“The argument that the prisoner administered the arsenic is an argument depending upon the combination of a great variety of circumstances of suspicion. The theory is that there was poisoning by successive doses, and it is rather suggested that there may have been several doses. But I do not know that there was any effort made to point out the precise times at which doses may have been administered.”
Under such circumstances it is submitted that the statement of the judge as to the medicine on the 27th of April, and as to the food at office, and as to the statement that “Friday (3d May) was the day on which began the symptoms of what may be called the fatal dose,” are misdirections of vital importance to this case, and such as to entitle Mrs. Maybrick to have the verdict set aside and have a new trial ordered.
Misdirection as to Mrs. Maybrick’s Changing Medicine Bottles
As regards the question of attempts to administer arsenic, the occasions upon which such conduct was imputed are changing medicine from one bottle into another and the Valentine’s meat juice. As regards the changing the bottle, there were two occasions when evidence was given as to Mrs. Maybrick’s doing this. The first was on the 7th of May, when Alice Yapp said that some of the medicines were kept on a table near the bedroom door and some in the bedroom, and that on Tuesday, 7th of May, she saw Mrs. Maybrick on the landing near the bedroom door, and what was she doing? She was apparently pouring something out of one bottle into another. They were medicine bottles.
That is the whole evidence as to the incident, and as all the bottles in the house were analyzed, and none found to contain even a trace of arsenic except the Clay and Abraham’s bottle—which James Maybrick was not taking at that time—the judge could not properly direct the jury to regard it as a matter of suspicion; but he did do so. He referred to this incident thus:
“On the 28th April (the day after the Wirrall Races) Mrs. Maybrick sent for Dr. Humphreys, and afterward she was seen pouring medicine from one bottle into another.”
It is submitted that this was a serious misdirection.
The other occasion was on Friday, the 10th of May, when Michael Maybrick, seeing Mrs. Maybrick changing a medicine from one bottle to another in the bedroom, took the bottles away and had the prescription made up again, saying: “Florrie, how dare you tamper with the medicine?” Mrs. Maybrick explained that she was only putting the medicine into a larger bottle because there was so much sediment. Nurse Callery was present and there was no concealment about what she was doing, and the bullying conduct of Michael was absolutely without any sort of justification. These bottles were analyzed and found to be harmless.
Mr. Justice Stephen turned this incident, which occurred on the afternoon before death, and after she had been prevented from attending on her husband, against Mrs. Maybrick, thus—quoting Michael’s evidence: “In the bedroom I found Mrs. Maybrick pouring from one bottle into another and changing the labels, and I said, ‘Florrie, how dare you tamper with the medicine?’” And Justice Stephen continued: “Verily, this was a strange—I don’t say strange considering the circumstances—but dreadfully unwelcome remark to make to a lady in her own house, when she was in attendance on her husband, and something which showed the state of feeling in his mind, and must have attracted her attention.” It is submitted that this was a misdirection.