoeppe was 
sent for between 8 and 9 o'clock, came up as 
Mr. Rheem states, very much excited; went 
up to the bed, made some examination and 
then said he must go for the stethescope; he 
returned in a very short time. Upon fur- 
ther examination, said he would not take it 
upon his conscience to bleed, and said he 
would like to have Dr. Herman. Dr. Her- 
man was sent for and got to Miss Sten- 
necke's room abdut 11 o'clock, met Dr. 
Schoeppe there. Dr. Herman states that Dr. 
Schoeppe told him it was a case of hemi or 
half palsy. Dr. Herman states the patient 
was lying inclined to her left side ; he went 
to her bedside, felt both arms and found no 
pulsation in either; he then drew her eye 
lids appart; found both eyes alike, a con- 
tracted state of the pupils. He told Dr. 
Schoeppe that he thought she was past bleed- 
ing, past taking remedies ; he did not look 
upon it as hemi plegia; was puzzled to 
know what was wrong; had never seen 
henii plegia in that condition before; when 
he opened the eye it put him in mind of a 
hawk that was poisoned with a compound 
poison, and remarked that she was rather 
overdosed with medicine of some kind. The 
drugs given to the hawk were opium pills 
or laudanum mixed with bread crumbs, 
prussic acid and corrosive sublimate ; her 
symptoms, indicated no natural disease that 
he never saw a form of sickness like it before, 
could not tell the cause of her death. It 
was a singular form of sickness that he 
could not account for at all. Mrs. Schindle 
in her testimony, also states that Mr. Schoep- 
pe told her on the 28th, the day Miss Sten- 
necke died, between 9 and 10 o'clock, that 
he had given her a vomit the day before, 
and when he returned about 12 o'clock, he 
found her very much prostrated. That he 
was in to her several times in the afternoon 
and in the evening between 8 and 9 o'clock. 
That at that time she was in her full senses 
and spoke about the eclipse of the moon.- 
That she asked him for something to put 
her to sleep when he refused to give her say- 
ing she was too weak. That she said she 
would take something herself, and he shook 
his finger at her, told her not to.do so and left 46 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
the room. 
Mr. Burkholder, the proprietor of the ho- 
tel, states that he went to Miss Stennecke's 
room the night of the 27th, between 9 and 10 
o'clock; the transom was open above the 
door; thinking she might want something he 
called to her two or three times, and got no 
answer and left the room. 
In connection with this evidence you will 
consider the testimony of Mrs. Horn, a wit- 
ness called by the defendant. She was at 
the hotel at the time. She states that she 
was called by the chambermaid in the morn- 
ing, and went into Miss Stennecke's room 
about seven o'clock, and found her in an un- 
conscious state, lying with her mouth open 
and tongue drawn to one side, and breathing 
heavily. Witness says they were short 
breaths, not very short; her breathing was 
not natural; occasionally slight stoppage in 
her breathing. She was drawn somewhat to 
the left side ; her eyes closed, her pulse not 
regular and weakened rapidly. Her feet 
both cold up above the instep, her left hand 
was cold and not her right. In the afternoon 
witness says she noticed that she was in a 
profuse perspiration on her right side. The 
left hand was cold, her left side was not in a 
perspiration it was her right side. Witness 
felt her skin on the right side and said it ap- 
peared natural, felt her left hand and arm 
several times that day, did not feel any other 
part of the left side except the face. The 
left side of her face was cold, and the right 
side of her face was warm. You will also 
consider the statement of Mrs. Parker, Mrs. 
Shindie, Mr. Lochman, and Miss Comfort. 
Mrs. Parker states that both her hands were 
warm and her face felt natural with some 
perspiration on it. Mrs. Sch indie says she 
felt her cheek and forehead, and her left 
hand several times through the day, and it 
was wTarm. Mr. Lochman says that at 7 
o'clock, in the morning he felt both her hands 
and wrists, and they seemed to him of a uni- 
form warmth. Miss Comfort, who laid her 
out, said she found after death, her entire 
body warm and moist, and her clothing 
covered with perspiration. 
Wm. Drew a colored man, and waiter at 
Mr. Hannon's hotel, w'here Miss Stennecke 
boarded before she went to Mr. Burkholder's 
a witness called by defendant, states that he 
waited on her at table at the time she boarded 
at Mr. Hannon's. That she complained a 
good deal of giddiness in her head. That 
she was a hearty eater, and would take 
little things from table to eat between 
meals. That he met her on the street the 
day before her death, between 10 and 11 
o'clock. Asked her how she was, that she 
said she felt dull and bad. Had been eat- 
ing beefsteak the evening before, and was 
trying to walk it off. 
We have stated the principal facts and cir- 
cumstance in evidence in reference to her 
health and condition the day before her 
death, and her appearance and symptoms 
the day of her death from 6 o'clock in the 
morning when she was found unconscious 
and unable to move, and remained in that 
situation until her death, at 6 o'clock in the 
evening. No one it appears saw her from 
between 8 and 9 o'clock of the evening pro- 
ceeding her death, to 6 A. M., of the day she 
died. The accounts of those who saw her 
last oh the evening of the 27th are contra- 
dictory, and to our mind not easily recon- 
cilable. Mrs. Parker says that on Wednes- 
day afternoon she found her very drowsy. 
That witness and Mps. Shindie offered to 
remain with her, but she refused to permit 
them. The chambermaid states between 7 
and 8 o'clock in the evening, when she 
went to her room and assisted to undress and 
put her to bed, she found her seeming to be 
very sick and sleepy, and when the witness 
would not speak to her, she would doze off 
sitting on the chair, and witness would 
call her to arouse her. Mr. Burkholder 
states that between 9 and 10 o'clock of that 
night he went to her room, thinking she 
might stand in need of something. That 
the ventilator above the door was open and 
he rapped at her door two or three times, 
and called to her two or three times and got 
no answer. But Mrs. Shindie says that Dr. 
Schoeppe told her he was at Miss Sten- 
necker's room the same night between 8 and 
9 o'clock, and at that time she was in her 
full senses, and spoke about the eclipse of 
the moon. > 
The body of deceased was taken to Balti- 
more on Friday after her death, accompan- 
ied by Mr. Rheem, a distant relative, and 
the defendant, who attended the funeral on 
Saturday. The body was disinterrd and a 
post mortem examination made on the 10th 
of February, 13 days after her death. This 
examination was made by Dr. J. S. Conrad, 
resident physician of the Baltimore Infir- 
mary, assisted by Dr. N. G. Ridgley. We 
deem it unnecessary to detail the minutia of 
the post mortem. It has been minutely de- 
tailed by Dr. Conrad, and elaborately com- 
mented on by counsel. The brain, lungs, 
heart liver, abdomen, chest, stomach, 
spleen and bowels were examined and 
found in a natural state, nothing indicating 
death from disease. Dr. Conrad says he THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
47 
did not examine the kidneys because he did 
not consider it necessary. Dr. Ridgely, who 
concurs with Dr. Conrad, that he found no 
cause from disease, no evidence of disease 
of the brain, did not examine the spinal 
marrow, Some parts of the brtiin were soft- 
ened. 
We will here state that the theory of the 
Commonwealth's counsel as we understand 
it, is that death was caused by a compound 
poison of prussic acid and morphia, the 
system being first relaxed by administer- 
ing tartar emetic. 
To discover if possible the cause of death, 
the stomach and sections of the intestines 
were handed over to Prof. Aiken, who has 
been Professor of Chemistry and Pharmacy 
in the University of Maryland for 32 years. 
The Professor detailed his chemical analysis 
minutely. He cut the stomach and intes- 
tines in small pieces, mingled them together 
and divided the mass into two parts, one he 
used to ascertain whether there was any 
prussic acid. He added a proper quantity 
of water and a small quantity of sulphuric 
acid and proceeded in the manner described 
by him to obtain by distillation, a few 
ounces of liquid. He states that there are 
two modes of inquiry ; to examine for the 
liquid, and to examine for the vapor prussic 
acid, either of which he would consider re- 
liable, one is called the iron test and the 
other the sulphur test. He pursued both 
these modes of inquiry which resulted in 
procuring a faint trace of prussic acid, sat- 
isfied him that it must have been present in 
the distillate or liquid produced by distilla- 
tion. In connection with the evidence of 
Professor Aikens, you will consider that of 
Professor Himes, Professor of Chemistry in 
Dickinson College, and Professor Wormley, 
Professor of Chemistry in Capital University, 
Columbus, Ohio. From the positions the 
three Professors examined occupy, it may 
be presumed they are all gentlemen of em- 
inence in their profession. The two latter, 
after hearing the evidence of Prof. Aiken, 
do not concur with him in the opinion he 
has expressed from the chemical analysis 
made by him. There is another test men- 
tioned by Prof. Aiken, called the nitrate of 
silver test. This he did not apply because 
he considered The results of the iron and 
sulphur tests entirely satisfactory. In this 
Professors Himes and Wormley do not con- 
cur. To arrive at that state of certainty re- 
quired in cases of this kind, they consider 
the nitrate of silver test ought to be applied. In 
addition they state thatsulphuric acid being 
used in the substances, before distillation, 
would prevent any reliable result being ob- 
tained from the liquid procured by distilla- 
tion. That there may be substances in the 
stomach harmless in themselves, which will 
produce prussic acid tvhen sulphuric acid is 
used in the chemical tests, as it was by Prof. 
Aiken in this case. If you entertain from 
this conflct of evidence, a reasonable doubt 
whether traces of prussic acid were found 
by Prof. Aiken in this chemical analysis, 
then you ought not to consider his evidence 
in determining the guilt or innocence, of the 
prisoner, for it is incumbent on the common- 
wealth to etablish the guilt of defendant by 
a connected chain of facts and circumstan- 
ces, each of which shall be sustained by evi- 
dence which satisfies the jurors beyond a 
reasonable doubt. So in reference to the 
post mortem examinations. If, from the 
evidence of Dr. Zitzer, Dr. Coudry, Dr. Ro- 
binson, or othei* medicial witnesses, you con- 
sider that the post mortem examination as 
conducted and detailed in evidence by Dr. 
Dr. Conrad and Dr. Ridgley was incomplete 
and uncertain, and did not justify the opi- 
nion expressed by the doctors who conduc- 
ted it, that there was no natural causes of 
death discoverable, then you ought not to 
consider this evidence, if you consider it 
doubtful and unreliable, in passing upon 
the question of guilt or innocence. 
The defendant is not required to show the 
cause of death, or that it occurred from 
natural causes. He is not required to prove 
his innocence. This the law presumes until 
guilt is proved by the evidence of the Com- 
monwealth ; nor is the Commonwealth re- 
quired to prove what kind of poison caused 
death, whether prussic acid, morphia, the 
two combined, or other poisons; but the 
evidence must satisfy you that death was 
caused by poisons or poisonous drugs of 
some kind, administered by the defendant. 
The defendants counsel contend that from 
the evidence of the medical witnesses ex- 
amined, death may have occurred from 
apoplexy or from disease of the kidneys; 
that the spinal marrow and the kidneys 
were not examined, and therefore there is 
no satisfactory evidence that death might 
not have been caused either by apoplexy or 
uremia,-that is disease of the kidneys 
We consider it unnecessary to refer more 
particularly than we have done to the evi- 
dence, to show on the one hand that death 
was caused by poison, and on the other, to 
show the insufficiency of the evidence on 
the part of the prosecution to prove that 
death resulted from poison, The result of 
the chemical analysis by Prof. Aiken failing 48 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
to detect the presence of morphia and to 
show conclusively the presence of prussic 
acid, as stated by Profs. Himes and Wormley 
is relied upon to show that there is no evi- 
dence of poison being detected in the body 
of the deceased, and in the absence of such 
evidence that defendant ought not to be 
eo-nvicted. On the contrary, the prosecution 
contend that even if there was a failure to 
detect the presence of prussic acid or mor- 
phia in the stomach of decased upon the 
chemical analysis, this does not establish 
the fact that death was not caused by prussic 
acid or morphia ; on account of the time 
that intervened between death and the 
chemical analysis. Miss Stennecke died on 
the 28th of January. The body was disinter- 
red on the 10th of February, 13 days after 
death. The evidence of the medical wit- 
nesses and the medical writers referred to 
by counsel, appear to establish the fact, that 
from the unsubstantial and volatile nature 
of both prussic acid and morphia, cases 
have occurred where no traceof either could 
be found in the stomach or intestines, 
where a chemical examination was made in 
a shorter period of time after death than 
occurred in this case. The defence further 
contend that the symptoms in this case did 
not at all indicate that death was caused by 
prussic acid, and that the time that inter- 
vened before death, precludes the possibility 
of death from that cause. The symptoms 
described by the witnesses who were present 
during the day of her death, do not cor- 
respond with those stated by the medical 
witnesses, as those which precede death 
from prussic acid. Miss Stennecke, the wit- 
nesses describe, as lying in an unconscious, 
insensible state from 6 o'clock in the morn- 
ing, when the chambermaid entered her 
room, until 6 o'clock in the evening, when 
she died. No spasms, no convulsions, no 
contractions of the muscles, all of which 
physcians state are the symptoms produced 
from the effects of prussic acid. And that 
its effects are violent and immediate, and 
generally cause death in from 5 to 20 or 30 
minutes. But the Commonwealth allege 
that death occurred not from prussic acid 
alone, but from the combined effects of 
prussic acid and morphia. We have no evi- 
dence of the symptoms that would result 
/ from the effects of those combined poisons. 
\The books, Prof. Wormley says, are silent on 
this subject But the same Professor states 
in his work upon poisons, that the action of 
one poison may be modified by the presence 
of an another, which is illustrated by the case 
of a person who took 3 grains of strychnine. 
one drachm of opium, and an indefinite 
quantity of quinine. Twelve hours after- 
ward he complained of nothing serious, and 
survived 40 hours after he had taken the 
mixture. If the action of one poison may 
be modified by the presence of another, and 
if strychnine, opium and quinine would not 
cause death in as short a time as the strych- 
nine alone, then may it not be, that t e 
symptoms produced from prussic acid alone 
and the brief period within which death 
would ensue, would be applicable to the 
effects produced by the combined poisons of 
prussic acid and morphia. You will also 
recollect that in this case there is no evi- 
dence that any one was in Miss Stennecke's 
room from between 8 and 9 o'clock at night, 
(wh.en the defendant told Mrs. Shindie he 
was there) until 6 o'clock, the next morning, 
(a period of nine hours) to witness or de- 
scribe her simptoms, after defendants last 
visit to her room. As evidence to establish 
that death was caused by unnatural causes, 
and not from disease, the Commonwealth's 
counsel also refer to the opinions of Dr. 
Haldeman, Dr. Cornman and Dr. Ziegler, 
given in answer to a question asked, as to 
their opinion of the cause of death, upon a 
hypothetical case submitted by the District 
Attorney. Dr. Dale says, he could not ac- 
count. for the combination of symptoms 
detailed in any other way than by opium, 
or some of its preparations. Dr. Haldeman 
says, from the results of the post mortem 
examination as spoken of by Dr. Conrad, 
he has no hestancy in giving it as his 
opinion that some cause or causes other 
than natural must have produced Miss Sten;, 
necke's death. And from the testimony of 
Dr. Herman as to the symptoms manifested, 
which the witness details, he would natu- 
rally conclude without personal observa- 
tions, that the immediate cause of her death 
must have been owing to the free use or ad- 
ministration of opium or some of its kindred 
preparations. In answer to the same ques- 
tion Dr. Cornman says, in predicating an 
opinion upon the hypothesis detailed and 
the post mortem appearances detailed by 
Dr. Conrad, 1 cannot conceive that the indi- 
vidual diedVrom any natural cause, and that 
death must have resulted from some narcotic 
poison, either opium or its salts. Dr. 
Ziegler in answer to the same question says, 
touching the question as detailed in that 
paper (tlfe hypothetical case,) it occurs to 
my mind that death must have resulted from 
some unnatural cause, from an injudicious 
or over-dose of opium, or its preparations. 
Morphia is one of those preparations. THE 8CHOBPPB MURDER TRIAL 
49 
In addition to the opinions of the four 
physicians named, Dr. Keiffer, in answer to 
the same question propounded to Drs. Dale, 
Haldeman, Cornman and Ziegler, says, 
the negative proofs of her death are clear to 
my mind, but the positive data, whilst I be- 
lieve they show clearly that the subject 
received both prussic acid and morphia, I 
cannot say unconditionally that they caused 
her death. To give an unconditional opinion 
I would want more positive evidence than 
we have. 
Dr. Kieffer being again called to explain 
what he meant by an unconditional opinion, 
says, I meant by that, that whilst I believed 
from the facts detailed in the hypothetical 
case, that both prussic acid and morphia 
had been discovered, and that we had the 
evidence of their combined influence, and 
whilst I am familiar with the therapeutic 
action of morphia, and also have considera- 
ble experience with the action of prussic 
acid, yet my experience and knowledge of 
the action of prussic acid is not such as to 
justify an unconditional opinion in the case, 
in the absence of chemical proof by analysis. 
Dr. A. G. Herman who saw the patient 
about 11 o'clock, on the day of her death, 
says according to the symptoms that he 
seen in the subject, and the description of 
Dr. Conrad's post-mortem examination, he 
is led to believe that by compound poison- 
ing of prussic acid and morphia, that was 
the cause of her death. 
When a hypothetical case is stated, and 
the opinion of a physician asked, it is for 
the jury to determine whether the facts and 
circumstances stated in the hypothetical 
case are proved to exist in the case trying, 
and if any fact or circumstance is stated that 
is not proved, or if the witness states any 
fact upon which his opinion is based, which 
is not proved to have existed in the case on 
trial, then it is the duty of the jury to reject 
the answer of the witness, for it would not 
be proper and legal evidence. 
If the evidence in this case satisfies you 
that the death of Miss Stennecke was caused 
by poison, then another important, inquiry 
arises, Who is the guilty party ? By whom 
was the poison administered? Was it by 
the defendant? In determining this ques- 
tion the following inquiries will naturally 
present themselves : Had the prisoner the 
poison in his possession ? Had he opportu- 
nities of giving it to the deceased ? and had 
he any motive fordoing so ? Dr. Worthing- 
ton, a druggist of this town, states that some 
days bofore the 10th of January last the de- 
fendant purchased from him a half ounce of 
diluted prussic acid, and that some time 
during the winter the prisoner got from him 
muriate of morphia, tincture of mix vomica 
and Fowler's solution. Dr. Herron, a drug- 
gist of Harrisburg, if he is not mistaken in 
the identity of the prisoner, and he says that 
he is satisfied that defendant is the man, 
states that he sold to Dr. Schoeppe, about 
the 23d of January last, an ounce of diluted 
prussic acid. This would be but four days 
before the time it is alleged the poison was 
administered to Miss Stennecke. That the 
defendant had opportunities to administer 
poison to the deceased during his several 
visits to her room, on the day and night of 
the 27th of January, appears to be clearly 
proved; for there is no evidence that any 
person was present in her room during t hese 
visits. But had he any motive in killing the 
deceased ? This becomes an important in- 
quiry. for it can scarcely be supposed that 
any person could be found so depraved as to 
murder this old lady without any motive for 
committing so horrible an act. 
The prosecution, to show a motive for the 
act have given in evidence a check dated the 
27th bf January, 1869, upon the Carlisle De- 
posit Bank, for $50, which was presented at 
the counter, by defendant, on the morning 
of the 29th January, and the money paid to 
him. This check purports to be signed by 
Maria M. Stennecke. Several witnesses have 
been called who were acquainted with the 
handwriting of the deceased, and who say 
they do not believe it to be her signature. 
No witness is called to prove the signature 
genuine. 
Another paper has been produced by the 
District Attorney, purporting to be the last 
will and testament of Maria M. Stennecke, 
dated the 3d of December, 1868. It was 
produced by defendant and his counsel on 
the 1st of February, 1869, before Judge Da- 
niels, of the Orphans Court of Baltimore, as 
the will of deceased. The paper was filed 
in the office of the Register of wills in Bal- 
timore, on the 1st of February, 1869. This 
paper purports to be signed by Maria M. 
Stennecke, and gives her "whole estate and 
property, whatsoever and wheresoever, to 
Paul F. Schoeppe, M. D., to his own use and 
benefit absolutely." The subscribing wit- 
nesses are Dr. Schoeppe, the defendant, who 
is the sole legatee, and F. Schoeppe, the fa- 
ther of defendant. The paper has been read 
to you without objection. F. Schoeppe, a 
subscribing witness, has not been called by 
the prosecution or the defendant to prove 
the execution of the paper, so that we have 
no evidence before us except its production, 50 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL, 
to prove that it is a genuine or false paper, 
It is also in proof by the two subscribing 
witnesses, that a will was excuted by Maria 
M. Stennecke, on the 17 th of November, 
1868, before she left Baltimore, This was 
sixteen days before the date of the paper in 
evidence purporting be her will, and was 
found in her trunk. The paper was offered 
as evidence of motive to perpetrate the mur- 
der. That upon her death, if the paper of 
the 3d of December. 1868, could be establish- 
ed as decedent's will, the defendant would 
then come into possession of a large and va- 
luable estate. 
The important duty devolves upon you to 
acertain and determine, from all the evidence 
in the case, whether the defendant wilfully 
caused the ddath of Maria M. Stennecke by 
administering poison. 
Should you, upon a careful consideration 
and review of all the evidence in the case, 
find that the death of Miss Stennecke was 
caused by Prussic acid, or hydrocyanic acid, 
or this in connection with other poisonous 
and deleterious drugs, or any other poison- 
ous drugs, given to her by the prisoner, but 
not with the intention to kill, then a question 
may arise, in this aspect of the case, whe- 
ther the prisoner is not guilty of manslaugh- 
ter. It appears that the prisoner is a phy- 
sician. Every person who enters into a 
learned profession undertakes to bring to 
the exercise of it a reasonable degree of care 
and skill. A lawyer does not undertake that 
his client shall gain his cause, nor does a 
physician undertake that he will cure his pa- 
tient ; nor does the law require that he shall 
use the highest possible degree of skill. 
There may be persons who have a more tho- 
rough education, superior mind, and the ad- 
vantage of large experience, who might ef- 
fect a cure, when those not possessed of so 
much skill and experience might fail; but 
the law requires that he who undertakes to 
practice as a physician shall have a fair and 
reasonable degree of skill in the science he 
practices. If a party, having a competent 
degree of skill and knowledge, makes an 
accidental mistake in the treatment of a pa- 
tient, and death is the consequence, he is not 
guilty of manslaughter. If a person, totally 
ignorant of the science of medicine, adminis- 
ters a violent arid dangerous remedy, or if 
he administers medicines of the nature of 
which he is ignorant, where proper medical 
assistance could, at the time, have been eas- 
ily procured, and death ensues in conse- 
quence of the violent and dangerous remedy 
or medicine, administered in ignorance of its 
nature and effect, the party would be guilty 
of manslaughter. 
If a medical man of ordinary degree o'f 
skill in the science he practices, administers 
a violent and dangerous remedy with gross 
rashness, and without a due degree of cau- 
tion ; if he acts recklessly and without that 
circumspection and caution which a man of 
ordinary prudence would exercise; if it is 
administered with gross recklessness and 
wantonness, without that consideration of 
the consequence, or the effect it might pro- 
duce, which ordinary prudence and caution 
would require, under these circumstances if 
death ensues in consequence of a dangerous 
remedy having been administered, then the 
party would be guilty of manslaughter. 
Applying the principles we have stated to 
the present case, if you find that Miss Sten- 
neeke's death was caused by a violent and 
dangerous remedy administered to her by 
the prisoner, not with the intention of caus- 
ing her death, but by an accidental mistake, 
then he would not be criminally responsible 
-he would not be answerable for any crime. 
On the contrary, if he gave the deceased vio- 
lent and dangerous medicine, without a com- 
petent ordinary degree of skill in the science 
of medicine, but in gross ignorance of the 
nature and effect of the medicine administer- 
ed,' when proper medical assistance was at 
hand and could have been easily procured, 
then, under such circumstances, if death was 
caused by the medicine thus administered 
the prisoner would be guilty of manslaugh- 
ter. So too, if the prisoner, having compe- 
tent skill and knowledge to practice as a 
physician, acted with gross rashness and 
recklessless, without that care and caution 
which a person of common ordinary pru- 
dence would observe, in administering viol- 
ent and dangerous medicine, and death was 
caused by such rash and reckless conduct of 
the prisoner, under these circumstances be 
would be guilty of manslaughter. 
The remarks just made are only applica- 
ble to this case, if you should come to the 
conclusion that the prisoner caused the death 
of Miss Stennecke without intending to do 
so; if, as we before said, he administered to 
her violent, dangerous or poisonous medi- 
cine, intending to cause her death, and death 
was the consequence, he would be guilty of 
murder of the first degree. 
While the law is careful to prevent persons 
from tampering in physic so as to trifle with 
human life, it will not hold a person of gen- 
eral ordinary skill in the science of medicine 
criminally responsible, although he has been 
unfortunate in a particular case, and made 
an accidental mistake in the treatment of his THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
51 
patient, which causes death. If, therefore, 
Dr. Schoeppe had a competent degree of 
skill and knowledge as a physician but was 
Unfortunate in his treatment ot Miss Sten- 
necke, and made an accidental mistake in 
his mode of treatment, he would not be guil- 
ty of any criminal offence. And, as we be- 
fore said, if you entertain a reasonable douot 
whether the prisoner, by administering vio- 
lent and dangerous medicine, caused the 
death of Miss Stennecke such reasonable 
doubt ought to produce an aquittal. 
The evidence in this case is circumstantial 
and not positive. No one saw the prisoner 
give to the decedent any drug or medicine 
consequently all the evidence of guilt relied 
upon by the Commonwealth to produce a con- 
viction, is circumstancial. 
There is an opinion entertained by some 
and which we occassionally hear expressed, 
that no one ought to be convicted of a capital 
crime on circumstantial evidence. This opi- 
nion is erroneous and may arise from a mis- 
apprehension of the term. Circumstantial 
evidence may be quite as satisfactory and 
convincing, and in some cases more so, than 
positive evidence. Witnesses may be of doubt- 
ful character. They may swear positively to 
the fact of killing, and they may be perjured, 
or they may be honestly mistaken in the iden- 
tity of the person; but where a chain of 
facts are sworn to by a number of witnesses 
of undoubted credibility, pointing with un- 
erring certainty to the guilt of the accused, 
and irreconcilable with any reasonable hypo- 
thesis of innocence, this may be more satis- 
factory than the evidence of' two or three 
witnesses* who swear positively to facts 
about which they may be mistaken or desig- 
nedly misrepresent the truth. ♦ 
The late Chief Justice Gibson has said that 
he scarcely knew whether there was such a 
thing as evidence purely positive ; and, to 
illustrate the fallacy of the opinion entertai- 
ned by some, that no one ought to be convic- 
ted of a capital crime on circumstantial evi- 
dence, puts the following strong case : "You 
see a man discharge a gun at another, you 
see the flash, you hear the report, you see 
the person fall a lifeless corpse, and you in- 
fer from all those circumstances that there 
was a ball discharged from the gun, which 
entered the body and caused his death, be- 
cause such is the moral and natural cause 
of such an effect. But you did not see the ball 
leave the gun, pass through the air, and 
enter the body of the slain ; and your testi- 
mony to the fact of killing is therefore only 
inferential-in other words, circumstantial. 
It is possible that no ball was in the gun ; 
and we infer that there was only because wo 
cannot account for the death on any other 
supposition." 
We might put another case of circumstan- 
tial evidence : two men are seen to enter a 
room alone, excited and quarreling, the door 
is closed, and immediately the report ot tire- 
arms is heard, tho rooms is entered by others 
and one is found with a pistol in his hand, 
just discharged: and the other upon the 
floor, in the agonies of death, with a ball 
. through his brain. This too would be a ease 
i of circumstantial evidence. But we are 
strongly inclined to believe, that any man 
who could entertain a reasonable doubt of 
guilt, upon such evidence, although circum- 
stantial, would be better fitted for a place in 
a lunatic asylum than a seat in the jury box. 
We have given these cases to correct the er- 
roneous notion, should any such exist in your 
minds, that no person ought to be convicted 
of crime on circumstantial evidence. It this 
idea is entertained ami acted upon by juries, 
crime must necessarily escape punishment 
in many cases, and our citizens will have 
little protection from the violence of the 
lawless and the vicious. 
But to justify a conviction in a criminal 
case, the evidence, whether positive or cir- 
cumstantial, must satisfy the minds of the 
jury to a moral certainty, and beyond a rea- 
sonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. 
"A reasonable doubt" is a term often used, 
propably generally well understood, but not 
easily defined. "A doubt, to work an acquit- 
tal, must be serious and substantial, not the 
mere possibility of a doubt,' because every- 
thing relating to human affairs, and depen- 
ding on moral evidence, is open to some pos- 
sibly or imaginary doubt It is that state of 
the case, which, after the entire comparison 
of all the evidence leaves the minds of the 
jurors in that condition, that they cannot 
say they feel an abiding conviction, to a nior- 
al certainty, of the prisoners guilt. A doubt, 
which is caused solely by ufcdue sensibility, 
in view of the consequences of a verdict, is 
not a reasonable doubt. But when all the facts 
on both sides have been fully examined and 
every effort made to acertain their precise 
character and bearing, any reasonable doubt 
finally & permanently remaining on the mind 
from whatever cause, will justify a juror in 
withholding his assent to a verdict of guilty. 
The term "moral certainty," is a quality 
or state of mental impression which has been 
said is more easily conceived than defined. 
An eminent jurist has defined it thus: "A 
certainty that convinces an<j directs the un- 
derstanding, and satisfies the reason and 52 
THE SCHOEI'PB MURDER TRIAL, 
judgement of those, who are bound to act 
conscientiously upon it." Again it is said to 
be "that degree of assurance which induces 
a man of sound mind to act without doubt 
upon the conclusions to which it leads.'- An- 
other author says : "it is a state of impres- 
sing produced by facts, in which a reason- 
able mind feels a sort of coercion or necessi- 
ty to act in accordance with it; the conclu- 
sion presented being one which cannot, mo- 
rally speaking.be avoided consistently with 
adherence to the truth." 
You are not at liberty to disbelieve asju- 
rors, if you believe as men; that is, your 
oath imposes on you no obligation to doubt 
where no doubt would exist if no oath had 
been administered. 
If you entertain no reasonable doubt, as we 
have explained it, of the prisoner's guilt, 
you ought to convict him. But if, either from 
want of satisfactory evidence of guilt on part 
of the commonwealth, or from a conflict bet- 
ween the evidence on part of the common- 
wealth and the defendant, you are not satis- 
fied, to a moral certainty, and beyond a rea- 
sonable doubt, of his guilt, then the law re- 
quires you to acquit him. 
We have said that upon t he indictment you 
may convict the prisoner of murder of the» 
first degree, of murder of the second degree, 
or of voluntary manslaughter. 
Our opinion is that there is no evidence 
that would justify a conviction of murder of 
the second degree. If the prisoner wilfully 
caused the death of Miss Stennecke by poi- 
son, he would be guilty of murder of the 
first degree. If without intending to cause 
death, he administered dangerous, violent 
and poisonous medicines, with gross rash- 
ness and recklesss, as before stated, he w ould 
not be guilty of murder of the second degreef 
because malice would be wanting, which is 
essential to constitute that crime ; but ho 
would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter. 
The prisoner is now, in the language of 
your oath, given to you in charge. His case 
is in your hands. Give it your very deliber- 
ate, calm and solemn consideration. Guard 
yourselves against any prejudices ; give to 
the defendant the benefit of the presumption 
of innocence, until guilt is clearly proved, 
and of every rational doubt ; and so dis- 
charge your duty to the commonwealth, to 
the defendant, and to yourselves, that you 
will enjoy the pleasant reflections of an ap- 
proving conscience. THE St'HOEPPK MttRDER TRIAL 
devkndant's points. 
The Court is respectfully requested to 
charge the jury as follows: and to file their 
charge in writing: 
1. In a trial for murder it rests upon the 
Commonwealth to establish the true cause of 
death by clear and irrefragible proof; either 
by direct and positive evidence, or "by cir- 
cumstances so clearly and necessarily con- 
nected, that they are equivalent to absolute 
and positive proof," and if there is any rea- 
sonable doubt, about this fact the jury should 
acquit. 
Answer. In a trial for murder it rests upon 
the Commonwealth to establish the true cause 
of death. That is in this case that death 
was caused by poison, by proof clear and 
satisfactory to the jurors beyond a reasona- 
ble doubt-we will not say irrefragible proof 
for the term "irrefragible" means that 
which cannot be refuted or overthrown. 
When the evidenc is circumstantial the cir- 
cumstances must be so clearly and necessarily 
connected that they are equivalent to abso- 
lute and positive proof. That, is, your mind 
must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. 
This is all the law requires. If there is a 
reasonable doubt of guilt upon the jurors' 
minds they should acquit. 
2. " In order to justify the inference of 
legal guilt from circumstantial evidence, the 
existence of the facts showing guilt must be 
absolutely incompatible with the innocence 
of the accused, and incapable of explanation 
upon any other reasonable hypothesis than 
that of his guilt. " "This in law is the fun- 
damental rule by which the relevancy and 
effect of circumstantial evidence must be es- 
timated." 
Answered in the affirmative. 
3. "Where legal guilt is to be made out 
by scientific evidence, that, evidence must be 
of the highest character that the nature of 
the case admits. "- And no scientific in- 
ference should be drawn against the prisoner 
on the basis of facts about which there is any 
reasonable doubt. 
Answer. This is so where guilt is to be 
made out by scientific evidence alone. But 
guilt may be made out from moral evidence. 
From facts and circumstances clearly estab- 
lishing defendant's guilt, and excluding 
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence 
consistent*with the evidence. 
4. Where a conviction depends upon facts 
only to be ascertained by science, and a know- 
ledge, of the laws of nature, and their work- 
ings and effects as established by experiment, 
if the scientific experts, called to testify on 
the one side and the other differ as to the ma- 
terial facts, and the witnesses are equally 
credible, the witnesses whose testimony is in 
favor of the innocence of the prisoner ought 
to be preferred ; for the prisoner is entitled 
to the benefit of all doubts, a' doubt upon a 
question of science is a most serious and all 
important doubt. 
Answered in the affirmative. 
5. If it be true, that Prof. Aiken des- 
troyed the value of his distillate as a chemi- 
cal test trt determine the presence of Prussic 
acid in its free state, by the introduction of 
sulphuric acid t or, if the jury has well au- 
thenticated facts from scientific men and 
books, that rqake it even doubtful whether 
his distillate could be used as a certain test 
of the presence of Prussic acid in its free 
state, they should lay the question of death 
from Prussic acid aside. 
Answer. Under the facts stated the jury 
should lay the question of death from Prussic 
acid aside, so far as it is affected by the tes- 
timony of Professor Aiken and his chemical 
analysis 
6. If in the post. mortem examination by 
Dr. Conrad, he accidently allowed any por- 
tion of the blood from the brain to escape 
without knowing whence it came, or in what, 
part of the brain it would have been found ; 
and that blood might have been so situated 
as itself to be the cause of death : or, if he 
did not examine the spinal marrow and the 
kidneys, and the cause death might have 
been in ejther, then the post mortem examin- 
ation must be regarded as imperfect, uncer- 
tain and inconclusive, and the jury should 
not base on it any inference, that there was 
no natural cause for death. 
Answer. If the post mortem examination 
was conducted by Dr. Conrad, as stated in 
this point, and if parts were left unexamined 
which you believe under the evidence might 
have caused death from natural causes, then 
the jury should not base on it any inference 
that there was no natural cause of death. 
7. If the charge of death from morphia, 
rests alone on symptoms which are common 
to death from morphia, and death from apo- 
plexy and other diseases ; if the evidence in 
regard to these symptoms is contradictory 
and uncertain; and death from morphia is 
unsupported by the post mortem examination, 
and chemical analysis (and for a stronger 
reason, if inconsistent with both the latter) 
they should also dismiss this inquiry from 
their minds. 
Answer. If you find the facts as stated in 
this point, then we answer it in the affirma- 
tive! But we don't understand that the Com* 54 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
monwealth allege that death was produced 
by morphia alone. The allegation is that 
death was caused by the combined effects of 
Prussic acid and morphia, preceded by ad- 
ministering to tne patient tartar emetic and 
ipecacuana. Of the effects and symptoms 
produced by these combined poisons medical 
witnesses tell us they have no experience 
and the books are silent on this subject. 
8. If the charge of death from the com- 
bination of Prussic acid and morphia, rests 
on the opinion of a man who admitted on his 
cross-examination that he had no experience 
in regard to the effects of these poisons com- 
bined, on the human system, and who ad- 
mits, that he has no authority from the books 
to justify what he calls his ''opinion," his 
opinion is utterly worthless ami unworthy 
the name of proof. This charge, like all 
others, must be supported and established 
by clear and irrefragible proof, and if it is 
not. it should be dismissed by the jury. 
And if Dr. Herman has wilfully and know- 
ingly perverted and mis-stated the facts 
they should disregard his whole testimony. 
Answer. We cannot say that you should 
dismiss entirely an opinion formed as sta- 
ted in this point. A physician skilled in the 
science of medicine and of long experience 
may form and express an opinion as to the 
effect of combined poisons. But when the 
opinion is formed only upon his knowledge 
of the effects of poisons, separately and un- 
combined. and it is not supported either by 
his own experience or knowledge derived 
trout books, such opinion, we could say, 
ought to have but little, if any weight, with 
t he jury. 
in answer to the latter part of this point 
we say, if the witness has wilfully and know- 
ingly perverted and misstated the facts, you 
should disregard his whole testimony. If 
t he mis-statement was unintentional and a 
mistake or misrecollection, then it ought not 
to discredit his entire testimony. 
ft All presumptions of guilt arising from 
the fact that the prisoner had poisons in his 
possession, are rebutted and annulled by 
the fact that he is a practicing physician, 
and that it was his duty to keep and to ad- 
minister these as medicines. 
Answer. We cannot say to you that all 
presumptions of guilt arising from the fact 
that the prisoner had poisons in his posses- 
sion. are rebutted and anulled by the fact 
that he is a practising physician, Particu- 
larly if the evidence of Dr. Herron satisfies 
you that the purchased Prussic acid from him 
in Harrisburg on the 23d of January last. 
But the fact that the prisoner is a practic- j 
I ing physician ought greatly to weaken any 
| presumption arising from the fact that he 
had purchased Prussic acid and had it in 
his possession. 
10. If on the whole case the jury cannot 
make out, clearly, certainly and beyond all 
reasonable doubt the cause of death, from 
the evidence before them ; and if they have 
not clear and irrefragible proof that the pris- 
oner wilfully, premeditatedly and of his ma- 
lice aforethought, did kill and murder Maria 
M. Stennecke, they should acquit him. 
Answer. If you are not satisfied to a moral 
• certainty, as we have explained it, and be- 
[ yond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence 
of the cause of death, that it was caused by 
poisons, you ought not to convict. And 
if you have not proof clear to a moral cer- 
tainty. that the prisoner wilfuly, premedi- 
tatedly and of bis malice aforethought, did 
kill and murder Maria M. Stendecke, then 
you ought to acquit him of murder of the 
first degree. We will not say to you that 
the proof must irrefragible. for the reason 
we have before stated. But if the evidence 
satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that 
the death Miss Stennecke was caused by poi- 
son or combined poisons, wilfully given to 
her by the prisoner with intent to cause 
death, then the prisoner is guilty of murder 
of the first degree; for death caused by poi- 
son, wilfully administered, is in law, wilful, 
deliberate, premeditated and of malice afore- 
thought. But if poison is administered, not 
with intention to kill, but with gross rashnes 
and recklessness as stated in our general 
charge, then the prisoner would be guilty 
of manslaughter. 
11. The fact that death occured from 
some, unnatural cause, and also the specific 
cause of death, must be established and 
proved positively and beyond doubt by the 
prosecution; and only after such positive 
and irrefragible proof of the unnatural death 
and its specific cause has been given, are the 
jury warranted in considering the motives of 
the prisoner. * 
The motives cannot be used to determine 
the primary question that a crime has been 
committed. They are but a part of the evi- 
dence tending to show who committed a crime 
which must be proved indubitably" by other 
evidence. 
Answer. We cannot answer this point in 
the language used in it, for there are terms 
used in it which we cannot affirm. But we 
answer it thus. 
The fact that death occurred from some 
unnatural cause, and also the specific cause of 
death, as in this case, that it was caused by THE SCIIOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
55 
poison, must be established and proved to a 
moral certainty and beyond a reasonable 
doubt by the prosecution; and only after 
such proof to a moral certainty and beyond 
a reasonable doubt, and its specific cause has 
been given, are the jury warranted in consi- 
dering the motives of the prisoner. We affirm 
the latter part of this point, that motive® 
cannot be used to determine the primary 
question that a crime has been committed, and 
in the language of the point; substituting 
for the term "indubitably" the words "be- 
yond a reasonable doubt." 
12. In all cases where the charge is of 
homicide, it is essential that there be dis- 
tinct proof, first, of the fact of death, and se- 
condly of the specific cause, of death, and with- 
out such proof no individual can be implica- 
ted or reasonably required to explain or ac- 
count for facts of supposed suspicion. 
Answer. We answer this in the affirmative 
and by the words '•■specific cause of death" here 
used, you will understand that the proof 
must satisfy you, in this case, that death was 
caused by poison, but it is not necessary that 
it should be proved what kind of poison cau- 
sed death. 
The jury went out at one o'clock on Thurs- 
day afternoon, and came into Court at 15 
minutes past 5 o'clock of the same afternoon 
returning as their verdict, they "find the de- 
fendant guilty of MURDER IN THE FIRST 
DEGREE in the manner and form as he 
stands indicted." 
The jury, at the instance of defendant's 
counsel, was then polled, and each one 
answered that he found the defendant guilty 
of murder in the first degree. MEDICO-LEGAL 01*11X10 IV H. 
The trial of Dr. Paul Schoeppe in tlie Court of Oyer and Terminer of Cumberland County, 
Pennsylvania, charged with the murder of Miss Maria M. Stennecke by poison, was con- 
cluded by the verdict of the Jury ; " that they find the Defendant guilty of murder in the 
"first degree, in the manner and form as he stands indicted!" 
With all due regard to the persons who composed the Jury, and believing that they have 
endeavored to fulfill their duty to the best of their knowledge and ability, the undersigned, 
after a careful study and investigation of all the scientific data, connected with this trial, 
have come to the conclusion, and have the full conviction that, there are very many impor- 
tant points, io which the Jury has had the misfortune of giving an erroneous interpretation. 
The first and most important question is : Did the chemical analysis of Dr. Aiken prove 
the existence of prussic acid, or any other poison in the body of Miss Stennecke? We 
claim that it did not. and we propose to prove our assertion, and we further deny that the 
symptoms developed during her last sickness and in extremis, were any indication that 
death had been induced by poison of any kind. 
With reference to the chemical examination of Dr. Aiken, we have to make the following 
observations; Dr. Aiken took the stomach and part of the intestines to his Laboratory; he 
cut them into small pieces, mingled them together and divided them into two parts, one of 
which was used for the examination for prussic acid, the other for the detection of vegeta- 
ble and mineral poisons. 
Dr. Aiken suspected (Sec Baltimore Sun ) that the stomach and intestines* might contain 
prussic acid, and in order to prove its presence, half of them were placed in a retort, water 
was added and a small quantity of sulphuric acid, and this mixture subjected to distilla- 
tion. The liquid which came over, being in bulk about one-fourth of the contents of the 
retort, was alleged to have " a faint odor" that reminded him "of bruised peach leaves, 
too faint, however, to be of any importance of itself." 
By the application of the so-called, " Iron test," Dr. Aiken says : "the color I obtained 
was what I thought ought to be produced by prussic acid-blue-such as to satisfy me of 
the presence of prussic acid. The color was, what I designated as a faint trace. It was a 
blue color, a faint trace of blue, not of red or any other color, but unequivocally blue, very 
little coloring matter; no great depth of color for want of sufficient quantity of coloring 
matter. The moment I distinguished the color, I set it aside. All I did was to satisfy 
myself that a blue color resulted, and that satisfied me that prussic acid was there." 
Another portion of the distillate was placed in an evaporating dish, this was covered 
* In the investigation made in Baltimore, it is stated by Dr. Aiken, that part of the intestines had been 
placed in a jar, of which he had no recollection of what had become of it, but which afterward* was 
found in the I Urinary. THE SCHOKPPK MURDBR TRIAL. 
57 
with in inverted evaporating dish, on the inside of which a few drops of sulphide of am- 
monium had been placed. The lower dish was then heated, that would have volatilized any 
prussic acid present in the distillate. The vapors of this, coming in contact with sulphide 
of ammonium, are converted into sulpho-cyanide of ammonium, which, when freed from 
the excess of sulphide of ammonium (which Dr. Aiken omitted to do) gives with sesqui- 
aalts of iron a blood-red, or in very dilute solutions, a yellowish red color. 
To determine whether any sulpho-cyanide of ammonium had formed, Dr. Aiken removed the 
cover and added a few drops ofsesqui-chloride of iron, which gave a red color. Dr. Aiken's 
words are: "The result of that addition the production of a red color, a faint red 
color-all these colors were faint. That red color again confirmed the conclusion from the 
production of the blue color ; that red must have been produced as a consequence of the 
prussic acid in the liquid, to which I applied the test." 
He further says : " From what is known of the nature of prussic acid, its unstable char- 
acter, the presence of prussic acid in the liquid I examined, makes it perfectly certain to 
my mind, as a matter of opinion, that a much larger quantity must have been present in 
that stomach ten or twelve days before. What I found was a mere residue of the original 
amount." 
The other portion of the stomach and intestines was examined for all the mineral poisons, 
such as preparations of arsenic, lead, mercury, antimony, and vegetable poisons. Dr. Aiken 
says : "I more particularly looked for morphia and strychnia, and would have found any 
others, were they present. I did'nt find any vegetable alkalis or mineral poisons." 
Dr. Aiken has never before examined a subject in a criminal case for the presence of 
prussic aoid. 
This is substantially the chemical evidence of Dr. Aiken, which in all its important points 
we have given in his own words. 
On such evidence Dr. Schoeppe has been convicted of murder in the first degree. 
We nowr propose to enter more fully into the details of the chemical evidence. We do 
not intend to cite all the methods, which could or should have been adopted. We only 
confine ourselves to such essential points as have a direct bearing upon this case. 
Before we discuss the erroneous conclusions arrived at by Dr, Aiken, we shall briefly 
survey the manner in which he has made this important investigation-an investigation 
on which a man's life and fair fame depended. We are painfully astonished to think that 
a person, who claims to be a man of science,.a Professor of chemistry and especially of 
medical chemistry, of 38 or 39yearsstanding, could have conducted so grave an investiga- 
tion with such utter carelessness and such guilty negligence. 
The first rule in legal investigations is, never to employ any apparatus, which has been 
previously used in the laboratory, secondly, to prepare afresh all the chemicals requisite 
for the examination, or, at least, to carefully test the purity of whatever re-agents are to- 
be used in the case. Dr. Aiken confesses that he never before had examined a subject in 
a criminal case for prussic acid, an assertion, of which his investigation is the best evi- 
dence ; therefore, before undertaking it and thus jeopardizing by his inexperience the life 
of a human being, he should have known it to be his first and most imperative duty to make 
himself fully acquainted with the manner, in which such investigations must be conducted. 
He should have known that every precaution should have been adopted to guard against 
even the possibility of error, and he should have given the Court a full and minute descrip- 
tion of what he had done, to secure that all important end. But his evidence shows no 
trace of such humane precautions, notwithstanding the admission that " he deduces his 
conclusions from known facts," which, as he goes on to remark, "may or may not be cor- 58 
THE 8CHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
rect," (rather a contradiction) "and that he is not infallible," he declares that "if he were 
the Jury, he would convict!" (Baltimore testimony). 
Granting that Dr. Aiken understands how to make the tests for the different substances, 
and that he really obtained the colorat ions of which he speaks, it is difficult to ascertain from 
his testimony, where the traces of prussic acid, which he noticed, have come from, whether 
from his re-agents or from the decomposition of substances, naturally contained in the 
stomach. 
Caustic potash, a re-agent, which very frequently contains cyanide of potassium, re- 
sulting from nitrogenous substances, a hair for instance, which may have fallen into it 
during the process of its manufacture, is employed in the iron test. The presence of the 
merest trace of cyanide of potassium in the same, would produce the blue coloration, which 
he describes. 
Sulphide of ammonium absorbs prussic acid with great eagerness. According to his own 
testimony, Dr. Aiken regularly shows to the medical students the reactions for prussic 
acid, hence the sulphide of ammonium, which he employed in his sulphur test in the case 
now before us, was very likely the same, which in previous experiments has already been 
brought in contact with vapors of prussic acid, and hence may have contained enough 
sulphocyanide of ammonium to produce with sesqui-chloride of iron the faint red coloration. 
But let us suppose that his reagents were pure, then the question arises, are there no 
other sources, from whence the faint traces of prussic acid, recognized by him in his dis- 
tillate from the stomach, could have arisen. It is a well known fact that the animal or- 
ganism, which is composed largely of nitrogenous matter, is capable of forming various 
compounds containing cyanogen-the radical of prussic acid. These, when distilled with 
sulphuric acid, invariably yield prussic acid. 
The so-called sulphocyanides of potassium and sodium are not only constant constituents 
of the saliva, but a very frequent one in the stomach, especially,Fwhen it is in a deranged con- 
dition. (See Leopold Gmelin's Handbuch der Chemie, vol. IV, also vol. VIII. containing 
Pliyto- und Zoochemie von Dr. Lehmann and Dr. Rochleder, also Ure in the N. Quart. 
Journal of Science VII. and Frerichs in Haeser's Archiv X.) 
But not only are sulphocyanides found in the human organism, but other cyanogen com- 
pounds, probably ferrocyanides, also exist, which with iron salts form prussian blue 
lulia Fontenelle (Journal de chem. med. I. 830) states that a boy, who had swallowed 
ink-a substance containing a of iron-for several days passed prussian 
blue in his urine;-a similiar case is that of a little girl, who received as a medicine daily 
six grains of "aethiops martialis," (Proto-sesqui-oxide of iron) and whose urine was blue 
from the presence of prussian blue. (Gmelin's Handbuch, VIII. 390.) 
How necessary it is to provide against errors, resulting from the presence of ferrocyan- 
ides in the stomach &c., is shown in the Handworterbuch der Chemie von Liebig, Poggen- 
dorf and Wohler II. 413, from which we quote : "In criminal cases, where the contents of 
"the stomach and rectum are to be examined for prussic acid,"a small quantity of phos- 
phoric or tartaric acid should be added (if they are not already acid) when by & previous 
"examination it has been already ascertained that the mass or the filtrate from the same, 
"do not produce prussian blue by the addition of a sesqui-salt of iron, which would indicate 
"the presence of ferrocyanide of potassium." 
Not only do these compounds containing cyanogen exist in the human system, which 
on distillation with sulphuric acid would readily yield prussic acid, but other nitrogenous 
matter, such as glue, cartilage &c., which, if distilled with powerful oxydizing agents THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
59 
would yield prussic acid. (Schlieper in Ann. Chem. Pharm. LIX, I-32and Guckelberger 
in Ann. Chem. Pbarm. LXIV, 39-100; also Hoppe in Gmelin's Handbuch VIII, 453). 
In fact prussic acid is one of the general products of the decomposition of nitrogenous 
organic bodies. 
From these data it becomes evident that the greatest care should be used in the exami- 
nation of a stomach &c., for prussic acid, so that no minute quanties are produced by a 
careless investigation, as undoubtedly has been done by Dr. Aiken. 
Dr. Aiken without first satisfying himself as to the purity of his apparatus and re-agents, 
without taking the trouble of testing, whether the stomach and intestines did not already 
• contain cyanogen compounds, cut them into small pieces, which he mingles together and 
distills with sulphuric acid, notwithstanding that a doubt already existed about a portion 
of the intestines. r 
What was the result of this examination for prussic acid? Naturally enough the sulpho- 
cyanides, existing in the stomach were decomposed and yielded a trace of prussic acid 
the quantity was so small however, that the so-called iron test gave only "a blue color, a 
faint trace of blue," but no precipitate of prussian blue. 
If we investigate, what the real meaning of this reaction is, we find that, according to 
A. Taylor (Ann. Chem. Pharm. LXV) a liquid containing more than one-seven hundred 
and eighty sixth of a grain of prussic acid gives a of prussian blue with 
the iron test. More recent investigations however show, that this reaction is far more 
delicate and that, if in a liquid there is the one-twenty five thousandth / 1 \ part of a 
\ 25000 / 
grain of prussic acid, a precipitate of prussian blue will be formed after many hours stand- 
ing (I. G. Wormley's Micro-Chemistry of poisons). 
Similar results gave the so-called sulphur test. Overlooking some inaccuracies in his 
descriptions and believing that Dr. Aiken has done all the needful to obtain a correct re- 
sult, we will only examine what his result was.-This was "the production of a red color 
a faint red color, all these colors were very faint." 
A. Taylor (1. c.) says that by this test prussic acid can be distincly shown in a liquid, con- 
taining one-three thousand nine hundred and thirties! ( of a grain, according to Worm- 
ley one-twenty-five thousandth / 1 \ of a grain of prussic acid in a liquid gives a marked 
\ 25000/ 
reaction. 
The evidence elicited from the examination of Dr. Aik< n amounts therefore to the following: 
He utterly failed to prove the presence of fre< prussic acid in the stomach, but produced 
a minute trace of the same by gross negligence in distilling the stomach and intestines 
with a powerful acid, which decomposed the cyanogen compounds, naturally found in the 
human system. 
He observed that "a much larger quantity must have been present in that stomach ten or 
twelve days before," andsays: "What I found was a mere residue of the original amount." 
How can an honest and conscientious expert make such an assertion ? In our opinion 
he has no right to indulge in suppositions, to state that things have existed, which he was 
unable to find, and from his own shallow inferences assert that, their past existence in 
larger quantities sufficed to produce death, or injury to life. 
As to Dr. Aiken's remarks that prussic acid is a substance of very unstable character, 
and therefore could not have existed in the stomach, &c., ten or twelve days after death, 
we have to offer a few observations. In the first place perfectly pure and very concentrated 
or anhydrous prussic acid is unstable, whilst the dilute acid can be kept for a very long 60 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL 
time without alteration; therefore, if it had existed in " much larger quantities," Dr. 
Aiken would have found it. 
West (Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence) was able to detect it by the odor, the iron and 
silver test twenty-three days after death, although no paints had been taken to insure its 
preservation, and not mor ethan of one grain could have been originally in the 
stomach. Brahme of Tours, (Taylor's Med. Jur.,) states that prussic acid had been found 
in the stomach three weeks after interment. Taylor proved the presence of 
one grain of prussic acid in a stomach which was completely putrified. 
On the foregoing points and observations we base our denial of the existence of prussic 
acid in the body of Miss Stennecke. 
We will not enter into any discussion with reference to the existence of morphia, 
because the chemical expert for the Commonwealth declares in tie most emphatic 
language, " I more particularly looked for morphia and strychnia, and would have found 
any others vVere they present. I did not find any vegetable alkalis or mineral poisons." 
This embodies all that we deem it necessary to say w'ith reference to the chemical evi- 
dence against Dr. Schoeppe, and upon which he has been convicted ! 
Fuller details may be found in the excellent testimony given by Professors Wormley and 
Himes. 
Turning our attention to thOmedical evidence of this case, we have to make the following 
observations: 
At the time Dr. Conrad made the post mortem examination of Miss Stennecke, her body 
showed scarcely any signs of decomposition. Dr Conrad describes her face as saffron 
colored, shoulders rather livid, and other parts of the skin marked with a few greenish 
spots, intestines pale and of a healthy appearance ; not as much odor as could be expected 
from the time of inhumation. In the careful removal of the brain, the Doctor states that 
" the fourth ventricle was torn through by its softening before the cord was cut, which 
attached it to the spinal column." 
Dr. Ridgley corroborates his statement in regard to the partial softening of the brain, 
but is unable to specify its seat. 
In a further hearing Dr. Conrad declares this partial softening as a post mortem change, 
but fails to mention any characteristic signs, by which to prove his assertion, although 
this lesion, which he evidently did not appreciate, is of the highest importance. The 
integuments as well as the internal organs of the body showed but inconsiderable signs of 
putrefaction. According to Casper, (Handbook of the Practice of Forensic Medicine, 
Sydenham Society Ed. London, 1861, I. 48.) the br&in is the eighth in the order, in which 
the organs of the body soften after death, and according to Beck, (Elements of Med. Jur- 
isprudence, Philadelphia, 1863, II. 51.) the brain requires at medium temperature several 
weeks to pass into a state of putrescence; moreover, the brain at the beginning of putre- 
faction loses considerably of its volume, and evolves an extremely fetid odor; therefore 
in consideration of these facts, and especially of the low temperature prevailing at the 
time, we are obliged to exclude in this case the idea, that the softening of the brain was 
a "post mortem" change. On the contrary, we must insist upon the conclusion that the 
partial softening of the brain found at this autopsy was a pathological appearance. 
This is the more likely, as softenings of the brain always appear as local lesions, whilst 
the decomposition of homogeneous tissues is general, therefore a more extended softening of 
the brain should have been found to justify the assumption of a post mortem change. 
The dissection, to which Dr. Conrad subjected the brain, sufficiently refutes his assertion, THE 8CHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
61 
In one ease only can we admit a partial post mortem softening of the brain, viz: if 
serous exudations during life have produced a maceration of circumscribed parts of the 
brain by imbibition after death, and even this admission presupposes a pathological 
change of the brain before death, viz : a serous apoplexy, where in consequence of the 
hygrometric property of the brain the greater part of the effused fluid is absorbed after 
death. (Natalis Guillot in Grisolle, 8th Ed. I. 776.) 
The blbod was found dark and fluid, and a large amount of it escaped on opening the 
cranial cavity, without Dr. Conrad being able to account for its source. It might have 
come from the sinus of the dura mater, as well as from the sac of the arachnoid mem- 
brane, because in the attempt to remove the cranium the dura mater was removed at 
the same time, and the arochnoidal sac inadvertently opened. Through this careless ma- 
nipulation an important element in determining the cause of death was lost, and this is 
the more to be regretted, as in consequence of the generally fluid condition of the blood 
in the body, the detection of clots in case of hemorrhage between the membranes of 
the brain, could not be expected. In fact, it is impossible to assume with Dr. Conrad 
that the blood, which escaped from the cranial cavity, was post mortem blood, for the 
reason that it was dark and fluid; for all the blood in the body had the same qualities, and 
consequently, adopting the Doctors mode of reasoning, the whole blood would have been 
post mortem blood, so that we are led to the very interesting conclusion, that ante mortem 
blood had not existed at all in the body of Miss Stennecke. 
For these reasons we must designate the blood, which escaped from the cranium as "ante 
mortem" blood. 
The examination of the kidneys, as well as that of the urinary bladder and its contents, 
so important in such cases, has been entirely neglected by the medical experts. 
Microscopico-pathological changes of the kidneys are a frequent cause of sudden 
death, and we must regard it as culpable negligence to omit so important an element in 
determining the natural causes of death. 
Reviewing the data of this carelessly conducted and incomplete post mortem examina- 
tion we obtain the following results : 
Hyperaemia of the membranes of the brain, probably an effusion of blood between the 
latter, (the vessel of the pia mater are described by Dr. Conrad as "gorged with blood,'' 
but singularly enough at the same time in " a flaccid condition",) further, fluid in the lateral 
vertricles and the partial softening discussed above. After having established the above 
facts, we will now consider the hypothetical case, submitted to the medical experts of the 
Commonwealth. 
The hypothetical case presents the deceased in full health in the street, and occupied 
with bank business at 9 o'clock in the morning of the 27th of January, but two hours later 
in the act of vomiting. 
The evidence of witness Drew, who testified that he saw her in the same morning, 
between 10 and 11 o'clock, on the Episcopal church square, is not taken into account. On 
inquiring after her health, she told him that she felt "very dull and bad," that she had 
" been eating beefsteak the evening before," and that she " was walking, trying to walk 
it off." He also testifies that she was a very hearty eater, and that " she frequently com- 
plained of giddiness in her head." 
Further, the testimony of Dolly Turner is also set aside. Miss Stennccke told her, the 
Doctor had given her something "to throw the heaviness off her chest." This was 
between 10 and 11 o'clock on the same morning. 62 
THE SCHOFPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
These symptoms, however, are precursory signs of several diseases, and in forming an 
opinion of such a case, are of the highest importance. 
In the further exposition by the prosecution, we find that a very important symptom 
has been omitted, the deviation of the face, and the position of the tongue towards the 
left sidefc which has been observed by your witnesses, Mrs. Hannah Horn, Mrs. Lavinia 
Schindle, Mrs. Mary Parker and C. L. Lochinan. According to C. L. Lochman's and 
Hannah Horn's testimony her mouth was open, and the latter witness observed in the af- 
ternoon a profuse perspiration on the right side, but not on the left, also, that her left 
hand was cold. 
From these observations it is evident that the hypothetical case, submitted by the pros- 
ecution does not correspond with the case of Miss Stennecke," therefore, it is entirely inad- 
missible and must be rejected as an untrue exposition of her condition. 
For this reason and on account of the very incomplete post mortem examination, which 
had been submitted, the opinions of Drs. Kieffer, Dale, Haldeman, Cornman and Ziegler, 
not being based upon the actual facts of the case, have no foundation, and therefore, we 
do not find it necessary to subject them to criticism. 
But we cannot pass over in silence the evidence and opinion of Dr. Herman, who saw 
the patient on her death-bed as a consulting physician. His testimony would be of the 
utmust importance, if it were possible to admit that he possessed a clear and sound judg- 
ment and an unbiassed conception of the case. We shall abstain from re-iterating all his 
contradictions, and shall dwell only on the following: 
According to the testimony of Hannah Horn, Dr. Herman at the bedside pronounced the 
disease a "stroke," on the witness stand it w'as first declared to be the result of poisoning 
by a combination of opium, prussic acid and corrosive sublimate, as in his celebrated poi- 
soning case of a chicken hawk ; then of poisoning by prussic acid, which he alleges to have 
recognized from the appearance of the eyes; then again the result of an overdose of mor- 
phia, whilst at the hearing of the habeas corpus, he states that he considered it hemiple- 
gia from the contortion of her face to one side, and that he was convinced that her death was 
not produced by narcotics. He concludes the series of his remarkable toxicological theo- 
ries (after having brought into the case some tartar emetic) with the expressed conviction 
that a combination of prussic acid and morphia had been the fatal agent, and ad- 
vances the extraordinary theory of the stimulating effects of morphia in poisoning with 
prussic acid. 
According to his own statement, he has neither seen nor heard of an experiment on the 
effects of such a combination, yet, he does not hesitate to pronounce under oath on its 
effects, and to stake the life of a fellow being on the mere reasoning in a case, where ex- 
periments alone can decide. 
The kidneys, which were not at all examined in the post mortem, and of which conse- 
quently nothing could be known, Dr. Herman pronounced to have been in a healthy condi- 
tion ! 
That such testimony is not worthy of consideration either from a point of truth or of 
science is undeniable. 
It now remains to discuss the symptomatology of the case ; this presents the following 
questions : 
1. Is it possible to prove from the post mortem examination and thesymptomsa poison- 
ing by narcotic poisons, especially by prussic acid and morphia; 
2. Do they indicate morbid conditions, sufficient to prove death from natural causes ? 
We forebear entering more fully into a discussion in regard to the poisoning by prussic THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
63 
acid, because the symptoms and the post mortem appearances in Miss Stennecke's case 
were quite different from those of well established poisoning cases by prussic acid. The 
inadmissibility of such an hypothesis has been fully demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. 
J. J. Zitzer and Dr. Wormley, also in the exposition of Pralet's case (Orfila Traits de 
Toxicologie, Paris, 1852, II. 364,) and by the most recent experiments on animals by Le- 
corcM & Meuriot (Archives generales, May, 1868). 
In regard to the question, whether morphia had been used as a poison, we have to state 
that some of the symptoms, as well as the post mortem appearances in poisoning cases by 
morphia or opium resemble to some extent those of congestion of the brain and apoplexy. 
Symptoms, peculiar to poisoning by morphia, were not observed, such as great thirst, 
(Trousseau and Bonnet in Orfila, II, 217.) itching of the skin without sweat, eruption of 
prurigo, urticaria, eczema(OrfilaII. 217), petecchiae, (Casper II. 62) sometimes fits ofspasms, 
increasing even to general convulsions, the mouth covered with froth, (Casper II. 63.) &c. 
The fact also that patients can be aroused in instances of narcotism from opium, when 
shaken or loudly called until towards the fatal termination, whilst from the sleep of apo- 
plexy this cannot bedone, speaks against the supposition of poisoning by opium or mor- 
phia (Beck II. 463).* 
All the other symptoms, observed in this case, correspond with those of apoplexy and 
are not of pathognomonic character. 
The contraction of the pupils for instance, is by no means a characteristic sign of poison- 
ing by morphia, for, most authors on the subject state that they find them as frequently 
in a dilated condition-(Taylor 131* Bally, Memoir sur l'opium214 ; Deguise, Dupuy & 
Levret Memoire sur 1'acetate de Morphine, Paris, 1824,) nor is the slow, stertorous and 
irregular respiration a criterion of poisoning by opium, because it is generally found in 
comatose conditions from other causes. The sopor of the patient on the evening preceding 
the day of her death, is not only a symptom of poisoning by morphia, but also a precursory 
one to apoplexy, therefore it is not of any decisive value; also the collection of saliva in 
the mouth and the profuse perspiration are common to apoplectic and comatose conditions. 
The post mortem appearances do not afford the least support for the assumption of poi- 
soning by morphia. 
We find only the congestion of the brain and the dark fluid condition of the blood. 
Both these pathological conditions, however, are common to a great number of other 
affections, and cannot serve to establish any diagnostic proof. (Casper II. 63. Wharton & 
Stille, 481.) 
The congestion of the lungs, which is a common post mortem phenomenon in poisoning 
by morphia is not mentioned. 
We wish to observe that the dark and fluid condition of the blood is not by any means a 
sign of poisoning, as it is generally found in cases of sudden death, (Grisolle, I. 704 ; Beck 
II. 59,) on the other hand a short time after death from narcotic poisons, the blood is of- 
ten found coagulated in the veins and ventricles of the brain. (Orfila II. 215.) 
Considering all the above points, the absence of positive symptoms in this case, the in- 
significant diagnostic value of the post mortem appearances and symptoms during life, 
which are'common to many disorders, we come to the conclusion that the supposition of 
poisoning by morphia must be excluded. The hypothesis of a poisoning with a combina- 
tion of morphia and prussic acid is without any foundation, neither experience nor exper- 
iments aid us in judging of the effect of such a combination; a priori it could not be pre- 
sumed that tw o purely narcotic poisons would counteract each other. 
The longest time recorded between taking a fatal dose of prussic acid and death is 64 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
one hour. .Judging from the similar action of the two poisons upon the animal economy 
it does not seem probable that morphia would retard the action of prussic acid. 
As the existence of the two poisons, prussic acid and morphia, has been proved neither by 
chemical analysis, nor by the post mortem examination or the symptoms observed during 
life,-we come to the conclusion that neither of them has existed, either separately or in 
combination. . , 
The question, which remains to be discussed, is, " do the symptoms and post mortem 
appearances admit of an explanation that Miss Stennecke died of a natural death ?" 
Proceeding to an investigation of this question we find numerous congestive conditions 
of the brain, certain forms of apoplexy and apoplectiform softenings. 
1. There are hyperaemic conditions of the brain, in which we notice symptoms of 
general depression and paralysis, which bear such a striking resemblance to an attack of 
apoplexy that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other. Such an attack, in which 
all the functions of the brain are suspended, may produce death by paralysis, extending 
from the brain to the centre of the organic nervous system. (Niemeyer, Lehrbuch der 
speciellen Pathologic & Therapie, Berlin, 1868, II, 176.) 
In this form there exists a great inclination to sleep, from which in the commencement 
the patients are aroused with difficulty and later not at all. (Niemeyer, II, 173). 
2. That form of apoplexy, which Abercrombie in his great work on diseases of the brain, 
designates by the name of simple apoplexy (nervous apoplexy) and which destroys life 
without leaving any trace, not even that of congestion. (Watson, lectures on the principle 
and practice of physic, Philadelphia, 1858, 332; Beck II, 54; Chomel & Grisolle, Presse 
medicale, 1837 ; Lebut, Gazette medicale, 1835.) 
3. Effusion ofblood into the sac of the arachnoid, which show prodromes, such as headache, 
giddiness, heaviness of the limbs, and the symptoms of which correspond in severity to 
the rapidity and extent of the hemorrhage. It is followed by paralytic symptoms and 
coma, which ends in death. (Grisolle I, 706). 
4. The serous apoplexy, which, as we have ment ioned in discussing the soft ened part of the 
brain, may have acted as a pathological cause of the softening. (Watson, 341. Leubuscher, 
Ilandbuch der medicinischen Clinik, Leipzig, 1861, 219 ; Leubuscher's Gehirn-Krankheiten 
390; Grisolle I, 776). 
5. The apoplectiform softening, which as such, is most frequently observed in persons 
over 60 years of age. It offers all the symptoms of apoplexy. 
After having remained latent for a long time, suddenly hemiplegia takes place and coma, 
which leads to death, (Beck II. 57. Grisolle II. 244; Leubuscher, II. 201; Niemeyer, II. 290) 
6. Uraemia, occasioned by pathological changes in the kidneys, frequently causes comatose 
conditions, which simulate apoplexy (Watson, 232; Niemeyer, II. 27 ; Flint's Practice of 
Medicine, 744 & 746). 
Considering the symptoms of this case in detail, we find that they admit of a natural 
explanation by the pathological conditions above stated. 
A symptom common to narcotic poisoning and apoplectic conditionsis sopor, which we 
observed on the evening preceding her death ; this sopor from which patients may be 
aroused, at first only with difficulty, and later not at all, and w'hich may terminate fatally, we 
have already mentioned in our exposition of hyperaemia of the brain. The comatose state 
of the patient, which we find on the day following, is a natural consequence, if the con- 
gestion continues to increase or, if it terminates in one of the above mentioned forms of 
apoplexy. 
Frequently apoplexy occur* at night during sleep. In 177 case* of apoplexy, according THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL 
65 
to Gendrin, 97 occurred during sleep, and 84 during sleep at night, so that it is not sur- 
prising, if a person who goes to bed, suffering from a considerable degree of congestion of 
the brain, is found the next morning in an apoplectic state. 
Regarding the symptoms of respiration, we refer to what has already been mentioned 
when dwelling on the symptoms of poisoning by morphia. The condition of the pupils is 
changeable also in congestive and apoplectic affections of the brain, now dilated, then con- 
tracted, (Niemeyer II. 173) at other times unequal, according to the involvement of cer- 
tain provinces of the nervous system, therefore a contraction of the pupils, as already 
stated, connot serve as a criterion, either of poisoning by morphia or of apoplexy. 
The relaxed condition of the muscles also is a common symptom of apoplexy in its coma- 
tose stage. 
Besides these symptoms common to both conditions, we have now to consider those, 
which are pathognomonic of, that is, belonging exclusively to apoplectic forms of disease. 
According to the unanimous evidence of four witnesses, there existed a deviation of the 
face and tongue to the left side. This deviation is the surest sign of paralysis, resulting 
from morbid conditions of the brain. In judging of this form of disease, this symptom 
alone is of such an importance that, in connection with the comatose state, it leaves no doubt 
whatever in regard to the diagnosis. 
One symptom of apoplexy, upon the absence of which the prosecution in its hypothetical 
case laid some stress, viz : no puffing out of the cheeks in breathing, is easily explained 
by the fact that the patient had her mouth open, so that the breath could pass through the 
opened mouth without distending the paralyzed buccinators. 
If we bring the post mortem appearances, found in this case, in connection with the 
symptoms, we can demonstrate almost to a certainty the natural causes of death, which 
we have mentioned. 
The softened condition of one part of the brain, which we have considered as ante mortem, 
or resulting from pathological changes ante mortem, the congestion of the meninges, the 
large amount of blood, which escaped from the cranial cavity, for which Dr. Conrad could 
not account, and which might have been owing to hemorrhage into the sac of the arachnoid, 
the serous fluid, found in the ventricles, the pathological lesions in the kidneys, which may 
have existed and the absence of several morbid changes in other organs, often found in 
cases of poisoning by narcotics, all these together confirm to a great degree the conviction 
above advanced, that death resulted in a natural way from pathological conditions of the 
brain. 
Reviewing the symptomatology of the whole case we find it to present the following picture. 
A woman of 65 years of age, who has been ailing and has been under medical treatment 
for about two years, who probably suffered from chronic disturbances of digestion, and 
from some disease of the eyes, (Schoeppe's letter, p. 17) who according to adduced evi- 
dence, frequently complained of giddiness, was on the morning of the 27th of January, at 
9 o'clock, in the street, transacting bank business. On her way home she complained of 
feeling " very dull and bad" in consequence of an indigestion, and sends for the Doctor, 
who probably gave her a vomit, which produced the desired effect at 11 o'clock, half an 
hour after its administration. She tells the servant that the Doctor had given her something 
to throw the heaviness off her chest. After vomiting she lies down and is found in bed by 
3 o'clock, apparently not very sick. Between 7 and 8 o'clock, P. M., she seems to be very 
ill and sleepy, gets up, however, and undresses herself with the assistance of the servant; 
during this time she is soporous and can be kept awake only by speaking to her. At 9 66 
THE BCIIOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
o'clock, P. M., she does not answer to knocks at the door, nor to her name. From this time 
until 6 A. M., next morning we have no observations. JJetween 6 and 7 o'clock she is 
found in bed unconscious, does not answer on being called or shaken, and does not move ; 
she lies on the left side, breathing heavily, noisily and irregularly ; the eyes are nearly 
closed, the mouth is open, with some collection of saliva ; tongue and face deviating to the 
left side, pulse irregular and rapidly growing weaker, feet cold; according to the evidence 
of one witness the left hand cold, but not the right, the forehead covered with clammy 
sweat, muscles relaxed. At 11 o'clock in the morning the pupils contracted, head inclining 
entirely to the left; and thus she lies in an unconscious state until 6 o'clock in the evening 
when she dies. 
We have to add a few' remarks. 
The age of this woman, G5 years, is that in which congestions of the brain, apoplexies 
and apoplectiform softenings are most frequently noticed. The giddiness, the chronic 
affection of the eyes and the dyspeptic conditions, which had existed for a long time are 
frequently prodromes and partial symptoms of transitory congestion of the brain and of 
textural changes already existing, but in a certain measure latent, or of functional dis- 
turbances of the brain, resulting from a poisoning of t he blood, in consequence of patholo-, 
gical changes in the kidneys. 
If we consider that an indigestion in a'predisposed individual frequently furnishes a cause 
of congestion of the brain ; if we consider that this w oman after this attack of indigestion 
felt dull and heavy and probably took an emetic "to throw the heaviness off her chest;" 
if we further take into account the strain of vomiting and the mechanical impediment it 
occasions to the reflux of venous blood from the brain, all of which are capable of produ- 
cing hyperaemia, or increasing one already existing, we cannot be surprised at the collapse 
after the vomiting, nor at the sopor following it; this high degree of hyperaemia may of 
itself produce conja ; or an apopletic attack induced by previously existing lesions of the 
brain, such as softening, or atheroma of the capillaries, or produced by rupture of a sinus, 
takes place during the night, coma follows, in which the patient is found the next morning. 
The symptoms of the comatose state were all present no matter by what cause they were 
produced. 
The heavy, noisy and irregular breathing, the loss of sensibility and voluntary motion, 
the relaxed condition of all the muscles, offer sufficient proof for it. If in connection with 
these there is a deviation of the face and tongue, the picture of apoplexy is complete and 
unmistakable. 
We are justified in abstaining from a positive opinion, which of the various forms of 
apoplexy mentioned was the real cause of death ; it suffices to express our definite convict- 
ion, after fully weighing all the data, connected with the case that death did not result 
from poison, but from one of the above enumerated natural causes. 
It is evident from the above : 
1. That the chemical analysis of the stomach and intestines of Miss Maria M. Stennecke 
has proved the absence of prussic acid, morphia and any other poison. 
2. That the post mortem appearances and the symptoms of the case exclude death by 
poison. 
3. That death in all probability resulted from one of the forms of apoplexy : 
Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the full and careful investigation of all the 
scientific points connected with thia case, has not developed any proofs, by which the 1'Hli SCltOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
67 
slightest culpability could be fastened upon Dr. Schoeppe, and we joih In an earnest pro- 
test against the Verdict of the Jury. 
Philadelphia, October lltA, 1869. 
THE COMMITTEE. 
DR. F. A. GENTH. 
JULIUS KAEMMERER, M. D. 
EMIL FISCHER. M. D. 
We the undersigned fully concur in the opinion expressed by the above named com- 
taittee. 
Dr. Gustav Winkler. 
Albert Fricke, M. D. 
Julius Schrotz, M. D. 
Theodore A. DeMMe, M. D. 
Joseph F. Koerper, M. D. 
Charles F. Wittig, M. D. 
Carl Beeken, M. D. 
Heinrich Tiedeman, M. D; FROM THE MEDICO-LEGAL SOCIETY OF NEW YORK. 
The undersigned Committee, appointed by the New York Medico-Legal Society for the 
special purpose, having attentively examined the printed testimony in the ease of the Com- 
monwealth of the State of Pennsylvania against Dr. Paul Schoeppe, of Carlisle, who was 
recently found guilty by a.jury, of causing the death of Miss Maria M. Stennecke, by ad- 
ministering poison to her, respectfully submit the following report thereon, 
From the tenor of the evidence, it seems that the prosecution assumed that the deceased 
was in the enjoyment of good health up to the morning of the 27th of January, 1869. 
See Smith's Testimony, p. 1. This assumption, however, is not sustained by the testimony, 
it appearing in evidence that she had been under the professional charge of the doctor 
during a part of the previous summer, and had corresponded with him about her health 
from Baltimore just before her return to Carlisle, late in the year. See letter, p. 17. By 
this letter it appears that during her absence from Carlisle, she had sought the advice and 
care of an oculist in Baltimore, on account of an affection of her eyes, impairing her 
vision. The same correspondence alludes to the state of her digestive organs in such 
language as to clearly show that she had suffered derangement of them, and in fact the 
Doctor's apprehensions expressed in the same letter, that her apparent improvement in 
this respect might be transitory, seems to have been realized on the 27th of January, 
when she was engaged in trying to walk off the feeling of oppression consequent upon 
overeating, a condition which finally led to her taking an emetic. See Drew's testimony, 
p. 4 and 5. These facts as to thb general health of Miss Stennecke for a number of months 
ending January 27th, 1869, when taken into account with the sudden occurrence of 
serious brain derangement on that day, which finally terminated fatally, are regarded by 
the Committee, as, under the circumstances to be presently alluded to, very strongly sug- 
gestive that renal disease existed. We wholly agree with some of the witnesses in the 
case, that the symptoms of alleged poisoning presented by the deceased, were all of them 
those well-known to attend some forms of fatal disease of the kidneys. It is therefore 
very much to be regretted that the interest of individuals, of science, and of truth, were 
sacrificed by a neglect on the part of the physicians who conducted the post mortem ex- 
amination, to examine the kidneys and any urine the bladder might have contained. 
According to the evidence it appears most probable that an examination of these organs at 
the post mortem, would have furnished a key to most if not all the mystery which seems 
to have surrounded the fatal illness of this woman. But this very grave neglect having 
occurred, we are unanimous in the opinion that a safe judgement as to the real cause of 
death in the case cannot be formed from the testimony produced. Mr. Hepburn's state- 
ment that the " post-mortem examination was not carried to such an extent as would per- 
mit any one to say that death did not result from natural causes," is, in our opinion, 
unquestionably true. Seep. 47. 
The want of the information which the examination of the urine in this case would per- 
haps have furnished ; the omission to examine the kidneys, at the time of the post mortem. THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
69 
and other omissions to examine vital organs, both by the eye and by chemical agents 
and especially the neglect to apply all appropriate tests to the substance of the brain, 
whose affinities for and slow elimination of toxical agents, are so well-known and so 
readily made available for purposes oY scientific inquiry, are omissions and defects which 
open the way to so much doubt and embarrass the history with so much ignorance, that 
the question of either accidental or criminal poisoning in the case cannot in our opinion 
under the evidence, be taken into serious consideration. In this connection, however, we 
deem it proper to call attention to the status this question of poison enjoyed during the 
trial. His Honor the Judge, in his charge to the jury, upon the points presented by the 
prisoner's counsel, instructed them to " lay the question of death from prussic acid aside 
so far as it was affected by the testimony" of the only witness who expressed a reasonable 
opinion that it was, or ever had been present in the stomach of the deceased. This, it 
seems to us, effectually settles the question of death from prussic acid, and leaves only 
that of death from morphine for us to remark upon. But we do not find the slightest 
proof, either post mortem or ante mortem, that Miss Stennecke took this substance during 
her fatal illness. As to the purely theoretical and speculative testimony of some of the 
wiinesses, that the symptoms presented during the last hours of life were like those pro- 
duced by morphine or opium ; or like those produced by a combination of those substances 
with prussic acid, we deem it, under the evidence, as not only totally unworthy of judicial 
regard, but as in the highest degree disgraceful to the profession which produced it. We 
would so especially emphasize that of the witness Herman. Seep. 8. In respect to the 
expert testimony of the witnesses, Dale, Halderman, Crowman, Keiffer and Zeigler, we re- 
gard it as entirely inadmissible, because it either was hearsay evidence, or testimony 
based upon the findings of a post-mortem examination which, we have seen, was partial 
and totally valueless for any scientific or legal purpose. The total failure to detect any 
kind of poison after death, as well as the entire absence of proof that any kind of poison 
was administered, together with the fact that the proper means were not employed to ascer- 
tain if death did not take place from natural causes, and that the fatal symptoms were not 
from disease, in our opinion, render conviction upon this indictment impossible. 
With this appreciation of the testimony thus far reviewed, the Committee cannot but re- 
gard the circumstance of Dr. Schoeppe's interest in the estate of the deceased as most 
unfortunate; for without that complication, no intelligent and attentive jury could, in our 
opinion, upon all the other points of the evidence, have for a moment entertained the idea 
of his guilt. His conviction, therefore, forced the Committee to the conclusion, that in 
rendering this verdict, the jury failed to properly comprehend the important legal truth 
so clearly presented by the Court in its charge, " that motives cannot be used to determine the 
primary question that a erime has been committed." In conclusion we express the hope, that 
this case may be again laid before a jury, who, though Dr. Schoeppe may have had an 
apparent motive for the commission of an alleged crime, will not convict him till they first 
prove that the crime has been committed, (which in our opinion has not yet been done) and 
then that he committed it, which is still farther from being proved by the evidence thus 
far offered. 
While the Committee are very decided and unanimous in these views as to the proofs offer- 
ed in support of the charges of the indictment, they feel called upon, by a sense of obli- 
gation to defend justice generally, to make the following remarks upon the circumstantial 
evidence. First, as to the check of $50, purporting to have deen drawn in favor of Dr 
Schoeppe by the deceased a short time before death, and presented for payment the day 
following that event. We regard the testimony presented, as to the genuineness of this 70 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
paper, as damaging to the general character of the doctor for truth and veracity : but wd 
are unable to see the slightest reason for the supposition that s if a forgery, it was not com- 
mitted after the death of Miss Stennecke, and after every proper and faithful effort, in 
consultation, had been made by the Doctor, to save her life. If we are to be guided by 
the evidence, he certainly had every rational motive to prolong the life of this lady, for 
some months at least, for by so doing he would evidently have had less difficulty in obtaining 
money, than in case of her death. There seems to be no reasoii to doubt that while alive, 
she was willing to furnish him with all the money he required to execute any business 
plans, and that he knew she was so disposed and was able to do so. As respects the will, 
purporting to have been drawn and executed on the third of December, 1868, we find no 
more evidence of its having been drawn anterior to the death of Miss Stennecke, than we 
do that the check was. The only evidence we find aside from the figures on the face of the 
document, relating to its date, is furnished by the witness Adair, who testifies that either 
before Thanksgiving or Christmas, Dr, Schoeppe copied a form of will from a book lent 
him for that purpose, by this witness. Whether this copy was obtained during the latter 
part of November or of December, is therefore uncertain, but to us, that, point seems un- 
important, for there appears more reason to suppose that it was employed after the death of 
the testatrix, than that she ever had any knowledge of it. As to the circumstantial evi- 
dence therefore, while it is in our opinion very prejudicial to the general character of the 
accused, we regard it. as post mortem in its relations, and not in the least available on the 
charges of the indictment, 
Stephen Rogers, M. D. 
J. C. Morton, M. D. 
E. H. M. Sell, M. D. 
I. F. Chauveatj, M. D. 
Jaeob Shrady, L L. B. Counaelldr at law From the "Philadelphia Age." 
[COMMUNICATED.] 
There is no principle either in Law or Morals, which should be more strenuouly defen- 
ded than that which men term Justice. To assert this is merely to give utterance to a 
truism; nevertheless we are constantly reminded of its importance by the many and grave 
violations of the principle which are occurring on every side. 
We have been led to this reflection from a somewhat careful and critical analysis of a re- 
cent criminal case, which occurred at Carlisle, Pa.,-that of Dr. Paul Schoeppe, convicted 
of the murder of Miss Maria Stennecke, by the administration of poison. Let us, at the 
outset, be clearly understood as having no interest whatsoever, either personal or other- 
wise, in any of the parties concerned. We have examined the case purely in the abstract, 
having as already intimated, carefully scrutinized the evidence-chemical, medical, and other- 
wise; and we have arrived at the conclusion (which has been reiterated by scores of prof- 
essional men-medical and legal), that this evidence, as detailed in the Report of Trial, has 
failed to make out the proof of the alleged crime of murder, for which the prisoner now 
lies under sentence of death. 
Our readers are probable conversant with the leading points of the case. The prisoner,. 
Dr. Schoeppe, is a German physician, under forty vears of age, apparently well-educated, 
but poor; practicing his profession at Carlisle, Pa. The deceased, Miss Stennecke, came 
to reside at Carlisle some months previous; and being an invalid, placed herself under the 
Doctor's professional care. She was over sixty years of age; and reported to be worth 
some fifty thousand dollars. It would appear, from certain letters produced in evidence, 
that this lady had become somewhat personally interested in her medical attendant, inas- 
much as she presented him with one thousand dollars, besides making mention of a pend- 
ing marriage contract. 
On the day preceding her death, January 27, she complained of feeling poorly, and was 
visited by Dr. S, several times, who prescribed, among other things, an emetic, which pro- 
duced vomiting. Throughout, this day she was visited by several persons, and as late as 7 
p. m. by one of the servants of the house, who testified that she was then too sick to eat her 
supper, which she had just brought to her. The proprietor of the hotel also testifies that 
at 9 J o'clock on that evening he rapped at her door to ascertain if she wanted anything, but 
he could get no answer. Early on the following day a number of persons went into her 
room, and found her in an unconscious condition, breathing heavily, and incapable of 
being aroused. She continued in this state up to the time of her dpath, which took place 
about 6 p. m., without any convulsions. A short time after her decease, Dr. Schoeppe pre- 
sented a will for probate, which bequeathed the whole of her property to himself. This 
will was drawn up, it is alleged, by the doctor himself, in his own handwriting and the 
two subscribing witnesses to it are the doctor and his own father I This instrument was 
at once pronounced a forgery by the heirs-at-law ; and suspicions, which had already been 
aroused, now cultminated in the arrest of Dr. Schoeppe, and his indictment for poisoning 
the deceased with prussic acid. The body, which had been buried at Baltimore, was dis- 72 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
interred about two weeks after death, a not very careful post mortem examination was made, 
and the stomach and a portion of intestine were subjected to chemical analysis by a pro- 
fessor of chemistry of thirty years, standing in Baltimore. The idea (for some unexplai- 
ned reason) seems to have been entertained that prussic acid was the poison administered, 
although there was not a single symptom before death which pointed to this poison; neit- 
her did the condition of the body after death afford any ground for it. Nevertheless the 
chemical professor declared on oath, that he had detected taint traces of this poison in the 
stomach of the deceased. 
But this chemical evidence is open to grave objections; In the first place, let it be obser- 
ved that it is a well-established point in medical jurisprudence that the detection of mere- 
ly faint traces of a poison, by chemical analysis, is of very little significance unless corrobo- 
rated by the previous symptoms. This, as we have just shown, was not the case. Again, the 
analysis itself was faulty in two point s ; first the analyist neglected to employ the most de- 
licate of all the tests-the nitrate of silver test; and, secondly, (and particularly), he commit- 
ted a mistake in using sulphuric acid in his distilling process. This acid was not only un- 
necessary, on the presumption of the existence of free prussic acid in the stomach, but it 
was absolutely faulty inasmuch as it (the acid) has the property of developing the poison 
in quest ion out of certain inert substances that might happen to be present there; one of 
which (sulphocyanogeri) is a normal constituent of human saliva. This fact is, of course, 
fatal to the chemical evidence. 
It. would seem that the prosecution became sensible of this defect, as they soon abandoned 
the charge of poisoning by prussic acid, and substituting by the combined use of morphia 
and prussic acid. But where is the evidence to substantiate this allegation ? It appears to 
us to be perfectly groundless. One of the medical witnesses, it is true, gave the details of an 
experiment made on a crow or hawk, by giving to it a combined of prussic acid, mor- 
phia and corrosive sublimate. He says that the bird died with symptoms analagous to 
those presented by the deceased. Quite likely ; for the symptoms preceding death from 
various causes are often very similiar. This solitary experiment is the only one adduced ; 
and it is not pertinent to the case, since birds are poor subjects to experiment upon with 
poisons, with a view to deduce physiological conclusions in reference to man. Thus, as 
has been lately shown by Dr. Mitchell, of our city, it is almost impossible to narcotize pi- 
geons with the largest doses of opium. Again, the analyist utterly failed to discover the 
presence of morphine in the stomach, although he searched carefully for it. On what 
ground, then, is the allegation of poisoning by morphia based ? Chiefly from the resem- 
blance of the ante-mortem symptoms with those which are produced by morphia. But it is 
well known that the symptoms of apoplexy so strongly resemble those of poisoning by op- 
ium (morphia), that it is often extremely difficult to decide between them. 
Now, we think, that every symptom presented by the deceased might very readily and na- 
turally be ascribed to an apoplectic attack. Her age was favorable to it. She had suffered 
from previous attacks of pain in the head, and at the post mortem examination, one por- 
tion of the brain is described as being in a softened state; besides the general turgescence 
of the vessels of the brain is a condition very often found after death by apoplexy. To be 
sure, there was no extravasation of blood in the brain ; but this is not invariably present 
in apoplexy. We may admit that the general fulness of the vessels of the brain corresponds 
with what is usually seen in death from morphia, and other narcotics, but the gredt point 
to be settled is, did the signs revealed by the post mortem examination so clearly establish 
the fact that morphia was the cause of death, as necessarily to preclude, the idea that death might THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
73 
have resulted from a natural cause (apoplexy) ? Most certainly they did not; and, more than 
this, several of the witnesses testify that the mouth and tongue of the deceased were drawn 
somewhat to one side, before death, affording a strong presumption of hemiplegia, a very 
common sequence of apoplexy. 
But. as was intimated at first, this post-mortem examination was as defective as was the 
chemical analysis. The kidneys and other viscera, together with the spinal marrow, were 
altogether unnoticed. Now, a medico-legal examination of a dead body-searching for 
the cause of death-to be of any value, should be exhaustive. Every part should be care- 
fully inspected. Thus, for example, such structural alteration of the kidney might possi- 
bly have been discovered, as fully to account for all the cerebral sysmptoms exhibited be- 
fore death. 
In view, then of all that has been said of the chemical and medical evidence in the above 
case, we feel fully warranted in the opinion that it has entirely failed in proving the alle- 
gation of poisoning. 
With the moral evidence we have nothing to do, that can be weighed and sifted as well 
by the unprofessional as by the professional witness. We freely admit that the circum- 
stances are against the prisoner. The motive to the crime was sufficiently strong. The 
opportunity, moreover, was a good one. Still, the forgery of the will (admitting the re- 
ality) was a most bungling one. One would suppose that no person less than an idiot 
would think of drawing up such a will/is the one in question ; written by his own hand ; 
making himself the sole legatee; and attested by himself, and his own father, as the sole 
witnesses ! 
But even admitting the probability of the forgery of the will, and of certain bank checks, 
it is to be recollected that the accused stands indicted and convicted, not of forgery, but of 
MURDER. 
The Court has (why, we know not) refused a new trial to the prisoner; and this indi- 
vidual, convicted purely on circumstantial evidence, backed by a prejudice, the most in- 
tense throughout the entire community, and with the strongest probability that the death 
might have resulted from purely natural causes, is now, in the eye of the law, a convicted 
felon, awaiting the execution of his sentence of death ! 
JOHN J. REESE, M. D , 
Professor of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 
In the University of Pennsylvania. No. 1113 Qirard Street, 
Philadelphia. 
Commonwealth, 
vs. 
Dr. Paul Schoeppe. 
Dear Sir: 
I have carefully examined the whole of the evidence and arguments 
in the above case. So far as regards the medical testimony, it is not sufficient to hang a 
cat upon. No poison has been proved, and that should have ended the matter. The mis- 
fortune of the Defendant, however, was produced byjiis written correspondence with the 
deceased, connected with the Legacy left to him in a will drawn by himself. In addition 
to this, the omission to show that the will was genuine, which could have readily been 
done by the father of the Defendant, was an important defect, first, because the father 
could have explained the matter, and secondly, because his not having been called, Jeft the 
impression upon the Jury that the will was a forgery. And an ignorant Jury often infers 
one. crime from the presumption of another. 
The charge of the Court was a good one, but the management of the cause on both 
sides, was too diffusive and complicated to produce any satisfactory or just results- 
Poison or no poison was the question, for which, virtually what was called the moral evi- 
dence was substituted. 
Truly Yours. 
% DAVID PAUL BROWN. 
To FREDERICK DITTMANN, Esq. 
Philadelphia, October 28. 1869. MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT 
ON 
THE MEDICAL TESTIMONY 
OF THE 
SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL, 
PRESENTED TO THE 
COLLEGE OF ZPIElEOSTOI ZLJES 
op % 
✓ 
PHILADELPHIA, 
I 
AND 
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED, 
NOVEMBER 3, 1 8 69. REPORT ON THE MEDICAL TESTIMONY 
OF THE 
SCHOEPPE MURDER I I ?IVI 
» \ 
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE 
College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Nov. 3d, 1869. 
The Committee on the Medico-legal testimony in the case of Dr. Paul Schoeppe, convicted 
at Carlisle, Penna., of the murder, by poison, of Miss Stennecke, respectfully submit the 
following report: 
They do not propose to discuss the question of the guilt or innocence of Dr. Schoeppe, 
except so far as it may be affected by the medico-legal testimony. The moral or circum- 
stantial aspect of the case is not only beyond their scope as medico-legal inquirers, but 
does not in any degree affect the medical evidence as to the material facts. 
If this medical evidence can be shown to be involved in serious doubt, the accusation 
based upon it must necessarily fail, under all circumstances short of absolute proof, and the 
injustice to its victim will become sufficiently apparent. Our duty is: 
First, To- expose whatever fallacies we may discover in the medico-legal testimony on 
either side of the trial, thus acting in good faith as trustworthy experts. 
Secondly, To declare our opinions, as fellows of this College, in behalf of the whole 
profession whose dearest rights may be in jeopardy, through the action of a Court and jury 
under the lead of professional witnesses, in what seems to be the mere effect of ignorance 
and prejudice; and which may be applied with equal power for mischief, if uncorrected to 
the destruction of any member of that profession who may become involved in a case of 
sudden death. 
However vital, therefore, the right settlement of the questions of theory and fact in the 
present case may be in its influence upon the individual; and however much we may sym- 
pathize with him in the sense of wrong, if not of danger, we are bound to remember alike 
our obligations to the community and to the profession-not to defend the one at the ex- 
pense of the other, but to protect all parties from the liability to such fearful-error. If 
such evidence as we shall presently gubmit to you is to be accepted as proof of murder, 
without exposure of its inconclusiveness, and a decided protest against the alarming ease 
with which a few ill-informed and careless witnesses have been allowed to brand a prac- 
titioner of medicine as a poisoner because he was subjected to their suspicion, a similar 
danger may await us all. Nothing but our previous reputations can protect us; and even 
these may be destroyed by some unfortunate coincidence of circumstances which may be 
wrested to our destruction. Surely the people among whom such consclusions can be 
reached, must pay the penalty of their suspicions in the want of confidence between 
patient and physician, which such horrible contingencies w'ill inevitably foster. We are 
not the advocates of Dr. Schoeppe; but, for aught that appears upon this trial, the 
worst faults of this unfortunate man may have been a lack of professional skill, and per- 
haps of respect for himself and for the dignity of his calling. Yet he is consigned to 
the gallows because of the sudden death of a patient under his care; and that upon the ill- 
digested opinions of his professional neighbors; while the few who had been called to cor-- 78 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
rect their mistakes, and instruct the Commonwealth and the jury in his behalf, and for the 
Bake of truth and justice, are ridiculed and charged with pecuniary motives. 
It is under this aspect of the case, as having the seeming approval of medical au- 
thority, rather than for the sake of an unjustly convicted medical practitioner, who has 
already been amply vindicated by numerous able defenders, that we are asked to relieve 
ourselves of our share of the responsibility as physicians of Pennsylvania, in the duty of aid- 
ing in the attempt to deliver all parties from the consequences of this extraordinary verdict. If 
there had been reasonable ground for suspicion of slow poison during professional attend- 
ance, or a trustworthy observation of symptoms of acute or active poisoning at the time of 
death, as shown by the evidence of skilled or unskilled witnesses on either side, we 
should be very differently influenced in our discussion of the medical testimony. But the 
radical defects of this testimony for the prosecution are too clearly evident to admit of the 
slightest hesitation as to their utter insufficiency. In regard to the evidence of the experts 
for the defence, we are obliged to say, that, under ordinary circumstances among educated 
and intelligent men, it could hardly have failed to secure an acquittal for want of proof, 
The chemical testimony on that side respecting errors of analysis, the proper mode 
of avoiding these, and the true evidence of poison, was all that could have been desired* 
and such as would naturally be expected from its source. The testimony as to pathological 
questions, also, was in marked contrast with that presented by the Commonwealth. Al- 
though it might have been fuller and more decided and satisfactory on some points, it 
nevertheless afforded ample contradiction to the assertions of the prosecution. In short, 
the witnesses for the defence are entitled to the thanks of the College for redeeming the 
profession of our State from a large share of the mortification to which the medical testi- 
mony of the prosecution has subjected us. 
As stated by the Judge presiding at the trial, the "Commonwealth allege that the death 
of Miss Stennecke was caused by dangerous and poisonous drugs, by prussic acid or by 
morphia, or the two combined, administered to her by the prisoner with the intent to de- 
stroy life." In order to establish this assertion they had to show: 
First, That Miss Stennecke, although sixty-five years old, was in good ordinary health. 
Second, That Miss Stennecke was seen and found by competent witnesses to be suffering, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, and for a reasonable length of time before her death, from symptoms 
of poisoning by one or both of the poisons named, or of poisoning by some other poison 
administered by Dr. Schoeppe, and that she continued to suffer until she died. 
Third, That a post mortem examination had shown all the important organs and struc- 
tures of the body of Miss Stennecke to be free, beyond a reasonable doubt, from serious dis- 
ease; unless more or less alteration of certain parts and tissues had been found to justify, 
beyond a doubt, the suspicion of the poisoning, and thus to corroborate any evidence 
afforded by the symptoms before death; or unless the examination had become impractica- 
ble through post mortem changes caused by accidental disturbances, the effect of heat, or 
the length of interval after death. -*■ 
Fourth, That sufficient traces of one or both of the designated poisons, or of any other 
poison, had been discovered and displayed, beyond a reasonable doubt, by chemical ana- 
lysis of the body of the deceased; unless the absence from the body of these poisons, or 
the failure to discover any poison, could be explained by the circumstances of the case, and 
by the insurmountable difficulties of the examination through post mortem changes and ex- 
posures. 
As there are two poisons named in the Judge's allegation, others might be excluded from 
consideration. But, as it would be extremely difficult to distinguish a knowledge of the fact THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
79 
of the poisoning from that ot the nature of the poison; and utterly impossible to do so 
beyond a reasonable doubt, there is a propriety in requiring the search in the symptoms, 
pathological appearances and chemical analyses, for every possible poison, without regard 
to previous suspicions. 
We have already stated that the evidence relating to the attendance of Dr. Schoeppe 
does not come within our scope. We may call attention to the fact, however, on account 
of its diagnostic value, that the only medicine proved to have been administered to or 
taken by Miss Stennecke, was a powerful emetic; and this is shown to have operated 
not more than three hours previously to the apparent or first discovered onset of her attack. 
The first step of the investigation-that in respect to health-seems to have been compara- 
tively ignored by the prosecution, as unworthy of attention, although it is obviously a very 
material point. Whether or not it were necessary to prove that she was in undoubtedly good 
health, it was certainly important to prove that she was not in bad health; and, at all 
events, that she was undoubtedly not liable to sudden and serious, and probably fatal, ill- 
ness, without the intervention of a poison. If there were good reason to doubt whether 
her previous state of health did not make her more or less liable to rapidly fatal illness or 
sudden death, then the burden of proof against that doubt was certainly upon the Com- 
monwealth. 
The second step-that is the proof of symptoms-is, in this case, as must happen in some 
cases, the only positive step in the trial; since it is that upon which alone the proof of the 
fact of poisoning can depend. 
If the character of an alleged case of poisoning be truly portrayed by definitely clear 
description of ante mortem symptoms in the testimony of unimpeachable witnesses, whether 
technically skilled or not; then, unless it can be equally well shown that the ante mortem 
symptoms put in evidence are as likely, or at least more or less likely, to arise from bodily 
disease, the belief in the fact of poisoning is naturally justified; and the jury may be gov- 
erned by the corroborating circumstances in estimating doubts against the prisoner. 
If the post mortem or chemical examination have been defective or insufficiently pre- 
sented in the medical evidence ; then the whole burden of the proof necessarily rests and 
turns upon the pre and ante mortem history of the case as established in the trial; so that 
if an affirmative conclusion cannot be reached at this stage of the inquiry, the absence of 
corroborative evidence in the post mortem observations, leaves nothing for the charge of 
poisoning to stand upon. 
The committee propose, therefore, to dwell at greater length on this, the ante mortem 
portion of the evidence, giving it in greater fulness and detail than will be needed for the 
third, and especially, the fourth steps enumerated. Of these latter, that is the postmortem 
examination and analysis, only a brief survey of the leading points need be presented in 
order to demonstrate the incompleteness of that testimony as corroborative evidence. 
In making out their case the Commonwealth, as already intimated, take the liberty of 
assuming that Miss Stennecke, notwithstanding her sixty-five years of age, was in the en- 
joyment of good health until after nine o'clock of the morning of the day on which the final 
illness began. This assumption is proved to be erroneous by a letter (p. 17,) of Dr. Schoeppe, 
written some months previously to the decease, (and produced by the prosecution for another 
purpose); also by a witness for the defence, and through the cross-examination of a witnes8 
for the Commonwealth, who was related to Miss Stennecke and hence an old acquaintance. 
From this testimony it appears that she had long been an ailing woman; for months past she 
had been under treatment for dyspeptic symptoms; and had suffered from some weakness 
or other affection of the eye, on account of which she had placed herself under the care of 80 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
an oculist who was reputed to be very successful in curing blindness. She had been heard 
to " complain frequently of giddiness in her head." She was a very hearty eater, generally tak- 
ing little things with her from the table to eat between meals, in that way exposing herself 
to dangers against which Dr. Schoeppe's letter evidently warns her when it reminds her 
that the improvement which enables her to indulge her appetite may be illusory, and is 
probably short lived. She was met in the street, after breakfast, on the day before she 
died, which was the first of her illness, by a witness, to whom she complained of feeling 
"very dull and bad," and that she was " trying to walk off'' what she took to be an undigested 
supper. Her relative, who had known her the longest, acknowledged that she was in the 
habit of complaining of ill health. Her complaints were regarded by him as '' grunting," which 
he understood to be "complaining without cause!" 
It is unnecessary, among medical men, to say much of this pernicious idea of "grunting" 
in its bearing on the vague, but all the more insidiously destructive nature of the languor, 
indefinite pains, and discomforts of the mal-assimilation and various other disturbances 
which attend on the downward progress of constitutional disorder, and cause the wretch- 
edness of the chronic invalid, whether from disease of the kidneys or of other organs and 
• structures. Who has not seen these sufferers from unrecognized disease, whose dangerous 
condition has been brought to notice only when too late for remedy, and whose lives have 
been still further embittered by this impertinent imputation of hypochondria or imaginary 
pain ? Is not this case one of those which teach a lesson of the danger in which a physi- 
cian may be involved by failure to comprehend the incipient warnings, aiyl the neglect 
to apprise responsible friends ? Let us, at all events, take care in time, lest, by meeting 
such appeals to us for aid and comfort with indifference or ridicule instead of sympathy 
and good advice, we do not some day subject ourselves to the charge of ignorance and 
cruelty, if not of murder, by the sudden termination of a case upon our hands. 
The fact of this poor woman's ill health long before her fatal illness-as well as on the 
day of its onset-of a character bad enough to cause her rejection in every life insurance 
office-was established beyond a doubt; and hence demanded the scrutinous attention of 
all the medical witnesses who were called upon to give their opinions as to the cause of 
her death. , 
The evidence of unprofessional witnesses shows that she was seen at breakfast, in the 
hotel at Carlisle, which was her residence, on the 27th of January, 1869. She was at the 
Carlisle Bank, at some distance from the hotel, the same morning, between nine and ten 
o'clock ; and then seemed to be " in the same state of health she always was/' so far, at 
least, as was " noticed" by the teller of the bank. This is the only testimony as to her 
state of health produced by the Commonwealth. But it is shown by the defence 
that, shortly after leaving the bank, she was met on the Episcopal Church square, between 
ten and eleven o'clock the day before she died, by a waiter who had "attended to her at 
the table," and had heard her " complain frequently of giddiness in her head." In an- 
swer to his question " how she was," she told him '' she felt very dull and bad9 she had 
been eating beefsteak the evening before, and she was walking, trying to walk it off." Be- 
tween ten and eleven o'clock again she is seen with the doctor, by the chambermaid, in her 
room; and asks this chambermaid for a spoon, which is handed to the doctor. After the 
doctor was gone, and " after eleven o'clock," she thinks, the chambermaid is again called, 
this time to empty Miss Stennecke's bucket; being told that the doctor had given her 
something "to throw the heaviness off her chest " After the bucket was "emptied, 
she laid down." (p. 5.) This story of the bucket ends the history of her previous state of health, which constitutes 
the first part of the inquiry. It must be regarded, also, as the commencement of the 
illness ending in her death, which occured about thirty-four hours later. 
She was missed at dinner, and was next seen by a lady boarder (Mrs. Parker, p. 4,) 
who visited her room at two o'clock in the afternoon, and who then found her " completely 
prostrated," "very languid," and "very drowsy." 
Here we have a distinct commencement of the serious symptoms of disorder of her sys- 
tem in the' prostration, languor and drowsiness-all easily accounted for by the emetic, 
and the previous dullness and heaviness in the head and stomach. 
The chambermaid (p. 5,) sees her at three o'clock, and finds her lying in bed, but thinks 
that she does " not seem very ill." Her room is visited a third time by the chambermaid, 
between seven and eight o'clock in the evening, after an interval of between four and five 
hours ; she finds her " seeming to be very sick and sleepy." " She got up," says the 
chambermaid, •" undressed, and went to bed ; she had a wrapper on ; I helped her to un- 
dress ; I helped her to get out of bed; when I wouldn't speak to her she would doze off, 
sitting on a chair, when I would <£11 her to arouse her; I did not see her then until the 
next morning at six o'clock ; I then saw her in bed; I went to her, shook her, and called 
her, but she never moved nor answered a word ; her breathing was very hard." 
Another witness, the proprietor of the hotel, testifies that he knocked at her door, which 
had an open transom ventilator over it, and called her, between nine and ten o'clock, but 
could get no answer.. 
Mrs. Parker, the lady boarder, saw her again, a little after six o'clock, on this second 
morning. " She wat lying insensible, breathing rather heavily. Thought her eyes a very 
little bit open when she first saw her. Saw her again at noon; her eyes were closed, and 
there seemed to be a perspiration on her face. She was lying on her left side, in an easy 
position." The room seemed to be very close, but there was no unusual odor. "Her breathing 
did not amount to a snore, but made quite a noise ; it was not regular; it would appa- 
rently stop for a while." There were no convulsions and no distortion of the features seen 
by this witness. 
We have other testimony, to a similar effect, some of which shall be submitted presently ; 
but as these two witnesses complete the only, or rather the most precise history given, 
of the symptoms, these being unchanged to their observation, throughout the day 
until her death, we stop a moment to examine them. 
She was first seen by Mrs. Parker in a languid, prostrate and drowsy condition at two 
o'clock ; but the chambermaid had found her under the influence of an emetic, evidence of 
which was seen and taken away, soon after eleven o'clock. This more or less prostrating 
emetic had been taken thus early in the day, after a bad night, as shown by her conversa- 
tion with the waiter. It was taken when she had but one meal to depend upon for 
nourishment and renewed strength in the morning, and after a walk in the cold of mid- 
winter, the walk itself having been taken-partly for business, perhaps-but quite as 
much, according to her statement to the waiter, to relieve her of a load of something which 
was weighing down her head and stomach-in other words, her frame. • Eleven o'clock 
therefore, may be regarded as the date of the commencement of the dangerous illness 
which had made the progress noted by dinner time at two. No well informed physician 
can deny that there is, here, enough described to account fully and naturally, without the 
slightest strain, for the first period of an invasion of apoplexy from indigestion ; and that 
just such symptoms might occur in a person of weakened heart, fatty and softening brain, 
or degenerated kidneys, or, what is just as likely ff not more so, of all three together* 
' '-r~ia Stenneke's case, since these conditions accompany each other. 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
81 82 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
Another witness (Mrs. Schiudel, also a fellow boarder, p. 5,) saw her at the breakfast 
table on the 27th, and not again until the next morning, after seven o'clock. " She was 
then unconscious, breathing quite heavily, and so continued during the day, in the same 
position, breathing harder, of course. Her breathing was long and heavy, not rapid 
gasping. Frequent intervals of a moment or so in her breathing. Did not observe any 
convulsions; no distortion of the features or face. Her tongue and mouth wete a little 
twisted on one side, the left side, she was lying on. Her tongue protruded the least bit. 
There was no contraction or rigidity of the hands and feet. There was no foaming at the 
mouth, but a little saliva escaped from it during the day. Her eyes were closed from the 
time I went in, before eight o'clock. I was there most of the day, and found her during 
the day about the same as she was in the morning." 
A fourth unprofessional witness (Mr. Lochman, pp. 5, 6,) was called into her room about 
seven o'clock on the morning of January 28th, and found her " lying on her left side, insen- 
sible. Her respiration was slow and laborious ; her muscles seemed to be very much re- 
laxed ; the mouth was partially open, some accumulation of saliva, and rather pendant, 
from its flaccidity, to the left " " Her eyes were closed;! made no examination of them, 
the lids being closed." This witness states that they looked for bottles and other articles 
" out of which she might have taken medicine ; we found a bottle of sulphuric ether, partly 
filled, on a table near her bed." If the absence of medicines or phials need have increased 
suspicion of foul play, the presence on a table near her bed of a bottle partly filled 
with such a powerful narcotic as sulphuric ether, was at least sufficient to suggest a doubt 
as to whether that may not have been the poison administered by herself; not, of course, 
in intentionally poisonous doses, but imprudently and injuriously, as we have often known 
it to be taken. 
Mrs. Parker further testifies (p. 18) that Miss Stennecke "breathed very heavily, 
amounting to a snore." Mrs. Parker had "seen some one under the influence of morphia, 
who breathed heavily, amounting to a snore; not such a snore as a person sleeping ; it was 
rather distressing." This witness and Mrs. Schindel (p. 19) assert that "her cheeks re- 
mained quiet; there was no flapping or moving of the cheeks." 
Mrs. Horn (a witness for the defence, pp. 22, 23,) testifies that she found Miss Sten- 
necke, about seven o'clock in the"morning, '' in an unconscious state, lying with her mouth 
open, tongue drawn to one side, breathing heavily, short breaths, not very short, not natu- 
ral, snores, occasionally very slight stoppage in her breathing; her nose drawn somew'hat 
to the left side; did not examine her eyes; they were closed when I went in; they re- 
mained closed all day." This witness "noticed in the afternoon that she was in a profuse 
perspiration on the right side, and not on the left." She also insists that the left hand 
was cold and the right was natural, the left side of the face was cold and the right warm, 
at least during the afternoon, between three o'clock and five, which was the interval in 
the course of which she repeatedly observed the condition of the arms and hands and the 
sides of the face. Several other witnesses testify, in common with the four quoted from, to 
the symptoms already described, as well as to the fact of her death at six o'clock. 
The puffing respiration, referred to as "flapping of the cheeks," might have been an 
indication of some value; but was not, as we all know, a necessary accompaniment of 
cerebral apoplexy, and hence its absence was significant of nothing but relaxation of the 
muscles of the lower jaw, and of the consequent open mouth which is described. The dif- 
ference in temperature and perspiration of the two sides was more important; and so 
would have been a definite inequality in the muscular power remaining in the two sides THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
83 
during the earlier part of the second day. This does not appear to have been tested ; and, 
at all events, is left in' doubt so far as positive observation among the witnesses is con* 
cerned. 
The idea of hemiplegia, or palsy of one side; and that of uraemia, or urea blood-poisoning 
from Bright's disease of the kidneys, although very natural, do not seem to have 
improved the case for the defence ; because the suspicion of each disorder failed for want 
of evidence sufficiently strong as to its probability, or even possibility, to impress the 
jury in contradiction to the strange assertions of the self-constituted experts for the Com- 
monwealth. It is by no means certain that there was not some hemiplegia, resulting from 
a greater amount of disease upon one side of the brain than upon the other, but there is 
no positive evidence of this; and the failure of the attempt to show it, for want of proper 
observation before at the post mortem inspection, only reacted on the prisoner 
instead of increasing the doubt, as it ought to have done, as to the actual nature of the case- 
Having thus presented all the material testimony of the unskilled witnesses who saw th® 
most of Miss Stennecke during the last thirty-three or thirty-four hours of her life, let us 
once more review their account of her condition. 
She is seen first'at breakfast, attracting no attention; then at bank, apparently as well 
as usual; soon afterjthis "trying to walk off" a load upon her stomach, and feeling "very 
dull and bad;" next, at eleven o'clock, after taking an emetic to get rid of "the heavi- 
ness;" and then at two o'clock, " very much prostrated, languid and drowsy;" after- 
wards, at three o'clock, when she does "not seem so ill, and is lying down;" lastly on 
that day, between seven and eight in the evening, she seems " very sick and sleepy," re- 
quiring to be undressed and put to bed, dozing off while undisturbed, but waking up 
when spoken to. This marks a decided, but not necessarily alarming increase, of the som- 
nolency observed at two o'clock. It does not seem to have alarmed the chambermaid; 
nor does the inability to arouse her two hours later appear to have disturbed the land- 
lord. The doctor, who left her (according to one witness) at twenty minutes past eight, 
could not have been much impressed with it, or he would certainly have made some de- 
monstration of anxiety, were it only for the sake of appearances. 
Ten hours elapse,'during the night, without any knowledge of her condition, until six 
o'clock of the next morning; when she is found to be in a profound coma, from which she 
cannot be aroused. Unless we choose to consider the call and knock of the landlord, be- 
tween nine o'clock P. M., a sufficient test, it is impossible to determine at what 
particular hour she fell into this state of stupor. We all know the frequency of these 
attacks at night; and how comparatively often this uncertainty exists, where the patient 
has been found either already dead, or several hours nearer to the end than Miss Sten- 
necke proved to be at six o'clock. 
The fair presumption is, that the coma discovered at six in the morning had begun its 
course in the afternoon or evening, and had been gradually overwhelming the patient 
throughout the night. The premonitory drowsiness, although not essential to a case of 
natural coma, appears to have existed, as it often does, especially in Bright's disease, 
and to have escaped particular attention from all observers, including the physician so 
far as show of apprehension was concerned; and this we have many of us seen in cases 
where there had been no previous reason for apprehending more drowsiness than weak- 
ness and fatigue might readily explafn. 
Whatever its precise duration, this coma lasted twelve hours longer, without convulsions 
and without the slightest proof of any special or peculiar phenomenon except those which 84 
THE BCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL 
are common to all cases of cerebral apoplexy and to very many of moribund prostration. It 
is remarkable that the only intelligible history of the illness of Miss Stennecke, however su- 
perficial and even contradictory, is derived from unprofessional witnesses; although she was 
within the reach of professional observation during the last twelve hours of her life. 
The sole professional witness of the phenomena of her attack was first called to see her 
at eleven o'clock of the second day, more than six hours before she died. What opportu- 
nities he sought to assure himself of her condition, and how he conducted his examina- 
tion of the symptoms, cannot be gathered from his incoherent and meagre testimony. 
It is impossible to convey a just idea of this strange medley of gossip and conjecture and 
of his confused impressions and unwarranted opinions, without quoting his evidence at 
length, as given in chief and under cross-examination, with the exception of his opinion 
(p. 19.) as an expert. 
Dr. A. J. Herman.-[Affirmed.)-I am a practicing physician in this place. I have 
been engaged in the practice since 1839. On the morning, about eleven o'clock, of the 
day she died on, I received orders to come to Burkholder's to see Miss Stennecke. I went 
to Burkholder's, and went up to her room; there I met Dr. Schoeppe; he told me he had 
a case of "half-palsy," and I think he said he wanted to know whether bleeding was 
called for in her case. She was lying there, inclined to her left. side. I was standing at 
the foot of her bed at tlfe time this talk took place I wanted to be satisfied, her lying 
on her left side, knowing she was a mushy woman, whether her face was crooked or not. 
I then told in English what a half-palsy was, that the face would have to be lopsided to 
have it. A lady present said she alwhys had a crooked face. I then made no other ex- 
planation about the "hemiplegia." I then went up to her bedside; wanted to feel her 
pulse. I felt both arms, and found no pulsation in either; then drew the eye-lids apart, 
to see if there was any difference in her eyes. I found them both alike, a contracted 
state of the pupils. That amounted to about all 1 did. The doctor told me he had applied 
warm applications to the feet. I told the doctor then I thought she was past bleeding, 
and there was no use to do any thing else, that she was past taking remedies. I did not 
look upon it as hemiplegia at all. I was puzzled to know what was wrong. I had never 
seen hemiplegia in that condition before. The singular expression was the matter that 
troubled me. When I opened the eyes it just put me in mind of a chicken hawk that was 
poisoned with a compound poison. That made me think that she was rather overdosed 
with medicine of the same kind. This hawk was so much relaxed with taking these 
drugs that the tongue wouldfall to either side the head was leaned to, and the contracted 
pupil. Her physiognomy showed about the same appearance. The drugs administered 
to the hawk were opium pills and prussic acid-opium pills, or laudanum mixed with 
bread crumbs; and gave it corrosive sublimate too. The hawk lived two or three days. 
The symptoms indicated no natural disease. I never saw a form of sickness like it be- 
fore. I could not tell the cause of her death. It was a singular form of sickness, that I 
could not account for at all. Morphine is the active principle of opium. Dunglison says 
that prussic acid has a contractive effect upon the pupil of the eye. Dunglison on poison cases. 
Cross-Examined:-The singularity of the case was, she laid there in a weak, relaxed 
condition, as a person feels after taking a prostrating dose of Tartar-emetic. I think I 
have stated all the particulars I recollect of. I saw the eyes very plainly. They were 
contracted in the same condition as they would be if poisoned by an overdose of opium or 
morphia. In many cases of death you often find the one eye dilated, the other contracted. 
I can't call to my memory at present. In all affections that come from the brain the eye 
would be dilated. In apoplexy I have invariably found the pupil dilated. I never saw a 
case in the human subject that I knew to be a case of prussic acid. I don't pretend to say 
that prussic acid has the same effect on hawks and other animals that it has on the human 
system. All experiments are made on inferior animals- I don't know that it is laid down 
in the books that experiments made on fowls are np criterion for the human system. I 
never saw Mitchell's work on experiments with opium on pigeons. I never saw a hawk 
poisoned with a simple poison, One poison is frequently used as antidote to another poi- 
son in the human system. This is laid down in all the books. Atropia is an antidote to 
prussic acid. A good many years ago the experiment was made on the hawk: it was be- THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
85 
tween 1837 and 1842. One drop of the prussic acid, a pinch of corrosive sublimate-a 
couple of grains, and as much laudanum as would stay in a piece of bread was the mixture ; 
doses of this were given at intervals of three and four hours until the hawk died. If my 
memory serves me right, atropia is the antidote to prussic acid. I will show the authority 
for this. Dr. Schoeppe, Mrs. Schindel and Mrs. Parker were in the room when I exa- 
mined the eye; there was also another lady present. I don't remember any other lady ; 
there may have been another. It was the lady I didn't know the name of who said she 
always had a crooked face. She spoke this out while I was at the foot of the bed. I 
passed no opinion. I merely expressed in English what the doctor told me. If I said it 
was half-palsy they must have misunderstood me as to what I explained to them the doc- 
tor told me. I couldn't say what I didn't think. They were sitting in a row back of me. 
She might have stood back 'of me, or at my side, which, I didn't notice. I did not 
reply to Mrs. Horn it is a stroke. I did not say, although it was so put down, that I was 
satisfied it was produced by narcotics; not at least in that way. All I meant was, it was 
not any one narcotic. I don't recollect that I said that. She was in articulo mortis, and 
there was nomse to'apply remedies. I did not think, nor did he, that she would live till 
we went out and came back again. I have used prussic acid. I would have given her 
combined antidotes if I had given her anything. I would have given iron, to turn it into 
Prussian blue. I would have used electricity to stir her up. But she was too old a sub- 
ject, and too far gone to use anything. Could have used stomach pump, but it would have 
killed her, she was so far gone; he thought so too; we coincided. Hq told me he had 
done all that could be done. I noticed no peculiar odor. 
In chief:-The eyeball had a kind of conical appearance; more elongated; that was the sin- 
gular appearance of the eye. After we left the house, the doctor and I, we walked out towards 
my house. I told him that folks told me before I came to the house that she had too much 
morphia, and was dying in consequence of it. He told me he had not given her any ; if she 
had any she must have got it somewhere else. It seemed to affect him very much when I 
told him that. He seemed to be kind of scared, and said if she had taken any morphia it 
might be found in her. I said I guess not, that I thought it would be all lost in the sys- 
tem before it could be found. Yes, says he, by post mortem examination there have al- 
ready been fouud as high as three grains in the brain. He seemed to be scared, and I 
pitied him really, and said it was given for her benefit. These post mortem examinations, 
I said, would be left to physicians, and they wouldn't be over anxious to make the exami- 
nation too soon, and the contents would be left lie around until they would be accidentally 
lost. That no person who had corns was apt to tread on othei' fellows' corns. That any 
accident that way would be overlooked, and I thought it consoled him very much, that it 
met with his approbation. At the time that he heard they were making a post mortem 
examination in Baltimore he met me in front of the Court-house; then spoke about this 
examination, the post mortem; asked me whether I had a work on medical jurisprudence. 
I told him that I had, but there were a lot of books taken from my office, and I couldn't 
lay my hands on them at present. I told him Shearer's office was handy; he could get 
one from him. We went in and got one. I then left Mr. Shearer's office, and he had the 
book. The doctor said, if they don't find anything in the subject what can they do ? 
Dr. A. J. Herman (recalled to finish cross-examination):-I met the folks who told me, 
I think Mr. Burkholder one, and Mrs. Parker another, and several others, as I passed 
through the entry. I don't remember who the others were. I didn't tell Schoeppe she 
had taken morphia. I thought he knew that himself. I thought she had been taking it. 
If it uttered my lips that she didn't take morphia I didn't mean it. I don't believe I did 
say from the appearance of her eyes she had not taken morphia. If I did say it, I said it 
unthinkingly. I was not asked any portion of my-conversation with Dr. Schoeppe. I 
don't think I detailed any of it in my former examination. I understood him medical 
jurisprudence. I didn't give anything definite. I don't think I could have said that. My 
feelings towards Dr. Schoeppe have not been at all of a bad kind. I have no feeling 
against him at all. I have said nothing to any one meaningly against him. If any one 
said anything against him I may have assented, but not with the intention of injuring 
him. 
Re-in Chief:-The appearance of her eye indicated hydrocyanic acid, according to Dun- 
glison. I found the books the gentlemen asked for, and find them just as I stated. 86 
THE SCHOFPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
The only available information to be extracted from this remarkable display is found 
in the following few words: "I felt both arms, and found no pulsation in either; then 
drew the eyelids apart, to see if there was any difference in her eyes. I found them 
both alike, a contracted state of the pupils. That amounted to about all I did." 
The confession here made of the whole extent of his action in the case, whether as 
counsel expert, may be safely taken as the most accurate and pointed statement in his 
testimony. It fully accounts for the confused and meagre nature of his recollections, as 
shown by the counter-evidence of others, as well as by his own self-contradictions, which 
he endeavors to disclaim. x 
The single examination of the eyes, which seems to have made so striking an im- 
pression on his sight as to have recalled to his memory the tortures to which he had 
subjected a chicken hawk so long ago as "between 1837 and 1842," was not sufficient to sat- 
isfy us, even as to the state of the pupils ; and yet it appears to have been submitted to as 
conclusive evidence that the pupils were not only contracted, but contracted alike, 
throughout the last six hours, if not during the whole of the attack. 
Admitting this fact, however uncertain; still we know from experience, as well as au- 
thority, that contracted, and equally contracted pupils, although most generally attendant 
on morphia or opium poisoning, are not invariably so. Dilated pupils are sometimes pre- 
sent, and sometimes dilatation of one pupil and contraction of the other, is the condition 
observed. And we equally well know that contracted pupils are sometimes met with in 
morbid coma, with other apopleptic symptoms, and are frequently seen in certain forms 
of cerebral disease which may end in fatal stupor. They are not sufficiently conclusive 
signs of opium poisoning to dissipate a single reasonable doubt; and, as the only addi- 
tional symptom noticed, even on the one occasion, they must not be allowed to establish 
what is not otherwise proved by any or all of the phenomena observed-that is, either 
singly or as a whole. 
We need not again review the history of the symptoms at the close of the medical testi- 
mony of the skilled, as well as the unskilled witnesses ; but would merely call attention 
to the length of time during which Miss Stennecke survived. We are inclined to date the 
commencement of her attack at least so early as eight o'clock of the 27th of January, when 
she was left by the chambermaid in a drowsy condition, from which the landlord could 
not or did not awaken her, when he called her, before ten. Whether this be so or not, 
there is no question that she was in a hopeless stupor at six o'clock the next morning; 
and so continued gradually sinking until her decease, at six o'clock P. M. of the second 
day, the 28th of January. 
Fully twelve hours of complete coma are thus demonstrated; and at least eight hours of 
previous partial coma, during which, as may fairly be presumed, no one had approached 
her. This would allow too much time for the smallest possible poisonous dose of prussic 
acid, supposing there were the slightest evidence in the appearances or other circum- 
stances, as testified to, to justify the suspicion of this acid-which there certainly is not- 
The idea, suggested without knowledge or experience by Dr. Herman, (p. 19,) of the protrac- 
tion of this time by the modifying influence of morphia, is a violent hypothesis, which the 
peculiarly depressing effects of both poisons, and the promptly fatal effect of one,will not 
allow us to entertain, even if the opinions given on the trial as to the signs of prussic acid poi- 
soning were otherwise deserving of our serious notice. In short ; as prussic acid is well 
known to kill its victim within a few minutes, or three or four hours* at the furthest, and 
* One member of the committee once observed a case of prussic acid poisoning which survived four 
hours. The longest period ou record hitherto is one hour. THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
87 
was admitted at the trial to be generally fatal in its action in from fire to twenty or thirty 
minutes, the prussic acid charge is out of the question, except under an imaginary and 
altogether unreasonable view; and as morphia or opium poisoning is equally fatal, in the 
very large majority of instances, in from six to twelve hours, the fact of opium poisoning 
is exposed to very reasonable doubt. 
No one would pretend to say that morphia or other opiate might not have been given to 
her by some one, or taken by herself, through the mouth, skin, or rectum. Neither has 
any one the right to say that the history here detailed, so far as it could be by the only 
witnesses cognizant of facts, betokens that such poison was either given to or taken by her. 
There is no substantial reason furnished by the testimony on either side of the trial, for 
attributing the fatal coma, or other symptoms in the case, to opium, morphia, prussic acid, 
or to any other poison or poisons, single or combined, rather than to natural and every- 
day disease. There is no warrant for suspicion, notwithstanding the complete uncon- 
sciousness, the peculiar respiration, the relaxed muscles, the laterally fallen jaw, uncer- 
tain pulse and skin, and even the contracted pupils. Several of the witnesses were 
evidently possessed with the idea of narcotic poisoning ; but they had nothing but their 
hearsay recollection of discussions among themselves, and their own inexperienced imag- 
inations to sustain them in it. Nor does the only medical witness to the facts, in his 
theoretical and practical ignorance of the subject, prove himself much better off than 
his unskilled neighbors, in his opinions as to prussic acid and the compound poisoning. 
The symptoms detailed are well known to be characteristic of various forms of apoplectic 
cerebral lesion. They may have been due to anaemia, or to ischaemia, no less than to what 
is called uraemia-to failure of the circulation in the brain through want of strength, or 
through obstruction, or through both. To embolism, or thrombosis-that is, to the plug- 
ging, with clots, of the cerebral arteries or veins, or to diseases of these arteries or 
veins; and especially to a fatty or atheromatous condition of the heart, or larger arteries, 
or of both; to impoverished blood and weakened nerve force, and to other causes, often 
connected with degenerated kidneys, but not necessarily always dependent upon the blood 
poisoning or other results of this often insidious disease. There is nothing in the case 
of Miss Stennecke, so far as the medical history is concerned, that cannot be fully ac- 
counted for on the. supposition of asthenic or anemic cerebral apoplexy; or apoplexy, 
with or without softening of a portion of the brain, from failure of the arterial circula- 
tion with obstruction of the venous circulation, through gastric irritation and cardiac 
exhaustion-in other words, of nervous apoplexy from indigestion, in an aged and feeble 
person. There may have "been fatty or other disease of the kidneys, accompanying and 
perhaps causing the general ill health and final catastrophe. There is no definite evidence 
either for or against these suppositions, and we can only regard the kidney disease and 
the disorder of the brain and vascular circulation as conditions which might have been 
detected, but which remain as much in doubt as the symptoms of poisoning, for want of 
observation when the opportunity was afforded during life, no less than after death. 
Our opinion, therefore, at this stage of the inquiry in the case of Miss Stennecke is, 
that the medical evidence of poisoning, so far as the ante mortem history is concerned, 
amounts to nothing ; that the unprofessional t estimony {which only proves a natural stupor} 
is the only reliable evidence as to every fact but one; and that the testimony of the one 
professional witness of her illness is worthless and ought to be condemned by every mem- 
ber of our profession in the country. 
The next step in the investigation brings before us the post mortem examination. This 
was made at Baltimore, on Ash Wednesday, not later than the eleventh day after inter- 88 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
ment, and the thirteenth after death. The time of year, January, must have aided more 
or less in preventing material decomposition; but the transportation by railroad, from 
Carlisle to Baltimore, over a hundred miles, with two or three changes of conveyance by 
by the way, was likely to increase the difficulty in ascertaining even the proximate char- 
acter and amount of whatever disorders of the circulation may have existed at the time 
of death ; since the influence of position on the gravitation of the fluids in the body after 
death, even in cold weather, is well known to be so great as to require great care in its 
estimation in all instances where the body has been moved. 
With this precautionary view, there was nothing to interfere with a thorough, careful, 
and scientific pathological examination of the whole body, and especially of all the im- 
portant organs and structures; not in the search for the effects of poison only, but for all 
such lesions or traces of lesion as might reasonably have been looked for as among the 
possible causes of an unexpected death in one who was nearly seventy years of age. 
Unfortunately, there is scarcely as much, in the results of the hasty and superficial ex- 
amination actually made to enlighten us, as there is in the evidence of the unskilled wit- 
nesses in the first stage of our inquiry. There is, in that portion of the testimony, some 
positive proof of facts ; of definite phenomena, which, however confused and incomplete 
in general character, affords, nevertheless, a sufficiently clear description of certain signs 
either of disease or of poisoning. In the reports of the post mortem examination no signs 
of either disease or poisoning are presented; and nothing of the kind is attempted except 
a sort of ex post facto comparison between the external appearances found, a week after the 
examination, to be described in the tvork of Wharton and Stille as characteristic of prussic acid poi- 
soning, and those of the body, as the examiner was able to recall them after that interval of time. 
In short, there is very little to show but the neglect of an opportunity, highly interesting 
in itself and of vital importance to the case; a mischievous failure to discharge a duty, 
which no reasonable man would undertake unless amply qualified himself, and fortified 
with the assistance and presence of others equally well qualified. 
It will be sufficient to point out some of the most striking defects of this examination' 
so far as we can understand them from the printed report. 
In the first place, a bad beginning must have been made, if the report be right, in his 
cutting through the dura mater with the skull, and removing the two together. " The 
membranes of the brain," he tells us, "were then cut to permit its removal." " The ves- 
sels of the pia mater, which cross the brain immediately, were gorged with blood, but. 
were not distended, were not turgid, were flaccid." Here there is a contradiction of 
terms, which may be due to error in the printed report. "The brain itself was not dis- 
turbed in the removal. But the fourth ventricle was torn through, by its softening before 
the cord was cut which attached it to the spinal column." (p. 9.) 
If not misrepresented, he destroys, by cutting through the dura mater, without remark 
or attention, the means of ascertaining the amount of venous congestion in the sinuses; 
and, at all events, he acknowledges that there "was a large amount of blood in the crani- 
um; can not say how it came." (Cross-exam., p. 10). This was just the most important 
question, whether in view of narcotism or apoplexy He says that this accumulation of 
blood (which he afterwards informs us was all dark fluid blood, not "ante mortem," and 
hence "post mortem blood,") " could not have been by hemorrhage, because there was no 
clot." There could be no stains of blood, in his opinion, without a clot, of which he could 
not have failed to discover stains, at least, if no other traces; and none of these existed, 
because he cut the brain to pieces, and was not able to detect any coagulum in the sub- 
stance or elsewhere, or any effusion of blood, either in or on the brain! This absence of THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
89 
clot and of other signs of hemorrhage or hypersemia in the substance of the brain-except in 
the softened portion which he does not describe-is exactly what might have been expect- 
ed, and we would have looked for, especially in conjunction with engorgement of the veins. 
Although he finds softening of the interior of the brain, which he tears in its removal, he 
omits the examination of this very important portion, mistaking it for the result of decom- 
position ; and forgets to note the condition of the exterior of the brain, which is always 
the first to soften under the influence of post mortem change. He pays no attention to the 
arteries of the brain, in which he might have found some clots, perhaps, although with very 
small amounts of "hoematin," notwithstanding its importance, in his view, as a "positive 
evidence of apoplexy." The condition of the vessels of the base of the brain might have 
been conclusive ; and yet, in his process of chopping up, these channels of vitality were 
lost to the examination, lhe softening might have been increased by the serosity in the 
ventricles, an evidence of lesion if sufficient for that purpose ; but it could not have been 
produced by chemical decay, when the body was in a state of general preservation ex 
pressly stated to be good, and when no change had taken place in many parts, the post 
mortem decomposition of which is well known to precede that of any portion of the brain. 
In fact, the interval after death was entirely too short, especially in winter, to explain 
any decided softening, in the brain or elsewhere. 
No description is given of the heart, except that it was " healthy," the consistence* 
size, color and the contents of the two sides not being noted except that "the blood in the 
heart was fluid the aim being rather to discover the presence or absence of "calcification 
or nodes" upon the valves, and the ability or inability to "prevent the water passing 
through," when " poured into the aorta from a phial." The aorta does not appear to have 
been inspected, notwithstanding this trial of the valves. The only reference to the lungs 
informs us that " sections of them were thrown into a bucket of water and floated, 
showing no consolidation." The liver and spleen were examined by their " external 
appearance alone." 
No examination was made of the kidneys ; and none of the bladder and its contents, of 
the uterus or of the rectum, or of any other part or parts, with the single exception of the 
stomach or a portion of the small intestine, "he is not positive which." The contents of 
the abdomen were " examined by inspection," " before any incisions were made into its 
viscera." Although " distended with air, and rather pale, they appeared healthy on 
sight." The stomach was "removed by two ligatures, first passed around its two openings 
and secured." " It was placed in a bucket brought by Prof. Aiken." " The liver appeared 
healthy-not enlarged or unnaturally small." "The spleen was examined in the same way, 
with the same result." These so called examinations were simply external "inspections;" 
no idea of color, consistence or other characteristics being thought of. Two sections of 
the small intestine, one of the ileum eighteen inches in length, and the other also of the 
ileum nearer the colon, were tied and removed like the stomach, and put into jars for 
chemical analysis ; nothing having been seen of the interior of the canal except in the 
casual look at one or the other portions, which was " laid open upon a clean plate." 
This closes the account of the post mortem inspection ; of which we have presented 
enough to show its insufficiency to prove anything but the incompetence of the examiner 
and the unfairness of the examination. There was but one other professional witness 
present, except the analyzing chemist under whose direction the investigation was 
undertaken. No representative of Dr. Schoeppe, or any third party, was present at the 
operation, except the professional assistant who seems to have been there to identify the 
body as that of a relation; and no written record of appearances noted appears to have 
been made. The professional assistant testifies to the softening of the brain, but. cannot 90 
THE SCHOFPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
say what part was softened! He was looking for "hemorrhages of the spine." He 
coincides with his principal in asserting that the " whole brain was 'examined" and that 
he "found no pathological lesions of any kind." He professes to have made "a cursory 
examination of the kidneys, but not a thorough one." 
The failure to make a close inspection of the kidneys on the spot, and a subsequent ex- 
amination of their structure with the microscope, as might doubtless have beenjlone and 
ought to have been attempted, has been justly reprehended, as an omission that was fatal to 
the evidence, because it leaves us in the dark as to points which might have settled the ques- 
tion. This objection was made by the defence, with ample force, and should have had 
conclusive weight, as there was no answer worthy of notice to contradict it. There was 
nothing more likely than that Miss Stennecke had been suffering from Bright's disease in 
a more or less advanced condition ; and hence had been-through fatty degeneration of 
those organs, and, incidentally, of the heart, liver and brain, weakening all her vital 
functions, impoverishing her blood and enfeebling her d/gestion-predisposed to the sud- 
den illness, or at least the death, of which she died. There is certainly nothing uncom- 
mon or unnatural in such a termination of her life, especially at her age. Whatever 
really was the cause of her decease, it might have been much more sudden without justi- 
fying any reasonable suspicion of violence or poison, unless under the very strongest corroborative 
circumstances. As already intimated, a microscopical investigation of the structure of the 
heart, liver and brain, as well as of the kidneys, might have been practicable, and ought 
to have been attempted. A careful study of the softened tissues of the brain, both as to 
extent and structure, and of the arteries leading into and towards them, might have thrown 
great light upon the immediate cause of death. All the symptoms, including the con 
traded pupil, might have been conclusively explained, without resort to the old-fashioned 
"hemorrhages," coagula, congestions and blood deposits, or even to uraemic odors or effu- 
sions, referred to by the prosecution. 
We have said enough to justify our view of the extremely indefinite and inadequate 
character of this hastily performed inspection of Miss Stennecke's remains; and now pro- 
ceed to notice very briefly the last stage of the investigation, as exhibited in the testimony 
of the chemical expert for the Commonwealth. 
The manner in which the chemical examination was conducted, and the negative re- 
sults produced, through defective analysis in the search for prussic acid, have been 
already widely discussed and criticised. The fatal error of this examination was so clearly 
and ably exposed in the learned and skilful testimony of Professors Wormley and Himes, 
that it is needless to dwell upon it here. 
It is enough to say that, owing to the forcible exposure of the fallacy, in the employ- 
ment of sulphuric acid upon the tissues of the stomach, by ■which traces of hydrocyanic or 
prussic acid might have been developed in the saliva, the jury was directed by the Judge 
to " lay the question of death from prussic acid aside, so far as it is affected by the testi- 
mony of Professor Aiken and his chemical analysis." 
Another illustration of the serious error, which seems to have been dangerously common 
among the witnesses for the prosecution, was the reckless manner in which this witness 
hazarded the notion that, although he had been unable to detect anything but a trace of 
prussic acid, and that only with his sulphuric acid, the presence of this "trace" "made 
it perfectly certain to his."mind, as a matter of opinion, that a much larger quantity 
must have been present in that stomach ten or twelve days before!" We have here a 
striking instance of the mania for detection, so well described by Casper, in his great 
work on medical jurisprudence. It is a horrible species of sensationalism, against which THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
91 
that great authority was taught by his experience, to warn his readers with an earnest- 
ness which this illustration of its evils will enable us to understand in full force. 
After the failure in the proof of prussic acid poison, it is unnecessary to consider the 
remainder of the testimony, in which Professor Aiken states that he looked for all the 
mineral and vegetable poisons, and was unable to find them. He does not say how and by 
what processes he made the search. He "more particularly looked for morphia and 
strychnia," but did not succeed in discovering "any vegetable alkaloids or mineral poisons." 
Here was a much more promising field ; one in which, if any poisoning had taken place, 
morphia was the poison to be found; but his results were in the negative. He could dis- 
cover no traces in a body only thirteen days after death, and in excellent preservation. 
What remains, then, for the prosecution in the only solid medical foundation for their 
charge of poisoning, when no medical evidence, negative or positive, of that poisoning has 
been produced which is worthy of«the name ? None has been offered, either in the de- 
scription of the symptoms before death, or in the results of the patholo gical examination 
of the body, or in those of the chemical examination of the body, after death. 
We do not consider ourselves obliged to recognize the fictitious case propounded as "a 
hypothetical case" to several so-called medical experts. Nor are we inclined to consider 
the opinions professed to be given by these witnesses upon the hypothetical case. Such ex- 
hibitions are necessarily fallacious, and hence unfair and dangerous. They partake too 
much of an ex parte aspect, if not of the character of a foregone conclusion, to be worthy 
of a Court of Justice; above all, in a case of life and death, and where the benefit of the 
doubt must ever be on the side of the accused. 
A very slight examination of the testimony of at least one of these special witnesses 
will show that he is quite as much influenced by testimony of Dr. Herman and 
by impressions derived from the evidence of other witnesses for the prosecution, as 
by the picture drawn by the constructors of the fancy sketch propounded. 
In conclusion, your Committee would beg leave to say that a careful study of all the 
testimony for the Commonwealth in the case of Dr. Schoeppe, with a like study of the 
medical testimony for the defence, has satisfied us as to the sufficiency of the latter for its 
purpose. We are equally convinced of the incompetence of the former to prove anything 
whatever, except the death of Miss Stennecke after an illness of about twenty-three or 
four hours duration; in which illness, the only prominent and unquestionable symptom 
was a coma, which was much more likely to be the result of disease than the result of poison. 
Much has already been said in regard to possibilities and probabilities of different forms 
of analagous disease, with which Miss Stennecke may have been affected; and we might still in- 
dulge in conj ectures, and expend more time and labor in similar speculations; but they would 
answer no good practical purpose in their application to her case, for the plain and 
insurmountable reason that the premises are not sufficient to justify a positive diagnosis. 
Having no substantial evidence for a scientific basis, we have absolutely nothing in the 
shape of genuine facts on which to' rest an investigation, or through which to reach a 
definite conclusion. The jjtmost that we can affirm upon the evidence presented is, that 
there is -much reason to believe she died a natural death from apoplexy, and very little 
reason to believe that she died of any kind of poison. 
EDWARD HARTSHORNE, Chairman. 
ISAAC RAY, 
ROBERT BRIDGES, 
JOHN J. REESE, 
S. LITTELL. 
„ > 
Hall or the College op Physicians of Philada., Nov. 3d, 1869. From the New Haven Medical Association. 
At a meeting of the New Haven Medical Association, held on the 11th day of October, 
1869, the case of Paul Schoeppe, M. D., of Carlisle, Pa., tried, convicted and sentenced to 
death for the murder of Miss Maria Stennecke, by poison, was brought forward for dis- 
cussion. As very grave doubts arose of the sufficiency of the evidence given in the case, 
a committee of five was appointed to investigate the subject, and to report at the next 
meeting of the Association. This committee consisted of the following gentlemen: 
GEORGE F. BARKER, M. D., 
Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology. 
• MOSES C. WHITE, M. D., 
Professor of Pathology and Microscopy. 
CHARLES L. IVES, M. D., 
Professor of Theory and Practice of Medicine. 
CHARLES A. LINDSLEY, M. D., 
' Professor of Materia-Medica and Therapeutics. 
PHILIPP ESSROGER, M. D. 
The following is the report of that committee: ' 
Your Committee have very carefully and deliberately examined the evidence in the case 
of the State against Dr. Paul Schoeppe, upon which evidence he stands convicted of 
murder in the first degree. And they beg leave now to offer the conclusions to which they 
have come. These conclusions are as follows : 
I. 
Most of the symptoms observed in the case of Miss Stennecke are not reconcilable 
with those caused by prussic acid, and, moreover, the methods for separating the poison 
employed by Professor Aiken, as well as the reactions subsequently obtained by him fail 
entirely to give satisfactory evidence that prussic acid had been administered to the 
deceased. 
II. 
SOME OF THE SYMPTOMS EXHIBITED, 
This evidence they find in the enclosed pamphlet, entitled " The Schoeppe Murder 
Trial. The Trial of Dr. Paul Schoeppe in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Cumber- 
land County, Pa., charged with the murder of Miss Maria Stennecke, by poison. Hon. 
James H. Graham, Presiding Judge, Hugh Stuart and T. P. Blair, Associate Judges- 
Printed at the Herald Office," are to a certain extent, similar to those produced by morphia THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
93 
and its salts, but as they are likewise of very common occurrence in comatose conditions 
produced by purely natural diseases, and as no other more significant symptoms of 
morphia poisoning were observed in Miss Stennecke's case they are led to the belief that 
she did not die from the effects of that poison. , 
III. 
No facts at present known to science, and no recorded experience within the. reach of 
your committee, have been found to justify the new theory of the combination of prussic 
acid and morphia, which was offered on this trial. Hence thSy regard the assumption 
that morphia could delay or diminish the action of prussic acid as purely gratuitous. 
IV. 
In consequence of the imperfect and unsatisfactory character of the post mortem 
examination, and, therefore, in the absence of many important data, they are not able to 
give a definite and precise opinion upon the real cause of Miss Stennecke's death. They 
are convinced howrever, that there are certain natural diseases with the symptoms of 
which those given on the trial are quite compatible, which may have caused her death. 
V. 
The circumstantial evidence adduc ed against Dr. Schoeppe appears to your committee 
inadequate to prove his guilt. In their opinion, it may be consistent with his entire 
innocence of the crime with which he is charged. 
The following are some of the reasons which have led your committee to the conclusions 
given above: 
I. 
The symptoms of the deceased are not compatible with those of prussic acid. 
A. Because, while prussic acid is the most rapidly fatal poison known, death in this 
case did not take place until fully 22 hours after the poison was alleged to have been 
given. 
B. Because, while the odor of prussic acid-an odor recalling that of bitter almonds 
is readily perceived when it has been taken, the evidence fails to show that any one 
detected it, either in the room before death or at the post mortem examination. 
D. Because while the taking of prussic acid would weaken the pulse very speedily, the 
pulse of the deceased appears to have been strong on the morning of the 28th of January. 
And E. Because no convulsions or muscular rigidity were observed, these being the 
almost constant symptoms of prussic acid poisoning. 
Moreover, the tests by which the prussic acid was claimed to have been recognized fail 
to demonstrate indubitably its presence. 
And even granting that they prove the presence of minute traces of this poison, it is 
clearly possible that these traces may have come from the sulpho-cyanide known to be a 
constant constituent of the saliva, or may have been produced by the processes employed 
as suggested by Professors Himes and Wormley, with whose testimony we entirely concur. 
II. * 
Nor is the evidence thht death was caused by morphia any more satisfactory. Apart 
from the very significant fact that no traces of this alkaloid were discovered in the chemi- 
cal investigation, the symptoms do not corroborate the hypothesis. An ordinary dose of 
morphia would have excited and agitated the patient, so that in place of the drowsiness 
testified to, there would probably have been nervous agitation. Her eyes would have 94 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
sparkled, probably, also. These symptoms, had they been present, would not be likely to 
have escaped notice from the attendants. Lastly, a fatal dose of morphia would probably 
prove fatal in a shorter time than 22 hours. 
Your committee would express their surprise that the consulting physician declared her 
past the help of medicine seven hours before death. If he suspected poison in the case, 
it was plainly his duty to say so to his fellow practitioner, suggesting, it may be, on overdose 
as the cause, asking the remedy given was, and even threatening an exposure unless 
the facts were given. Certainly to a person in articulo mortis the use of a stomach pump 
or (he administration of counter remedies, could do no harm and should have been tried. 
As to the theory put in evidence against the prisoner, viz : that both prussic acid and 
morphia may have been taken and that the morphia acting as a stimulant may have 
weakeded and thus postponed the effects of the prussic acid, your committee have been 
able to collect no statistics of poisoning by both these substances combined either toprove 
or to disprove it. They are of the opinion, however, that on general principles the union 
of two such powerful narcotics would rather accelerate than retard the time of death. 
Supposing, as they do, that Dr. Schoeppe's conviction was mainly due to this hypothesis, 
they would protest strongly against the principle involved in it and hence recognized in 
this case, as a principle not only unparalleled in all previous trials, but fraught with the 
gravest consequences to our profession. 
IV. 
That the post mortem examination was performed in an exceedingly superficial and un- 
satisfactory manner must be sufficiently obvious to the most cursory reader of the evi- 
dence. The kidneys, the bladder, the sexual organs and other important parts were en- 
tirely neglected. No microscopic examination was made of so important a part as the 
softened portion of the brain, nor was the examination of the heart at all thorough and 
sufficient. Your committee do not comprehend the argument of Dr. Conrad that the aortic 
valves were sound because water passed through them; the proof being evidently the 
reverse fact. The statement may be misprinted, however. 
I 
Your committee are of the opinion, however, that a microscopic examination of the heart 
should have been made, as there may have been fatty degeneration of this organ, a disease 
not at all uncommon among aged persons, and one of which they not unfrequently die. 
They would adduce in evidence of this the case of an elderly woman of Guilford, Conn., 
who died so suddenly as to give rise to a suspicion of poisoning; a suspicion strengthened 
by the fact that she, as well as the other members of the family, had been attacked a fort- 
night before with vomiting and purging. Professor Bacon, of this city, made the post 
mortem examination and found no evidence of poisoning- Upon examining the heart mi- 
croscopically, however, Professor White of your committee found fatty degeneration. 
Even those parts of the body which were examined, seemingly with care, were not sub- 
jected to tests which can in any sense be called crucial. For example, evidence w as given 
to show that the lungs contained air and were in a healthy condition because pieces of 
those lungs floated in water. Without stopping to ask whether the pieces chosen repre- 
sented fairly the w-hole lung, it is obvious that if diseased to any extent other than or 
short of complete hepatization or solidification, they would thus float. Moreover, after 
being interred thirteen days, parts well hepatized at death might be inflated by putrefac- 
tive gases so as to float on wrater. THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
95 
So also the kidneys may have been seriously affected by morbus brightii, which may not 
have been suspected in life. A case in point was brought before this association by Dr. 
Dibble, of this city, not long ago. An elderly woman, sixty-seven years old, was treated 
by various physicians for more than six years, generally for hysteria, but sometimes for 
sciatica. Though complaining often, she was nevertheless a hearty eater. No signs of se- 
rious disease were present, no oedemia perceptible in any part of the body. One day she 
fell to the floor in a comatose condition with symptoms not unlike those exhibited by Miss 
Stennecke, and died shortly after without any return of consciousness. Post mortem 
showed that the kidneys .were extensively diseased, proving the case to be one of advanced 
morbus brightii. 
But one positive result was yielded by this post mortem examination, it showed that a 
part of the brain near the fourth ventricle was softened. This may have been the result of 
embolism (Virchow) or the obstruction of an artery, an occurrence not very rare with 
elderly people, and one resulting often from heart disease, sometimes from an atheroma- 
tous degeneration of the arteries. Embolism happens sometimes in the middle cerebral 
artery (arteria fossae Lyloia) (Virchow) in the neighborhood of the fourth ventricle. Some- 
times the artery gets obstructed suddenly, then the result resembles apoplexy. Sometimes 
the obstruction is not complete, a portion of blood still passing, then giddiness, drowsiness, 
malaise, and even labored respiration are the first results, which are soon followed by pros- 
tration, insensibility, and slight paralysis, called paresic. As in apoplexy but one side of 
the face, together with the corresponding upper and lower limb, becomes paralyzed, the 
paraletic portiohs of the body being cooler than the healthy ones. 
The paralysis after embolism, however, is never so distinct as after apoplexy, which al- 
ways comes suddenly and affects a larger part of the brain. It may therefore escape the 
attention even of a practitioner, and this the more readily since the theory of embolism is 
of a rather recent date. If death' does not immediately follow, then that part of the brain 
whose nourishment is prevented becomes softened. Indeed, softening of the brain is in 
most cases the result of such an obstruction of an arterial vessel. 
Taking into consideration, therefore, the fact that most of the symptoms now given, viz., 
giddiness, drowsiness, heavy breathing, insensibility, slightly paralized features and limbs 
(on one side of the body only), coldness of that side, and softening of the brain, as ascer- 
tained after death, were present in the case of Miss Stennecke, your committee are 
strongly of the opinion that she may have died of this terrible but purely natural disease- 
. V. 
In regard to the circumstantial evidence given on the trial, your committee, with all due 
respect, would protest against that portion of the Judge's charge in which he refers to this 
evidence. The illustrations which he gives do not find any parallel in the present case ; 
they are extreme examples, admitting of no doubt, while those circumstances offered 
against Dr. Schoeppe, as already shown, are in their opinion very doubtful. 
Dr. Schoeppe's anxiety, put in evidence against him, is no sign of his guilt. Most young 
practitioners whose future reputation and prosperity rested on a case like this, would be 
equally anxious and excited if placed in like circumstances, all of which is respectfully 
submitted. 
GEORGE F. BARKER, M. D., 
MOSES C. WHITE, M. D., 
CHARLES L. IVES, M. D., 
C. A. LLNDSLEY, M. D., 
PHILIPP ESSROGER, M. D. 
Dated al New Haven, this 'loth day 
of October, 1869. 96 
THE SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL. 
• At a meeting of the New Haven Medical Association held on the 25th day of Octobei 
1869, the foregoing report was accepted unanimously, and it was further voted that the Sec 
retary send said report, duly attested, to the President of the German Aid Society of Phils 
delphia. A true copy of record. 
Attest: J. WADSWORTH TERRY, M. D., 
Secretary of the New Haven Medical Association. MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT 
ON 
THE MEDICAL TESTIMONY 
OF THE 
SCHOEPPE MURDER TRIAL, 
PRESENTED TO THE 
COLLEG-E OZET 
OF 
PHILADELPHIA, 
AND 
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED, 
NOVEMBER 3, 1 869. 
PHILADELPHIA : 
M. DAHLEM, PRINTER, 324 CHESTNUT STREET. 
1869.