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.