Mrs. Maybrick's Own Story: My Fifteen Lost Years

Chapter XX: Part TWO: Analysis of the Maybrick Case (3)

Text size

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

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

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

“Thus two conclusions are forced upon us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MEDICAL WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ADMINISTRATION OF ARSENIC

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

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

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

THE FLY-PAPER EPISODE

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

HOW MRS. MAYBRICK ACCOUNTS FOR THE FLY-PAPERS

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

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

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

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

ADMINISTRATION OF ARSENIC NOT PROVED

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

INTENT TO MURDER NOT PROVED

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

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

ABSENCE OF CONCEALMENT BY PRISONER

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

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

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

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

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

SOME IMPORTANT DEDUCTIONS FROM MEDICAL TESTIMONY

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

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

SYMPTOMS DUE TO POISONOUS DRUGS

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

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

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

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

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

DEATH FROM NATURAL CAUSES

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

PROSECUTION’S DEDUCTIONS FROM POST-MORTEM ANALYSIS MISLEADING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECAPITULATION OF LEGAL POINTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The verdict was _against the weight of evidence_.

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

[6] Mr. Maybrick’s dressing-room.

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

Mrs. Maybrick’s Own Analysis

OF THE MEAT-JUICE INCIDENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FLORENCE ELIZABETH MAYBRICK.

MEMORIALS FOR RESPITE OF SENTENCE

FROM THE PHYSICIANS OF LIVERPOOL

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

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

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

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

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

FROM THE BARS OF LIVERPOOL AND LONDON

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

FROM CITIZENS OF LIVERPOOL

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

3. Lack of direct evidence of administration of arsenic.

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

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

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

NEW EVIDENCE

ARSENIC SOLD TO MAYBRICK BY DRUGGIST

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

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

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

ARSENIC SUPPLIED TO MAYBRICK BY MANUFACTURING CHEMIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEPOSITIONS AS TO MR. MAYBRICK’S ARSENIC HABIT

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

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

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

Previous Next

Comments

Mrs. Maybrick's Own Story: My Fifteen Lost YearsChapter XX: Part TWO: Analysis of the Maybrick Case (3)

0%37 min left in chapter