Chapter XIX: Part TWO: Analysis of the Maybrick Case (2)

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.

Copyright, 1904, by Pach Bros., New York.

HON. JOHN HAY, American Secretary of State, 1898--]

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_.”

Copyright by G. G. Rockwood, New York.

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 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