“Oh Mary, I’m so cold”

The ward maid, Emma Costello, gave testimony to the accused’s cruelty and heartlessness to Louey, the deceased.  Under questioning by the prosecutor, Mr. Poland, she described how the accused had left Louey in a cold bath on the morning of the 5th July after having dragged and kicked the patient down the hall to the bathroom.  At about a quarter past ten, Miss Costello described finding Louey alone, cold and shivering in the bath which had only sufficient water to cover Louey’s legs and hips.  Louey was trying to get out of the bath but couldn’t, she had no strength.  “Oh Mary, I’m so cold”, she moaned said Miss Costello on inquiring where Louey’s nurse was.  The nurse was nowhere to be seen.  The picture of the accused was set for all to see: she was cruel and heartless.

Miss Costello was a maid on St. Mary’s ward.  The Sister in charge of the ward was known as “Sister Mary”, and the nurses and maids were known as “Mary”.  Their identities were subsumed into the functioning of the ward.  Similarly, the patients were known by the number of their bed.  Louey was in bed number two, hence she was referred to as “No. 2”.  The ward setting was rather impersonal and business-like.

Room for Another View

Under cross-examination by Sir John Holker for the defence, Miss Costello confirmed that the accused had described the patient as “obstinate” and that the patient had “hysteria”; she could walk if she liked, but she wouldn’t.  Miss Costello confirmed that she had been scrubbing the floors at the time and that the accused nurse did not ask her to help, even though she was alone and struggling with the limp patient.

Sir John challenged this account.  Nurse Elizabeth Collins had been on the ward at the time and testified that the prisoner “did not seem as if she wanted to nurse her cruelly; she wanted her (the patient) to walk”.  “She did not seem to want to hurt her,” said Miss Collins, who also confirmed the accused had called Nurse Charlotte Distin, a training nun on the ward, to help her.  Patient No. 6, Sarah Bailey, who had been on the ward for about ten weeks and Miss Distin confirmed this account and the latter’s involvement.

Thus Sir John had established a rather different picture to the one described by Miss Costello.  He also established that the accused nurse was Miss Costello’s superior, and that she did not like her as “she ordered me about sometimes”.  Miss Costello told the court that she had not said that she “was very glad that this woman was charged”; but she added “I never liked her from the first time I saw her”.

The Defence’s Plan

Sir John’s defence plan was to challenge the central accusation of cruelty and neglect.  Not only had he demolished Miss Costello’s damaging testimony, he developed a more forgiving picture of the accused nurse when cross-examining Louey’s husband, Charles Morgan. 

It turned out that Louey had thought her nurses were kind so he had offered the prisoner a shilling, which she had turned down, and some flowers, which she said she would like.  What a contrast!

He then had to establish the circumstances of the death by exposing St. Mary’s onerous workload and the staff’s long working hours and heavy duties.  And finally, he had to uncover the source of the incorrect diagnosis and treatment plan for the patient’s “hysteria” – then a common mental condition often found in women.

St. Mary’s Ward – Harsh Working Conditions

Miss Susannah Crockett had been Mary’s ward Sister for six years or more.  The nurses in her charge started their shift at 8am and worked until 10pm with a break for prayers, if possible, at 9am in the Chapel, and dinner at 1pm.  There were 56 beds on the ward and Sister “Mary” reported that she had four day and two night nurses to look after all the patients.  Clearly, the staff were very pressed on their 14 hour working shifts so the patients who were well enough often gave a helping hand.  The ward routine was then much as it is now: the patients were roused early so the beds could be made and if there was night soiling, the patients were given a cleansing bath and clean clothes.  Sister “Mary” recalled that she had given the prisoner permission to bathe the patient – this was a cleansing bath and not a medical bath.  Sister “Mary” was authorised to order the former but not the latter.

Sir John was meticulous in establishing that the bath was free-standing and that its position was confirmed by a sketch shown to the court.  He also established that between 9am and 10am, the water would not be very hot; later on, it would become more so.  In other words, a tepid warm bath was the norm for a cleansing bath.

Sir John also established that the nurse was thought of as “a fairly educated woman”, and that she had not left the patient lingering in a cold bath, rather, the patient was away from her bed for a seemingly protracted period because the accused had lifted the patient out of the bath and on to a chair to rest.  And Louey had been covered in a red counterpane by the prisoner to keep her warm.

And What of the Diagnosis?

The Consultant, Dr. Pavy, visited the ward between 2pm and 4pm with his junior “house” doctor, Mr. Howsell, and their clerks every day except Sunday.  Sister “Mary” accompanied them on their rounds so that she could understand what was wrong with the patients and give the necessary care ordered by the doctors.

Sir John established that Louey had been diagnosed with a serious case of phthisis, also known as consumption.  Tuberculosis, as it is now known, was very common amongst the poor who were crammed into insanitary living conditions in London’s late 19th century.

“Phthisis” would have been written on a card by Mr. Howsell and placed over the bed’s headboard for all to see – this was the ward’s standard procedure for communicating the diagnosis.  It assumed, of course, that people could read and understand the word.

At some stage, it appears that Sister “Mary” had used the phrase “a bad case of hysteria”.  This would have set up a train of thinking amongst the nurses that the patient had imaginary ailments and was indolent, and that she would need to be induced to exert herself. Under cross-examination, Sister “Mary” insisted that she would not take it upon herself to order a “medical” bath and that she acted under the direction of the doctors.

Was the accused a scapegoat, had she been “fitted-up”?  Who would do that, and why?  Come back next time to find out more …..