“Charles Russell, Q.C.
“I. Fletcher Moulton, Q.C.
“Harry Bookin Poland, Q.C.
“Reginald Smith, Q.C.
“Lincoln’s Inn, 12th April, 1892.”
This opinion was based upon the following points, presented by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley:
Justice Stephen’s Misdirections
The misdirections which are selected for consideration may be conveniently classed, among others, under these headings:
1. As to the facts disclosed in the evidence of the procuring and possession of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick and of her administering it.
2. As to the cause of death.
A perusal of the summing-up from beginning to end impresses the mind with the feeling that, whenever Mr. Justice Stephen approached any fact offered by the defense which threw light upon the possession and an alleged administration of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick, he drew the minds of the jury away from it; he played, in fact, the part of the peewit, which swoops and screams in another part of the field on purpose to hide where its nest is, and to draw the attention of the passers-by from the right spot.
Mr. Justice Stephen pointed out to the jury in his summing-up: “You must begin the whole subject of poison with this, which is a remarkable fact in the case and which it seems to me tells favorably rather than otherwise for the prisoner. You must take notice of it and consider what inference you draw from it. In the whole case, from first to last, there is no evidence at all of her having bought any poison, or definitely having had anything to do with procuring any, with the exception of fly-papers. But there is evidence of a considerable quantity having been found in various things, which were kept some here and some there—kept principally, as I gather, in the inner room.[6] ... There is evidence about a considerable quantity of poison in this house, and more particularly about one or two receptacles which were in the inner room, Mr. Maybrick’s dressing-room, as it has been pointed out.”