MRS MAYBRICK’S TRIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 8903, 20 September 1889, Page 6

MRS MAYBRICK’S TRIAL.

EXTRAORDINARY INCIDENTS. SIR C. EUSSELL’S SPEECH. THE ACCUSED’S STATEMENT : A HAEROWING SCENE. " GUILTY.” London, August 10. The Star’s London correspondent, who went up to Liverpool on purpose to be present in Court at the famous trial, sends us the following graphic notes and observations concerning the affair. Judge Stephen’s tumming up, and the final terribly emotional scene, from a report in one of the Home papers, were printed in our columns on Wednesday. POPULAR OPINION. “ she’ll get off.” With regard to the strange manner in which the matter was very generally regarded by outsiders our correspondent says:— Popular expectation in favour of Mrs Maybrick’s acquittal was so strong in Liverpool on Wednesday afternoon that an immense mob bad assembled outside St George’s Hall, in the hope of getting a glimpse of “ the popular heroine of the moment" and givingheracongratulatory cheer as she drove away. Not that the majority of these estimable persons really believed in the woman’s innocence. Not a bit of it. “ She’s guilty, but she’ll get off," was the usual remark one heard, and the talker generally spoke as if to have deceived and poisoned one’s husband and likewise “diddled” justice was to really have achieved rather a clever and praiseworthy performance. You will scarcely believe me, I know, but it is a positive fact that on Wednesday, during the luncheon hour, a smartly-dressed lady waited on the Clerk of the Arraigns, and enquired whether, in the event of an acquittal, she and several other female sympathisers might be allowed to present “dear Mrs Majbrick” with a bouquet in Court. Even amongst saner, better - balanced minds the “She's guilty, but she’ll get off" theory was curiously prevalent. The idea seemed to be that though Sir Charles Russell might not have succeeded in convincing the Jury of his client's innocence, he had yet raised such a cloud of doubts and maze of possibilities in their minds as would make it impracticable to convict. The news of the verdict was indeed at first received with complete incredulity. People refused to believe the Jury could have made up their minds in twenty minutes on such a case, quite forgetting that the twelve good men and true had been locked up together, with nothing else to discuss, for more than a week.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. SIK CHARLES RUSSELL’S SPEECH. It was lunch time on Saturday before the Crown counsel concluded their terrible array of circumstantial evidence against Mrs Maybrick, and Sir Charles Russell, looking portentously serious, rose to open the defence. The great advocate was far too wise to underrate the strength of the case for the prosecution. All he even pretended he eliould be able to do was to raise grave doubts; "but,” said he, "if I achieve this much the Jury must acquit my client.” In the very beginning it was clear that the speech was to be a brilliant and magnificent appeal, alternating between acute, close, and cogent reasoning, emphasised with vigorous gestures and decisive and dramatic pauses, and lofty passages of heart-stirring eloquence. He hoped, indicated the great advocate, to suggest such grave doubts as to the guilt of the prisoner—doubts not merely suggested by himself, hut which arose irresistibly from the circumstances as would convince the Jury that they were not justified in "snapping the thread of this poor woman’s existence.” He pointed out, with the most profound gravity and in an emotional'voice, that "at the time the black shadow, which could never he dispelled, passed over her life,” her husband was in the habit of drugging himself. At this fine sentence, delivered with immense empressement and scornful indignation, Mrs Maybrick, who had evidently been making great efforts to control her feelings, lifted her handkerchief to her eyes, and a moment alter wards by an evident force of will, resumed her former immobility. TWO POINTS. Sir Charles Russell described his line of defence —the two points being for the Jury to consider whether death was actually caused by arsenic, and if so was the arsenic administered by Mrs Maybrick. The experts said that the symptoms were consistent with arsenical poisoning, but they could no t point out a symptom that would not equally have been caused by other means. There was no evidence to show that Mrs Maybrick had ever bought poison except in the case of the fly-papers, and in that case there was no concealment, as there would be in the case of " a wicked woman doing an ill thing,” as she could easily have gone to shops where she was perfectly unknown, instead of to a chemist who knew her intimately. He held that while there was mystery and suspicion, which their minds might not be able to dispel, there was not sufficient evidence to justify the Jury in a verdict in which the most serious consequences were involved. MRS MATRRICK TO SPEAK BBSSELF. Then Sir Charles Russell startled the Court with the disclosure that Mrs Maybrick desired to make a statement herself —a course which was unusual, but he believed tbat his Lordship had permitted such a coarse before. The Judge said that he would permit the statement to be made, but he could not allow it to be written, as sbe might be assisted in the preparation of it, and she must not be communicated with between that time and Monday by anyone connected with the case. To this Sir Charles Russell agreed. It was. Sir Charles Russell said, "a grave statement, an extraordinary statement, and one that would need careful examination.” The “dark cloud” he had alluded to must rest “for all time” upon her character as a woman and a wife, but he earnestly entreated the Jury not to allow any repugnance against a "sin so abhorrent as that” to lead them to the conclusion that she had committed the greater crime. At the end of this speech Mrs Maybrick asked for a glass of water, which the attendant handed her. She had been moved more by this than by any other incident in the trial. THE EVIDENCE POE THE DEFENCE. MAYBRICK THE AESKNIC-KATEE. The evidence for the defence from a variety of American witnesses —some of whom had volunteered their evidence —was to the effect that Mr Maybrick was in the habit of constantly taking arsenic. An American negro servant of his proved that he had frequently and regularly taken arsenic. This negro servant, Thomas Statson, made an addition to this evidence which startled the court, and caused a great sensation. He said that when he brought the half-dollar’s worth of arsenic, Mr Maybrick told him to go and make some fresh beef tea, and that he (Mr Maybrick) took a small quantity of the arsenic on a spoon and stirred it up in the beef tea. This he did regularly, and he also had a habit of rubbing his hands. The next witness was stronger still in the interests of the defence, so far as showing that Mr Maybrick constantly dosed himself with arsenic. This witness (whose story was first brought before the public in an interview published in the Daily Post and Echo ) was Mr Edward Heaton, a retired chemist, now living in Anfield. Ho stated that he had been in business in Exchange street for seventeen years. Mr Maybrick, whom he knew for ten years, used to come into his shop from two to five times a day for a “ pick-me-

up,” a tonic dispensed by witness. The first time he came he brought with him a prescription for arsenlcalio, which he mixed with the pick-me-up, and this drug ho afterwards constantly took. He gradually increased the quantity of the arsenicalis during the ten years to the extent of 75 per cent, beginning with four drops and ending with seven. This, the witness said, was an aphrodisiac, or nerve exciter (the Judge put- this in a blunt way, which left no doubt as to the object of taking this drug). The chemist let out the interesting little fact that it was a very common practice for gentlemen on ’Change to come into hia shop in the morning for “pick-me-ups.* He had often as many as sixteen in the morning, and some of them would come in several times in a day. POWERFUL EVIDENCE FOB THE DEFENCE, Dr Drysdale gave evidence as to the habits of the deceased in taking strychnine and other drugs; and Dr Tidy, another expert in poisoning cases, and professor of chemistry and “ forensic medicine ” in the London Hospital, was also called for the defence, and gave some extremely powerful evidence. He said the symptoms described as having occurred to Mr May brick were “ certainly not ” the symptoms of a typical case of arsenical poisoning. This gentleman distinctly differed from the expert called by the prosecution on the subject of the symptoms, and said that he would call a case of poisoning by arsenic where there was nodiarrhoea a “toxicological curiosity,” At this expression there was laughter in Court, and the Judge, with a severe frown, said, “ There is no occasion for laughter, and, all things considered, it is extremely indecent.” Dr Tidy gave some curious facts as to the symptoms that could be and bad been produced by eating bad cheese, or lobster, or sausage, and in his cross-examination stood stoutly to his guns. He knew of a family who had been brought into the hospital on a doctor’s certificate that they were suffering from arsenical poisoning, and it was found that their sickness was produced by cheese. The witness attended these himself, and scores of other similar cases. His further evidence went to show that the estimate of the quantity of arsenic found in the liver was altogether unreliable —the estimate being made from a portion of the liver only, whereas the poison would be unequally distributed both over the whole liver and the intestines. They could not estimate the quantity by “ cutting off a bit,” and he could prove that by other cases. He gave a case in which a large quantity of arsenic was found in the liver, and yet the death was from phthisis. MRS MATBEICK’S STATEMENT. At a few minutes past twelve on Monday the evidence for the defence was finished, and Sir Charles Russell said he thought Mrs Maybrick was now ready to make her statement. He turned to her, asking," Are you ready, madam ?”and the lady slightly nodded. The Judge said she could speak. Mrs Maybrick for a few seconds sat immovable. The attendant handed her a glass of water, which she tremblingly took and placed to her lips. She then advanced a step to the rail, and with her hands clasped before her, and holding a pocket handkerchief, she spoke in a low, tremulous voice, but in perfect coherent and elegant phraseology. She had to stop several times for a moment or two, and with a great effort controlled her emotion so as to allow herself to proceed. Only a very few of the auditors could hear all she said, and there was a general straining forward to catch the words. She spoke of having “ been crushed beneath the terrible charge of wilfully and deliberately poisoning my husband ” —and she paused, and added with quivering voice—“ the father of my dear children.” It was thought here that she would be unable to proceed further. There was no doubt about the genuineness of the anguish she was undergoing. Her mouth quivered, and the tears came down her cheeks. The Court sat almost breathless, and there must have been many a palpitating heart. Several of the ladies bowed their heads in tears.

Mrs Maybrick went on to describe bow sbe used to make up a facewash with arsenic, and a perfume, and all the details of the story had a seeming consistence •with the circumstances of her treatment of the flypapers and her movements at her house. She gave the date of a ball to which she was going, and before this sbe made and used the facewash, as she was anxious to remove some eruptions on her face. She had lost the prescription, but she knew the ingredients, and thought she would try and make it up herself. Then came an extraordinary disclosure with reference to the meat juice. Her husband “ implored her to give him some of the white powder which she knew him to be in the habit of taking,” and which he had asked for earlier in the evening, and which she had declined to give him. " I was overwrought—terribly anxious and miserably unhappy,” she said slowly, with suppressed sobs. She had no honest friends —no one to consult. Notwithstanding the evidence of the nurses, her husband missed her every time she went out of the room, and yet four days before he died she was not even allowed to give him a piece of ice. She found the powder, took it into the inner room, and put some in the bottle. Oa returning to the room, she found her husband asleep, and then sbe placed the bottle on another table, where “he could not see it when he woke up ” —all this tallying with the evidence of the nurse. She then described her total ignorance of the charge hanging over her, and when at last it was made against her sbe wanted to explain, but she was not allowed to do so. In conclusion she only wished to add that "for the sake of our children ” a perfect reconciliation had taken place, and that "the day before he died I made a full and free confession of the fearful wrong I had done him.”

When Mrs Maybrick faltered this out and then sat down there was a real sensation and murmur, apparently of sympathy and compassion.

THE EE PLY OF THE PROSECUTION mr Addison’s speech. Mr Addison’s speech needs little description here. It was closely reasoned, and was exceedingly strong and comprehensive . "While the counsel, with rigid fairness, pressed no point unduly, and spoke of tho gratification it would be to all concerned if the accused was found to be innocent, he missed no point of the case for tho prosecution, and none of the weaknesses of the defence were left untouched. He made —as he was entitled to do on a voluntarily delivered speech of the prisoner upon which she could not be cross-examined—several important points. One of these was that she had had the opportunity before the police of giving this statement before; and another and a telling one—was that whereas she had spoken of a reconciliation on the day before the death of her husband, she had actually written a letter to Mr Brierly asking for assistance, in which there was not the remotest indication of sorrow as set out that day. "The truth was known about their visit to London,” and she " swore her innocence ” as to tho murder; but was that the letter of a woman who was full of repentance for her sin ? Her actions were inconsistent with her sentiments. On this subject of th<letter it was felt that Mr Addison had made some strong points, and to a large extent swept away the sympathy aroused by her own appearance and speech; for as he said, " Guilty or innocent,” there could be no question of sympathy with a woman who was capable of writing such a letter to her “ darling ” while her husband wr.s “ sick unto death.” OUE CORRESPONDENT IN COURT. HARROWING SCENES. Those who, like m.vself, were present in Court during the final harrowing act of the May brick tragedy will never forget tho acute tension of the scene. For the moment, all recollection of the unfortunate James Maybrick’s dying torments f ded from the mind, and one could feel only tho profoundest compassion for the young and friendless woman in the dock. A single glance at the averted faces of the Jury aa they filed back into court, prepared the reporters for what was to come, .but Mrs

lay brick evidently drew a hopeful augury j rom their early return. She was glancing around cheerfully when the Clerk of the Arraigns put the fateful question, and the foreman’s whispered " Guilty,” seemed to strike her, like every one else, with the suddenness of a thunderbolt. For some seconds the miserable woman eat as if turned to stone. Then, rallying she stood unsteadily up, and casting at the Bench a look of despairing defiance murmured, " I am not guilty. Save as regards Brierly, I am not guilty,” or words to that effect. They were spoken so low the reporters couldn’t quite catch them, Mr Justice Stephen at once donned the black cap, and in solemn, passionless accents sentenced Mrs Maybrick to death. She shuddered a little once, and bent her head low when the Judge said, “ May the Lord have mercy on your soulbut otherwise appeared unmoved. The warders wanted to help her downstairs afterwards, but she waived them off and walked firmly away. PEKSONAI. CONVICTION. Personally, I have not the smallest doubt of the woman’s guilt. The defence was a house of cards (erected with great skill certainly), but of flimsy and unsubstantial materials. One theory contradicted another. Had Mrs Maybrick “got oS” (as people expressed it), no husband marrying a bold unscrupulous woman would have been safe.