question were asked over and over, but Cloutier refused to back down. The clearly exasperated prosecutor asked Cloutier to explain why, after her husband’s body was exhumed, she told detectives if they found anything in his body they could not have found much. She denied everything. “I didn’t say that. I showed them a mortuary card made after my husband died and asked them if the body they dug up looked anything like the picture on the card and they said it didn’t.” [12]
A subject of considerable interest to all of the participants in Cloutier’s trial was Brochu’s extended illness. The first doctor to treat the former cab driver said Brochu arrived at his office on July 16, 1937, complaining of a severe burning sensation in his stomach. The doctor testified that Brochu told him he had not eaten any bad food, nor had he been drinking. After examining the patient, the physician admitted that he “wasn’t able to determine the cause of his sickness. I decided his illness was inflammation of the stomach and not indigestion as I had first believed. It seemed as though he might have suffered some kind of poisoning through his food.” [13] After Brochu left, the doctor said he continued to think about his patient’s condition and decided to stop by the Brochu residence to see how the cabbie was feeling. “I didn’t stay long at the home because Mrs. Brochu did not receive me very well.” [14]
The next medical practitioner to treat the murder victim was a doctor working at the hospital in Thetford Mines. He testified that Cloutier showed up with her husband on July 21. “Brochu was having considerable pain from his stomach. I was unable to find out what was the cause of his trouble and apparently he did not know himself. His illness might have been caused, I thought first, by contaminated water, improperly cooked food or even green vegetables.” But, he said, after five days of rest Brochu left, “apparently cured.” [15]
Last to treat Brochu was a physician who examined him several times in the days before the patient died. He was convinced Brochu was suffering from some kind of indigestion. “I treated him with ordinary indigestion and the medicine I prescribed for him did not help. In most cases of that kind, which were common in the district at that time, it would have.” [16] When asked about the circumstances surrounding the making of Brochu’s death certificate, the practitioner said his patient’s widow told him that she needed a death certificate before she could collect on her husband’s life insurance, so he made one out, listing indigestion as the cause of death. What he did not know was that Cloutier made the same request to two other doctors. They both refused to provide her with the certificate.
The pathologist who examined Brochu’s body following its exhumation felt very strongly that the dead man was not well served by his doctors. He told the court that after someone consumes arsenic they feel:
violent pains and burning in the stomach, and vomiting follows. The hands and feet swell, the face becomes swollen and the eyes are affected. Later the victim feels pain in his limbs, which finally become paralyzed. There are eruptions on the skin. The victim becomes weaker. The pulse slows up, and then death comes. [17]
The pathologist, who sat through the trial making notes, said every symptom he heard described was a symptom associated with arsenic poisoning.
During his address to the jury Cloutier’s lawyer dismissed the testimony about witchcraft as “ridiculous and foolish talk,” and then bore down on the crux of the Crown’s case — the evidence that Brochu had been poisoned. That allegation was simply not something an honest and intelligent person could accept as true.
Did Brochu die poisoned? Was it proved he was poisoned? Was poison really found? Medicine says yes. But medicine isn’t a certain science — it’s a theoretical science. Was medicine right before Pasteur?
A subject of considerable interest to all of the participants in Cloutier’s trial was Brochu’s extended illness. The first doctor to treat the former cab driver said Brochu arrived at his office on July 16, 1937, complaining of a severe burning sensation in his stomach. The doctor testified that Brochu told him he had not eaten any bad food, nor had he been drinking. After examining the patient, the physician admitted that he “wasn’t able to determine the cause of his sickness. I decided his illness was inflammation of the stomach and not indigestion as I had first believed. It seemed as though he might have suffered some kind of poisoning through his food.” [13] After Brochu left, the doctor said he continued to think about his patient’s condition and decided to stop by the Brochu residence to see how the cabbie was feeling. “I didn’t stay long at the home because Mrs. Brochu did not receive me very well.” [14]
The next medical practitioner to treat the murder victim was a doctor working at the hospital in Thetford Mines. He testified that Cloutier showed up with her husband on July 21. “Brochu was having considerable pain from his stomach. I was unable to find out what was the cause of his trouble and apparently he did not know himself. His illness might have been caused, I thought first, by contaminated water, improperly cooked food or even green vegetables.” But, he said, after five days of rest Brochu left, “apparently cured.” [15]
Last to treat Brochu was a physician who examined him several times in the days before the patient died. He was convinced Brochu was suffering from some kind of indigestion. “I treated him with ordinary indigestion and the medicine I prescribed for him did not help. In most cases of that kind, which were common in the district at that time, it would have.” [16] When asked about the circumstances surrounding the making of Brochu’s death certificate, the practitioner said his patient’s widow told him that she needed a death certificate before she could collect on her husband’s life insurance, so he made one out, listing indigestion as the cause of death. What he did not know was that Cloutier made the same request to two other doctors. They both refused to provide her with the certificate.
The pathologist who examined Brochu’s body following its exhumation felt very strongly that the dead man was not well served by his doctors. He told the court that after someone consumes arsenic they feel:
violent pains and burning in the stomach, and vomiting follows. The hands and feet swell, the face becomes swollen and the eyes are affected. Later the victim feels pain in his limbs, which finally become paralyzed. There are eruptions on the skin. The victim becomes weaker. The pulse slows up, and then death comes. [17]
The pathologist, who sat through the trial making notes, said every symptom he heard described was a symptom associated with arsenic poisoning.
During his address to the jury Cloutier’s lawyer dismissed the testimony about witchcraft as “ridiculous and foolish talk,” and then bore down on the crux of the Crown’s case — the evidence that Brochu had been poisoned. That allegation was simply not something an honest and intelligent person could accept as true.
Did Brochu die poisoned? Was it proved he was poisoned? Was poison really found? Medicine says yes. But medicine isn’t a certain science — it’s a theoretical science. Was medicine right before Pasteur?
Similar Books
