THE MAYBRICK CASE
Few trials in this country have aroused so much controversy as that of
Mrs. Maybrick, in 1889, on the charge of having poisoned her husband with
arsenic.
James Maybrick, who was a cotton merchant, fifty years of age, had married
the accused in America in 1881, she being then eighteen years old. Four
years later they had made their home in Liverpool, and apparently got on
well together. In 1889, however, Mrs. Maybrick became friendly with a man
named Brierley, and on the pretence of paying a visit to a relative, went
to London, where she stayed with him for several days. At the end of March
the Maybricks went to the Grand National Race, and the husband then became
jealous of Brierley, who was also present. Following this incident came a
violent quarrel, which resulted in Mrs. Maybrick's threatening to leave
him.
Shortly afterwards, Mr. Maybrick paid a visit to his brother in London,
and while there complained of the extravagance and the behaviour of his
wife.
He also consulted a specialist, who diagnosed his illness as acute
dyspepsia, and prescribed for him certain medicines, in which, however,
there was no arsenic.
After his return to Liverpool early in April, Mrs. Maybrick bought a dozen
fly-papers from a chemist, and afterwards two dozen more from another
chemist, stating that the flies were troublesome in the house. In each
case she paid for these, although she had an account with the chemist. It
was found that each of these papers contained from two to three grains of
arsenic, or more than the fatal dose for a man. Evidence was given that
they were subsequently discovered soaking in water in Mrs. Maybrick's
room, but that they had not been used to kill the flies.
At the end of April Mr. Maybrick became very ill, and a doctor was called
in. The patient was frequently given food and medicine by his wife, and
arsenic was afterwards found in a bottle of meat juice. The prisoner
alleged that at her husband's own request she had put a white powder into
this bottle.
On the 9th of May the doctor concluded that Mr. Maybrick was suffering
from the effects of some irritant poison, and Mrs. Maybrick from that time
was not allowed to come near him. On May the 11th he died.
During the illness, letters between Mrs. Maybrick and Brierley had been
intercepted, and in one of these occurred the expression that her husband
was "sick unto death." At the inquest a verdict of "Wilful murder" against
Mrs. Maybrick was returned, and she was committed for trial at the
Liverpool Assizes.
The trial took place before Mr. Justice Stephen, who, by the way, died
insane a year later, and the prisoner was defended by Sir Charles Russell,
who subsequently became Lord Chief Justice.
The case for the prosecution was based upon the presence of a strong
motive for the crime, the quarrel between the husband and wife, the
possession of arsenic (from the fly-papers) by the accused, the presence
of arsenic in various foods and medicines alleged by witnesses to have
been given to the deceased by his wife, and the discovery of arsenic in
the body after death. In addition to this, evidence was given by the
nurses that they had seen the prisoner manipulating the medicines, and by
doctors and relations of Mr. Maybrick that he was not in the habit of
taking arsenic.
For the defence it was urged that death was due to acute gastritis, which
was the result of a chill or improper food, and that arsenical poisoning
was not the cause; that the fly-papers had been purchased by the prisoner
for the preparation of a cosmetic for the face; and that the presence of
traces of arsenic in the body was fully accounted for by the fact that Mr.
Maybrick was an arsenic eater.
Several medical men expressed opinions strongly opposed to the views of
the prosecution, and it was pointed out by these that many of the symptoms
characteristic of poisoning by arsenic had not been observed in this case.
At the same time it was admitted that the effects produced by arsenic were
often erratic, and, as Dr. Stevenson stated in his evidence for the
prosecution, "There is no distinctive diagnostic symptom of arsenical
poisoning. The diagnostic thing is finding the arsenic."
The medical experts who gave evidence upon behalf of the prisoner were Dr.
Tidy (who, like Dr. Stevenson, was an official analyst to the Home
Office), Dr. Macnamara, and Professor Paul; and their view, which was
strongly expressed, was that all the symptoms which had been described to
them in the evidence pointed against arsenic having been the cause of
death.
The judge, in his summing up of the medical evidence, pointed out that
expert witnesses were liable at times to take up the position of advocates
with regard to scientific matters, and he warned the jury to take this
into consideration in forming their conclusions.
The analytical evidence as to the presence of arsenic in the body and in
the food and medicine was given by Dr. Stevenson and by Mr. Davis.
Davis had found no arsenic in the stomach, but it was discovered in the
liver and intestines. In the bottle of the meat juice he had found half a
grain in solution. Arsenic was present in the glass of the bottle, but to
a less extent than in the glass of another bottle of the meat juice, in
the contents of which no arsenic was present. Hence the glass could not
have been the source of the arsenic found in the other bottle.
He had also found arsenic in a glass of milk in the house, in a vessel in
which luncheon had been sent to the office of Mr. Maybrick, in a medicine
bottle, and in a bottle of glycerine in the lavatory. In fact, one of the
most remarkable features of this case was the number of articles in which
arsenic had been discovered. Dr. Stevenson had also found no arsenic in
the stomach, but had detected a small quantity in the kidney and the
intestines. In a portion of the liver he found an amount which he
calculated to amount to one-third of a grain for the whole liver, and he
gave as his opinion that "the body at the time of death probably contained
approximately a fatal dose of arsenic."
Dr. Tidy, in giving evidence on behalf of the accused, criticised this
evidence of Stevenson on the grounds that it did not necessarily follow
that because one portion of the liver contained so much arsenic, the same
proportion must be present in the remainder. In his experience the amounts
of arsenic retained might vary in different parts of the same organ. He
calculated from the results of Stevenson's analyses that the total amount
of arsenic was 0·082 grains.
If we examine this evidence more closely it is difficult to see upon what
basis Tidy calculated his total. Stevenson had examined approximately one
quarter of the liver, and had extracted from two portions a total quantity
of 0·076 grains, so that, according to Tidy, the remaining three-quarters
could only have contained 0·006 grains of arsenic. On the face of it this
seems an absurd conclusion.
The evidence of Professor Paul went to prove that arsenic was present in
the material of earthenware vessels similar to that in which the lunch was
sent to Mr. Maybrick's office, and that it could be liberated by the
action of an acid, so that the arsenic found in the particular vessel
might have originated from the action of acids in the food itself upon the
interior of the vessel.
As has been mentioned, one of the points brought as evidence against the
prisoner was that a bottle of glycerine had been found in the lavatory,
and that this contained arsenic. There was no evidence that the prisoner
had ever had this bottle in her hand, and, apart from that, arsenic is a
very usual impurity in ordinary commercial glycerine.
Having regard to the conflict of the scientific testimony, and to the
evidence of Mr. Maybrick having acquired the habit of taking arsenic while
resident in America, it was generally expected that the prisoner would be
acquitted. The judge, however, evidently believing her guilty, summed up
strongly against her, and put the point to be decided in the following
form: The prosecution said that arsenic was the producing cause of the
gastro-enteritis which was the immediate cause of death; arsenic was found
in the body, and strong proof was given that arsenic was administered. The
terrible question was: By whose hand was it administered? The deceased
might have taken it himself, and if there was any reasonable doubt upon
that point it was the duty of the jury to acquit the prisoner; but if a
crime was committed, no other person but the prisoner was suggested as
having committed it.
The jury were so influenced by the remarks of the judge that, after a
retirement of a little over thirty minutes, they found the prisoner
"Guilty."
The feeling was very widely expressed that the prosecution had failed to
establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased had died from
arsenic, and that arsenic had been given to him by the prisoner, and that,
therefore, she was entitled to the "benefit of the doubt," which the
judge's directions to the jury had not allowed to her.
It may be mentioned here that the judge himself, in the second edition of
his _Criminal Laws of England_, published in 1890, states that out of 979
cases tried before him up to September, 1889, "the case of Mrs. Maybrick
was the only case in which there could be any doubt about the facts."
In consequence of this feeling that a terrible mistake might have been
made, memorials for the respite of Mrs. Maybrick were signed by the
physicians of Liverpool, by members of Bars of Liverpool and London, and
by the citizens of Liverpool, in all of which stress was laid upon the
conflict of medical testimony. Memorials were also sent in from other
parts of the country, and in all 5,000 petitions, containing upwards of
half a million signatures, were received by the Home Secretary.
The feeling was too strong to be ignored, and the Home Secretary,
therefore, announced that he had advised the commutation of the death
penalty to one of penal servitude for life, on the ground that: "Inasmuch
as, although the evidence leads to the conclusion that the prisoner
administered and attempted to administer arsenic to her husband with
intent to murder him, yet it does not wholly exclude a reasonable doubt
whether his death was in fact caused by the administration of arsenic."
Persistent efforts were made to obtain the liberation of the prisoner, and
Lord Russell of Killowen, who had defended her at the trial, and whose
belief in her innocence had never wavered, brought the matter under the
notice of each succeeding Home Secretary, but always without avail. It was
not until after the lapse of fifteen years that she was liberated at the
ordinary termination of a sentence shortened by the good behaviour of the
prisoner.
The course followed by the Home Secretary (Matthews) and endorsed by his
successors is impossible to defend from a logical point of view.
If the prisoner was guilty of murder, there was no justification for
yielding to the popular demand. If, on the other hand, there was "a
reasonable doubt" as to whether the man died from the effects of arsenic,
she ought to have been set at liberty. But to commute the sentence for the
reason given was to convict the prisoner of attempted murder, a charge
upon which she had never been tried, and for which, if found guilty, she
would not have received penal servitude for life.
At the present time a case of this kind would be brought before the Court
of Criminal Appeal, and the prisoner would have the opportunity of having
the alleged misdirections of the presiding judge investigated, and of
putting forward additional evidence--advantages that were not available to
the accused in this trial.