<h2>CHAPTER IX</h2>
<p class="center"><small>THE MAYBRICK CASE</small></p>
<p><span class="smcap">On</span> July 31, 1889, one of the
most remarkable poisoning
cases of modern times was
brought before Mr. Justice
Stephen, at the Liverpool Assizes.
The trial, which lasted
eight days, excited the keenest
interest throughout the country,
especially as the principal
actors in the tragedy were
people of good social position.
The accused, Florence Maybrick,
wife of a Liverpool merchant,
was charged with causing
the death of her husband
by administering arsenic to him.</p>
<p>About the end of April, 1889,
Mr. James Maybrick was seized
with a peculiar illness, of which
the main symptoms consisted
of a rigidity of the limbs and a
general feeling of sickness,
which quite prostrated him, and
eventually confined him to bed.
The medical man who was
called in to attend him, attributed
the cause to extreme
irritability of the stomach and
treated him accordingly; but,
becoming puzzled by the persistent
sickness and the rapidly
increasing weakness of his patent,
a second practitioner was
called in consultation. From
this time he grew considerably
worse, severer symptoms and
diarrhœa set in, which caused
the doctors to suspect the cause
was due to some irritant poison.
This was confirmed by
the discovery that arsenic had
been placed in a bottle of meat
juice that was being administered
to the sick man. Trained
nurses were placed in charge,
and a close watch kept on the
patient, but without avail, and
he died on May 11.</p>
<p>Suspicions having been
aroused, and from statements
made to the police, Mrs. Maybrick
was arrested, and eventually
charged with the wilful
murder of her husband. From
evidence given at the trial, it
transpired that the relations
between husband and wife had
not been of the most cordial
character for some time. There
were frequent disagreements,
and just before Mr. Maybrick
was taken ill there had been a
serious quarrel, resulting from
his wife's relations with another
man. The lady resented
the accusation, and a separation
was talked of. The fatal
illness then intervened, during<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_56" id="Page_56">56</SPAN></span>
the first portion of which Mrs.
Maybrick nursed her husband;
but through a letter addressed
to her lover, which she had
given to her nursemaid to post,
having been opened by the
latter and handed to Mr. Maybrick's
brother, trained nurses
were called in, and the sick man
was placed in their charge entirely.
This letter, which
formed one of the strongest
pieces of evidence against the
accused, revealed the connection
between Mrs. Maybrick and
her lover, and contained the
intelligence to him that her
husband was "sick unto death."
Evidence was also given by the
servants, of flypapers having
been seen in process of maceration
in water in Mrs. Maybrick's
bedroom. The trained nurses
also gave evidence concerning
the suspicious conduct of Mrs.
Maybrick, with reference to
tampering with the medicines
and meat juice which were to
be administered to the patient.
These suspicions culminated in
the discovery of arsenic in a
bottle of the meat juice by one
of the medical attendants.
Considerable quantities of arsenic
were found by the police
in the house, including a packet
containing seventy-one grains,
mixed with charcoal, and labelled
"Poison for cats."</p>
<p>The analytical examination
was made by Dr. Stevenson
and a local analytical chemist,
who discovered traces of arsenic
in the intestines, and .049 of a
grain of arsenic in the liver,
traces of the poison being also
found in the spleen. Arsenic
was also found in various medicine
bottles, handkerchiefs,
bottles of glycerine, and in the
pocket of a dressing-gown belonging
to the accused. Dr.
Stevenson further stated, he believed
the body of the deceased
at the time of death probably
contained a fatal dose of arsenic.
The scientific evidence
adduced was of a very conflicting
character. On one
hand, the medical men who
attended the deceased, and the
Government analyst, swore they
believed that death was caused
from the effects of arsenic;
while on the other, Dr. Tidy,
who was called for the defence,
as an expert stated that the
quantity of arsenic discovered
in the body did not point to the
fact that an overdose had been
administered. He believed that
death had been due to gastro-enteritis
of some kind or
other, but that the symptoms
and post-mortem appearances
distinctly pointed away from
arsenic as the cause of death.
Dr. MacNamara, ex-president of<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_57" id="Page_57">57</SPAN></span>
the Royal College of Surgeons,
Ireland, also stated, that in his
opinion Mr. Maybrick's death
had not been caused by arsenical
poisoning and that he
agreed with Dr. Tidy that the
cause was gastro-enteritis, unconnected
with arsenical poisoning.
For the defence it was
also urged that the deceased
man had been in the habit of
taking arsenic in considerable
quantities for some years. In
support of this, witnesses were
called to prove that he had
been in the habit of taking a
mysterious white powder, and
that while living in America,
he frequently purchased arsenic
from chemists who knew he was
in the habit of taking it. A
black man, who had been in
the service of deceased in America,
also deposed to seeing him
take this white powder in beef
tea.</p>
<p>At the close of the evidence
for the defence the accused
woman by permission of the
judge made the following statement
amid the breathless silence
of those in the court:—</p>
<p>"My Lord, I wish to make
a statement, as well as I can,
about a few facts in connection
with the dreadful and crushing
charge that has been made
against me—the charge of poisoning
my husband and father
of my dear children. I wish
principally to refer to the flypaper
solution. The flypapers
I bought with the intention of
using the solution as a cosmetic.
Before my marriage, and since
for many years, I have been
in the habit of using this wash
for the face prescribed for me
by Dr. Graves, of Brooklyn.
It consisted, I believe, principally
of arsenic, of tincture of
benzoin, and elder-flower water,
and some other ingredients.
This prescription I lost or mislaid
last April, and as at the
time I was suffering from an
eruption on the face I thought
I should like to try and make
a substitute myself. I was
anxious to get rid of this eruption
before I went to a ball
on the 30th of that month.
When I had been in Germany,
among my young friends there,
I had seen used a solution derived
from flypapers soaked in
elder-flower water, and then
applied to the face with a handkerchief
well soaked in the
solution. I procured the flypapers
and used them in the
same manner, and to avoid
evaporation I put the solution
into a bottle so as to avoid as
much as possible the admission
of the air. For this purpose
I put a plate over the flypapers,
then a folded towel over that,<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_58" id="Page_58">58</SPAN></span>
and then another towel over
that. My mother has been
aware for a great many years
that I have used arsenic in
solution. I now wish to speak
of his illness. On Thursday
night, May 9, after the nurse
had given my husband medicine,
I went and sat on the bed
beside him. He complained to
me of feeling very sick, very
weak, and very restless. He
implored me then again to give
him the powder which he had
referred to earlier in the evening,
and which I declined to
give him. I was over-wrought,
terribly anxious, miserably unhappy,
and his evident distress
utterly unnerved me. As 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, no one
to advise me. I was deposed
from my own position as mistress
of my own house, and from
the position of attending on my
husband, and notwithstanding
that he was so ill, and notwithstanding
the evidence of
the nurses and the servants, I
may say that he missed me
whenever I was not with him;
whenever I was out of the room
he asked for me, and four days
before he died I was not allowed
to give him a piece of
ice without its being taken out
of my hand. I took the meat
juice into the inner room. On
going through the door I spilled
some of the liquid from the
bottle, and in order to make up
the quantity spilled I put in a
considerable quantity of water.
On returning into the room I
found my husband asleep. I
placed the bottle on the table
near the window. As he did
not ask for anything then, and
as I was not anxious to give
him anything, I removed it
from the small table where it
attracted his attention and put
it on the washstand where he
could not see it. There I left
it. Until Tuesday, May 14, the
Tuesday after my husband's
death, till a few moments before
the terrible charge was made
against me, no one in that
house had informed me of the
fact that a death certificate
had been refused—but of course
the post-mortem examination
had taken place—or that there
was any reason to suppose that
my husband had died from
other than natural causes. It
was only when a witness alluded
to the presence of arsenic in the
meat juice that I was made
aware of the nature of the
powder my husband had been
taking. In conclusion, I only<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_59" id="Page_59">59</SPAN></span>
wish to say that for the love of
our children, and for the sake
of their future, a perfect reconciliation
had taken place
between us, and on the day
before his death I made a full
and free confession to him."</p>
<p>Mrs. Maybrick's counsel, Sir
Charles Russell, made a most
brilliant and eloquent appeal
in her defence. He pointed
out that at the time the
black shadow which could
never be dispelled passed over
the life of the accused woman,
her husband was in the habit
of drugging himself. She was
deposed from her position as
mistress of her own home, and
pointed out as an object of
suspicion.</p>
<p>If it had not been for the
act of infidelity on her part,
there would be no motive assigned
in the case, and surely
there was a wide chasm between
the grave moral guilt of
unfaithfulness and the criminal
guilt involved in the deliberate
plotting by such wicked means
of the felonious death of her
husband. There were two
questions to be answered: Was
there clear, safe, and satisfactory
equivocal proof, either that
death was in fact caused by
arsenical poisoning, or that the
accused woman administered
that poison if to the poison the
death of her husband was due?
The jury, however, returned a
verdict of "Guilty," and Florence
Maybrick was sentenced
to death. The agitation and
excitement throughout the
country which followed, ending
in a respite being granted and
the sentence being commuted
to one of penal servitude for
life, will be well remembered.</p>
<p>Whether Florence Maybrick
did actually administer arsenic
to her husband <em>with intent to
kill him</em>, she alone can tell.
On her own confession she admitted
having given him a certain
<em>white powder</em> for which he
craved, of the nature of which
she said she was ignorant. There
can be no doubt <em>this powder
was arsenic</em>. If she did not
know the powder was arsenic,
and did not give it with intent
to take his life, which many
still believe, then surely such
a web of circumstantial evidence
has never before been
woven round one accused of
having committed a terrible
crime.</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_60" id="Page_60">60</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />