Part 2 — THE BRIEF OF MESSRS. LUMLEY & LUMLEY (continued 2)
Reading edition
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.