Misdirection as to Arsenic in Glycerin
As regards the glycerin, Inspector Baxendale said he found this bottle in the lavatory on the 18th of May. There was no evidence that this bottle had ever been in Mrs. Maybrick’s hands, and there was no evidence that any part of it had been used by James Maybrick. There was evidence that it was a freshly opened bottle. Scientific evidence will be forthcoming that it is an absolute impossibility for any person to distribute arsenic evenly through a pound of glycerin.
It is suggested that there is no possible means by which that glycerin could have been administered with a felonious intent to James Maybrick; the mere moistening the lips with small quantities of it could not have operated in that way.
Scientific evidence will be forthcoming that glycerin, when kept in glass bottles, generally does contain arsenic, which it extracts from the glass of the bottle.
In 1888 Jahns drew attention to arsenic being present in glycerin—Chemische Zeitung.
In 1889 Vulpius also drew attention to it—Apotheker Zeitung.
Siebold (see Pharmaceutical Journal, 5th October, 1889) said, at the Pharmaceutical Conference, on the 11th September, 1889, that his experiments were made with toilet and pharmaceutical glycerin, and that the majority showed presence of arsenious acid, varying from 1 grain in 4,000 to 1 grain in 5,000.
It may be pointed out that this is a larger quantity than Mr. Davies found, which was only “about 1/10 of a grain in 1,000 grains.”
The evidence relating to the administration of glycerin was that of Nurse Gore and Nurse Callery, and was to the effect that on Thursday night they refreshed James Maybrick’s mouth with glycerin and borax mixed in a saucer that was on the table in the sick-room, and that Mrs. Maybrick had brought the glycerin that was used either from the medicine cupboard in her room or from the washstand drawer.
The attention of counsel is called to the fact that this saucer of mixed glycerin and borax which was actually used was not produced at the trial, but Justice Stephen, when summing up to the jury, said: “Then you get the blue bottle which contained Price’s glycerin. Here is the bottle, which there is no evidence to show that Mrs. Maybrick had even seen or touched; a considerable portion is still left. That glycerin was found in the lavatory outside, and if the bottle were filled and the same proportion of arsenic added, there would be two-thirds of a grain of arsenic in it. You have heard already that his mouth was moistened with glycerin and borax apparently the night before he died. If that be so, and the glycerin be really poison, it is certainly a very shocking result to arrive at.” Sir Charles Russell: “I think the evidence of Nurse Gore is that the bottle that was used the night before was taken, not from the lavatory, but from the cupboard of the washstand.” His Lordship: “It does not follow that that was the same bottle. One does not know the history of that bottle or where it went to. It may or may not have been the glycerin which was used for the purpose I have mentioned, namely, for moistening the lips. But it does appear in the case that a bottle was found in the lavatory, and that it contained a grain of arsenic, and that his mouth was moistened with glycerin and borax during the night in question; but the identity between that bottle and the bottle which contained the glycerin is not established and not proved.”
It is submitted that the above was an unfair and inflammatory suggestion, and amounts to a gross MISDIRECTION, especially after all the evidence about the condition of deceased’s tongue and his complaining of a sensation as of a hair in his throat.
This concludes the whole of the evidence to any articles containing arsenic which were found in the house, in which the arsenic was present in anything except as unweighable “traces.”