Misreception of Evidence

HON. JOSEPH H. CHOATE,American Ambassador at the Court of St. James, 1899—

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 theywere to decide it asan 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 didnotdie of arsenic?” And the jury answered “Yes.”

It is submitted that this wasa 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.

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 influencedin favor of the prisoner, owing to the small quantity of arsenic found in the body of the deceased, he mentionedan instance of a dogbeing 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 arsenicpasses 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 experimenton 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 wasin the habit of taking arsenic, rather than with the case for the Crown that he had been intentionally poisoned.

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” wascontrary to fact, and in consequence of thiscruel misstatementthe 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.

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, butspoke about Mrs. Maybrick having asked him the year before to check her husband from takingdangerous drugs, and that Mr. Maybrick had admitted to him that he used to dose himself with anything his friends recommended, andthat 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 hadhimself administered arsenicto the deceased, in the form of Fowler’s solution, on the Sunday or Monday before death, and that he refuseda 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 tothe effect that he was unable to ascertainany particular poison.

Mr. Edward Davies, the analyst, was called, and gave evidence to the effect that he had foundno weighable arsenicin the portions of the body selected at the post-mortem, but that he had subsequentlyfound one fiftieth of a grain of arsenicin a part of the liver, nothing in thestomach 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 beyondreasonabledoubt 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 isessentialto this charge that the mandiedof arsenic. This question must be the foundation of a verdict unfavorableto the prisoner, that hedied 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 thisas a mere medical case, in which you are to decide whether the mandidordid not die of arsenic poisoning according to the medical evidence. You mustnot consider it as a mere chemical case, in which you decide whether the mandied from arsenic which was discovered as the result of a chemical analysis. You must decide it as agreat and highly important case, involving in itself not only medical and chemical questions, but involving in itself a most highly importantmoral question.”

Dr. Humphreys gave it as his opinion that the appearances at the post-mortem wereconsistent with congestionof the stomachnotnecessarily 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 hewould 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 totaking 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 theyfound no arsenic, but merely evidence of an irritant poison in the stomach and intestines, probably arsenic. Dr. Carter’s evidence was thereforeagainst poisoning by arsenicbeing 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.

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 evidencebeforehe had heard the evidence for the defense.

Dr. Stevenson also stated that the generalsymptoms of arsenic poisoning appearedwithin half an hourof 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 exhibitedonly one, according to the testimony of Dr. Stevenson. With the exception of the foultongue 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. Stevensonnever saw him.

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 uponforty cases of arsenical poisoninghad 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 ofthe 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 certainlynot 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 werenotthose 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 pointedawayfrom 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 havingbeen 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 ofgastro-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, butwho had left it off for some time, even for several months.

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

“Maybrick’s symptoms are as unlike poisoning by arsenicas 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 bythe medical men, and more especially Dr. Carter’s action with regard to the meat juice, we are justified in assuming that the doctors themselves, evenaftera 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 pointawayfrom, rather than toward, arsenicas 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 thanone-twentiethpart of a fatal dose of arsenic, and that the quantity so foundis perfectly consistent with its medicinal ingestion.”

Such was the complete evidence of the cause of death. The quantity of arsenic found in the body wasone-tenthof 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. Humphreysadmitted that he never attended a case of arsenicalpoisoning 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 laidno 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 entirelyupon 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 wasno reasonable doubtthat 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 thatdeath 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 intendedto pledge themselves to, namely, to excludea reasonable doubtthat death was due to arsenic.

Let us consider the position of the medical men called for the defense: Drs. Tidy, Macnamara, and Paulare 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 conjectureby what process of reasoningthe jury could have come to the conclusion, upon the evidence before them, that itwas beyond areasonable doubt that Mr. Maybrickhad 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 reasonableconclusion that it wasnot due to arsenical poisoning. It is inconceivable that the jury should havefound as they did,except under the mandatory direction of the judge, which left them apparently no alternative but to substitute his opinions and judgment fortheir own, so that on thatissue the finding was not so much the finding of the jury, to which the prisoner was by law entitled, but the finding ofthe judge,of whom the jury, abrogating their own functions, became the mere mouthpieces.

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 administeredit 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 prisonerhad 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 episode of the fly-papers may be considered as one of the most important factors in the whole case. It supplies, soto 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 ofa 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, therewas 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 entirelyon 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.

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 tolight, 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 trialthat 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 obtainan 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.]

Dealing with the question, did Mrs. Maybrick administer the arsenic, there is absolutely no evidencethat 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 ordrink taken by the deceased, and this issue was found against her in the absence of any evidence in support.

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.

SAMUEL V. HAYDEN,Of Hayden & Yarrell, American counsel of Mrs. Maybrick.

Another remarkable circumstance is the absence of any attempt at concealment on the prisoner’s part. The fly-papers werepurchased 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 upona 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 hadopportunitiesof administering poison, which sheshared with every individual in the house; further, that she had arsenic in her possession (and this was anopen secret, as we have already explained with reference to the fly-papers); and, lastly, that she had the possibility of extractingarsenic 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 wasno direct proof, such as is absolutely necessary to a conviction in a criminal case,of the identity of the bottleseen in Mrs. Maybrick’s hands and that given to the analyst, and there was evidence that it had remained in the bedroomwithin 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 afresh, 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 theinconsistency of Mrs. Maybrick’s conductin 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 prisonerfirst giving the alarm about the attackof 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 prisonerhad 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,” page366.]

FromDr. 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 attendantsas to the cause of death, apart from the post-mortem examination, by which they practically admitthey 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 thesymptoms during life, but from the fact thatarsenic was found in the body after death”?

From the medical testimony it appears that the following list ofpoisonous drugswas 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.

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 hadbeen observedat 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.

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 todeath from natural causes.

The evidence of the prosecution in connection with the analysis was thoroughlyunreliable 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, Iassumethat the body at the time of deathprobably contained a fatal dose of arsenic.”

Such was the deduction Dr. Stevensonarrived at,necessitating the assumption that arsenic was equally distributed in the intestines and liver, whereas it is within thepersonal knowledge of eminent men(such as Drs. Tidy and Macnamara) that arsenic may be found after deathin 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 thefallacy 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 findsdouble in one experimentand considerablymore than double in another experiment, the quantity found by Mr. Davies, and it is upon this glaringmiscalculation and discrepancy that the case for the prosecution was madeto rest, and Mrs. Maybrick was convicted.

But with all this miscalculation the approximate amount of arseniccan 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.

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

Therewas no conclusiveevidence that Mr. Maybrick died from other than natural causes (the word “conclusive” being used in the sense offree 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 alsoassumed facts against the prisoner which were not proved.

The jury wereallowed to separateand frequent places of public resort and entertainment during such summing-up.

The verdict wasagainst the weight of evidence.

The jurydid not give the prisoner the benefit of the doubtsuggested 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 areasonable doubt of her guilt, which, had it been taken into consideration at the time, would have entitledher to an acquittal.

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

Back to Index Next