Justice Stephen’s Retirement
There are also facts in relation to the judge who tried the case which, had they been anticipated at the time of the trial, could not have failed to have had some weight, directly or indirectly, on the minds of the jury; that is to say, his retirement from the Bench not long afterward, in April, 1891, when, to quote his own words in addressing the Bar, of whom he was taking leave, “he had been made acquainted with the fact that he was regarded by some as no longer physically capable of discharging his duties”; and it will be no matter of surprise, to those who have read critically the summing-up of Mr. Justice Stephen on this trial, to notice the entire change from a favorable bias between his address to the jury on the first days of the trial to the violent hostility shown at its conclusion.
This change of front can be in a manner accounted for, as it had been suggested to the prisoner’s friends, by a conversation on the case between Mr. Justice Stephen and another member of the Bench, Mr. Justice Grantham, at a social meeting of an entirely private character.
A mental malady was developed in the judge so soon after the trial that it was properly said to have been caused by his brooding over it, and this condition increased so rapidly and markedly that his resignation was demanded. It is but reasonable to suppose that the judge’s mental incapacity reached farther back than its discovery, and that the illogical and unjust summing-up was connected with the mental overthrow of the otherwise able judge. And it may be here added that Justice Stephen himself, in the second edition of the “General Views of the Criminal Law of England, 1890,” says, at page 173, that out of 979 cases tried before him, from January, 1885, to September, 1889, “the case of Mrs. Maybrick was the only case in which there could be any doubt about the facts.”
FOOTNOTES:
[1] May 12, 1889.
[2] A convict employed in washing, or other exceptional hard work, may have daily an extra allowance of 3 ounces bread, and cheese 1 ounce, as an intermediate meal between breakfast and dinner, and an extra allowance of 1 ounce of meat (uncooked) four times a week. A convict on entering the second-class will have the choice of 1 pint of tea (made of 1/6 ounce tea, ½ ounce of sugar, 2 ounces milk) and 2 ounces additional bread instead of gruel for supper; and a convict on entering the first or special class will have, in addition to the above, the choice of 4 ounces of baked mutton cooked in its own liquor, not flavored or thickened, instead of boiled meat or soup, if she takes tea instead of gruel. The food is wholesome, but spoiled by overcooking. But oh, how jaded the palate becomes!
[3] Reproduced in the Introduction to Part Two.
[4] The innocents—my children—one a baby of three years, the other a boy of seven, I had left behind in the world. They had been taught to believe that their mother was guilty, and, like their father, was to them dead. They have grown up to years of understanding under another name. I know nothing about them. When the pathos of all this touches the reader’s heart he will realize the tragedy of my case.
During the early years of my imprisonment I received my children’s photographs once a year; also several friendly letters from Mr. Thomas Maybrick, with information about them. But as time passed on, these ceased altogether. When I could endure the silence no longer I instructed Mr. R. S. Cleaver, of Liverpool—who had been the solicitor in my case, and to whose unwavering faith and kindness I owe a debt I can never hope to repay—to write to Mr. Michael Maybrick to forward fresh photographs of my boy and girl. To this request Mr. Thomas Maybrick replied that Mr. Michael Maybrick refused to permit it. When the matter was further urged Mr. Michael Maybrick himself wrote to the governor to inform me that my son, who had been made acquainted with the history of the case, did not wish either his own or his sister’s photograph to be sent to me.
[5] The jury was composed of three plumbers, two farmers, one milliner, one wood-turner, one provision dealer, one grocer, one ironmonger, one house-painter, and one baker.
[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.
Transcriber’s Note
Minor punctuation errors (i.e. missing periods) have been corrected. Variations in hyphenation (i.e. hatbox and hat-box) present in the original text have been retained. In the illustration caption [following page 144], Miss Mary A. Dodge was incorrectly referred to as “Miss Mary F. Dodge.” This has been corrected.