12/26/2019 0 Comments Queen vs. Dudley and StephensRegina v. Dudley and Stephens There have been many criminal cases in the history, which brought controversy, whether murder could be justified under different circumstances. One of the famous cases tells a story of four shipwrecked men, which were lost in the high seas. The story was named “The Lifeboat Caseâ€, regarding the tragic and life-changing decision that was made in extreme circumstance. Four seamen, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks and seventeen year old Richard Parker were in high seas and due to the storm that hit them very bad, they had to put themselves into an open boat.They did not have any supply of water and food, except 1 lb. tin of turnips. On the fourth day of this journey, they caught a small turtle and it lasted them for few days. After the turtle was completely consumed, they spent eight more days in hunger. On twentieth day of being in the state of prostration, Dudley and Stephens spoke to Brooks as to what should be done if there will be no help. Dudley suggested that one of them should sacrifice his life to save the rest and offered to draw lots in order to pick one.Since Brooks refused to consent and as three seamen, except the boy spoke about their families, Dudley proposed to kill the Parker, since he had no family and the fact that he would die soon anyway, because he was the weakest and he was drinking sea water. Although, Brooks dissented from the crime, with the agreement of Stephens and Dudley, the act was done on July 25th. With the prayer to forgive them, Dudley came up to helpless Richard Parker and telling him that his time has come, put the knife on his throat and killed him.After eating Richard’s body and drinking his blood for four days, the seamen were picked up by a passing ship. The rescuers carried them to the port of Falmouth and they were committed for trial at Exeter. They spent all the time from that day till the court in prison. Since it was very rare case, involving the law of the sea and extreme necessity, it was hard to pronounce judgment. Nobody knows if they would survive till the rescuers, hadn’t they not eaten the boy. They could have died from starvation. And Parker in his weak condition would most likely die also.Jurors at the trial were ignorant and they would agree with whatever the court’s decision will be. However, due to the complication of the case, the court was rescheduled to December 4th to be argued before a Court consisting of 5 judges. Regardless of an attorney A. Collins’ objections, saying that it was not a homicide, but a self-preserving act upon the great necessity, prisoner Dudley and Stephens were sentenced to death because, the facts that were presented to the jury, including Parker’s left body parts were horrifying and there is no such necessity that allows one to take another person’s life.However, the death sentence was commuted by Crown to six moth imprisonment. Unfavorable and at the same time tragic story of “Dudley and Stephens†begs some questions and requires details, which will be clarified below with the help of some research and articles. While reading the case story, a lot of details seem to be missing and Andreas Teuber, The Professor of Philosophy of Law at Brandeis University proposed a very thorough research with a lot of necessary information, called “The Mignonette, 1884 Queen v. Dudleyâ€.According to Teuber, the name of the ship was “The Mignonette†and the owner was a wealthy Australian barrister, who decided to hire a crew to sail his yacht, instead of sending it as a deck cargo since the condition of the ship was not the sturdiest. â€He hired Thomas Dudley as a captain, and Dudley recruited Edwin Stephens as mate, Edmund Brooks as able seamen, and seventeen year old boy, Richard Parker, as ordinary seamen†(people. brandeis. edu). Teuber states in his work. The initial reason for the men being on the high seas was the fact that they were hired as a crew to sail the ship to Sydney, Australia.Even though, they expected a nice weather in May, soon enough it turned foul and a heavy wave hit the ship, crushing it. As the ship started to sink, men barely managed to get into a lifeboat and by the time they were trying to save their lives, all of supplies of water and food were gone. Professor Teuber clarifies it, saying: “Unfortunately, the emergency supply of water that they had hastily thrown overboard next to the dinghy was swept away by the waves†(people. brandeis. edu). Since Teuber acknowledged that Dudley was the captain of the ship, it might also be the reason of why all decisions were made by Dudley.He might have felt himself responsible for men’s life and tried to save as much as he could, by sacrificing one. One of the details Teuber mentioned was that the rest of seamen were rescued by a German boat, called “Montezumaâ€, which was heading home from South America. As soon as they delivered men to Falmouth and started questioning them, it was clear that they have committed a crime. However, Brook’s name wasn’t mentioned as one of the prisoners throughout the story. And Teuber reveals the reason, saying:â€The upright Dudley immediately insisted that he was the ringleader and that Brooks was completely innocent†(people. randeis. edu). So that’s why Brooks played as a prosecution’s witness. The most remarkable situation in this case, was the peace between Dudley and the Richard’s brother Daniel Parker. He even came to court and shook Dudley’s hand. By the way, the initials C. J stand for Chief Justice Lord Coleridge who refused to recognize the prisoners’ case as necessity act. Information that seems to be the most curious for everyone is how those three seamen did live their lives after committing such an act of cannibalism.According to Professor Teuber, Brooks went back to the sea, Stephens supported himself doing odd jobs and Dudley immigrated to Sydney, Australia. He was taking big amounts of opium in order to relieve himself from painful memories and died from bubonic plague in 1900. One of the sources, that provide a reliable details regarding the “Dudley and Stephens†case is a Canadian online Law Press magazine and a legal information website www. duhaime. org. One of the founding partners of “Duhaime Law†Lloyd Duhaime wrote an article called “Cannibalism on the High Seas: the Common Law’s Perfect Stormâ€.Duhaime, a lawyer with 26 years of experience, reports the exact location where the homicide act happened as he states: “Suddenly, the four men were crowded in a small dinghy, lost in the middle of the South Atlantic, at latitude 27 degrees 10 south and longitude 9 degrees 50 West: 1600 miles for Cape of Good Hope, 2000 from South America†(www. duhaime. org). One of the things Duhaime declares is Dudley’s harrowing confession words which sound like this: “I then put my knife into the side of the neck.The blood spurted out, and we caught it in the bailer and we drank the blood while it was warm; we then stripped the body, cut it open, and took out his liver and heart, and we ate the liver while it was still warm†(www. duhaime. org). But besides his confession, existing human flesh under his fingernails was enough evidence. In addition, Duhaime states some information on seamen’s further life after the trial ended. According to him, “Brooks died in 1919; Edwin Stephens buried the Parker affair with alcohol and died in 1914â€.According to A. W. Brian Simpson’s “A Victorian Yachting Tragedy†book, the main role in commuting six month imprisonment was played by young Queen Victoria and Sir William Harcourt, a home secretary at the time. Apparently, strict death sentence was the only solution for murder crimes in 1884. According to the book, Sir William and Queen Victoria had some misunderstandings and a different opinion over previous few cases, but since The Queen was preoccupied with the fate of her idol General Gordon, Mr. Harcourt was responsible for the case.Lewis Harcourt, a son and the private secretary of Sir William, strongly argued about short sentence only and while he was away shooting, Sir William announced the decision which was approved by Queen. As a result, the author of “A Victorian Yachting Tragedyâ€, Mr. Simpson grants: “On December 12 it was decided that the sentence be commuted to six moth imprisonment, not at hard labor, to be dated from December 4, the date of judgment against them not sentence. †(A. W Brian Simpson 247). However, Phillipa Dudley was not happy with the decision and expected her husband home sooner and there were talks later on releasing Thomas earlier.Moreover, Simpson provides an information on missing initials of A. G and Q. C, where A. G stands for Attorney General Sir Henry James and Q. C stands for Queen’s Counsel. According to book “Plutarch’s Lives: The translation called Dryden’s Volume 4â€, the meaning of phrase “Necesse est ut eam, non ut vivamâ€, is “There was a necessity to sail, but no necessity to live†(Plutarch, John Dryden, Arthur Hugh Clough 561). Meanwhile, “So spake the Fiend, and with necessity, The Tyrant’s plea, excused his devilish deeds†was taken from John Milton’s poem in “Paradise Lost†book.It this specific case it does not mean that the act was devilish; however, it would appear that necessity was the excuse. Overall, research clarified a lot of things in this controversial case. There were many horrifying detailed accounts, such as Parker’s eaten body parts or as amusing and heart-breaking information as peace between Dudley and Parker’s brother. Moreover, the fact that in those years murder crimes were punished by death sentence and the court made an exception due to the nature of situation makes it one of the famous criminal law cases.Work Cited: 1. Andreas, Teuber. “Philosophy of Law Had-Out Pageâ€. Brandeis University. 5 Feb. 2004: Web. 18 March, 2013. 2. Lloyd, Duhaime. “Cannibalism on the High Seas: the Common Law’s Perfect Storm. www. duhaime. org. 20 Aug. 2011: Web. 18 March, 2013. 3. A. W. Brian, Simpson. “Cannibalism and Common Law: A Victorian Yachting Tragedyâ€. “The Hambledon Pressâ€. 1994. 18 March, 2013 4. Plutarch, John Dryden, Arthur Hugh. “Plutarch’s Lives: The translation called Dryden’s Volume 4â€. “Little, Brown and Companyâ€. Boston. 1884. 18 March, 2013
0 Comments
Beer spoilage associated with Pediococcus spp Introduction In average lager fermentation gradual decrease of pH and specific gravity is expected while ethanol concentration is increasing. Some flavours are also formed during fermentation as esters and other flavour compounds are formed. They can remain in beer or be gradually removed either due to evaporation or further metabolism of yeast. Deviations from the average pattern of changes can signalise a contamination. Fermenting wort is therefore routinely tested for its gravity, pH and also for flavour and odour. In a sample tested rapid decrease of pH at the end of fermentation was noted. pH reached 3.7 which was well below expected 4.1 (Hough 2001). Such significant fall suggested bacterial contamination. Two groups of bacteria may cause lowering of pH. These are Acetic Acid Bacteria and Lactic Acid Bacteria. pH decrease was noted late in fermentation when no oxygen was available suggesting Lactic Acid Bacteria. Strong diacetyl odour (sweet-buttery), turbidity and time indicated Pediococcus spp., probably Pediococcus damnosus since it is the most common beer-spoiling bacterium in its genus . The spoilage characteristic associated with Pediococcus spp. Lactic Acid Bacteria are the most common contaminant in fermented wort and beer. They can be responsible for up to 90% of microbial beer spoilage incidents (Taskila et al. 2009). Within them two groups are recognised as the most common contaminants: Lactobacillus and Pediococcus. The symptoms of bacterial contamination by member of any of those two genera are similar: lowered acidity (giving to the beer sour taste) caused by production of lactic acid by the bacteria and diacetyl (buttery) off-flavour. The latter one is the main reason why pediococcal contamination is so unwanted. According to Whiting (1992) as few as 20,000 bacterial cells per 1ml can produce diacetyl in concentration of 0.36mg/L, which is 3 times higher than the taste threshold. Spoilage by Pediococcus is often characterised by ropines, but some of Lactobacilli can also give similar symptoms. Presence of any of those lactic acid bacteria negatively influences yeast performance and health slowing down fermentation (Priest 2006). Further investigation is required to determine spoilage microorganism, the cause of contamination and methods of removing unwanted bacteria from the system. Pediococci are spherical, gram positive bacteria that often form tetrads, but also may appear in pairs (Priest 2006). Generally they are catalase negative, but in low glucose medium they can produce pseudocatalase that can also break hydrogen peroxide, which may lead to false catalase test results (Priest 2003). They do not form spores and are nonmotile. The main product of their metabolism is lactic acid (homofermentative bacteria) and thought they are anaerobic they can tolerate presence of oxygen (Priest 2003). The species that can inhabit fermenting wort and beer are hop resistant. Following species have been isolated from beer: Pediococcus damnosus (formerly in brewing literature also referred to as P. cerevisiae), which is found in beer, late fermentation and brewing yeast (also wine) and is thought to be responsible for 90% of all spoilage incidents caused by Pediococci (Priest 2003, Whiting et al. 1992, ). Pediococcus inopinatus found in beer, brewing yeast, vegetables, wine, milk (Priest 2003). Pediococcus dextrinicus (Priest 2003). Pediococcus pentosaceus (Priest 2003). Pediococcus claussenii (Priest 2006). Isolation and confirmation of the presence of Pediococcus spp. To detect presence of Pediococcus species in wort it should be first filtrated (volume 100ml). A 0.2 0.45 microns membrane filter is recommended. (Lewis and Bamforth 2006). Colonies should be incubated then on suitable medium (e.g. MRS[1]with Actidione to suppress yeast growth, Raka-Ray or NBB medium) for 5 days in temperature 25oC in anaerobic conditions (Lewis and Bamforth 2006, Briggs et al. 2004). Grown bacteria can be Gram-stained and examined under microscope. Gram-positive cocci organised in tetrads suggest Pediococcus spp. although that should be checked by further tests: Catalase test should be negative no bubbles formed after dripping 3% H2O2 solution onto colony. Colonies growing have sour odour. No gas should be produced from glucose using Gibson and Abd-el-Malek method (Priest 2003, p. 211). An improved methodology for the recovery of Pediococcus spp. Traditional methods of identifying bacteria are very time consuming. The results are too slow for commercial requirements and may result in dispatching a product that does not meet health and safety criteria. Therefore rapid testing methods were developed to identify spoilage microorganisms. There are used in diagnostic tests, often designed specifically for a given industry, such as LightCycler foodproof Beer Screening Kit. The LightCycler foodproof Beer Screening Kit is based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In order to carry on the test sample has to be filtrated and inoculated into enriching broth as the count of about 1000 cells/ml is required to increase reliability of the result. The sample is then centrifuged, cells are lysed and DNA extracted, amplified and identified. The test can detect 24 most common species of beer spoilage bacteria of genera Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Pectinatus and Megasphaera and identify Pediococcus damnosus as well as P. inopinatus, Lactobacillus brevis, L. lindneri and Megasphaera cerevisiae (Biotecon 2009). The method is very quick in compare to traditional methods (2 days versus up to 14) but is much more expensive. It requires three more kits and specialist equipment to carry the test and read the results, therefore can not be applied in small breweries. Solution Pediococcus damnosus was found in the fermenting wort and in beer. Special cleaning regime was employed with use of antibiotics to remove contamination as well as acid wash was implemented to pitching yeast. References BIOTECON. 2009. http://bc-diagnostics.de/?cid=1201264657lang=1name=foodproof+Beer+Screening+Kit%2C+Hybridization+Probes+(LC+1.x)+ http://www.bc-diagnostics.com/public/DB_Data/files/Downloads/BeerScreening.pdf leaflet. Biotecon Diagnostic GmbH. Potsdam. Briggs, D.E., Boulton, C.A., Brookes, P.A., Stevens, R. (2004). Microbiology. In Brewing. Science and Practice. pp 606 649. Woodhead Publishing Limited and CRC Press, LTD. Cambridge. Hough, J.S., (2001). The Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing. Cambridge University Press. Melbourne. Lewis, M.J., Bamforth, C.W., (2006). Microbiology. In Essays in Brewing Science. pp. 58 68. Springer Science+Business Media LLC. New York. Priest, F.G., (2003). Gram-positive Brewery Bacteria. In Brewing Microbiology. 3rd ed. (ed. by Priest, F.G. and Campbell, I.). pp 181 218. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New York. Priest, F.G., (2006). Microbiology and Microbial Control in the Brewery. In Handbook of brewing. 2nd ed. (ed. by Priest, F.G. and Stewart, G.H.). pp 607 628. Tylor and Francis. Boca Roca. Taskila, S., Nebauer, P., Tuomola, M., Breinstein, A., Kronlöf, J., Hillukkala, T. (2009). Improved Enrichment Cultivation of Beer Spoiling Lactic Acid Bacteria by Continuos Glucose Addition. In Journal of Institute of Brewing. Vol. 15. No 3. 177-182. Whiting, M., Crichlow, M., Ingledew, W.M., Ziola, B., (1992). Detection of Pediococcus spp. In Brewing Yeast by a Rapid Immunoassay. In Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Vol. 58. No 2. 713-716
|