The marriage became troubled, and both partners had at least one affair. In May of 1889, James became ill. His health variously improved and deteriorated through the next two weeks. Suspicious of their mistress' behavior, some of the servants spoke to the neighbors about their concerns. Neighbors, in turn, notified Maybrick's brothers, notably Michael. Professional nurses were called in, leaving Florence largely shut out of James' sickroom. James finally succumbed May 11. Michael ordered a search of the house shortly thereafter, and arsenic was found. Florence was arrested and charged with murder. The judge in her trial was incompetent and obviously biased, as even the prosecution agreed, but she was nevertheless found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. A week before the day of execution, her sentence was reduced to life with hard labor. She was eventually released and lived most of the rest of her life as quietly as possible, dying known as the local cat lady in Connecticut in 1924.

There have certainly been cases of judicial mishandling, and Justice Stephen Fitzjames Stephen was certainly past his prime, misstating the facts of the case as well as the law. But even setting aside his errors, the evidence is obvious: Florence Maybrick was not guilty of her husband's murder; in fact, there was no murder at all.

Much has been made of the supposition that James died of arsenic poisoning. Several doctors testified as such at Florie's trial. However, when cross examined, they admitted that they not only found no arsenic in James when they tested him in the days before his death, only in his dead body. They also were forced to concede that they had no way of telling the difference between death by arsenic and death by gastroenteritis unless they found arsenic (Lustgarten 153).

Even if he had died because of arsenic, it would be of no surprise to those who knew him well. He had been an arsenic eater for many years (Lustgarten 156). Local chemist (pharmacist) Edwin Heaton said Maybrick would sometimes come to his shop as many as five times a day to purchase arsenic (Lawbuzz). Michael's search turned up enough arsenic in the house "to kill fifty people" (wiki).

Apparently the doctors who attended James at the end were not appraised of this fact. James himself apparently did not tell them; one of them testified that he would not have thought about arsenic poisoning at all were it not for the suggestion of James' brother Michael (Lustgarten 152).

Florie was in possession of some arsenic and admitted so. She had purchased a number of fly papers and was soaking them in water in an attempt to extract some. A number of the servants saw the papers being steeped. She claimed she wanted to use the arsenic for a cosmetic cure, as it was part of a recipe she had lost. Her detractors scoffed at the idea.

It certainly has a firm foundation, however. A brief look at Florie's early life shows her to be a young, attractive, and vain woman. She was set to attend a ball shortly after James became ill, and she no doubt wanted to look her best for the high class crowd that would be there. It was not unheard of to use arsenic in such preparations, either; Queen Elizabeth I "used arsenic as part of the preparation that made her face appear white" (Lawbuzz). The fact that the recipe could not be found seemed to indicate to some that it never existed. Its existence is no longer in question; after Florie's death, the recipe was found pressed between pages of the family bible (wiki).

Some of this evidence against Florie actually could be used to support her story. For example, there was time between James' death and the search of the house orchestrated by Michael. Although Florie was no Rhoades Scholar, she surely was not so stupid as to leave such a large amount of arsenic around in easily found places, particularly if that were the method she had used to kill her husband? The large amount actually works in her favor.

Michael's part in the drama is quite significant, as well. It may seem difficult that he would so viciously attack Florie's position, but he had apparently never liked her, a fact not unnoticed by Florie. Florie was a notorious flirt, charming even the other Maybrick brother Edwin, and this did not sit well with the proper Michael Maybrick. Michael was in charge of James' estate, which was not a small sum (casebook jpg). It was when he arrived that Florie was denied access to James to give him care, so it seems Michael's suspicions began before he even arrived, probably due to the worried tone of the neighbor who called for him.

Florie's words and actions don't point toward a guilty conscience, either. The cook testified that Florie, crying in the kitchen, said she was upset about Michael blaming her for James' illness; "once Mr. Michael goes out of my house he shall never enter it anymore" (London Times). Michael certainly would not leave unless James improved or died. If he died and blamed Florie, obviously she would be leaving for jail. This comment leaves room only for James' eventual recovery.

A second commentary is found in a letter, the one letter she wrote in the throes of Maybrick's illness, a letter to her lover. It states in part, "We are terribly anxious. . . If you wish to write to me about anything do so now, as all the letters pass through my hands at present" (London Times). If she had attempted to kill her husband, why would she use the plural "we" in a letter no one was to see but her secret lover? Even more telling is the second sentence. Typically, Victorian men read through the mail and women had little or no access to it, as seems to be the case here. Since Florie suggests the man write to her quickly in order for her to receive the communication, the implication is that she doesn't expect the situation to last. Again, it seems obvious she expects James to recover.

Another element in her favor is the will. There was "paltry provision for her" (wiki) in the will which can be viewed at www.casebook.org/images/will1b.jpg. She was used to an expensive lifestyle, had no means of making her own money, and so had no motive to murder her provider. She had not only herself to think of but her children.

With all this evidence, the question pops up of how Florie could have been convicted. The answer lies in the love letter. Victorian women had a particular code of conduct, and American women living in England were often looked at with condescension and suspicion. A man could be expected to cheat on his wife, but a woman cheating on her husband was unforgivable. Had the letter not been opened by a nosy servant and then shown to a nosy neighbor, the entire fiasco might not have happened. Florie might not have lost her children, whom she never saw again, her position and wealth, her youth, and fifteen years of her life.

"Casebook: Jack the Ripper." 2005-2009. 13 Oct. 2009.

"Florence Maybrick." Law Buzz. 1999-2007. 20 Oct. 2009.

"Florence Maybrick." Wikipedia.org. 9 Sept. 2009. 20 Oct. 2009.

London Times. "The Charge of Poisoning at Aigburth." 29 May 1889. 10 Oct. 2009. . Lustgarten, Edgar. "Florence Maybrick." The Mammoth Book of Unsolved Crimes, Ed. Roger Wilkes. New York: Carroll & Graff, 1999. 134-161. Print.

Florence Maybrick

Liverpool Mercury

January 18th, 1913

When the quivering mortal whose fate is in the balance happens to be a winsome young woman, who has been a wife and mother.

There can be few who do not sink a sense of justice and retribution in a flood of pity and sympathy. This view is born out by the case of Florence Elizabeth MAYBRICK, 26 year old wife of a Liverpool Merchant, who on, Wednesday July 31st 1889, was placed in the dock at Liverpool Assizes and charged with, having at Garston, on May 11th, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice of aforethought, killed and murdered her husband, James MAYBRICK.

James MAYBRICK, Cotton Broker, died at his residence, Battlecrease House, Aigburth, on Saturday, 11th May 1889, under mysterious circumstances. Suspicion had arisen in those attending him during his illness, that his wife had been attempting to poison him.

She was convicted and sentenced to death on the, 7th August 1889. On the 22nd of August this sentence was committed by the Home Secretary to one of, penal servitude for life. She served 15 yrs and was released on the 25th January 1904.

Two questions were raised by the study of the facts, did James MAYBRICK die from arsenic poisoning. If he did, was this administered by his wife, with the intent to murder him.

It was of no advantage to Mrs MAYBRICK that her defence had been entrusted to Sir Charles RUSSELL, in the opinion of many, the foremost advocate of his day, though not in Criminal Courts his signal-triumphs had been won. Attorney General in GLADSTONE’S, short lived administration in 1886, the first Roman Catholic since the reformation. In the April preceding Mrs MAYBRICK’S trial, he had concluded his speech before the Parnell Commission in the defence of the Irish Party, the greatest achievement of his forensic career.

Sir Henry LUCY, who met RUSSELL in Liverpool on the morning of Mrs MAYBRICK’S trial, spoke of RUSSELL’S confidence of his client’s aquital. As junior RUSSELL had the assistance of Mr [now Mr Justice] PICKFORD.

The jury was a Lancashire, not a Liverpool jury and according to Mr BINGHAM’S Q. C. Clerk, the precautions for secluding the jury was scandalously neglected. They spent their time in the billiard room of a local hotel, mixing freely with the ordinary frequenters.

RUSSELL called three witnesses from America who deposed to MAYBRICK’S habits of taking arsenic, while in the Country, that of a Chemist, Edwin Garnett HEATON, Exchange St, East, who identified MAYBRICK as a gentleman who he frequently supplied with a pick-me-up containing arsenic, for 18 mths previous to 1888. Increasing the dose from, 4-7 drops and 2-5 times a day. Equivalent to a third of a grain of white arsenic a day.

The police found a bottle in MAYBRICK’S office bearing the chemist’s name and address, described as, Spirits of Sol Volatile, a white liquid.

A Hairdresser was called as to the use of arsenic as a cosmetic and a Chemist as to the use of fly papers, by ladies, at times when no flies were present.

Sir James POOLE, stated that MAYBRICK had told him in conversation that he was in the habit of taking, “poisonous medicines” to which Sir James replied, “How horrible, the more you take the more you require, you will go on till they carry you off”.

RUSSEL dwelt with great force on the contrariety of the medical evidence and the failure to be certain of the cause of death.

Mr ADDISON for the prosecution, dealt with the medical evidence briefly, devoting most of his attention to the evidence that could point to Mrs MAYBRICK administering the poison. If however RUSSELL was right and the cause of death was in doubt, Mrs MAYBRICK was entitled to a verdict of aquital on a charge of wilful murder.

The summing up of Mr Justice STEPHENS lasted two days, after an absence of nearly three quarters of an hour the jury found Mrs MAYBRICK guilty of murder. The Judge sentenced her to death.

As he left St George’s Hall, Mr Justice STEPHENS was the object of hostile demonstrations from the large crowds gathered.

The TIMES the following day:-

Public not convinced of the prisoners guilt, Doctors differed beyond all hope of agreement on cause of death.

Petitions of reprieve poured in from all corners of the kingdom, half a million from the Liverpool Exchange alone. Petitions from Medical Practitioners who based their actions on the grounds that symptoms of arsenic poisoning during life and after death were insufficient.

Only discovery of arsenic in the viscera suggested such a cause of death. The amount found was less than any other previous case of arsenic poisoning.

A most sensible communication came from, Mr Auberon HERBERT, who asked wether it was necessary to inquire what irritant in the way of food caused the Gastro Enteritis in MAYBRICK, when his stomach had been used as, “a druggist’s waste pipe”, for such drugs as, strychnine, arsenic, jaborandi, cascara, henbane, morphia, prussic acid, papaine, iridin and others, administered during MAYBRICK’S illness.

Mr Fletcher MOULTON. Q. C. wrote, evidence for the prosecution had failed to negative the explanation that MAYBRICK’S death had been due to natural causes. Operating on a system that years of arsenic taking had developed a predisposition to gastro- enteritis.

Meetings in favour of Mrs MAYBRICK were held in Liverpool and London.

Members of Parliament signed petitions and other petitions were handed to the Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales.

Justice STEPHENS had a long interview with the Home Secretary, Mr Henry MATHEWS. Q. C, M. P. On his return to Liverpool attending another conference lasting four hours in the presence of the Lord Chancellor, Lord HALSBURY.

Among other witnesses Dr TIDY was summoned.

In the Lancet on the 17th August, an article was highly unfavourable to Mrs MAYBRICK, Professors from various parts of the country were asked for their opinions on the justice of the conviction, four supported and three dissented the verdict.

Further conferences were held by Mr Justice STEPHENS and the Home Secretary. Sir Charles RUSSELL after the trial had sent a memorandum to the Home Secretary, pointing out that, though the means of poisoning were in reach by Mrs MAYBRICK, there was no evidence of her administering the poison and that the symptoms of MAYBRICK’S illness were that of gastro enteritis.

The gallows had already been erected in Walton Jail, within hearing distance of Florence MAYBRICK when on the 22nd of August the Home Secretary’s decision was announced. To respite the capital sentence and to commute the punishment of penal servitude for life.

In 1892 when Mr ASGUITH succeeded Mr MATHEWS as Home Secretary, determined attempts were made to procure the release of Mrs MAYBRICK.

In 1891 a fresh body of evidence was submitted to Mr ASQUITH, three affidavits from Mrs MAYBRICK’S Mother, Baroness-de-Roques, her servant, and a Solicitors Clerk in Paris described the findings of Dr BAY’S of New York, prescription for a face wash and its making up by a Parisian Chemist 1878.

An interesting affidavit was that of Valentine BLAKE the son of an Irish Baronet, explaining the large quantities of arsenic, some black, [mixed with charcoal], some white, found in the MAYBRICK’S house, procured by MAYBRICK to use as a drug, by Mrs MAYBRICK to use as a face wash. There was no evidence Mrs MAYBRICK had procured such considerable quantities. If Mrs MAYBRICK had known of the presence of the large amounts of arsenic in the house, why? did she find it necessary to purchase fly paper.

Nether Mr ASQUITH nor his successor, Sir Mathew White RIDLEY’S efforts were successful in Florence MAYBRICK’S release. One man continued his efforts unremittingly, that of Sir Charles RUSSELL.

In 1895 he wrote to Florence MAYBRICK saying he had not relaxed his efforts to gain her release. In 1904 having served 15 years in Woking and Aylesbury Prisons, Mrs MAYBRICK was released from the latter in January 1904, shortly afterwards leaving England for America.

Old-merseytimes.co.uk

She must die

Freeborn County Standard
Minnesota, U.S.A.
15 August 1889