this: that they did not believe the death of General Ketchum could
have occurred from natural causes. On the other hand, the numerous
medical witnesses for the defence, unconnected by any bond of common
interest, testified that natural causes, were sufficient to account
for the death; many of them asserting that the case in all its
symptoms and post-mortem appearances tallied precisely with the
so-called fulminating form of cerebro-spinal meningitis, which was
prevalent in Baltimore at the time of General Ketchum's death.[17]

The medical witnesses for the defence further called attention to
the fact that the symptoms of General Ketchum's illness were wholly
different from those produced by tartar emetic, and some denied that
the latter could have caused the sickness. The chemical evidence for
the prosecution was triumphantly refuted. It was shown that antimony
did not conform in its reactions with at least one of the tests,
which Professor Aiken said his precipitates did; that almost all the
other reactions could be closely simulated with ordinary organic
bodies; that the processes used were those universally condemned by
authorities; and that carelessness was everywhere so manifest in their
conduction as to entirely vitiate any results. It was also proved that
Professor Aiken had simply estimated the amount of tartar emetic in
General Ketchum's stomach by the _ocular comparison_ of the _bulk of
precipitates, neither of which could have been pure_, and _in neither
of which was the existence of antimony really proved_. To weigh
a precipitate was a labor not to be thought of when nothing more
important than the life of a woman was involved: _guessing_ was all
that such a trifling issue demanded!

The most extraordinary event of this most extraordinary trial occurred
when the chemists for the defence had completely broken down the