PART TWO

ANALYSIS OF THE MAYBRICK CASE

Introduction

PETITIONS FOR A REPRIEVE

The jury’s verdict of guilty was rendered on August 7, 1889. The evidence at the trial, as well as the learned judge’s “summing up,” was reported almost verbatim in the English press. The result was that, not only in Liverpool, but in almost every city, town, and village of the United Kingdom, men and women of every class and grade of society arrived at the conclusion that the verdict was erroneous--as not founded upon evidence, but upon the biased and misleading summing up of the case by the mentally incompetent judge. Within a few days my lawyers, the Messrs. Cleaver, of Liverpool, who had notified the press that they would supply forms of petition, were inundated with applications. For the first two days they issued one thousand a day, and I have been informed that no less than five thousand petitions for a reprieve, representing nearly half a million signatures, were sent to the Home Secretary within the following ten days. In response to these, the Home Office issued to the press the following decision:

“After the fullest consideration, and after taking the best medical and legal advice that could be obtained, the Home Secretary advised Her Majesty to respite the capital punishment of Florence Elizabeth Maybrick and to commute the punishment to penal servitude for life; inasmuch as, although the evidence leads to the conclusion that the prisoner administered and attempted to administer arsenic to her husband with intent to murder him, yet it does not wholly exclude a reasonable doubt _whether his death was in fact caused by the administration of arsenic_.”

ILLOGICAL POSITION OF HOME SECRETARY

Thus it will be seen that the Home Secretary, Mr. Matthews, ignored the important statement of the judge at the trial, when, in giving emphasis to his remarks, he told the jury that: “It is _essential_ to this charge _that the man died of arsenic_. This question must be the foundation of a judgment unfavorable to the prisoner, that he died of arsenic.” Then Mr. Matthews, on reviewing the evidence given at the trial, finding it impossible to justify the verdict, because the evidence “does not wholly exclude a reasonable doubt whether his [James Maybrick’s] death was in fact caused by the administration of arsenic,” which question was to be the foundation of a judgment unfavorable to me, instead of giving his prisoner the benefit of the reasonable doubt, took it upon himself to apply the spirit of the law and of the constitution, by making use of a wrongful conviction for one offense charged in order to punish me for a different offense for which I had never been tried, but with which he, without any public trial, charged me, viz., “administering and attempting to administer arsenic” to my husband.

NEW EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE IGNORED

These charges, made by Mr. Matthews in 1889, have never been defined; nor has any statement been submitted to me or my legal advisers of the evidence relied on to prove them; nor have I been afforded an opportunity of being heard by counsel in answer to them, nor of pleading anything in reply to them. Had a second trial been granted me, I should have seen the evidence upon which the new charges were made against me, and in open court I could have confronted the witnesses. But Mr. Matthews sentenced me to penal servitude for life (without giving me a chance to defend myself against the charges) which involved nine months’ solitary confinement in my case--in itself a most excessive punishment for the untried and, consequently, unproven charges. He sent me to suffer fourteen and one-half years on suspicion--a suspicion not warranted by any evidence given at the trial. The new evidence, which has been obtained since my conviction, is admitted by all fair-minded persons to be of such a nature that it would satisfy any intelligent jury that I was not only wrongfully found guilty of murder, but was most wrongfully treated by Mr. Matthews. It completely exonerates me from the charge of murder as well as “administering and attempting to administer arsenic.” Since this evidence was published, no one has attempted to justify the conviction or the sentence passed upon me.

Had the jury, instead of finding a verdict of “guilty” of murder, returned a verdict in the same terms as the finding of Mr. Matthews, the judge must have entered it as “not guilty” and discharged me.

LORD RUSSELL’S LETTER

Well might the Lord Chief Justice Russell of Killowen write me, as he did on the 27th of June, 1895, telling me that he had never relaxed his efforts to urge my release, and saying:

ROYAL COURT, 27th June, 1895.

MRS. MAYBRICK,

DEAR MADAM: I have been absent on circuit; hence my delay in answering your letter.

I beg to assure you that I have never relaxed my efforts where any suitable opportunity offered to urge that your release ought to be granted. I feel as strongly as I have felt from the first that you ought never to have been convicted, and this opinion I have very clearly expressed to Mr. Asquith, but I am sorry to say hitherto without effect.

Rest assured that I shall renew my representations to the incoming Home Secretary, whoever he may be, as soon as the Government is formed and the Home Secretary is in a position to deal with such matters.

I am, Faithfully, RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN.

This also seems to be the opinion of the leading counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Addison, Q.C., M.P. (now Judge Addison, of the Southwark County Courts), who is reported to have said, after the summing up, that “the jury could not, especially in view of the medical evidence, find a verdict of guilty.” This statement will be found in Sir Charles Russell’s protest to Mr. Matthews.

EFFORTS FOR RELEASE

The public are not probably fully aware how much intensity of feeling and earnest work has been expended on my case during the fourteen and one-half years of my imprisonment. The Home Office knows. Men in high positions in both political parties in England have often united in demanding a new trial. The almost invariable reply has been that the best means to effect my release was to obtain new facts or evidence, and submit these to the Home Secretary for his consideration. Those well-meaning advisers seemed to forget that the half million of petitioners for my reprieve or free pardon in England--not to count those in America--were not moved thereto by new facts or evidence, but by the absence of facts or evidence sufficient to prove that the alleged crime had been committed by any one, or that either guilt or complicity in that crime, if crime it were, attached to me. Surely it is not the business of the public nor of individual citizens to prove the innocence of any unhappy person whom process of law selects for punishment, while it _is_ the business of every citizen to see that the courts incontestably prove the guilt of any person accused of a crime before sentence is passed, in the following manner:

1. It must be proved that a crime has been committed.

2. It must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person is the one who committed it.

EVEN NEW EVIDENCE SUPERFLUOUS

Neither condition has yet been fulfilled in my case. The evidence on which a half million petitioners said and say I was unjustly condemned is sufficient in itself. While it is true if a new trial had been granted me I could have produced new evidence that overwhelmingly demonstrated my innocence, it is also true that more facts or new evidence were not requisite to enable justice to be done.

THE DOCTORS’ DOUBT

The doctors who gave evidence in favor of death by arsenical poisoning all stated that they would not have felt certain on the subject if the one-tenth of a grain of arsenic had not been found in the body. Therefore, since the presence of that arsenic could be otherwise accounted for, I was entitled to an acquittal even on the evidence of the Crown medical witnesses. Moreover, the symptom on which two or three doctors for the prosecution laid most stress--continuous vomiting--was referred by the third to morphia administered by himself. All three were examined before any evidence of Mr. Maybrick’s habit of arsenic taking was given. Had they believed him to be an arsenic eater, they might have arrived at a different conclusion. The doctors for the defense, who declared that Mr. Maybrick’s symptoms were not those of arsenical poisoning, were men of far more experience as regards poisons than the Crown medical witnesses. The quantity of arsenic found in the body was, in their opinion, quite consistent with administration in medicinal doses, and might have been introduced a considerable time before.

The proved administration of poison with intent to kill is punishable by penal servitude, but not necessarily for life--sometimes for only three years; but the charge must be proved in open court to be a felonious attempt by some means actually used to effectuate the intent, and it remains with the prosecution to produce the necessary evidence that the means used were sufficient for the accomplishment of the effect.

The medical evidence proved that the quantity of arsenic--one-tenth of a grain--found in Mr. Maybrick’s body was not sufficient to have produced death.

PUBLIC SURPRISE AT VERDICT

_The Times_ of August 8, 1889, declared that, of the hundreds of thousands of persons who followed the case with eager interest and attention, not one in three was prepared for the verdict. The large majority had believed that, in the presence of such contradictory evidence, the jury would give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt and bring in a verdict as much like the Scotch “not proven” as is permitted by English law.

CHARACTER OF JURY

There was strong prejudice against me, due to the numerous false and sensational reports circulated by the press during the interval between the arrest and the trial. The jury belonged to a class of men who were not competent to weigh technical evidence,[5] and no doubt attached great weight to the opinions of the local physicians, one of whom was somewhat of a celebrity. But the main element in the conviction was Justice Stephen, whose mind, undoubtedly owing to incipient insanity (he died insane a year later), was incapable of dealing with so intricate a case.

THE “MAD JUDGE”

The Liverpool _Daily Post_, as I am told, had been hostile rather than favorable toward me, but, on the death of Lord Chief Justice Russell, that journal, in articles of August 13 and 14, 1900, showed that it fully appreciated the unfairness of my trial, for it stated that no human being ought to be handed over to be tried by a “mad judge.” The following is taken from _The Post_ of August 13, 1900:

“The death of the Lord Chief Justice may have recalled to the minds of some Liverpool folk a sad and sordid tragedy enacted among them eleven years ago, in which he was a principal performer. To those who were there, a vivid recollection still persists of that bright July morning when a thronged court, hushed in expectancy, awaited the beginning of the Maybrick trial. In fancy one still hears the distant fanfare of the trumpets as the judges with quaint pageantry passed down the hall, and still with the mind’s eye sees the stately crimson-clad figure of the great mad judge as he sat down to try his last case. A tragedy, indeed, was played upon the bench no less than in the dock.

“Few who looked upon the strong, square head can have suspected that the light of reason was burning very low within; yet as the days of the trial dragged by--days that must have been as terrible to the judge as to the prisoner--men began to nod at him, to wonder, and to whisper. Nothing more painful was ever seen in court than the proud old man’s desperate struggle to control his failing faculties. But the struggle was unavailing. It was clear that the growing volume of facts was unassorted, undigested in his mind; that his judgment swayed backward and forward in the conflict of testimony; that his memory failed to grip the most salient features of the case for many minutes together. It was shocking to think that a human life depended upon the direction of this wreck of what was once a great judge.”

JUSTICE STEPHEN’S BIASED CHARGE

The charge of Mr. Justice Stephen to the jury positively teemed with misstatements as to the evidence given during the trial. I quote a statement from the same journal in its issue of August 17, 1900:

“I should be very sorry to think that the same number of errors as to the matters of fact given in the evidence had ever been made in any judge’s charge. It simply swarms with them, and as the jury at the end of a long trial is likely to prefer the judge’s résumé to their own recollection, I doubt if the verdict in the Maybrick case was founded on the evidence at all. And if I am right in thinking that the jurors founded their verdict on the judge’s recapitulation of the evidence rather than on the evidence itself, I do not see how any counsel could have saved the prisoner.”

That the jury “did not hear the whole of the evidence very distinctly” is admitted by one of them in the Liverpool _Daily Post_ of August 10, 1889. Consequently they were likely to be unduly influenced by the judge’s charge. There is no evidence that the jury detected the judge’s misstatements, as a more intelligent jury certainly would have done. Their minds were “taken captive” by the charge of Justice Stephen, and they were as “clay in the hands of the potter.”

LORD RUSSELL’S MEMORANDUM QUASHED

The Lord Chief Justice sent the Home Secretary a memorandum consisting of twenty folios, in which he stated the strong opinion that “Mrs. Maybrick ought to be released at once.” The Lord Chief Justice also requested that the contents of his memorandum be made public. Yet when asked in the House of Commons to lay the document on the table of the House in order that it might be accessible to the members, the Home Secretary emphatically declined. The London _Daily Mail_, in a leader on this incident, said:

“The only conceivable reasons for declining to give publicity to the letter, which was actually intended for publication, are apparently official red tape and the fear of giving new life to the agitation in favor of Mrs. Maybrick’s release. This result will be almost as effectually achieved by surrounding the case with further mystery and leaving upon the public mind the grave suspicion that justice may not have been done.”

REPEATED PROTESTS OF LORD RUSSELL

The following extracts are taken from the “Life of Lord Russell of Killowen” by R. Barry O’Brien.

“In November, 1895, he [Lord Russell] wrote to Sir Matthew White-Ridley (page 260), conveying his strong and emphatic opinion that Florence Maybrick ought never to have been convicted; that her continued imprisonment is an injustice which ought promptly to be ended, and added: ‘I have never wavered in this opinion. After her conviction I wrote and had printed a memorandum, which I presume is preserved at the Home Office. Lest it should not be, I herewith transmit a copy.’

“As is known, what happened was that Mr. Matthews, after consultation with the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Salisbury, and Mr. Justice Stephen, and after seeing Dr. Stephenson, the principal Crown witness, and also the late Dr. Tidy, respited the capital sentence on the expressed ground that there was sufficient doubt whether death had been caused by arsenical poisoning to justify the respite.

“It will be seen (1) that such a doubt existed as to the commission of the offense for which Florence Maybrick was tried as rendered it improper, in the opinion of the Home Secretary and his advisers, that the capital sentence should be carried out; and (2) that for more than six years Florence Maybrick has been suffering imprisonment on the assumption of Mr. Matthews that she committed an offense for which she was never tried by the constitutional authority and of which she has never been adjudged guilty.”

From page 261: “This is in itself a most serious state of things. It is manifestly unjust that Florence Maybrick should suffer for a crime in regard to which she has never been called upon to answer before any lawful tribunal.

“Is it not obvious that if the attempt to murder had been the offense for which she was arraigned, the course of the defense would have been different? I speak as her counsel of what I know. Read the report of the defense, and you will see that I devoted my whole strength to and massed the evidence upon the point that the prosecution had misconceived the facts, that the foundation on which the whole case rested was rotten, for that, in fact, there was no murder; that, on the contrary, the deceased had died from natural causes.

“It is true that incidental reference was made to certain alleged acts of Florence Maybrick, but the references were incidental only; the stress of my argument being, in fact, that _no murder had been committed, because the evidence did not warrant the conclusion that the deceased had died from arsenical poisoning_. On the other hand, had the Crown counsel suggested the case of attempt to murder by poison, it would have been the duty of counsel to address himself directly and mainly to the alleged circumstances which, it was argued, pointed to guilty intent. That these alleged circumstances were capable in part of being explained, in part of being minimized, and in part of being attacked as unreliably vouched, can not, I think, be doubted by any one who has with a critical eye scanned the evidence. I do not deny that my feelings are engaged in this case. It is impossible that they should not be, but I have honestly tried to judge the case, and I now say that _if I was called upon to advise in my character of head of the Criminal Judicature of this country, I should advise you that Florence Maybrick ought to be allowed to go free_.”

From page 262: “I think it my duty to renew my protest against the continued imprisonment of Florence Maybrick. I consider the history of the case reflects discredit on the administration of the criminal law. I think my protest ought to be attended to at last. The prisoner has already undergone punishment for a period four times as long, or more, as the minimum punishment fixed by law for the commission of the crime, of which she has never been convicted or for which she has never been tried, but for which she has been adjudged guilty by your predecessor in the office of Home Secretary.”

THE AMERICAN OFFICIAL PETITION

The following is quoted from the American Official Petition sent to the Rt. Hon. Henry Matthews, Q.C., M.P., Her Majesty’s principal secretary for the Home Department:

“As Florence Elizabeth Maybrick is an American woman, without father, brother, husband, or kin in England, except two infant children, enduring penal servitude for life in Woking Prison;

“As the conduct of her trial resulted in a profound impression of a miscarriage of justice, in an earnest protest against the verdict, and the execution of the sentence of death, and its commutation to penal servitude for life on the ground of reasonable doubt whether a murder had been committed;

“As a careful legal scrutiny of the evidence given at the trial by eminent solicitors, barristers, queen’s counsel, and members of Parliament, and the production of facts not in evidence at the trial have resulted in a final decision of counsel that the case is one proper for the grave consideration of a criminal appellate tribunal--if such a tribunal existed;

“Therefore, we earnestly ask that the Rt. Hon. Henry Matthews, Q.C., M.P., Her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for the Home Department, will advise Her Majesty to order the pardon and release of the prisoner, who has now suffered an imprisonment of three years.

“LEVI P. MORTON, Vice-President of the United States, President of the Senate.

“CHARLES T. CRISP, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

“CHARLES FOSTER, Secretary of the Treasury.

“JAMES G. BLAINE, Secretary of State.

“S. B. ELKINS, Secretary of War.

“W. H. MILLER, Attorney-General.

“JOHN WANAMAKER, Postmaster-General.

“B. T. TRACY, Secretary of the Navy.

“JOHN B. NOBLE, Secretary of the Interior.

“G. M. RUSK, Secretary of Agriculture.

“J., CARDINAL GIBBONS.

“J. M. SCOFIELD, Major-General Commanding the Army.

“A. W. TRULY, Brigadier-General-in-Chief, Signal Office.

“THOMAS LINCOLN CASEY, Brigadier-General-in-Chief of Engineers.

“JOSEPH CABELL BRECKENRIDGE, Brigadier-General, Infantry-General.

“J. O. KELTON, Brigadier-General, Adjutant-General.

“WILLIAM SMITH, Paymaster-General.

“H. M. BATCHELDER, General-Quartermaster-General.

“B. DUBARRY, General and Commanding General Infantry.

“O. SUTHERLAND, General Infantry General.

“D. W. FLAGLER, Chief of Ordnance.

“J. NORMAN LISBER, Acting Judge-Advocate-General.

“THOMAS EWING, Brevet-Major-General, U. S. A., and many others.”

SECRETARY BLAINE’S LETTER TO MINISTER LINCOLN

I will conclude by quoting the letter of Secretary Blaine to Mr. Robert Lincoln, then Minister to the Court of St. James. It will be seen that Mr. Blaine was of opinion that I had lost my citizenship. Since this letter was written it has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that a woman married to a foreigner, on the death of her husband can, on application, be reinstated to citizenship.

“DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, “March 7, 1892.

“MY DEAR MR. LINCOLN: As Mrs. Maybrick lost her American citizenship by her English marriage, and as I fear she does not resume it by her widowhood, I can not instruct you officially as to the course you should pursue toward her.

“But her American and Southern birth, her connection with many families of the highest respectability and even of prominence in the country’s service, have attracted much attention to her fate.

“I have no other interest in her than an interest which you and I share in common with all our countrymen--the desire to help an American woman in distress. That she may have been influenced by the foolish ambition of too many American girls for a foreign marriage, and have descended from her own rank to that of her husband’s family, which seems to have been somewhat vulgar, must be forgiven to her youth, since she was only eighteen at the time of her marriage.

“There is a wide and widening belief in this country that she is legally innocent and illegally imprisoned. The official charge of the judge that murder must be proved and the official announcement of the Home Secretary that the evidence leaves a ‘reasonable doubt’ of murder are the premises of but one conclusion--the discharge of the prisoner.

“The fact that she was never indicted or tried by a jury of her peers on a specific count of felonious attempt to administer arsenic, yet is condemned to penal servitude for life on the Home Secretary’s statement that she evidently made such an attempt, can never be reconciled to the English principle that an accused person shall be tried by a jury of his peers. Lawyers here are among the strongest believers in the illegality of her imprisonment. Indeed, the sense of injustice is developing and deepening into horror.

“Officially I could only instruct you on behalf of a multitude of American citizens to investigate her case. Personally I beg to express to you my deep interest in it, and pray you, if possible, to communicate with Messrs. Lumley and Sir Charles Russell as to any method of American cooperation which may seem to them desirable.

“Messrs. Lumley have made a very able brief, which I am sure would interest you, and which seems to me unanswerable. Sir Charles Russell, whose reputation you know, is her counsel. Consult with them what best can be done, from an American point of view, to secure Mrs. Maybrick’s release. And if you shall have read Lumley’s brief, I am sure that conviction will lead you to personal activity in her behalf.

“You can communicate with me in strict confidence, as from one American citizen to another, for the relief of an American woman helplessly enduring a great wrong.

“Believe me, etc., “JAMES G. BLAINE.”

And yet it required the time from March 7, 1892, until July 20, 1904, to attain my liberation; and then it was accomplished by time limit and by no act of grace or concession on the part of the English Government.

HENRY W. LUCY ON LORD RUSSELL

_The Strand Magazine_, London, in its November number, 1900, published an article by Henry W. Lucy, Esq., who, speaking of the late Lord Chief Justice Russell, says:

“The most remarkable episode in Charles Russell’s career at the bar undoubtedly was his defense of Mrs. Maybrick.

“I happened to find myself in the same hotel with him at Liverpool on the morning of the day set down for the opening of the trial. At breakfast he spoke in confident terms of his client’s innocence and of the surety of her acquittal. He did not take into account the passing mood of the judge who tried the case, and so found himself out of his reckoning; but the verdict of the jury, still less the summing-up of Fitz-James Stephen, did not shake his conviction. Sir Charles Russell was of all men least likely to be misled by appearances or deliberate deception; having probed the case to the bottom, having turned his piercing eyes on the woman in the dock, having talked to her in private and studied her in public, he was convinced of her innocence.

“Lord Landoff was a lawyer of high position at the English bar when, as Mr. Henry Matthews, he came into the Home Office.

“The verdict of the jury was ‘guilty,’ and her sentence was death, which was a real surprise, as was afterward learned, even to the judge, Sir Fitz-James Stephen. If Mr. Matthews believed her guilty, he should not have commuted her sentence upon the ground that he assigned. If she was guilty she well deserved death on the scaffold. The evidence, however, satisfied Mr. Matthews that there was reasonable doubt that the death of Mr. Maybrick was due to arsenic. In this view, as is well known, he was sustained by Justice Stephen. If such a doubt really came into Mr. Matthews’s mind, as was made the ground of the commutation of the sentence, _under English law that doubt entitled the accused to acquittal_.

“Why he lacked the courage of his convictions can only be surmised. At all events he did not dare to take the responsibility of allowing her to be executed.

“The intercession of the American Government through Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, was urgent, strong, and most intense. It is incredible that Mr. Matthews desired any loophole to release her. The case was full of them.

“Sir Matthew White-Ridley was not a lawyer, and there is no probability that he ever read the evidence in the case, which was voluminous. He could not have read the papers in three days if he had attempted it. He simply followed his predecessor’s line and was not able to take up the case on its merits.”

LORD RUSSELL’S CONVICTION OF MRS. MAYBRICK’S INNOCENCE

This statement of Mr. Lucy is of great value as an answer to the assault made on Lord Russell’s memory after his death, on his firm belief in my innocence.

Lord Hugh Cecil wrote to a constituent:

“I believe I am right in stating that he (Lord Russell) never said that he believed Mrs. Maybrick to be innocent.”

When this was shown Lord Russell by Mr. A. W. McDougall, Esq., the Chief Justice exclaimed:

“Does Lord Hugh Cecil suppose that I would abandon all the traditions of the Bar and put forward publicly as an argument in such a case my personal belief in this, that, or the other thing? Does he suppose that I would have made all the efforts I have been making to obtain her freedom if I believed her to be guilty?”

EXPLANATION OF ATTITUDE OF HOME SECRETARIES

“Personal Rights,” of November 15, in commenting on the statement of Mr. Lucy in _The Strand Magazine_, says:

“We do not share the belief that Sir Fitz-James Stephen was insane in any plenary sense at the time of the trial; but we are convinced that he was not fully sane. His charge to the jury, the report of which is reproduced in full in Mr. Levy’s book, is grotesquely inaccurate; and if the jury took it to be a compendium of the evidence--as they probably did--the result of their deliberation is fully accounted for. Indeed, if the facts were such as the judge stated, the verdict could hardly be impugned. How different they were may be seen by any one who compares the evidence with the judge’s charge, in the book already referred to. To take a single instance: the judge stated that, according to the evidence of Alice Yapp, at the commencement of Mr. Maybrick’s illness, he was very sick and in great pain immediately after some medicine was given to him by his wife. Alice Yapp swore nothing of the kind. She saw neither any administration of medicine nor any sickness. We could give other instances of gross inaccuracy, generally leading to the conclusion of the prisoner’s guilt; but, for our present purpose, the above incident will suffice.

“If this was the character of the judge’s charge to the jury, what confidence can be placed in his notes? Still upon those notes was probably based the conclusions of successive Home Secretaries or of the officials employed by them. When Mr. Lucy holds up his hands in astonishment at the marvelous consensus of opinion of various Home Secretaries, he seems to us to manifest remarkable blindness--for one so long behind the Speaker’s chair--as to the vicarious nature of that opinion. It is more than possible that the conclusions of Mr. Matthews, Mr. Asquith, and Sir Matthew White-Ridley were all drawn for them by the same gentleman, or, at least, that the same gentleman helped these various Home Secretaries to come to the same conclusion.

“We hope that Mr. Ritchie, the new Home Secretary, will judge this matter for himself. Let him read the salient portions, at least, of Mr. Levy’s book, and, per contra, the article of X. Y. Z. in _The Contemporary Review_ of September last. If he likes to make the inquiry, he will find that X. Y. Z. is one of his new permanent staff, and that the doctrines put forward in the article are the embodiment of Home Office practise. This is a matter which does not concern the Maybrick case alone. Scarcely a month passes without some new manifestation of injustice brought about by adherence to the traditions of the department over which Mr. Ritchie now presides. If he will seek out this hydra and slay it, he will leave for himself an immortal name among Secretaries of State, and--what he will hold of more importance--he will cut off a permanent source of injustice, give releasement and joy to the innocent pining in prison, and breathe a new life into a department which is sadly in need of a renovating spirit.”

UPHOLDING THE JUSTICIARY

In the same number of this journal is an article from “Lex,” a well-known writer in English journals, which we reproduce:

“SIR: May I call attention to the two articles in the Liverpool _Post_ of August 13 and 14, in which the utter incompetence of the judge at the Maybrick trial is strongly asserted? The writer is distinctly hostile to the prisoner, and writes without any intention of raising the question whether the trial was not null and void; but as the English system consists of trial by judge and jury, the total incompetence of either element should clearly vitiate it. Moreover, Mr. Ruggles-Brise, on the occasion of a visit to America in 1897, stated that the reason of the steadfast refusal of _the Home Secretary to release the prisoner was his desire to uphold the wholesome authority of the English justiciary_. That authority can not be regarded as wholesome if the judge was insane. Lord Russell, who was present throughout the trial, was of different opinion from that of the judge. He was undoubtedly sane. If Sir J. F. Stephen was insane, the public will, I think, be of opinion that the sane judge should have had the most influence with the executive.”

NEED OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Lord Esher, in _The Times_ of August 17, 1889, strongly advocated a court of criminal appeal, and _The Times_, in an article of the same date, supported the views expressed by Lord Esher and by Lord Fitzgerald, as follows:

“A court of appeal, as Lord Esher sketches it, would not be open to the objections which can be fairly urged against our present informal method of procedure. The Home Secretary, as a quasi court of appeal, is, as Lord Fitzgerald remarks, not a judge and has not the power of a judge.... The judgment pronounced by a strong court of criminal appeal, such as Lord Esher’s letter suggests, would do more to satisfy the public mind than the best efforts of the Home Secretary could possibly do. The reform which Lord Esher advocates has been long called for, and Lord Fitzgerald did well to press it on the Government.... What the public feel is that they would rather have the fallibility of trained judges than the fallibility of an individual sitting without any of the apparatus with which a court of law is enabled to detect truth from falsehood, and perhaps unconsciously confusing the prerogative of mercy with justice.”

FOOTNOTE:

[5] The jury was composed of three plumbers, two farmers, one milliner, one wood-turner, one provision dealer, one grocer, one ironmonger, one house-painter, and one baker.

THE BRIEF OF MESSRS. LUMLEY & LUMLEY

This brief of Messrs. Lumley & Lumley, characterized in the preceding letter of Secretary Blaine as “very able” and “unanswerable,” is too long for reproduction in these pages in its entirety, and hence only the main points are given. The document was prepared at the instance of Lord Russell of Killowen for submission to himself and three other Queen’s Counsel, with a view of obtaining a new trial. It may interest the reader to know that the money required to make this searching analysis by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley was raised by a popular subscription in America, through the good offices of the New York _World_. The eminent Queen’s counsel, after a full consideration of the analysis of the case, submitted the following opinion:

OPINION--RE F. E. MAYBRICK

“Having carefully considered the facts stated in the elaborate case submitted to us by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley, and the law applicable to the matter, we are clearly of opinion that there is no mode by which in this case a new trial or a ‘_venire de novo_’ can be obtained, nor can the prisoner be brought up on a ‘habeas corpus,’ with the view to retrying the issue of her innocence or guilt.

“We say this notwithstanding the case of Regina _vs._ Scarfe (17 Q. B., 238, 5; Cox, C. C., 243; 2 Den., C. C., 281).

“We are of opinion that in English criminal procedure there is no possibility of procuring a rehearing in the case of felony where a verdict has been found by a properly constituted jury upon an indictment which is correct in form. This rule is, in our opinion, absolute, unless circumstances have transpired, and have been entered upon the record, which, when there appearing, would invalidate the tribunal and reduce the trial to a nullity by reason of its not having been before a properly constituted tribunal. None of the matters proposed to be proved go to this length.

“We think it right to add that there are many matters stated in the case, not merely with reference to the evidence at and the incidents of the trial, but suggesting new facts, which would be _matters proper for the grave consideration of a Court of Criminal Appeal_, if such a tribunal existed in this country.

(Signed) “CHARLES RUSSELL, Q.C. “I. FLETCHER MOULTON, Q.C. “HARRY BOOKIN POLAND, Q.C. “REGINALD SMITH, Q.C.

“LINCOLN’S INN, 12th April, 1892.”

* * * * *

This opinion was based upon the following points, presented by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley:

JUSTICE STEPHEN’S MISDIRECTIONS

The _misdirections_ which are selected for consideration may be conveniently classed, among others, under these headings:

1. As to the facts disclosed in the evidence of the procuring and possession of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick and of her administering it.

2. As to the cause of death.

A perusal of the summing-up from beginning to end impresses the mind with the feeling that, whenever Mr. Justice Stephen approached any fact offered by the defense which threw light upon _the possession_ and _an alleged_ administration of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick, he drew the minds of the jury away from it; he played, in fact, the part of the peewit, which swoops and screams in another part of the field on purpose to hide where its nest is, and to draw the attention of the passers-by from the right spot.

Mr. Justice Stephen pointed out to the jury in his summing-up: “You must begin the whole subject of poison with this, which is a remarkable fact in the case and which it seems to me tells favorably rather than otherwise for the prisoner. You must take notice of it and consider what inference you draw from it. In the whole case, from first to last, there is _no evidence_ at all of her having _bought_ any poison, or definitely having had anything to do with procuring any, with the exception of fly-papers. But there is evidence of a considerable quantity having been found in various things, which were kept some here and some there--kept principally, as I gather, in the inner room.[6] ... There is evidence about a considerable quantity of poison in this house, and more particularly about one or two receptacles which were in the inner room, Mr. Maybrick’s dressing-room, as it has been pointed out.”

MISDIRECTION AS TO MR. MAYBRICK’S SYMPTOMS

From the testimony it appears that on the 27th of April James Maybrick, before starting to the Wirrall Races, was sick. There is no actual evidence of vomiting, but he is described as sick, and as feeling a numbness in his legs while walking downstairs, which was an old-standing complaint of his of many years. Both he himself and Mrs. Maybrick told the servants that this was due to a double dose of some London medicine. He got wet through at the races and dined in his wet clothes at a friend’s (Mr. Hobson), on the other side of the Mersey, and did not return home till after the servants had retired to bed; but the next morning, Sunday, the 28th of April, he was taken ill, and Mrs. Maybrick sent a servant off hurriedly for Dr. Humphreys, who had not attended her husband before, but who was the doctor living nearest the house, and in the mean time got some mustard and water, telling him to take it, as it would remove the brandy at all events. Dr. Humphreys attended James Maybrick on the 28th, but was not told by him that he had vomited the day before.

Mr. Justice Stephen, when referring to this, said: “The Wirrall Races were followed by symptoms which were described to be arsenical.” It is submitted that this was a _misdirection_, the symptom there referred to being sickness, and there was no evidence of vomiting on any of the days immediately succeeding the Wirrall Races. But on the 28th of April the mustard and water was given him by Mrs. Maybrick for the purpose of _producing_ sickness and removing the brandy, and if he had been sick it would have been attributable to _mustard and water_, not to arsenic.

On the other hand, the medical evidence showed that gastro-enteritis might have been set up either by improper food or drink, or an excess of either; or, again, by such a wetting through as deceased got at the Wirrall Races. On the 8th of May Alice Yapp communicated to Mrs. Briggs and Mrs. Hughes her suspicions that James Maybrick’s illness was due to Mrs. Maybrick poisoning him with _fly-papers_.

MISDIRECTION AS TO MRS. MAYBRICK’S ACCESS TO POISONS

The purchase and soaking of fly-papers is the only direct evidence of the possession of arsenic in any form by Mrs. Maybrick, but the judge told the jury, and it is submitted it is a _gross misdirection_, that Mrs. Maybrick “_undoubtedly had access to considerable quantities of arsenic in other forms_,” inasmuch as the _only evidence as to such access_ was that after the death of James Maybrick these two women, Mrs. Briggs and Alice Yapp, who exhibited the most unfriendly feeling toward her, said they had found in the house certain stores of arsenic.

It is submitted for the serious consideration of counsel that the circumstances under which these two women produced these stores of arsenic are so suspicious as to justify the suggestion that that arsenic was not there before his death, and that Mrs. Maybrick never did have any access to it or knowledge of it at all. There was no evidence as to where or by whom this arsenic was obtained, nor was there any evidence that the police had made any effort to discover where, when, or by whom that arsenic was procured.

[NOTE.--How and when this arsenic may have been procured by Mr. Maybrick himself will appear further on as a part of the new evidence.]

The places in which arsenic was found were open and accessible to every one in the house, and no person gave any evidence that he or she had ever seen it in the house before these two women found it after death.

As regards the black powder (arsenic mixed with charcoal) and the two solutions of arsenic produced by Mrs. Briggs and Alice Yapp, Mr. Davies, the analyst, gave evidence that, when analyzing the contents of the various bottles, he had searched diligently and microscopically for any traces, and could find no trace of charcoal having been introduced into any of them. So this circumstantial evidence may be eliminated.

As regards white arsenic, also produced by these women, it must be observed that not only was it not shown that Mrs. Maybrick had purchased any, but it is submitted that the judge _ought to have pointed out to the jury_, as the fact is, that it would have been almost impossible for her or any woman to have obtained any white arsenic at all. No shopkeeper dare sell it to any one except to a medical man, and even then under the stringent restrictions of the Sale of Poison Act.

At the trial a wholesale druggist (Thompson, of Liverpool) gave evidence that James Maybrick constantly visited his cousin, who had been in his employment at his stores, where he could have obtained white arsenic from him without any difficulty; and it will be observed that it was found in his hatbox.

It is a remarkable thing in this connection that, while Edwin Maybrick called the police in on Sunday night, and gave them the black solutions and white solutions which Mrs. Briggs had found on the Sunday morning, he did not give them the black powder which Alice Yapp had found on the-night before; and, in fact, that Michael Maybrick did not give it to the police until Tuesday, the 14th.

It is also a remarkable fact that, although these black solutions and that white solution of arsenic and that solid arsenic which Mrs. Briggs had found, were not handed by the police to the analyst until several days afterward, and were therefore _not known to be arsenic by anybody, yet Mrs. Briggs was able to inform Mrs. Maybrick on Tuesday, the 14th, as was testified to, that these bottles contained arsenic_.

It is submitted that Mrs. Briggs could not have known that without some other means of knowledge than looking at them.

The importance of this _misdirection_ of the judge as to the question of possession of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick can not be overstated. It was _conclusively_ shown that no decoction of fly-papers or of the black powder was the source of the arsenic with which certain articles found in the house and office were said to be infected, because the analyst said he had searched for the fibers of the papers and for the charcoal, _and could not find any traces of either_. If Mrs. Maybrick knew of the pure arsenic, why should she have bought the fly-papers, either for a cosmetic purpose or murder, and what should she have wanted with “poison for cats?”

MISDIRECTION AS TO “TRACES” OF ARSENIC

Out of the list submitted by the police, therefore, the only two things which could have been the source of the arsenic were the bottle of saturated solution, No. 10 in the Police List, and the bottle of solid arsenic, No. 11 in the Police List.

It may be observed that if all the arsenic or “traces” of the same, with which various things were said to be infected, were collected together, it would not constitute a fatal dose, the smallest fatal dose recorded being two grains, and this in the case of a woman, and surely not in the case of a person addicted to large doses of arsenic.

At the inquest Mr. Davies defined what he meant by the word “trace.” He said:

“It means something under 1/100 part of a grain. It does not mean something which I could not weigh, but something which I could _not_ guarantee to be absolutely free from other things; but anything under 1/100 part of a grain I should not consider satisfactory. If I said _distinct traces_, I should say it meant something between 1/100 and 1/1000 part of a grain, while a _minute trace_ is less than 1/1000 part of a grain.”

In reference to Reinsch’s test which Mr. Davies used in these experiments, this passage occurs in Taylor’s “Medical Jurisprudence,” vol. i., p. 268: “The mere presence of a gray deposit on pure copper affords _no absolute proof_ of the presence of arsenic. Bismuth, antimony, and mercury all yield deposits with Reinsch’s test. The gray deposit of bismuth may easily be taken for arsenic.” And again: “The errors into which the faulty methods of applying Reinsch’s test lead have led its reliability to be much discredited, and, although in skilful hands the results are trustworthy, it would be perhaps unsafe to rely upon it in an important criminal investigation.”

It is submitted that the evidence relating to the articles which Mr. Davies said were infected with arsenic only to the extent of _an unweighable trace_ could not and ought not to be regarded as proof that any arsenic at all was there, or as being anything more _than a suspicion_ upon this analyst’s mind that what he saw was arsenic, and that it was a _misdirection_ on the part of Mr. Justice Stephen to treat a mere expression of opinion of that kind as proof of the presence of arsenic.

MISDIRECTION AS TO ARSENIC IN SOLUTION

It will be observed that the only things of which James Maybrick could have partaken [but did not], in which arsenic in a weighable form was present, were the bottle of Valentine’s meat juice and the pot of glycerin, and that the arsenic found in them was found in a state of solution.

As regards the half grain of arsenic found in the _meat juice_, scientific evidence will be forthcoming that it is a physical impossibility for any person to dissolve half a grain of solid arsenic in 411 grains of Valentine’s meat juice, which is all the liquid that was in the bottle when it was handed to Mr. Davies.

Mr. Davies, moreover, found that (although he used very loose and unscientific language in his evidence) the specific gravity of the meat juice was considerably reduced, thereby showing that the half grain of arsenic found in it had been introduced in the form of _arsenic in solution_.

It will now be observed that the _only arsenic in solution_ which was _available_, among the stores of arsenic found in the house, was the _bottle No. 10_ in the police list, and it is submitted that bottle No. 11 (solid arsenic) must, like the black solutions, _be eliminated_ from any store of arsenic which Mrs. Maybrick, whether she had access to it or not, could have employed for the purpose of infecting any of the things found in the house to be infected.

Mr. Davies described the bottle No. 10 as a saturated solution of white arsenic, and he stated that it had been dissolved with water, some of the crystals remaining at the bottom undissolved.

At the inquest he stated, in reply to a question by the coroner: “The bottle No. 10, which was also in the box, contained a saturated solution of arsenic and solid arsenic at the bottom. There was no label on it. It contained, solid and liquid, perhaps two grains--a grain at all events.”

_So it is evident that there was not a fatal dose even in the stores which Mrs. Maybrick could have used had she had access to it._

As regards this bottle, Mr. Justice Stephen told the jury: “A saturated solution is a solution which has taken up as much arsenic as it can, the water becoming saturated with arsenic; the remainder of the arsenic is found at the bottom. In this case there was a saturated solution of arsenic in the water and a small portion of arsenic at the bottom. With regard to that these questions arise: What was it for? Who is wanting such a quantity of strong solution of arsenic? Who has put it there and how is it to be used? These are the questions, in the solution of which I can not help you. There is nothing definite about it to connect Mr. Maybrick with it certainly.[7] If he was in the habit of arsenic eating he would not keep it saturated in water in quantities he could not possibly use.”

Mr. Davies found that this bottle “contained in solid and liquid perhaps two grains--a grain at all events.” Now arsenic can be dissolved in water by two processes. In cold water by shaking it constantly for several hours (and the strongest solution that can be obtained by the cold-water process is a one-per-cent. solution, which is no stronger than the ordinary Fowler’s solution as sold in the shops). That is called a “saturated solution” by the cold-water process. A solution of three or even four per cent. can be obtained with boiling water, but only when the water is kept on the constant boil for several hours; and that is also called a “saturated solution,” so that the phrase “saturated solution” may mean either a weak solution of one per cent., such as is gained by the cold-water process, or a stronger solution of three per cent. by the boiling-water process, and Mr. Justice Stephen _misdirected_ the jury as to the meaning of the phrase “saturated solution.” He should have told them that a “saturated solution” of arsenic is one which has by any particular process taken up as much arsenic and _retained it in solution_ as is possible by that particular process, and that it might consequently be either a weak or a stronger solution, according as it has been dissolved by the cold-water or boiling-water process, by shaking for hours or boiling for hours.

The questions put to the jury by Mr. Justice Stephen upon the interpretation of the phrase “saturated solution” which he gave, namely, “How is it to be used?” “Who is wanting such a quantity of _strong_ solution of arsenic?” are _misdirections_.

MR. CLAYTON’S EXPERIMENTS

Counsel are referred to experiments made with solutions of arsenic by Mr. E. Godwin Clayton, of the firm of Hassall & Clayton. From these it will be seen that by the experiment there marked B, where the arsenic was shaken at intervals of twenty minutes for six hours, the result shows that it would require 186½ grains of water to carry half a grain of arsenic. And that by experiment C, which is the strongest possible solution by the cold-water process, namely, one-per-cent. strength (equal to Fowler’s solution), it would require 50 grains of water to carry half a grain, but to obtain this the arsenic has to be shaken with cold water _at frequent intervals for four days_.

Mr. Godwin Clayton, in his report as to these experiments, remarks: “I think, however, that as few people outside a chemical laboratory would have the patience or opportunity to make a solution by shaking it at short intervals during four days, the solution obtained in experiment B--namely, an arsenical strength of 0.268 per cent.--might be described in a popular sense, though not with strict scientific accuracy, as ‘saturated solution of arsenic.’” But then if that be so, that is only about a quarter of the strength of Fowler’s solution! The evidence of Mr. Davies as to the specific gravity of the meat juice being considerably reduced ought, it is submitted, _not_ to have been received as scientific evidence, and it was a _misdirection_ to treat it as such, because without the slightest difficulty, as will be seen by a reference to Mr. Godwin Clayton’s experiments, Mr. Davies’s evidence ought to have been scientifically exact, because he could have shown that (for example) if a solution of the strength of experiment B had been used, the 411 grains of liquid would have contained 186½ of solution of arsenic and 244½ grains of meat juice; and, further, that the specific gravity of the meat juice would, in that case, have been lowered from 1.2143 to 1.1263; and it was, therefore, not only possible, but the duty of Mr. Davies, as an expert, to have shown, by comparing the specific gravity of the bottle No. 10 and the specific gravity of Valentine’s meat juice, that the “arsenic in solution” which had been introduced into it had been introduced into it out of that particular bottle, No. 10.

Then, again, it will be seen from these experiments of Mr. Godwin Clayton that if the solution in bottle No. 10 had been a strong hot-water solution of three per cent., the specific gravity would not have been considerably reduced, because the meat juice would in that case have contained only 15½ grains of arsenical solution. To have obtained such a solution, the “arsenic powder” must have been boiled with distilled water for four hours; and it is submitted that it would have been _impossible_, in the first place, for Mrs. Maybrick, or any person outside a laboratory, to have adopted such a process of dissolving arsenic without the knowledge of the servants or anybody else; and, further, that even if she could have done this, she could not have possibly weighed out exactly half a grain of it, which is what Mr. Davies found; and it is suggested that the only way in which that half grain of arsenic could possibly have been measured into that bottle, must have been by introducing Fowler’s solution, _and no Fowler’s solution was found in the house_--and in no way was it suggested that Mrs. Maybrick had any access to any, though others in that house may have been able to procure such a medicinal dose of it.

MISDIRECTION AS TO ARSENIC IN GLYCERIN

As regards the glycerin, Inspector Baxendale said he found this bottle in the lavatory on the 18th of May. There was no evidence that this bottle had ever been in Mrs. Maybrick’s hands, and there was no evidence that any part of it had been used by James Maybrick. There was evidence that it was a freshly opened bottle. Scientific evidence will be forthcoming that it is _an absolute impossibility_ for any person to distribute arsenic evenly through a pound of glycerin.

It is suggested that there is no possible means by which that glycerin could have been administered with a felonious intent to James Maybrick; the mere moistening the lips with small quantities of it could not have operated in that way.

Scientific evidence will be forthcoming that glycerin, when kept in glass bottles, generally does contain arsenic, which it extracts from the glass of the bottle.

In 1888 Jahns drew attention to arsenic being present in glycerin--_Chemische Zeitung_.

In 1889 Vulpius also drew attention to it--_Apotheker Zeitung_.

Siebold (see _Pharmaceutical Journal_, 5th October, 1889) said, at the Pharmaceutical Conference, on the 11th September, 1889, that his experiments were made with toilet and pharmaceutical glycerin, and that the majority showed presence of arsenious acid, varying from 1 grain in 4,000 to 1 grain in 5,000.

It may be pointed out that this is _a larger quantity_ than Mr. Davies found, which was only “about 1/10 of a grain in 1,000 grains.”

The evidence relating to the administration of glycerin was that of Nurse Gore and Nurse Callery, and was to the effect that on Thursday night they refreshed James Maybrick’s mouth with _glycerin and borax mixed in a saucer_ that was on the table in the sick-room, and that Mrs. Maybrick had brought the glycerin that was used either from the medicine cupboard in her room or from the washstand drawer.

The attention of counsel is called to the fact that this saucer of mixed glycerin and borax which was actually used _was not produced_ at the trial, but Justice Stephen, when summing up to the jury, said: “Then you get the _blue_ bottle which contained Price’s glycerin. Here is the bottle, which there is no evidence to show that Mrs. Maybrick had even seen or touched; a considerable portion is still left. That glycerin was found in the lavatory outside, and if the bottle were filled and the same proportion of arsenic added, there would be two-thirds of a grain of arsenic in it. You have heard already that his mouth was moistened with glycerin and borax apparently the night before he died. If that be so, and the glycerin be really poison, it is certainly a very shocking result to arrive at.” Sir Charles Russell: “I think the evidence of Nurse Gore is that the bottle that was used the night before was taken, not from the lavatory, but from the cupboard of the washstand.” His Lordship: “It does not follow that that was the same bottle. One does not know the history of that bottle or where it went to. It may or may not have been the glycerin which was used for the purpose I have mentioned, namely, for moistening the lips. But it does appear in the case that a bottle was found in the lavatory, and that it contained a grain of arsenic, and that his mouth was moistened with glycerin and borax during the night in question; but the identity between that bottle and the bottle which contained the glycerin is not established and not proved.”

It is submitted that the above was an _unfair and inflammatory suggestion_, and amounts to a gross MISDIRECTION, especially after all the evidence about the condition of deceased’s tongue and his complaining of a sensation as of a hair in his throat.

This concludes the whole of the evidence to any articles containing arsenic which were found in the house, in which the arsenic was present in anything except as _unweighable “traces.”_

MISDIRECTION AS TO EVIDENCE OF PHYSICIANS

Justice Stephen further summed up: “The witness (Dr. Stevenson) stated: ‘I should say more arsenic was administered on the 3d of May.’” It will be seen, by a reference to Dr. Stevenson’s evidence, that Dr. Stevenson _did not_ say this.

Dr. Humphreys was the only medical man in attendance at that time. The only symptoms on Friday, the 3d, were that he had “vomited twice.” At the inquest Dr. Humphreys said as to this:

Q. “Did he say anything about his lunch on the previous day, Thursday, the 2d?”

A. “Yes; he said some inferior sherry had been put into it, and that it had made him as bad as ever again.”

And that also appears in Dr. Stevenson’s evidence at the trial:

“He told the doctor he had not been well since the previous day, when I learn he had his lunch at the office.”

It can not be suggested that the fact that the man vomited twice on Friday night was attributable to any arsenic taken at midday on Thursday, for Dr. Stevenson testified that the vomiting, which is a symptom of arsenic, usually follows the administration in about _half an hour_.

Dr. Carter, who was not called in to the patient until Tuesday, May 7th, in his evidence, however, suggested that:

“I judge that the fatal dose must have been given on Friday, the 3d, but a dose might have been given after that. When he was so violently ill on the Friday, I thought it would be from the effects of the fatal dose, but there might have been subsequent doses”; and in cross-examination he explained that he had made this suggestion about the fatal dose because: “I was _told_ he was unable to retain anything on his stomach for several days.”

It is submitted that the judge, when summing up, MISDIRECTED the jury by ignoring entirely the evidence and substituting for it this reckless suggestion of Dr. Carter’s.

MISDIRECTION AS TO TIMES WHEN ARSENIC MAY HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED

The only occasions on which it was possible to suggest any act of administration of arsenic were the medicine on the 27th of April and the food at the office on May 1st and May 2d; and the judge told the jury:

“The argument that the prisoner administered the arsenic is an argument depending upon the combination of a great variety of circumstances of suspicion. The theory is that there was poisoning by successive doses, and it is rather suggested that there may have been several doses. But I do not know that there was any effort made to point out the precise times at which doses may have been administered.”

Under such circumstances it is submitted that the statement of the judge as to the medicine on the 27th of April, and as to the food at office, and as to the statement that “Friday (3d May) was the day on which began the symptoms of what may be called the fatal dose,” _are misdirections of vital importance to this case_, and such as to entitle Mrs. Maybrick to have the verdict set aside and have a new trial ordered.

MISDIRECTION AS TO MRS. MAYBRICK’S CHANGING MEDICINE BOTTLES

As regards the question of attempts to administer arsenic, the occasions upon which such conduct was imputed are changing medicine from one bottle into another and the Valentine’s meat juice. As regards the changing the bottle, there were two occasions when evidence was given as to Mrs. Maybrick’s doing this. The first was on the 7th of May, when Alice Yapp said that some of the medicines were kept on a table near the bedroom door and some in the bedroom, and that on Tuesday, 7th of May, she saw Mrs. Maybrick on the landing near the bedroom door, and what was she doing? She was apparently pouring something out of one bottle into another. They were medicine bottles.

That is the whole evidence as to the incident, and as all the bottles in the house were analyzed, and none found to contain _even a trace of arsenic_ except the Clay and Abraham’s bottle--which James Maybrick was not taking at that time--the judge could not properly direct the jury to regard it as a matter of suspicion; _but he did do so_. He referred to this incident thus:

“On the 28th April (the day after the Wirrall Races) Mrs. Maybrick sent for Dr. Humphreys, and afterward she was seen pouring medicine from one bottle into another.”

It is submitted that this was _a serious misdirection_.

The other occasion was on Friday, the 10th of May, when Michael Maybrick, seeing Mrs. Maybrick changing a medicine from one bottle to another in the bedroom, took the bottles away and had the prescription made up again, saying: “Florrie, how dare you tamper with the medicine?” Mrs. Maybrick explained that she was only putting the medicine into a larger bottle because there was so much sediment. Nurse Callery was present and there was no concealment about what she was doing, and the bullying conduct of Michael was absolutely without any sort of justification. _These bottles were analyzed and found to be harmless._

Mr. Justice Stephen turned this incident, which occurred on the afternoon before death, and after she had been prevented from attending on her husband, against Mrs. Maybrick, thus--quoting Michael’s evidence: “In the bedroom I found Mrs. Maybrick pouring from one bottle into another and changing the labels, and I said, ‘Florrie, how dare you tamper with the medicine?’” And Justice Stephen continued: “Verily, this was a strange--I don’t say strange considering the circumstances--but dreadfully unwelcome remark to make to a lady in her own house, when she was in attendance on her husband, and something which showed the state of feeling in his mind, and must have attracted her attention.” It is submitted that this was a _misdirection_.

MISDIRECTION AS TO ADMINISTRATION WITH INTENT TO KILL

There was also an attempt by the prosecution to suggest an attempt to administer medicine, arising out of an occasion when James Maybrick said to her, “You have given me the wrong medicine again,” from which it appears that on the Friday, the day before death, Mrs. Maybrick was not giving him anything at all, but was trying to get him to take some medicine from Nurse Callery, who was endeavoring to induce him to take it. This was one of the medicines ordered by Dr. Humphreys, _and was found free from arsenic_. The judge did not refer to this in his summing-up, but reference to it is introduced here because it exhausts the whole evidence, with the exception of the Valentine’s meat juice incident, as to any suggestions or even of any occasions of attempt to administer, while Mr. Matthews advised the Queen that “the evidence leads clearly to the conclusion that the prisoner administered and attempted to administer arsenic to her husband with intent to murder,” which formed his ground for consigning this woman to penal servitude for life. _No evidence, either of any act of administration or of any act of attempt to administer either with or without felonious attempt, was given at the trial, which possibly could have led any person to any such conclusion_, with the single exception of the Valentine’s meat juice; and as none of that was administered after it had been in Mrs. Maybrick’s hands, the utmost that could be said of it (assuming that she did put any arsenic into it) is that it was an _attempt_ to administer, either feloniously or otherwise. It is submitted that the judge _misdirected_ the jury as to this incident, in that he did not tell them that the mere evidence of an attempt to administer arsenic was not sufficient--that they must be satisfied that the attempt to administer was with a _mens rea_ and with an intent to murder.

EXCLUSION OF PRISONER’S TESTIMONY

Mrs. Maybrick voluntarily told her solicitors, Mr. Arnold and Mr. Richard Cleaver, directly she was arrested and even before the inquest, that she had, at her husband’s urgent request, put a powder into a bottle of Valentine’s meat juice, but that she did not know, until Mrs. Briggs informed her that arsenic had been found in a bottle of meat juice, that the powder she had put in was assumably arsenic. [At the trial both Mr. Richard and Mr. Arnold Cleaver, her solicitors, offered to give evidence to this effect, but Justice Stephen refused to admit it.] She also tried to tell Mrs. Briggs the same thing, but the policeman stopped the conversation; and she also told it to her mother on her arrival. Mrs. Maybrick made no attempt at concealment about having put this powder in, although no one had seen her do it, and her solicitors, instead of relying as a line of defense on showing there was no “mens rea” in what she had done, kept back her account of what she had done. At the trial, however, after all the evidence for the prosecution had been concluded without a single witness speaking of her having put anything into anything, she _insisted_ on telling the jury, as she had told her solicitors, that she did put a powder into a bottle of meat juice, in accordance with an urgent request of her husband’s, but that she did not know it was arsenic. If she did not know, there was no “mens rea.” Upon that evidence, and upon certain suspicious circumstances connected with her conduct in taking the meat juice into the dressing-room and replacing it in the bedroom, the judge, as it is submitted, _misdirected_ the jury in the following passage:

“Mr. Michael Maybrick says: ‘Nothing was given to my brother out of that.’ That is to say, nothing was given to him out of the bottle of Valentine’s meat juice, which undoubtedly had arsenic in it. Its presence was detected, but of that bottle which was poisoned he certainly had none. He had a small taste of it _before it was poisoned_, given him by Nurse Gore.”

It is submitted that the words “before it was poisoned” is _a gross misdirection_.

MISDIRECTION AS TO IDENTITY OF MEAT-JUICE BOTTLE

It may be convenient here to interpose the following remarks on the subject of the identity of the bottle. Counsel will observe that the judge referred to the evidence at the inquest and at the magisterial inquiry, which, it is suggested, enables a reference to any discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses on the three occasions--inquest, magisterial inquiry, and trial.

The identity of the half-used bottle, which was found to contain “half a grain of arsenic in solution,” with the bottle which Mrs. Maybrick took into the dressing-room, was not proved. It was assumed alike by the prosecution and the defense, and by Mrs. Maybrick herself, _but it was not proved_. It was proved that there was another half-used bottle, of which James Maybrick had partaken on Monday, 6th of May, when Dr. Humphreys said:

“Some of the Valentine’s meat juice had been taken, but it did not agree with the deceased and made him vomit. Witness did not remember him vomiting in his presence, but he complained of it. Witness told deceased to stop the Valentine’s meat juice, and said he was not surprised at it making Mr. Maybrick sick, as it made many people sick.”

There was, therefore, another half-used bottle. The attention of counsel is strongly directed to the question of the identity of this half-used bottle.

Besides the one in which the arsenic was detected, there was another half-used bottle produced at the trial, which was found by Mrs. Briggs after death in one of James Maybrick’s hatboxes in the dressing-room, together with the black solutions and white solutions of arsenic, and this bottle was found free of arsenic.

As to the bottle which Mrs. Maybrick had in her hands on the night of the 9th-10th of May, and which she took into the dressing-room, and as to which she volunteered the statement that she had put a powder in, as to which evidence was given by Nurse Gore, was thus voluntarily corroborated by Mrs. Maybrick in her statement to the jury. From this it appears that Nurse Gore, on her arrival for duty on Thursday night, opened a fresh bottle of meat juice, which had been given to her the night before by Edwin Maybrick, and gave the patient one or two spoonfuls, and then placed it on the table, from which she shortly afterward saw Mrs. Maybrick remove it and take it into the dressing-room, the door of which was not shut, and then return with it into the bedroom and replace it on the table. Nurse Gore thought she did this in a stealthy way. It must be remembered that Nurse Gore was naturally suspicious, as is shown by the fact that on two previous occasions she suggested suspicions with regard to changes in medicines by Mrs. Maybrick, which on analysis were proved to be free from arsenic. When the patient, a short time afterward, awoke, Mrs. Maybrick came into the bedroom again and _removed_ the bottle from the table and placed it on the washstand, where there were only the ordinary jugs and basins, and there left it. Nurse Gore’s usual suspicions were aroused and she gave the patient none of it, nor did Mrs. Maybrick ask her to give him any. When Nurse Gore was relieved by Nurse Callery the next morning (Friday, the 10th), at 11 o’clock, she called her attention to it and asked her to take _a sample of it_, which Callery did, and put it into an ordinary medicine bottle, which Nurse Gore gave her for the purpose. Nurse Gore left the bottle on the washstand where Mrs. Maybrick had placed it. Nurse Gore did not mention the circumstance to Dr. Humphreys when he came to see the patient at 8:30 A.M., nor to Michael Maybrick, whose attention she directed to a bottle of brandy instead, which on analysis was found harmless; and she then went into Liverpool and saw the matron, and on her return to the house at 2 o’clock told Callery to throw away the sample in accordance with the matron’s orders, which Callery did. The bottle in which that sample was taken was not specially identified, though it must have remained on the premises. It ought to have been produced, because, if arsenic was detected in the sample, the bottle of Valentine’s meat juice would have been identified by that means, and it would have been shown that the arsenic was in the meat juice which Mrs. Maybrick had taken into the dressing-room. On the other hand, as all the bottles which were in the house were analyzed and found free of arsenic, there is negative evidence that there was no arsenic in the sample taken.

MISDIRECTION IN EXCLUDING CORROBORATION OF PRISONER’S STATEMENT

Now the serious, most serious, consideration of counsel is asked for in comparing the evidence of these three witnesses--Gore, Callery, and Michael Maybrick--as given at the coroner’s inquest, as it appears in the coroner’s depositions, at the magisterial inquiry, as it appears in the magistrates’ depositions, and as given at the trial. It will be seen that there are great discrepancies as to the place in the room from which Michael Maybrick took the half-used bottle in which Mr. Davies, the analyst, subsequently detected one-tenth of a grain of arsenic in solution. It is suggested that Mr. Michael’s evidence at the inquest is the true account of where he got the bottle, and that his evidence at the trial is _cooked_, to suit the evidence of Gore, _and that the identity of the bottle is not established_. The statement, which in her statement to the jury Mrs. Maybrick said she was prevented by the policeman from making to Mrs. Briggs, the moment that person told her about arsenic being found in the meat juice, was communicated by Mrs. Maybrick at once to her solicitors, Mr. Arnold and Richard Cleaver; and it is submitted that it was a _misdirection_ of the judge to exclude their evidence in corroboration of such a material and important fact in her favor, _and a misdirection in refusing to allow corroboration in that way_ of what was in evidence, and did corroborate it--thereby constituting a matter which the jury should have had before them, as having a bearing on her statement.

MISDIRECTIONS TO JURY TO DRAW ILLEGAL INFERENCES

The judge referred to the Valentine’s meat-juice incident, the most vital point in the trial, in the following extraordinary manner at the end of his summing-up:

“I may say this, however: supposing you find a man dying of arsenic, _and it is proved_ that a person put arsenic in his plate, and if he gives an explanation which you do not consider satisfactory--that is a very strong question to be considered--how far it goes, what its logical value is, I am not prepared to say--I could not say, and unless I had to write my verdict I should not say how I should deal with the verdict; but being no juryman, but only a judge, I can only say this, it is a matter for your serious consideration.”

It is submitted that this was a _gross misdirection_ and _a cruel taunt_ to _drive the jury into finding a verdict_ against the prisoner upon that ground, _and it is submitted that so monstrously unfair an utterance can not be found in the reports of any summing-up by any judge in any criminal case_. See also another _misdirection_ where the judge read the examination of Nurse Gore and omitted reference to the sample, but said of the bottle, “In point of fact, _it remained where it was_ until taken away by Mr. Michael Maybrick,” when it is in evidence that Nurse Callery had taken a sample of it during the eighteen hours it remained on the washstand, and that others beside Mrs. Maybrick had access to it.

It is submitted that, apart from the question of the identity of the bottle, there was no evidence, except Mrs. Maybrick’s statement, that she had put anything into the bottle, which justified Mr. Justice Stephen in using the words, “He had a small taste of it _before_ it was poisoned,” inasmuch as, except Mrs. Maybrick’s own voluntary statement that she had put a powder into a bottle of meat juice, there was nothing to show that the arsenic, detected by Mr. Davies in the bottle he analyzed, had not been in the bottle when Edwin Maybrick gave it to Nurse Gore and which she opened when she gave the patient “one or two spoonfuls.”

Another _misdirection_ in reference to the meat-juice incident will be found in the summing-up in the words:

“It has a sort of very remote bearing upon the statement which she made on Monday.”

Instead of “a sort of very remote bearing,” it was a _matter of the greatest importance_ that it should be shown that _at the very instant_ she heard that arsenic had been found in some meat juice, before even the inquest, _and before any arsenic had been found in the body_, she should have attempted to tell Mrs. Briggs that she had put a powder into some meat juice, but did not know what it was; and, in connection with this, the attention of counsel is called to the fact that Mr. Justice Stephen _refused to allow evidence showing that she had made this statement from the very first_.

MISDIRECTIONS REGARDING THE MEDICAL TESTIMONY

As to the cause of James Maybrick’s death, there was a most remarkable conflict of medical opinion. It was not until the post-mortem examination, held on Monday, the 13th of May, by Drs. Carter and Humphreys (the medical men who had attended the deceased during his illness), and Dr. Barron, that the cause of death was ascertained, and it was then found to be exhaustion, caused by gastro-enteritis or acute inflammation of the stomach and intestines, which, in their opinion, had been set up by an irritant poison, but might have been set up by his getting wet through.

These doctors agreed that by the phrase “irritant poison” they meant any unwholesome food or drink.

Up to the time of death the doctors, Messrs. Humphreys and Carter, had supposed and treated the patient for dyspepsia, notwithstanding that suggestions had been made to them by Michael Maybrick that the patient was being poisoned; and they said in their evidence that _but for the discovery of arsenic on the premises, they would have given a certificate of death from natural causes_.

At the post-mortem examination they selected such portions of the body for analysis as they considered necessary, including, among other things, the stomach and its contents; and the analyst employed by the police (Mr. Davies) _found no arsenic in the stomach or its contents_, and was unable to discover any weighable traces of arsenic in any other portions of the body.

About three weeks afterward the body was, by order of the Home Secretary, exhumed, and fresh portions of it were taken for analysis, some of which were examined by Mr. Davies and other parts by Dr. Stevenson, one of the Crown analysts.

In those portions taken at the exhumation, the total result of the search for arsenic in the body was that Mr. Davies actually found unweighable arsenic, 2/100 of a grain, in the liver, and Dr. Stevenson 76/1000 of a grain in the liver and 15/1000 in the intestines, making, when all added together, the total amount as found by Mr. Davies and Dr. Stevenson about one-tenth of a grain, made up of minute fractional portions of one-hundredths and one-thousandths.

It was shown in evidence that the smallest fatal dose of arsenic ever recorded was two grains, which was in the case of a woman, and who presumably was not an arsenic-eater.

It was shown in evidence that in the year 1888 Mrs. Maybrick had asked Dr. Hopper (who was at that time, and had been for many years, their regular medical attendant) to speak to Mr. Maybrick and prevent him taking certain medicines, which were doing him harm; that early in March she made the same appeal to Dr. Humphreys, suggesting at the time that Mr. Maybrick was taking a _white powder_, which she thought was strychnin.

At the magisterial inquiry Dr. Humphreys stated that Mrs. Maybrick had, on the occasion of his being called in to the patient on the 28th of April, also spoken to him about her husband taking this white powder, and that in consequence of this he asked Mr. Maybrick about taking strychnin and nux vomica.

Counsel will find proof, in the evidence given at the trial by Dr. Hopper, Mr. Heaton, Nicholas Bateson, Esq., Capt. Richard Thompson, Thomas Stansell, and Sir James Poole, ex-Mayor of Liverpool, as to the arsenic habit of James Maybrick and his opportunities for obtaining the drug. [To which must now be added the statutory declaration of Valentine Charles Blake, son of the late Sir Valentine Blake, M.P., that he, about two months prior to Mr. Maybrick’s death, had procured him 150 grains of arsenic.] It may be stated here that from the appearance of the little bottles in which the white arsenic was found, they had been in use for a long time and were such as would be found as sample bottles in the offices of business houses to which it is unlikely Mrs. Maybrick would have access.

It is submitted that the discovery of such a tiny quantity of arsenic in the body of a man addicted to such extraordinary habits might reasonably be accounted for by those habits.

CONFLICT OF MEDICAL OPINION

The conflict of medical opinion which was exhibited on this trial arose upon the point as to whether arsenic had been the cause of the gastro-enteritis, of which it was admitted that the man died.

There was _no_ conflict of medical opinion on the facts that the quantity found in the body _was insufficient to cause death_, nor that gastro-enteritis might be set up by a vast variety of things besides arsenic--in fact, by any impure food or by excessive alcohol or by getting wet through. It was shown in evidence that Mr. Maybrick got wet through at the Wirrall Races on the 27th of April, and that he afterward went in his wet clothes to dinner at a friend’s on the other side of the Mersey.

The conflict of medical opinion amounted to this, that the Crown called Drs. Carter and Humphreys, who both admitted that _they had never previously attended a case of arsenical poisoning, nor had ever before attended a post-mortem examination of a person whose death had been attributed to arsenic_--in short, that they had had no experience whatever. The Crown also called Dr. Stevenson (who had not attended the deceased, but had conducted the analysis of parts of the body) as an expert in poisoning, and he said, as to the symptoms during life: “_There is no distinctive diagnostic symptom of arsenical poisoning._ The diagnostic thing is finding the arsenic.”

The Crown also had Dr. Barron, who had attended the post-mortem, and who expressed himself unable to say that arsenic was the cause of the gastro-enteritis.

These witnesses, it may be observed, gave their evidence both as to the symptoms during life and as to the appearances at the post-mortem _before_ the medical evidence for the defense had been called.

The witnesses called for the defense had none of them attended the deceased, but were called as experts in poisoning, viz., Dr. Tidy, a Crown analyst, Dr. Macnamara, and Professor Paul, who all gave positive evidence that neither the symptoms during life nor the appearance after death were such as _could be attributed to arsenical poisoning_; that, in fact, they pointed _away from_, instead of toward, arsenic being the cause of death.

The evidence of these witnesses was summarized very fairly by Mr. Justice Stephen.

In the face of such a conflict of medical opinion, it is submitted that Mr. Justice Stephen should have refused to allow the jury to return any verdict of guilty at all.

MISDIRECTIONS AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH

On the first day of his summing-up, however, Mr. Justice Stephen told the jury as to the law under which they were to return their verdict: “You have been told that if you are not satisfied in your minds about poisoning--if you think he died from some other disease--then the case is not made out against the prisoner. It is a necessary step--it is _essential_ to this charge--that the man _died of poison_, and the poison suggested is arsenic. This is the question you have to consider, and it must be the foundation of a judgment unfavorable to the prisoner that he died of arsenic.”

It is submitted that Mr. Justice Stephen _misdirected_ the jury when he told them to satisfy their minds whether he died from any other disease, inasmuch as the only question before the jury was whether _the cause of death was arsenic_.

“The question for you is by what the illness was caused. Was it caused by arsenic or by some other means?”

It is submitted that that is a _misdirection_. It might have been put to a coroner’s jury, but it was not a question which should have been put to a jury at a criminal trial.

It is submitted that he _misdirected_ the jury in not also telling them that it was _essential_ to a verdict unfavorable to the prisoner that the arsenic of which he died _had been administered by her_, and also in not telling the jury that it was essential to a verdict unfavorable to the prisoner that, if she had administered any, she had done it with intent to destroy life.

MISDIRECTION TO IGNORE MEDICAL TESTIMONY

Mr. Justice Stephen then proceeded: “Now, let us see what the doctors say. Some say death was caused by arsenic, and others that it was not by arsenic--that he died of gastro-enteritis”; and he spoke of the medical evidence in a way which amounted to a direction to the jury that they were to treat it as _tainted with subtle partisanship_, and as evidence to which it was not necessary for them to attach _serious importance_. He, in fact, stated, and in so doing _misdirected_ the jury, that though it was essential to a verdict unfavorable to the prisoner that he died of arsenic, that question was one which they, the jury, could come to _their own opinion about, without taking into consideration the opinion of the medical experts, who had positively stated that arsenic was not the cause of death_. In other words, he directed the jury that, as the medical experts could not agree that the cause of death was arsenical poisoning, it was for them to decide that question from their own “_knowledge of human nature_.”

On the second day of the summing-up the judge told the jury (and it is submitted that it contains _gross misdirections_): “You must consider the case as _a mere medical case_, in which you are to decide whether the man did or did not die of arsenic according to the medical evidence. You must not consider it as _a mere chemical case_, in which you decide whether the man died from arsenic which was discovered as the result of a chemical analysis. You must decide it as _a great, high, and important case_, involving in itself not only medical and chemical questions, but embodying in itself _a most highly important moral question_--and by that term, moral question, I do not mean a question of what is right and wrong in a moral point of view, but questions in which human nature enters and in which _you must rely on your knowledge of human nature_ in determining the resolution you arrive at.

“You have, in the first place, to consider--far be it from me to exclude or try to get others to exclude from their own minds what I must feel myself vividly conscious of--the evidence in this matter. I think every human being in this case must feel vividly conscious of what you have to consider, but I had almost better say you ought not to consider, for fear you might consider it too much, the horrible nature of the inquiry in which you are engaged. I feel that it is a dreadful thing that you are deliberately considering whether you are to convict that woman of really as horribly dreadful a crime as ever any poor wretch who stood in the dock was accused of. If she is guilty--I am saying if my object is rather to heighten your feeling of the solemnity of the circumstances, and in no way to prevent you from feeling as you do feel, and as you ought to feel. I could say a good many other things about the awful nature of the charge, but I do not think it will be necessary to do any one thing. Your own hearts must tell you what it is for a person _to go on administering poison_ to a helpless, sick man, upon whom she has already inflicted a dreadful injury--an injury fatal to married life; the person who could do such a thing as that must be destitute of the least trace of human feeling.” And further on: “We have to consider this not in an unfeeling spirit--far from it--but in the spirit of people resolved to solve _by intellectual means an intellectual problem of great difficulty_.”

Mr. Justice Stephen, in short, instead of putting to the jury for separate answers each of the following three questions:

1. Did this man die of arsenic?

2. Did Mrs. Maybrick administer that arsenic?

3. Did she do it feloniously?

invited them to return a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty” upon a direction of law, wherein he told them that they were to decide it as _an intellectual problem_, on the question which, it is submitted, can be formulated thus:

“Might this man have died of arsenic notwithstanding the opinion of the medical experts that he did _not_ die of arsenic?” And the jury answered “Yes.”

It is submitted that this was _a gross misdirection_.

It may be interesting and applicable to quote from a paper read by Sir Fitzjames Stephen himself at the Science Association in 1884: “It is not to be denied that, so long as great ignorance exists on matters of physical and medical science in all classes, physicians will occasionally have to submit to the mortification of seeing not only the jury, but the bar and bench itself, receive with scornful incredulity or with self-satisfied ignorance evidence which ought to be received with respect and attention.” How prophetic this was as exemplified by his own attitude in this trial need not be pointed out.

MISRECEPTION OF EVIDENCE

Under the head of Misreception of Evidence may be classed the observations of the judge, where, apparently in order to prevent the jury from being influenced _in favor of the prisoner_, owing to the small quantity of arsenic found in the body of the deceased, he mentioned _an instance of a dog_ being poisoned, in the body of which, though it had taken a large number of grains of arsenic, no arsenic was found after its death. The judge, in other words, turned himself into a witness for the prosecution. The unfairness to the prisoner of such a course is obvious. Had the judge been an ordinary witness he might have been cross-examined to show, _e.g._, that arsenic _passes away from the body of a dog much more quickly than from that of a man_, or that the circumstances as to time and quantity taken were such as to prove that there was no analogy between the two cases. As the matter stands, the judge’s recollection of an experiment _on a dog_, which had been made many years before, was meant to rebut a proposition much relied on by the defense, viz., that the small quantity of arsenic found in the body of the deceased was consistent with the view that he was _in the habit of taking arsenic_, rather than with the case for the Crown that he had been intentionally poisoned.

CRUEL MISSTATEMENT BY THE CORONER

The inquest was formally opened by taking the evidence of the identification of the deceased by his brother, Michael Maybrick, and then adjourned for a fortnight, the coroner announcing that there had been a post-mortem examination by Dr. Humphreys, and that the result of that examination was that poison was found in the stomach of the deceased in such quantities as to justify further examination; that the stomach of the deceased, and its contents, would meanwhile be chemically analyzed, and on the result of that analysis would depend the question whether or not criminal proceedings against some person would follow. Now the announcement that “poison had been found in the stomach of the deceased” was _contrary to fact_, and in consequence of this _cruel misstatement_ the proceedings caused an immense amount of popular excitement and prejudice against the accused, who, being too ill to be removed, remained at Battlecrease House, in charge of the police, till the following Saturday morning, the 18th May, when a sort of court inquiry was opened in Mrs. Maybrick’s bedroom by Colonel Bidwell, one of the county magistrates.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The evidence of Dr. Arthur Richard Hopper, who had been Mr. and Mrs. Maybrick’s medical adviser for about seven years, was taken. He had not attended Mr. Maybrick during his last illness, but spoke about Mrs. Maybrick having asked him the year before to check her husband from taking _dangerous drugs_, and that Mr. Maybrick had admitted to him that he used to dose himself with anything his friends recommended, and _that he was used to the taking of arsenic_.

Dr. Richard Humphreys spoke as to the symptoms of the illness and his prescriptions, and that he had not suspected poisoning until it was suggested to him and his colleague, Dr. Carter, and that he had _himself administered arsenic_ to the deceased, in the form of Fowler’s solution, on the Sunday or Monday before death, and that he refused _a certificate of death only because arsenic had been found on the premises_.

Dr. William Carter spoke of being called the Tuesday before death, and he agreed with Dr. Humphreys that an irritant poison, most probably arsenic, was the cause of death.

Dr. Alexander Barron gave evidence to the effect that he was unable to ascertain _any particular poison_.

Mr. Edward Davies, the analyst, was called, and gave evidence to the effect that he had found _no weighable arsenic_ in the portions of the body selected at the post-mortem, but that he had subsequently _found one fiftieth of a grain of arsenic_ in a part of the liver, nothing in the _stomach or its contents, but traces, not weighable_, in the intestines, and that he had found arsenic in some of the bottles and things found in the house after death and in the Valentine’s meat juice.

The first issue which the jury at the trial had to determine was whether it was proved beyond _reasonable_ doubt that the deceased died from arsenical poisoning.

Mr. Justice Stephen, in his summing-up, put this issue to the jury in the following words:

“It is _essential_ to this charge that the man _died_ of arsenic. This question must be the foundation of a verdict unfavorable to the prisoner, that he _died of arsenic_.”

It must be assumed that this was a question exclusively for medical experts, notwithstanding which the judge, in summing up, told the jury:

“You must not consider this _as a mere medical case_, in which you are to decide whether the man _did_ or _did not die of arsenic poisoning according to the medical evidence_. You must _not consider it as a mere chemical case_, in which you decide whether the man _died from arsenic which was discovered as the result of a chemical analysis_. You must decide it as a _great and highly important case_, involving in itself not only medical and chemical questions, but involving in itself a most highly important _moral question_.”

MAYBRICK DIED A NATURAL DEATH

Dr. Humphreys gave it as his opinion that the appearances at the post-mortem were _consistent with congestion_ of the stomach not _necessarily caused by an irritant poison_, and that the symptoms during life were also consistent with congestion not caused by an irritant poison, but with acute inflammation of the stomach and intestines, produced by any cause whatever, and which would produce similar pathological results. He thought death was caused by some irritant poison, most likely arsenic, but he _would not like to swear that it was_. Dr. Humphreys’ evidence, therefore, amounted to this, that the deceased died from gastro-enteritis, a natural disease, attributable to a variety of causes, and that, apart from the suggestions already referred to, he would have certified accordingly.

Dr. Humphreys’ evidence was confirmed by that of Dr. Carter, who stated he came to the same conclusion as Dr. Humphreys, “but in a more positive manner.” Dr. Carter had assisted at the post-mortem examination, besides being in close attendance on the deceased for the five days preceding his death, which he attributed to taking some irritant wine or decomposed meat, or to some grave error of diet; and when pressed as to whether he had any reason to suppose the article taken was poison, he explained that he did, but that by poison he meant something that was bad--it might be tinned meat, which the deceased had partaken of at the race dinner, or wine, or something which had set up gastritis. This witness’s account of the post-mortem was that they _found no arsenic_, but merely evidence of an irritant poison in the stomach and intestines, probably arsenic. Dr. Carter’s evidence was therefore _against poisoning by arsenic_ being conclusively accepted as the cause of death, _although subsequently he said he had no doubt it was arsenic_.

Dr. Barron’s evidence as to the cause of death was that he considered from the post-mortem appearances that death was due to inflammation of the stomach and bowels, due to some irritant poison, but that he was unable to point to the particular poison, apart from what he heard; and, pressed as to what he meant by poison, the witness stated that poison might be bad tinned meat, bad fish, mussels, or generally bad food of any kind, or alcohol taken in excess.

THE CHIEF WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION

Dr. Stevenson expressed his opinion that the deceased died from arsenic poisoning, giving as his reasons that the main symptoms were those attributable to an irritant poison, and that they more closely resembled those of arsenic than of any other irritant of which he knew. He stated that he had known a great number of cases of poisoning by arsenic in every shape, and that he acted officially for the Home Office and Treasury in such cases. Dr. Stevenson was the witness of the prosecution, and gave his evidence _before_ he had heard the evidence for the defense.

Dr. Stevenson also stated that the general symptoms of arsenic poisoning appeared _within half an hour_ of taking some article of food or medicine, and were nausea, with a sinking sensation of the stomach; vomiting, which, unlike that produced by any ordinary article of food or drink that disagrees, afforded as a rule no relief and often came on again; that there was most commonly pain in the stomach, diarrhea; after a time the region of the stomach becomes tender under pressure, the patient becomes restless, often bathed in perspiration; the throat is complained of; pain in the throat, extending down to the stomach; the tongue becomes very foul in appearance and furred. There is not a bad smell as in the ordinary dyspeptic tongue, a rapid and feeble pulse, thirst, great straining at stool, vomits and evacuations frequently stained with blood. Of fourteen symptoms of arsenic poisoning named by Dr. Stevenson, Mr. Maybrick exhibited _only one_, according to the testimony of Dr. Stevenson. With the exception of the foul tongue with malodorous breath, none of these symptoms coincided with those given by Drs. Humphreys and Carter, who were in attendance on the patient, while Dr. Stevenson _never saw him_.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE

Then came the evidence for the defense, rebutting the presumption that death was caused by arsenic. First in order being Dr. Tidy, the examiner for forensic medicine at the London Hospital, and also, like Dr. Stevenson, employed as an analyst by the Home Office. This witness stated that, within a few years, close upon _forty cases of arsenical poisoning_ had come before him, which enabled him to indicate the recurring and distinctive indications formed in such cases.

Dr. Tidy describes the symptoms of arsenic poisoning as purging and vomiting in a very excessive degree; a burning pain in the abdomen, more marked in the pit of the stomach, and increased considerably by pressure, usually associated with pain in the calves of the legs; then, after a certain interval, suffusion of the eyes--the eyes fill with tears; great irritability about the eyelids; frequent intolerance of light.

Dr. Tidy added that there were three symptoms, such as cramps, tenesmus, straining, more or less present, but the prominent symptoms were those he had mentioned, especially the sickness, violent, incessant sickness, and that poisoning by arsenic was extremely simple to detect. Further, that he (Dr. Tidy) had known cases where one or more of the four symptoms mentioned had been absent, but he had never known a case in which all four symptoms were absent; and stated that he had followed every detail of the Maybrick case so far as he could, and had read all the depositions before the coroner and magistrate, and the account of the vomiting did not agree with his description of excessive and persistent vomiting, and was certainly not that kind of vomiting that takes place in a typical case of arsenical poisoning.

Dr. Tidy further stated that, taking the whole of the symptoms, they undoubtedly were _not_ those of arsenical poisoning, nor did they point to such, but were perfectly consistent with death from gastro-enteritis, not caused by arsenical poisoning at all; and that, had he been called upon to advise, he should have said it was undoubtedly not arsenical poisoning, and that his view had been very much strengthened, to use his own words, by the result of the post-mortem, which distinctly pointed _away_ from arsenic.

Then there was the evidence, in the same direction, of Dr. Macnamara, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, and its representative on the General Medical Council of the Kingdom, which is summed up in the general question put to him and his answer:

Question: Now, bringing your best judgment to bear on the matter--you having been present at the whole of this trial and heard the evidence--in your opinion, was this death from arsenical poisoning?

Answer: _Certainly not_.

In cross-examination Dr. Macnamara stated that, to the best of his judgment, Mr. Maybrick died of gastro-enteritis, not connected with arsenical poisoning, and which might have been caused by the wetting at the Wirrall races.

Dr. Paul, professor of medical jurisprudence at University College, Liverpool, and pathologist at the Royal Infirmary, stated he had made and assisted at something like three or four thousand post-mortem examinations, and that the symptoms in the present case agreed with cases of _gastro-enteritis pure and simple_; that the finding of the arsenic in the body, in the quantity mentioned in the evidence, was quite consistent with the case of a man who had taken arsenic medicinally, but _who had left it off for some time, even for several months_.

A TOXICOLOGICAL STUDY

So positive were Dr. Tidy and Dr. Macnamara of their position as to the effect of arsenic on the human system, that they subsequently published “A Toxicological Study of the Maybrick Case,” thus challenging medical critics the world over to refute them. From this study the following, in tabular form, is taken, in order to contrast the symptoms from which Mr. Maybrick suffered with those which, it will be generally admitted, are the usual symptoms of arsenical poisoning:

ARSENICAL POISONING MR. MAYBRICK’S CASE

Countenance tells of severe | Not so described. suffering. | | Very great depression an early | Not present until toward symptom. | the end. | Fire-burning pain in stomach. | Not present. | Pain in stomach increased on | Pressure produced no pressure. | pain. | Violent and uncontrollable vomiting | “Hawking rather than vomiting;” independent of ingesta. | irritability of stomach | increased by ingesta. | Vomiting not relieved by such | Vomiting controlled by treatment as was used in Mr. | treatment. Maybrick’s case. | | During vomiting burning heat and | Not present. constriction felt in throat. | | Blood frequently present in | Not present. vomited and purged matter. | | Intensely painful cramps in | Not present. calves of the legs. | | Pain in urinating. | Not present. | Purging and tenesmus an early | Not present until twelfth day symptom. | of illness, and then once | only. | Great intolerance of light. | Not present. | Eyes suffused and smarting. | Not present. | Eyeballs inflamed and reddened. | Not present. | Eyelids intensely itchy. | Not present. | Rapid and painful respiration | Not present. an early symptom. | | Pulse small, frequent, irregular, | Not so described until and imperceptible from the | approach of death. outset. | | Arsenic easily detected in urine | Not detected, _although looked and fæces. | for_. | Tongue fiery red in its entirety, | Tongue not red; “simply filthy.” or fiery red at tip and margins | and foul toward base. | | Early and remarkable reduction | Temperature normal up to day of temperature generally. | preceding death.

“Maybrick’s symptoms are as unlike poisoning by arsenic _as it is possible for a case of dyspepsia to be. Everything distinctive of arsenic is absent._ The urine contained no arsenic. The symptoms are not even consistent with arsenical poisoning.

“Regarding the treatment adopted by the medical men, and more especially Dr. Carter’s action with regard to the meat juice, we are justified in assuming that the doctors themselves, even _after_ a certain suggestion had been made to them, did not come to the conclusion that the illness of Maybrick was the result of arsenic.

“It is noteworthy (1) that none was found in the stomach; (2) that Maybrick was in the habit of taking drugs, and among them arsenic.

“Thus two conclusions are forced upon us:

“(1) That the arsenic found in Maybrick’s body may have been taken in merely medicinal doses, and that probably it was so taken.

“(2) That the arsenic may have been taken a considerable time before either his death or illness, and that probably it was so taken.

“Our toxicological studies have led us to the three following conclusions:

“(1) That the symptoms from which Maybrick suffered are consistent with any form of acute dyspepsia, but that they point _away_ from, rather than toward, arsenic as the cause of such dyspeptic condition.

“(2) That the post-mortem appearances are indicative of inflammation, but that they emphatically point away from arsenic as the cause of death.

“(3) That the analysis fails to find more than _one-twentieth_ part of a fatal dose of arsenic, and that the quantity so found _is perfectly consistent with its medicinal ingestion_.”

THE MEDICAL WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION

Such was the complete evidence of the cause of death. The quantity of arsenic found in the body was _one-tenth_ of a grain, and upon this evidence rests the first issue the jury had to consider, namely, whether it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died from arsenical poisoning.

As to the value of the medical testimony on both sides, Dr. Humphreys _admitted that he never attended a case of arsenical poisoning in his life_, nor of any irritant poison, and that he would have given a certificate of death from natural causes had he not been told of arsenic found in the meat juice.

Dr. Carter laid _no claim to any previous experience of poisoning by arsenic_, and was unable to say from the post-mortem examination that arsenic was the cause of death, which he could only attribute to an irritant of some kind, and he admitted that it was the evidence of Mr. Davies, as to the finding of arsenic in the body, which led him to the conclusion that arsenical poisoning had taken place.

Dr. Barron did not see the patient, but assisted at the post-mortem examination, and stated that, judging by the appearances and apart from what he had heard, he was unable to identify arsenic as the particular poison which had set up the inflammation.

Now, assuming for a moment that this issue as to the cause of death rested entirely upon the uncontradicted testimony of these three doctors called for the prosecution, Humphreys, Carter, and Barron, the jury would not have been justified in coming to the conclusion that there was _no reasonable doubt_ that arsenic poisoning was the cause of death. The doctors themselves had admitted that they were unable to arrive at that conclusion, apart from the evidence that arsenic was found in the body. _The idea of arsenical poisoning never occurred to them from the symptoms, until the use of arsenic was first suggested._

_The doctors could not say that_ death resulted from arsenic poisoning, _and yet the jury have actually found that it did_, in the face of the opinions of three eminent medical experts, who say it did not.

Even if these doctors had never been called at all for the defense, the jury were yet not justified in taking the evidence of Drs. Humphreys, Carter, and Barron, in the terms which they themselves never intended to pledge themselves to, namely, to exclude _a reasonable doubt_ that death was due to arsenic.

Let us consider the position of the medical men called for the defense: Drs. Tidy, Macnamara, and Paul _are the highest authorities on medical and chemical jurisprudence in Great Britain_. No sort of hesitation or doubt attached to the opinions of any of them, and their experience of post-mortem examinations was referred to, as including in the practise of Dr. Tidy, the Crown analyst, some forty cases of arsenic poisoning alone. Dr. Macnamara indorsed the opinion of Dr. Tidy. In addition to that, there was on the same side the evidence of Dr. Paul, professor of medical jurisprudence and toxicology at University College, Liverpool, with an experience of three or four thousand post-mortem examinations. It is impossible to conjecture _by what process of reasoning_ the jury could have come to the conclusion, upon the evidence before them, that it _was beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Maybrick_ had met his death by arsenical poisoning.

_This volume of evidence before the jury pointed not only to a doubt as to the cause of death, but to a reasonable_ conclusion that it was _not due to arsenical poisoning. It is inconceivable that the jury should have_ found as they did, _except under the mandatory direction of the judge, which left them apparently no alternative but to substitute his opinions and judgment for_ their own, so that on that _issue the finding was not so much the finding of the jury, to which the prisoner was by law entitled, but the finding of_ the judge, _of whom the jury, abrogating their own functions, became the mere mouthpieces_.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF ARSENIC

The consideration of the facts as given in evidence also covers the second issue which the jury had to determine, namely, whether, if arsenic poisoning was the cause of death, it was the prisoner who administered it with criminal intent. The evidence on this point was most inconclusive.

_No one saw the prisoner administer arsenic to her husband._

She had no opportunity of giving her husband anything since one or two o’clock on Wednesday afternoon (8th of May), after which she was closely watched by the nurses. _It was not shown that any food or drink administered to the deceased by the prisoner contained arsenic._ It was not shown that the prisoner _had placed arsenic in any food or drink intended for her husband’s use_. Nor, in fact, was any found, although searched for, in any food or medicine of which Mr. Maybrick partook during his illness, _except the arsenic in Fowler’s solution, prescribed and administered by Dr. Humphreys himself_.

THE FLY-PAPER EPISODE

The episode of the fly-papers may be considered as one of the most important factors in the whole case. It supplies, so to speak, the only link between Mrs. Maybrick and arsenic, which, it is well known, forms their chief ingredient. It was proved she had purchased the fly-papers without any attempt at concealment, and, while soaking, they were exposed to everybody’s view, quite openly, in a room accessible to every inmate of the house. It was not suggested that Mrs. Maybrick bought the other large quantity of arsenic, between seventy and eighty grains, found in the house after death, _and no one came forward to speak to any such purchase_. It was found in the most unlikely places for Mrs. Maybrick to have selected, if she had intended to use it, and the evidence against her on this point is of _a particularly vague and indefinite character_. [Justice Stephen, commenting on the quantity of arsenic found on the premises, himself observed that it was a remarkable fact in the case, and which, it appeared to him, told most favorably than otherwise for the prisoner, as in the whole case, from first to last, there was no evidence at all that she had bought any poison, or had anything to do with the procuring of any, with the exception of those fly-papers.] The accusation rests entirely _on suspicion, insinuation, and circumstantial suggestions; not one tittle of evidence was adduced in support of it_, and yet the jury came to the conclusion, without allowing of any doubt in the matter, _that it was her hand which administered the poison_.

HOW MRS. MAYBRICK ACCOUNTS FOR THE FLY-PAPERS

On this question the prisoner made a statement. She accounted for the soaking of the fly-papers upon grounds which were not only probable, but were corroborated by other incidents. That she was in the habit of using arsenic as a face wash is shown by the prescription in 1878, before her marriage, and of which the chemist made an entry in his books, which came to light, after the trial, under the following circumstances:

Among the few articles which Mr. Maybrick’s brothers allowed to be taken from the house, they being the legatees of the deceased, was a Bible which had belonged to Mrs. Maybrick’s father, and which, with some other relics, came into the hands of Mrs. Maybrick’s mother, the Baroness von Roques, who, months afterward, happening to turn over the leaves of the Bible, came across a small piece of printed paper, evidently mislaid there, being a New York chemist’s label, with a New York doctor’s prescription written on the back, for an arsenical face wash “for external use, to be applied with a sponge twice a day.”

This prescription contained Fowler’s solution of arsenic, chlorate of potash, rose-water, and rectified spirits; and was again made up, on the 17th of July, 1878, by a French chemist, Mr. L. Brouant, 81 Avenue D’Eylau, Paris. It corroborates Mrs. Maybrick’s statement at the trial that the fly-papers were being soaked for the purpose alleged by her. If Mrs. Maybrick had obtained or purchased the seventy or eighty grains of arsenic found in the house after the death, it is inconceivable that she should have openly manufactured more arsenic with the fly-papers. At the time she prepared the statement she had reason to believe that the prescription had been lost. She knew, therefore, it would be impossible for her to corroborate her story about the face wash, and she could have omitted that incident altogether, and contented herself by saying that she learned the preparation while at school in Germany.

[In further explanation I desire to state that during my girlhood, as well as subsequently, I suffered occasionally, due to gastric causes, from an irritation of the skin. One of my schoolmates, observing that it troubled me a good deal, offered me a face lotion of her own preparation, explaining that it was much more difficult to obtain an arsenical ingredient abroad than in America, and to avoid any consequent annoyance she extracted the necessary small quantity of arsenic by the soaking of fly-papers. I had never had occasion to do so myself, as I had a prescription from Dr. Bay; but when I discovered that I had mislaid or lost this, I recalled the method of my friend, being, however, wholly ignorant of what quantity might be required. The reason why I wanted a cosmetic at this time was that I was going to a fancy dress ball with my husband’s brother, and that my face was at that time in an uncomfortable state of irritation.--F. E. M.]

ADMINISTRATION OF ARSENIC NOT PROVED

Dealing with the question, did Mrs. Maybrick administer the arsenic, there is absolutely no evidence _that she did. It was not for the prisoner to prove her innocence._ She was seen neither to administer the arsenic nor to put it in the food or drink taken by the deceased, and this issue was found against her in the absence of any evidence in support.

INTENT TO MURDER NOT PROVED

Mrs. Maybrick’s statement also bears strongly upon the question of administering with intent to murder. It is equally inconceivable that a guilty woman would have said anything about the white powder in the meat juice. She had nothing to gain by making such a statement, which could only land her in the sea of difficulties without any possible benefit, and here again the probabilities are entirely in her favor. It is beyond a doubt that Mr. Maybrick was in the habit, or had at some time or other been in the habit, of drugging himself with all sorts of medicines, including arsenic, and assumably he had obtained relief from it, or he would not have continued the practise.

Mr. Justice Stephen, in his summing-up, animadverted in very strong terms on the testimony of arsenic being used for cosmetic purposes, although expert chemists had certified to large use of arsenic for such a purpose. An immense degree of speculation must have entered the minds of the jury before they could find as they did, and bridge the gulf between the soaking of the fly-papers and the death of Mr. Maybrick, for it is quite evident that the soaking of the fly-papers was the one connection between the arsenic and the prisoner upon which all the subsequent events turned; and, if that be so, the importance is seen at once of the statement she made regarding that incident, and conclusive evidence as to which was subsequently found in the providentially recovered prescription.

ABSENCE OF CONCEALMENT BY PRISONER

Another remarkable circumstance is the absence of any attempt at concealment on the prisoner’s part. The fly-papers were purchased openly from chemists who knew the Maybricks well, and they were left soaking in such a manner as at once to refute any suggestion of secrecy; and her voluntary statement about the white powder which she placed in the meat juice, as to which there was absolutely no evidence to connect her with its presence there, seems inconsistent with the theory the prosecution attempted to build upon _a number of assumptions of which the accuracy was not proved_.

The question of the prisoner’s guilt was not capable of being reduced to any issue upon which the prosecution could bring to bear direct evidence; the most they were capable of doing was to show that the prisoner had _opportunities_ of administering poison, which she _shared with every individual in the house_; further, that she had arsenic in her possession (and this was an _open secret_, as we have already explained with reference to the fly-papers); and, lastly, that she had the possibility of extracting arsenic in sufficient quantities to cause death, which was, however, extremely doubtful; and then the prosecution tried to complete this indirect evidence by proving that Mr. Maybrick died from arsenic poisoning, _which they signally failed to do_. The strong point of the prosecution, as they alleged, was that a bottle of Valentine’s meat juice had been seen in her hands on the night of Thursday, the 9th of May, and she replaced it in the bedroom, where it was afterward found by Michael Maybrick, and analyzed by Mr. Davis, who found half a grain of “arsenic in solution”; but there was _no direct proof_, such as is absolutely necessary to a conviction in a criminal case, _of the identity of the bottle_ seen in Mrs. Maybrick’s hands and that given to the analyst, and there was evidence that it had remained in the bedroom _within reach of anybody, Mr. Maybrick himself included_, for eighteen hours, and did not until the next day reach the hands of the analyst. These bottles are all alike in appearance, of similar turnip-like shape as the bovril bottles now sold, and it is clear there was more than one, because Dr. Humphreys says in his evidence that on visiting his patient on the 6th of May he found some of the Valentine’s meat extract had made Mr. Maybrick sick, which he was not surprised at, as it often made people sick; while Nurse Gore, speaking of the bottle seen in the hands of Mrs. Maybrick, said it was a _fresh, unused bottle_, which she had herself opened only an hour before.

No evidence was given of what became of the opened bottle, and the presence of the arsenic having already been accounted for, and the fact recorded that the meat juice was not given to Mr. Maybrick, there is nothing to add to what has already been said, except that the account exactly dovetails with the prisoner’s own voluntary statement.

Can any one, closely following the evidence throughout, fail to be impressed with the _inconsistency of Mrs. Maybrick’s conduct in relation to her husband’s illness with a desire to murder him?_ In all recorded cases of poisoning, the utmost precautions to screen the victim from observation have been observed. In the present instance it would seem as if just the reverse object had been aimed at. We find the prisoner _first giving the alarm about the attack_ of illness; first sending for the doctors, brothers, and friends; first suggesting that something taken by her husband, some drug or medicine, was at the bottom of the mischief. We find the very first thing she does is to administer a mustard emetic--the last thing one would have expected if there had been a desire to poison him. If the prisoner _had wished to put everybody in the house, and the doctors themselves, on the scent of poison, she could not have acted differently_.

[See also “Mrs. Maybrick’s Own Analysis of the Meat-Juice Incident,” page 366.]

SOME IMPORTANT DEDUCTIONS FROM MEDICAL TESTIMONY

From Dr. Humphreys’ testimony it appears that, after the days when he was away from the patient, and when Mrs. Maybrick had undisturbed access to her husband, _no symptoms whatever of arsenical poisoning appeared_. If, then, arsenic was administered by Mrs. Maybrick under the doctors’ eyes, without their detecting it, _what value can attach to the testimony of the medical attendants_ as to the cause of death, apart from the post-mortem examination, by which they practically admit _they allowed their judgment to be governed_?

Does not the only alternative present itself that Drs. Humphreys and Carter are driven to the admission: “That the deceased died of arsenical poisoning we deduce, not from the _symptoms during life_, but from the fact that _arsenic was found in the body after death_”?

SYMPTOMS DUE TO POISONOUS DRUGS

From the medical testimony it appears that the following list of _poisonous drugs_ was prescribed and administered to Mr. Maybrick shortly before his death:

April 28, 1899, diluted prussic acid; April 29, Papaine’s iridin; May 3, morphia suppository; May 4, ipecacuanha; May 5, prussic acid; May 6, Fowler’s solution of arsenic; May 7, jaborandi tincture and antipyrin; May 10, sulfonal, cocain, and phosphoric acid.

Also, during the same period, the following were prescribed: bismuth, double doses; nitro-glycerin; cascara; nitro-hydrochloric acid (composed of nux vomica, strychnin, and brucine); Plummer’s pills (containing antimony and calomel); bromide of potassium; tincture of hyoscyamus; tincture of henbane; chlorin.

Now it will be observed that up to May 6, when Fowler’s solution of arsenic was administered, no symptom whatever had been observed _at all compatible with the effects of arsenic_.

The sickness produced by the morphia continued after the taking of arsenic, and down the unfortunate man’s throat prussic acid, papaine, iridin, morphia, ipecacuanha, and arsenic, some of the most powerful drugs known to the pharmacopœia, had found their way by the advice of Dr. Humphreys, in less than a week, while he was told to eat nothing, and allay his thirst with a damp cloth; and the charge of poisoning is made against the prisoner because he is suggested to have had an irritant poison in his stomach, and minute traces of arsenic in some other organs, within five days afterward.

DEATH FROM NATURAL CAUSES

The whole history of the case, from its medical aspect, is consistent with the small quantity of arsenic found in the body being part of that prescribed by Dr. Humphreys, or the remains of that taken by the deceased himself, _there being no particle of evidence to show that he discontinued the habit of drugging himself almost up to the day of his death_. This is also in accord with the evidence of Dr. Carter, who attended at a later period, and, taken as a whole, the evidence of both of these doctors, as well as their treatment of the deceased, points to _death from natural causes_.

PROSECUTION’S DEDUCTIONS FROM POST-MORTEM ANALYSIS MISLEADING

The evidence of the prosecution in connection with the analysis was thoroughly _unreliable and misleading_. Dr. Stevenson’s difficulty was that, while two grains of arsenic was the smallest quantity capable of killing, the analyst had found only one-tenth of a grain, or the twentieth part of the smallest fatal dose, and, in substance, Dr. Stevenson proceeds to argue as follows:

(_a_) I found 0.015 grain of arsenic in 8 ounces of intestines. (There is no record as to what part of the intestines he examined.) I have weighed the intestines of some other person (not Mr. Maybrick), and find their entire weight to be so much. If, then, 8 ounces of Mr. Maybrick’s intestines yield 0.015 grain, the entire intestines (calculated from the weight of some one else’s intestines), had I analyzed them, would have yielded one-eleventh of a grain.

(_b_) Dr. Stevenson then proceeds to argue: “I found 0.026 grain of arsenic in 4 ounces of liver. The entire liver weighed 48 ounces, _therefore the entire liver contained 0.32 grain of arsenic_.”

(_c_) Dr. Stevenson argues further: “The intestines and liver, therefore, may be taken to contain together four-tenths of a grain of arsenic, and, having found four-tenths of a grain, I _assume_ that the body at the time of death _probably contained a fatal dose of arsenic_.”

Such was the deduction Dr. Stevenson arrived at, _necessitating the assumption that arsenic was equally distributed in the intestines and liver_, whereas it is within the _personal knowledge of eminent men_ (such as Drs. Tidy and Macnamara) that arsenic may be found after death _in one portion of the intestines, and not a trace of it in any other part_. That in arsenical poisoning the arsenic may be found in the rectum and in the duodenum, and in no other part, is beyond dispute, and the _fallacy of Dr. Stevenson’s process must be self-evident_.

The witnesses for the prosecution themselves supply the proof of the unequal distribution of the arsenic in the liver.

Mr. Davies calculates the quantity in the whole liver as 0.130 grain.

Dr. Stevenson, in his first experiment, puts it at 0.312 grain, and in his second experiment at 0.278 grain; in other words, Dr. Stevenson finds _double in one experiment_ and considerably _more than double in another experiment, the quantity found by Mr. Davies, and it is upon this glaring miscalculation and discrepancy that the case for the prosecution was made_ to rest, and Mrs. Maybrick was convicted.

But with all this miscalculation the approximate amount of arsenic _can only be swelled up to four-tenths of a grain, less than one-fourth of a fatal dose_, and it was demonstrated that every other part of the body, urine, bile, stomach, contents of stomach, heart, lungs, spleen, fluid from mouth, and even bones, _were all found to be free from arsenic_.

RECAPITULATION OF LEGAL POINTS

The legal points of the case may thus conveniently be recapitulated under the following short heads:

There _was no conclusive_ evidence that Mr. Maybrick died from other than natural causes (the word “conclusive” being used in the sense of _free from doubt_).

There was no conclusive evidence that he died from arsenical poisoning.

There was no evidence that the prisoner administered or attempted to administer arsenic to him.

There was no evidence that the prisoner, if she did administer or attempt to administer arsenic, did so with intent to murder.

The judge, while engaged in his summing-up, placed himself in a position where his mind was open to the influence of public discussion and prejudice, to which was probably attributable the evident change in his summing-up between the first and second days; and he also _assumed facts against the prisoner which were not proved_.

The jury were _allowed to separate_ and frequent places of public resort and entertainment during such summing-up.

The verdict was _against the weight of evidence_.

The jury _did not give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt_ suggested by the disagreement of expert witnesses on a material issue in the case.

The Home Secretary should have remitted the entire sentence by reason of his being satisfied that there existed a _reasonable doubt of her guilt_, which, had it been taken into consideration at the time, would have entitled _her to an acquittal_.

The indictment contained no specific account of felonious administration of poison, and consequently the jury found the prisoner guilty of an offense _for which she was never tried_.

FOOTNOTES:

[6] Mr. Maybrick’s dressing-room.

[7] Later evidence showed that Mr. Maybrick secured as much as 150 grains from one person, only about two months before his death.

Mrs. Maybrick’s Own Analysis

OF THE MEAT-JUICE INCIDENT

I said in my statement to the Court, regarding this meat juice, that: “On Thursday night, the 9th, after Nurse Gore had given my husband beef juice, I went and sat on the bed by the side of him. He complained to me of feeling very sick, very weak, and very depressed, and again implored me to give him a powder, which he had referred to early in the evening and which I had then declined to give him. I was overwrought, terribly anxious, miserably unhappy, and his evident distress utterly unnerved me. He told me the powder would not harm him, and that I could put it in his food. I then consented. My lord, I had not one true or honest friend in the house. I had no one to consult and no one to advise me. I was deposed from my position as mistress in my own house and from the position of attending on my own husband, notwithstanding that he was so ill. Notwithstanding the evidence of nurses and servants, I may say that he wished to have me with him. [This desire was corroborated by the testimony of Nurse Callery.] He missed me whenever I was not with him. Whenever I went out of the room he asked for me, and for four days before he died I was not allowed to give him even a piece of ice without its being taken from my hand. When I found the powder I took it into the inner room, and in pushing through the door I upset the bottle, and, in order to make up the quantity of fluid spilled, I added a considerable quantity of water. On returning to the room I found my husband asleep, and I placed the bottle on the table by the window. When he awoke he had a choking sensation in his throat and vomiting. After that he appeared a little better. As he did not ask for the powder again, and as I was not anxious to give it to him, I removed the bottle from the small table, where it would attract his attention, to the top of the washstand, where he could not see it. There I left it until I believe Mr. Michael Maybrick took possession of it. Until a few minutes before Mr. Bryning made the terrible charge against me, no one in that house had informed me of the fact that a death certificate had been refused, or that a post-mortem examination had taken place, or that there was any reason to suppose that my husband died from other than natural causes. It was only when Mrs. Briggs alluded to the presence of arsenic in the meat juice that I was made aware of the [supposed] nature of the powder my husband had asked me to give him. I then attempted to make an explanation to Mrs. Briggs, such as I am now making to your lordship, when a policeman interrupted the conversation and put a stop to it.”

Some time after my conviction there was found among my effects a prescription for a face wash containing arsenic (the existence of which Justice Stephen in his summing up flouted as an invention of mine to cover an intent to poison). This, together with the fact that on analysis no trace of “fiber” was discovered in the body or in any of the things containing poison found in the house, should remove the “fly-paper incident” from all serious consideration in its bearing on the case (although it was the source of all “suspicions” before death).

There remain only as “circumstantial evidence of guilt” what has come to be known as the “motive,” and the Valentine’s meat-juice incident. The “motive,” however regarded, was surely no incentive to murder, as inasmuch if I wanted to be free there was sufficient evidence in my possession (in the nature of infidelity and cruelty) to secure a divorce, and it was with regard to steps in that direction that I had already taken that I made confession to my husband after our reconciliation, and to which I referred as to the “wrong” I had done him, because of the publicity and ruin to his business it involved. The “motive,” which was introduced into the case in the form of a letter written by me on the 8th of May, in which I said that my husband was “sick unto death,” was made much of by the prosecution, and it led Justice Stephen to say, in his summing-up, “that I could not have known that my husband was dying (except I knew something others did not suspect), inasmuch as the doctors, from the diagnosis, did not consider the case at all serious.” The justice either did not or would not understand (though it was testified to) that the phrase, “sick unto death,” is an American colloquialism, especially of the South, and commonly employed with reference to any illness at all serious. Aside from the fact that all in attendance (save and except the doctors per their medical testimony) did regard it as serious--a witness for the prosecution, Mrs. Briggs, testified that she regarded him on that day as “dangerously ill,” and Mr. Michael Maybrick said that when he saw his brother on the evening of the same day “he was shocked by his appearance”--I may say here that the phrase “sick unto death,” in connection with other causes for apprehension, was prompted by the fact that my husband had told me that very morning that “he thought he was going to die”; and that this was his feeling is conclusively shown by the evidence of Dr. Humphreys at the inquest, when he testified that he had remarked to Mr. Michael Maybrick on this same Wednesday, the 8th of May: “I am not satisfied with your brother, and I will tell you why [not because the symptoms seemed serious to him, it will be observed]. _Your brother tells me he is going to die._”

That I regarded the case as really serious is surely further supported by the fact that, notwithstanding the easy-going attitude of Dr. Humphreys, I had persisted in urging a consultation, which accordingly took place on the 7th. As to what the attending physicians _knew_ or _did not know_ about the medical aspects of the case, I confidently refer the reader to their own remarkable testimony.

There then remains for serious consideration only what is known as the “Valentine meat-juice incident.” Of this I know no more now than is included in my statement at the trial--namely, that at my husband’s urgent, piteous request I placed a powder (which by his direction I took from a pocket in his vest, hanging in the adjoining room, which room until his sickness had been his private bedroom, he having been removed to mine as being larger and more airy) in a bottle of meat juice, no part of the contents of which were given him, and hence at the very most there could only have legally arisen from this act a charge of “intent to poison.”

I do not assume that I can solve a problem that has puzzled so many able minds, but I trust I shall make clear that the prosecution can not acquit itself of the inference of “cooking” up a case against me with reference to this meat-juice incident:

1. At the inquest, only a few days after the occurrence, Nurse Gore testified, “I could and did see _clearly_ what Mrs. Maybrick did with the bottle,” though she failed to tell what she saw; and it is remarkable she was not further questioned on this point. At the magisterial inquiry and trial, _per contra_, she testified that “she [I] pushed the door to conceal (note the animus) her [my] movements”; but on cross-examination she so far corrected herself as to say: “Mrs. Maybrick did _not_ shut the dressing-room door.”

2. When I returned with the bottle to the sick-room, she testified that I placed it on the table in a “_surreptitious manner_,” though this action, according to her own testimony, happened while “she [I] raised her right hand and replaced the bottle on the table, while she [I] was talking to me [her].”

If one wanted to do such an act “surreptitiously,” would one choose the moment of all others when by conversation one is calling attention to oneself? Do not the two things involve a direct contradiction?

3. It is in evidence that an hour after I had placed the bottle on a little table in the window, I returned to the room and removed it from the table to the washstand (where it remained during most of the next day), lest the sight of it should renew Mr. Maybrick’s desire for it, as he had just awakened. Note how this bottle is juggled with by the witnesses for the prosecution.

Michael Maybrick, at the inquest, in answer to the question, “Where did you find the Valentine’s meat juice?” replied: “I found it on a _little table mixed up_ with _several other bottles_.” Note the particularity of this bottle being _mixed up with several other bottles_. Obviously he at this time, only a few days after the event, had a clear picture of the situation in his mind. In corroboration of this testimony that the bottle _he took_ was on the table and _not on the washstand_, there is the testimony of Nurse Callery, who at the inquest stated: “My attention was called by her [Nurse Gore] to a bottle of Valentine’s meat juice, which was on _a table_ in Mr. Maybrick’s room. I took a sample. I don’t know what became of the bottle of meat juice. I saw Mr. Michael Maybrick in the room before going off duty at 4.50 P.M. on Friday, but did not see him take the meat juice away.”

Nurse Gore gave her testimony at the inquest _after_ the two others, and deposed that Mr. Michael Maybrick took the bottle from the _washstand_ where I had placed it, thus contradicting Michael Maybrick, and in a way also Nurse Callery, who testified that Nurse Gore called her attention to a bottle on the _small table_. Obviously this difference introduces _two_ bottles; but this would never answer the prosecution, and accordingly Mr. Michael Maybrick at the trial dropped _the table_ sworn to at the inquest and fell in line with Nurse Gore in so far as to say: “It was standing on the _washstand_, and it was _among some other bottles_.” Note that, while he substitutes the _washstand_ for the _table_, he still clings to the _bottles_--a most important circumstance--as it was indubitably shown that there were on the _washstand_ only the “ordinary basins and jugs” (water pitchers). Obviously Mr. Michael Maybrick had not fully comprehended the purpose of the prosecution in “harmonizing” the testimony with that of Nurse Gore; the “bottles” were too clearly in his mind to be dropped without a distinct effort, and he naturally introduced them again; and, to fit in with the Nurse Gore and the amended Mr. Michael Maybrick evidence, Nurse Callery also changed front at the trial, and the _table_ of her inquest testimony is also turned into a washstand. It is in evidence that as late as the 6th of May my husband took meat juice out of a bottle then in the room, the contents of which, however, did not agree with him, and upon the _order of Dr. Humphreys_ its giving was discontinued, he adding that he was “not surprised,” as it was known not to agree with some people.

Although this was the doctor’s order, Mr. Edwin Maybrick took it upon himself to procure a fresh bottle, and, distinctly against the same order, Nurse Gore set about to administer its contents. Subsequently a bottle of meat juice, half full, was found in a small wooden box with other bottles (one of them containing arsenic in solution) in my husband’s hat-box.

Nevertheless, though we are here undeniably dealing with _three_ meat-juice bottles, only two were accounted for at the trial. What became of the third bottle? And which of the _three_ was missing? Now, furthermore, it is in evidence that Nurse Callery handled one of these bottles (between the time that I placed one on the washstand and the time when Mr. Michael Maybrick, more than twelve hours later, took one either from the _table_ or the _washstand_ for analysis), for she took a sample of it, which she afterward threw away.

As all Valentine’s meat-juice bottles look alike, Mr. Michael Maybrick showed sufficient caution to say he could not identify the bottle shown him; but Nurse Gore, to whom every act of mine, however innocent, was fraught with “surreptitiousness” and “suspicion,” balked at no such scruples, but boldly testified that the bottle produced in court was the identical one that Mr. Michael Maybrick “took from the washstand,” even though at the inquest, when his memory was freshest, he testified that he took it from the _table_.

It should be remembered that my statement to the court was to the effect that I put a powder (its nature unknown to me) in the meat-juice bottle I had in my hands. Yet no bottle containing a powder, or in which a powder had been dissolved, appeared in evidence. According to the analyst, the bottle submitted to him contained arsenic that had been put in in a state of solution. Now it resolves itself to this: either I uttered a falsehood about the powder and really introduced a solution, or another bottle was substituted for the one I had for two minutes in my possession.

The contention of the prosecution was that I “invented” the powder, precisely as it was contended I “invented” the face-wash prescription which was found after the trial. If I “invented” the powder, how did I come by the solution? If I had had arsenic in solution in my possession, would I have gone to the trouble of making a solution for a face wash by the clumsy method of soaking fly-papers? Is not the proposition quite absurd on its face--that I should openly call attention to a method of arsenic extraction with the object of murder, when I already had the means at my command?

Finally, let it be borne in mind, as stated by Justice Stephen himself as a remarkable fact, that no arsenic was traced to my procurement or found in my personal belongings (save and except the innocuous fly-papers), and I may add that no arsenic was traced to any one connected with the case, except to my husband.

I say it is absolutely clear that the bottle of Valentine’s meat juice which Mr. Michael Maybrick took possession of and handed to Dr. Carter is not the same bottle which Nurse Gore saw me place on the washstand. There should be no flaw in the identity of the bottle which was handed to the analyst and the one which was in my hands, and I think the reader will say that it is impossible to conceive a greater _flaw in any evidence of identity_ than shown by these witnesses of the prosecution at the inquest, when their minds were freshest as to their respective parts in this incident, and at the trial.

Those of my readers who follow the analysis of the testimony as presented by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley can hardly have failed to be impressed by the fact that I was surrounded by unscrupulous enemies, by people who not only had extraordinary knowledge as to where to look for deposits of arsenic, but also remarkable intuitions that arsenic had been administered before any evidence of the presence of poison had been analytically proven.

In the above I have not aimed to make an analysis of the testimony, such as, for example, on the evidence now available, Lord Russell could have made; I have simply endeavored to satisfy my readers that I have substantial grounds for asserting my innocence before the world.

FLORENCE ELIZABETH MAYBRICK.

MEMORIALS FOR RESPITE OF SENTENCE

FROM THE PHYSICIANS OF LIVERPOOL

In a memorial for respite of sentence of Mrs. Maybrick, which was signed by leading medical practitioners of Liverpool, the petitioners say in part:

“3. It was admitted by the medical testimony on behalf of the prosecution that the symptoms during life and the post-mortem appearances were in themselves insufficient to justify the conclusion that death was caused by arsenic, and that it was only the discovery of traces of that poison in certain parts of the viscera which eventually led to that conclusion.

“4. The arsenic so found in the viscera was less in quantity than _that found in any previous case of arsenical poisoning in which arsenic has been found at all_.

“5. There was indisputable evidence on the part of the defense that the deceased had been in the habit of taking arsenic, both medicinally and otherwise, for many years, and that the small quantity found in the viscera was inconsistent with the theory of a fatal dose at any time or times during the period covered by the illness of the deceased.

“6. Lastly, your memorialists agree with the evidence given by Dr. Tidy, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Paul on behalf of the defense, that the medical evidence on behalf of the prosecution _had entirely failed to prove that the death was due to arsenical poisoning at all_.”

FROM THE BARS OF LIVERPOOL AND LONDON

Leading members of the Bars of Liverpool and London signed a memorial praying a reprieve of Mrs. Maybrick’s sentence “on the ground ... of the great conflict of medical testimony as to the cause of death” of Mr. Maybrick.

FROM CITIZENS OF LIVERPOOL

A petition for reprieve of Mrs. Maybrick’s sentence was signed by many and influential citizens of Liverpool. Among the reasons urged were:

3. Lack of direct evidence of administration of arsenic.

4. The weak case against prisoner on general facts unduly prejudiced by evidence of motive.

5. Preponderance of medical testimony that death was ascribable to natural causes.

[I feel a deep respect for the noble avowal given in the petition of the medical practitioners of Liverpool, who must have felt the honor of their profession at stake, and that their individual dignity and humanity were concerned. The feeling among the Bar on receipt of the verdict was an almost universal, if not a quite unanimous, one of surprise. I have already mentioned (in Part One), the change of attitude of the citizens of Liverpool toward me, as the trial progressed, from hostility to belief in my innocence.--F. E. M.]

NEW EVIDENCE

ARSENIC SOLD TO MAYBRICK BY DRUGGIST

Mr. Edwin Garnett Heaton, a retired chemist (druggist), formerly carried on business at 14 Exchange Street East, Liverpool, for seventeen years; he retired from business in 1888. He testified at the trial:

“Mr. Maybrick called frequently at my shop for about ten years or more, off and on. He used to get the tonic called ‘pick-me-up.’ He would come to the shop, get it, and drink it up. He gave me a prescription which altered it, which I put up with _liquor arsenicalis_. He brought the prescription for the first few times; I used afterward to give it him at once, when he came into the shop and gave his order. I prepared the ‘pick-me-up’ and added the stuff. At the beginning of giving it to him, a certain quantity of _liquor arsenicalis_ was given, and as it continued it was gradually increased from first to last, so at the last it was 75 per cent. greater in quantity than it was originally. He used to get it from two to five times a day, and each containing 75 per cent. increase.”

This testimony of Mr. Heaton’s was challenged by the prosecution, and considerably nullified by the fact that he did not know Mr. Maybrick, his customer, by name, but identified him by a photograph. To show how inexorably one fatality after another was woven into the web of my tragic case, it is in order to state that Mr. Heaton’s connection with Mr. Maybrick could and would undoubtedly have been perfectly established but for what in the circumstances can be characterized only as a criminal blunder on the part of the police. In the printed police list of the score or more medicine bottles found locked in the private desk of Mr. Maybrick at his office was one entered as follows: “Spirit of salvolatile, Edwin G. Easton, Exchange Street East, Liverpool.” This misprint of Easton for Heaton escaped the attention of everybody at the trial, and thus prevented the defense from identifying most circumstantially Mr. Maybrick with Mr. Heaton’s customer who had the arsenic habit.

ARSENIC SUPPLIED TO MAYBRICK BY MANUFACTURING CHEMIST

About ten years ago Mr. Valentine Charles Blake, of Victoria Embankment, son of a well-known baronet and Member of Parliament, made a voluntary statutory declaration [corroborated on oath in every possible essential by William Bryer Nation, of No. 7 Lion Street, a manufacturing chemist and patentee], that Mr. Maybrick, about two months before his death, procured through him (Mr. Blake), from Mr. Nation’s supplies, as much as 150 grains of arsenic in various forms. Mr. Nation, assisted by Mr. Blake, had made certain chemical experiments in preparing ramie, the fiber of rhea grass, to serve as a substitute for cotton. Among other ingredients used was arsenic, some in pure form (white arsenic), some mixed with soot, and some mixed with charcoal. In January, 1889, the process was perfected, and some time during the same month Mr. Nation sent Mr. Blake to see Mr. Maybrick, to get his assistance in placing the product on the market. Mr. Maybrick was interested in the proposition and inquired closely into the nature of the process, what ingredients were used, etc. The deponent told him that, among other materials, arsenic was employed.

Then, to quote the exact words of the deposition, Mr. Blake went on to say:

“14. The said Mr. Maybrick shortly afterward, during discussion at the same interview, asked me whether I had heard that many inhabitants of Styria, in Austria, habitually took arsenic internally and throve upon it. I said that I had heard so. He then spoke to me of De Quincey, the author of ‘Confessions of an Opium-Eater,’ and asked me had I read the work. I said, ‘Yes,’ and that I wondered De Quincey could have taken such a quantity as 900 drops of laudanum in a day. The said James Maybrick said, ‘One man’s poison is another man’s meat, and there is a so-called poison which is like meat and liquor to me whenever I feel weak and depressed. It makes me stronger in mind and in body at once,’ or words to that effect. I ventured to ask him what it was. He answered, ‘I don’t tell everybody, and wouldn’t tell you, only you mentioned arsenic. It is arsenic. I take it when I can get it, but the doctors won’t put any into my medicine except now and then a trifle, that only tantalizes me,’ or words to that effect. After a pause, during which I said nothing, the said James Maybrick said: ‘Since you use arsenic, can you let me have some? I find a difficulty in getting it here.’ I answered that I had some by me, and that, since I had only used it for experiments which were now perfected, I had no further use for it, and he (Maybrick) was welcome to all I had left. He then asked me what it was worth, and offered to pay for it in advance. I replied that I had no license to sell drugs, and suggested that we should make it a _quid pro quo_. Mr. Maybrick was to do his best with the ramie grass product, and I was to make him a present of the arsenic I had.

“15. It was finally agreed that when I came to Liverpool again, as arranged I should bring with me and hand him the arsenic aforesaid.

“16. _In February, 1889_, I again called at the office of the said James Maybrick, in Liverpool, and, as promised, I handed him all the arsenic I had at my command, amounting to about 150 grains, some of the ‘white’ and some of the two kinds of ‘black’ arsenic, in three separate paper packets. I told him to be careful, as he had ‘almost enough to poison a regiment.’ When we separated the said James Maybrick took away the said arsenic with him, saying he was going home to his house at Aigburth, to which he invited me. Having a train to catch, I declined the invitation, promising to accept it on my next visit to Liverpool, but before that occurred I read of his death.

“17. After the wife of the said James Maybrick had been accused of his alleged murder, I wrote to Mr. Cleaver, her then solicitor, of Liverpool, to the effect that I could give some evidence which might be of use to his client, and I posted such letter but received no reply.

“18. At this time I was intensely anxious as to the fate of my only son, Valentine Blake, who had in the previous year sailed on board the ship _Melanasia_ from South Shields for Valparaiso, which ship was then very long overdue and unheard of. I eventually learned, as a result of a Board of Trade inquiry, that the said ship must have foundered with all hands, my only son included. At the time I wrote as aforesaid to Mr. Cleaver, my entire attention was engrossed in endeavoring to get news as to the ship which never came home, and I felt little interest in any other subject. Receiving no reply to my said letter to Mr. Cleaver, I took no further steps in the matter until, seeing recently in a newspaper that Mr. Jonathan E. Harris, of 95 Leadenhall Street, in the city of London, was now acting for Mrs. James Maybrick and her mother, the Baroness de Roques, I called at the offices of the said Mr. Harris and made to him a statement.”

DEPOSITIONS AS TO MR. MAYBRICK’S ARSENIC HABIT

On August 10, Henry Bliss, former proprietor of Sefton Club and Chambers, Liverpool, made a sworn deposition, in which he said:

“Mr. Maybrick lived in the chambers on and off several months, and was in the habit of dosing himself. On one occasion he asked me to leave a prescription at a well-known Liverpool chemist’s to be made up by the time he left ‘Change. The chemist remarked: ‘He ought to be very careful and not take an overdose of it.’”

On March 31, 1891, Franklin George Bancroft, artist and writer, of Columbia, S. C., made a sworn deposition, in which he said:

“1. Between the years 1874 and 1876 I was personally acquainted with James Maybrick, late of Battlecrease House, Aigburth, near Liverpool, merchant, deceased, who was then living in Norfolk, Va. I was frequently in his company, and from time to time I have _seen him take from his vest pocket a case resembling a cigarette case, which contained a packet of white powders_, and place the contents of one such powder on several occasions into the glass of wine (usually Chablis, claret, or champagne) he was at the time drinking, and swallow the same.

“2. Seeing him take this powder, I did, on one occasion, ask him what it was, and the said James Maybrick replied, ‘Longevity and fair complexion, my boy!’ and he subsequently informed me that the said white powders were composed of _arsenic_ among other ingredients.”

JUSTICE STEPHEN’S RETIREMENT

There are also facts in relation to the judge who tried the case which, had they been anticipated at the time of the trial, could not have failed to have had some weight, directly or indirectly, on the minds of the jury; that is to say, his retirement from the Bench not long afterward, in April, 1891, when, to quote his own words in addressing the Bar, of whom he was taking leave, “he had been made acquainted with the fact that he was regarded by some as no longer physically capable of discharging his duties”; and it will be no matter of surprise, to those who have read critically the summing-up of Mr. Justice Stephen on this trial, to notice the entire change from a favorable bias between his address to the jury on the first days of the trial to the violent hostility shown at its conclusion.

This change of front can be in a manner accounted for, as it had been suggested to the prisoner’s friends, by a conversation on the case between Mr. Justice Stephen and another member of the Bench, Mr. Justice Grantham, at a social meeting of an entirely private character.

A mental malady was developed in the judge so soon after the trial that it was properly said to have been caused _by his brooding over it_, and this condition increased so rapidly and markedly that his _resignation was demanded_. It is but reasonable to suppose that the judge’s mental incapacity reached farther back than its discovery, and that the illogical and unjust summing-up was connected with the mental overthrow of the otherwise able judge. And it may be here added that Justice Stephen himself, in the second edition of the “General Views of the Criminal Law of England, 1890,” says, at page 173, that out of 979 cases tried before him, from January, 1885, to September, 1889, “the case of Mrs. Maybrick was the only case in which there could be any doubt about the facts.”

* * * * *

Transcriber’s Note

Minor punctuation errors (i.e. missing periods) have been corrected. Variations in hyphenation (i.e. hatbox and hat-box) present in the original text have been retained.

In the illustration caption, Miss Mary A. Dodge was incorrectly referred to as “Miss Mary F. Dodge.” This has been corrected.