Then, citing the behaviour of Eliza Fenning, in the well-known disputed, and even now disputed case, as a parallel instance of such behaviour as the prisoner showed when taxed with the charge of murder:[124] repudiating the doctrine that juries have nothing to do with the consequences of their verdict, and that all questions of evidence must be weighed in the same scale, whether the crime be capital, or a mere case of pocket picking, and appealing to the jury not to raise their rash and imprudent hands to tear away the veil Providence has been pleased to place over this mystery, the Dean closed his most effective speech.
THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.
The most material comments of the Lord Justice Clerk have been already so fully quoted as notes to the several portions of the evidence, or to the points made by the counsel for the defence, that it will now suffice to give his concluding summary of the case.
“The first charge is that she administered arsenic on the 19th or 20th of February. Probably you may come to the conclusion, on the evidence of Miss Perry and others, that he did see her on that occasion; but she was not proved to have had arsenic or any other poison in her possession; and what I attach very great importance to is, that there is no medical testimony, by analysis of the matter vomited, that that illness did proceed from the administration of arsenic. If the doctor had examined the vomit and proved that there was arsenic there, I am afraid the case would have been very strong against her as having given him coffee or something before his illness on that occasion. But it is not proved that that illness arose from the administration of poison. Arsenic she had not, and there is no proof of her having possessed anything deleterious. Therefore I have no hesitation in telling you that charge has failed.
“The second charge stands in a somewhat different position in regard to the evidence, although in one respect it is similar to the first, for it is not proved that the illness arose from the administration of arsenic or any other poisonous substance. But then the way in which you can connect the prisoner with a meeting on that occasion is much stronger. Still if you should think you can acquit her of the first charge, and that there is too much doubt to prove the second proven, then you will observe how much this weakens the case that has been raised by the prosecution on the motives for revenge, on the change in the tone of the letters, and the desire to allure him again to her embraces and fascinations, which could not be accounted for except on the supposition of some such murderous design. In that view undoubtedly the foundation of the case is very much shaken, and will not lead you to suppose that the purpose of murder was cherished on the 22nd.
“Then as to the charge for murder, the question for you to consider is a simple one. No matter how the prisoner is surrounded with grave suspicions, and with many circumstances that seem to militate against the notion of innocence upon any theory that has been propounded, still are you prepared to say that the interview of the 22nd March has been proved against her? She had arsenic before the illness of 22nd February, and I think you will consider the excuse of using arsenic as a cosmetic of the same stamp as those which she stated to the druggists. She bought arsenic again on the 6th of March, and it certainly is a very odd thing that she should buy more arsenic when she came back on the 18th. Because unless you are to take the account to be sure, that she used it as a cosmetic, she has it before the 22nd, and that is a dreadful fact if you are quite satisfied that she did not get it and use it for the purpose of washing her hands and face. It may create the greatest reluctance in your mind to take any other view of the matter than that she was guilty of administering it somehow, though the place where may not be made out, or the precise time of the interview. But on the other hand you must keep in view, that arsenic could only be administered by her if an interview took place with L’Angelier, and that interview, though it may be the result of an inference that may satisfy you morally that it did take place, still rests upon an inference alone, and that inference is to be the ground, and must be the ground, on which a verdict of guilty is to rest. You will see, therefore, the necessity of great caution and jealousy in dealing with any inference which you may draw from this. Probably none of you may think for a moment that he did go out that night, and that without seeing her, and without knowing what she wanted to see him about, if they met, he may have swallowed 200 grains of arsenic on the street, and may have carried it about. On the other hand, if he did not commit suicide, keep in view that that will not of itself establish that the prisoner administered the arsenic. The matter may have remained most mysterious—wholly unexplained. You may not be able to account for it on any other supposition, but still that supposition or inference may not be a ground on which you can safely and satisfactorily rest your verdict against the prisoner.
“Now then I leave you to consider the case with reference to the views that are raised by this correspondence. I do not think you will consider it so unlikely as was supposed that this girl, after writing such letters, may have been capable of cherishing such a purpose. But still, though you may take such a view of her character, it is but a supposition that she cherished this murderous purpose—the last conclusion that you ought to come to merely on supposition and inference and observation on this wavering correspondence of a girl in the circumstances in which she was placed. It receives more importance, no doubt, when you find the purchase of arsenic just before she expected, or just at the time that she expected L’Angelier. But still these are but suppositions. Now the great and invaluable use of a jury after they direct their attention seriously to the case with the attention you have done, is to separate firmly—firmly and clearly in your own minds—suspicions from evidence. I don’t say that inferences may not be completely drawn, but I have already warned you about inferences in the ordinary matters of civil life, and in such a case as this.[125] If you cannot say, ‘We satisfactorily find here evidence of the meeting, and that the poison must have been administered by her at that meeting,’ whatever may be your suspicion, however perplexing may be the probability against her, and however you may have to struggle to get rid of it, you perform your best and bounden duty as a jury to separate suspicion from truth, and to proceed upon nothing that you do not feel established in evidence against her.”
After retiring for half an hour, the jury by a majority in each charge found the prisoner Not Guilty on the first, and a verdict of Not Proven on the second and third charges, in which findings the Lord Justice Clerk expressed his entire concurrence.