Misjudged Murderesses 3: The Reprieved

Misjudged Murderesses 3: The Reprieved.

In this article the main details of the background and trials of the accused have not been examined elsewhere on this website. It is proposed to make a suitable reference to them in each case as well as concentrating on what went wrong and the aftermath.

Ann Merritt

A complete summary of the trial and its problems from the London Daily News: Editorial Monday March the 11th 1850

“THE WOMAN UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH IN NEWGATE”

A case is now before the public that occurred at the Sessions House, Old Bailey, on Friday last, which demands some interposition on the part of friends of humanity. The woman is sentenced to be hanged, not on fact, but on an opinion. Ann Merritt was charged with having poisoned her husband by administering to him arsenic. The wretched woman admits buying the poison, taking from it the label marked with the word ‘poison’ and most thoughtlessly placing it in the only cupboard they possessed, screwed up in a piece of paper, in which same cupboard, screwed up in a similar piece of paper, were powders of soda and acids bought by the ounce and not in doses, to form effervescent drafts, in the frequent use of which her husband indulged. Her object in buying the poison, she affirms, was to destroy herself, because her life was rendered wretched by the drunken habits of her husband. He however, altered these habits for a few days, and she repented of her purpose, and thought no more of the poison. In less than a week the husband had again taken to drinking, and on the morning of Thursday, 24 January last, goes to the carpet, takes a Seidlitz powder as he thought, and soon after is seized with vomiting. His wife prepared his luncheon for him about 11 o’clock, which he does not eat, given the meat and potatoes to a fellow turncock, David Ashby, and requested to have some gruel. A penny worth of oatmeal is fetched by the child of a neighbour, being made into gruel in the sight of Ashby; the deceased partakes of some of it, and his wife says she and her child ate the rest. There was evidently no poison in the meat and potatoes, and it is not too much to assume, therefore, there was some in the gruel. During the day the man gets worse, and after going out about his duty, comes home and goes to bed. Several medical men are sent for, and none comes to see him till half-past 10 at night. Some chamomile and opium pills are given him, and he dies about 12:30 the same night. On a post-mortem examination of the body arsenic to the extent of 8 grains is found in his stomach, in about a quart of liquid there remaining, and resembling gruel. Dr Latheby, of the London hospital, gave it as his opinion that this 8 grains could not have been in his stomach more than four hours at furthest though he took no gruel after 11 o’clock. And upon this opinion the woman was convicted, the Lord Chief Baron admitting there was no evidence of her having administered the poison.

The woman’s poverty prevented her from being properly defended. To the last moment it was hoped that her friends would have been able to procure counsel. But the depositions were obtained by the humanity of the sheriffs, and, almost without reading, placed in the hands of Mr Clarkson, who did all that could be done under such disadvantageous circumstances. It transpired, in court, as soon as the trial was over, that five friends of the prisoner were in the gallery (one the brother, another the sister, of the deceased) ready to speak to the characters of the accused. Many circumstances have also been since elicited, we understand, which render the unhappy woman’s account of the transaction not unlikely to be true. The deceased was up and dressed as late as 8 o’clock on the night of his death, and several times during the same day took out of the screwed up papers the Seidlitz powders ‘killed by’ or the woman, under such circumstances about, to suffer the extreme penalty of the law, convicted, as she is, upon a chemical opinion? There is no saving clause to the opinion given by the chemist, such as supposing the common theory about the time substances remain in the stomach to be true, but we have positive dogmatism as to what time the poison was in the stomach: and on this dogma the woman dies!

Though the London Daily News received a plethora of letters as a result of its strong editorial: the most important early letter of this date was from an eminent doctor who had been present in court:

To the editor of the Daily News

Sir, having been accidentally in court during the trial of the unhappy woman, Ann Merritt, charged with poisoning her husband and who has been found guilty but strongly recommended to mercy, I find it not unbecoming a member of the medical profession to advert to that portion of the evidence as to which the jury chiefly relied in arriving at their decision; and if any reasonable doubt can be thrown upon the evidence in question, the illustrious lady – known for mercy and goodness – to whom that recommendation will be submitted, will doubtless humanely give the case her royal and favourable consideration.

Dr Latheby swore, that the matter found in the deceased’s stomach, resembling gruel, but had been taken only two or three hours before death, and founded his opinion on the theory that the average period for the digestion of liquid matter is from three to four hours, and in about five hours they pass entirely from the stomach into the small intestines. Guided by this opinion the jury could not admit the possibility of the husband taking the poison by either accidentally or designedly, and as he was unable to leave his bed from about 5 o’clock in the afternoon till almost midnight, a period of seven hours, when he died; and as no one but the wife had access to him, or was likely to administer the poison they were, by this evidence, fully justified in finding her guilty. If he had been asked to give the exception to these laws he would doubtless have told the jury that some persons even in perfect health, from constitutional peculiarities, have remarkably slow digestion that account cannot take food at the shorter intervals than six, eight or ten hours and sometimes even longer. A drunkard’s stomach would certainly require a very long period for the digestion of this food and it was proved in evidence that the deceased had been drinking hard during the six weeks preceding his death. I venture to hope, sufficient grounds for further investigation, so that the law and our common feelings of humanity may not be outraged by the commission of an error.

27th May 1850 THE LATE POISONING CASE AT HACKNEY

Anne Merritt, the unfortunate woman under sentence of execution for poisoning her husband at Hackney, but respited, in order that further enquiries might be made, has had the capital punishment commuted and is ordered to undergo transportation for life.

Further research discloses she sailed on the Emma Eugenia on 25 October 1850 to Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania). Anne reached Tasmania on 7 March 1851, and married John Shipley on 19 July 1852.

Was she guilty?

Modern comment on this case cannot do better than an article of 27 March 1850, in The Spectator: “SENTENCE OF DEATH ON SUSPICION”

Anne Merritt is under sentence of death because appearances are against her. (outline of the case we have abridged from the very clear analysis of the Daily News.). He was a member of a burial club, from which Mrs Merritt received 7 pounds 10 shillings; on the other hand, had he lived till 2 February she would have been entitled to £10; and the want of his salary of ten shillings a week has forced her to send her children to the work house. The two links wanting in the evidence – the motive and the proof, even circumstantial, that Anne’s hand gave the poison. It is like the memorable case of Eliza Fenning.

Sarah Barber

Life and background

Summarised from The Nottingham Gazette 1 August 1851

Her father died a short time before her birth. The mother married again, but died soon after, when Sarah was between the age of two and three. Shortly afterwards she went to live with a cousin named Gregory. She had a property legacy from her grandfather, for her upbringing. Instead of proper care she was entirely neglected. When not in the house she was allowed to run wild. When she was nine or ten, she was sent to a local Church School. “Her self-will and temper during the time of her attendance was ungovernable.” “Nothing could be done for her- she cannot now write her own name in a manner fit to seen.” “She was an object of considerable notice in the neighbourhood from her commanding stature, being six feet two or three inches height.” When she was scarcely 15 years old, she attracted the attention of Joseph Barber,12 years older than her. They became lovers and Sarah then aged 17, married him. At the time of their marriage, Mr. Barber received from his wife’s trustees the sum of £80, and about £210, when she reached the age of 21 and was enabled to build four small houses, in one of which they lived when he died.

Shortly after the marriage, he brought a local woman into the home : Sarah left him. She returned, but was again compelled to leave her home. Sarah fled to France, with a man named Gillott. A year later Joseph went to France and persuaded Sarah to come home, they then stayed together until he died

Her language was “the most coarse and unseemly imaginable” “She also frequently joined with parties of men in the game of skittles”.

The Trial Condensed From the Nottinghamshire Guardian Thursday 24 July 1851

SARAH BARBER, aged 22, and ROBERT INGRAM, aged 19, were charged with having, wilfully murdered Joseph Barber, the first-named prisoner’s husband.

The prosecution case was in chaos due to the main local medical witness having fled to America. The flaws in the case against Sarah was neatly summarized by her counsel in his final speech to the Jury

At the period of his sickness, it was admitted on all hands he expressed his grateful sense of the kindness, attention, and affection which she had for him.

It was quite clear that that portion of the human body which found its way to Dr. Taylor’s laboratory in London was strongly impregnated with arsenic. But how was it watched from the inquest-room to the time it reached Dr. Taylor? It was necessary that it should be proved to the jury to have been in the same state as when removed from the body of the deceased. It was shown to have been in the possession of Mr. Mather, and Mr. Mather had not been produced to say whether it was in the same state when he gave it into the possession of Mr. Smith as when be received it. Mr. Mather, although bound under recognisance to appear to give evidence at the trial had from some cause or other removed himself from the jurisdiction of the court.

There was nothing in the evidence inconsistent with the idea that the deceased might have administered the poison himself, or that it might have been given to him by accident in some of the medicine that had been thrown out.

With respect to the purchases of arsenic it had been proved that there was no false attempt at concealment, no recourse to places where the suspected persons were not known, and no false pretences made when the purchases were effected.

To take the worst view of the case it was a matter of great doubt, and it would be their duty to give the benefit of that doubt to the prisoner.

“The Learned Judge in summing up the evidence, virtually reiterated the prosecution’s version of the facts of the case.”!

His lordship having finished his summing up, the jury withdrew, to consider their verdict. On their return the foreman announced the verdict: Wilful Murder Against Sarah Barber; Robert Ingram Not Guilty.

The learned Judge sentenced her to death “The condemned woman, with considerable composure, turned towards the jury and said firmly, ‘Gentlemen of the jury, if you have found me guilty in this world, you cannot prove me guilty in the next. Gentlemen, I am not guilty; I am as innocent as a child just born.’

From the Nottingham Journal On Wednesday, Sarah Made a statemen to the governor (Mr. Hildyard) and Captain Legard, one of the visiting justices.

She told them on the Sunday Joseph and Ingram went to Bulwell .Ingram did purchase some arsenic and that on the way home he took the opportunity of dropping the arsenic into one of the bottles of medicine he had brought. Two days after Josephs death, Ingram confessed to her what he had done. When she gave her husband some of the medicine she was ignorant she had given poison to him. After the first day’s inquest had been held, she told Ingram, to go away and that be replied he had no money. She then gave him 5s., and he left the village. The Statement was read by the high sheriff and another magistrate: no one was satisfied with it. On the following Friday Mr. Hildyard told her that her statement was not believed, and asked her whether she had anything further to say. She replied that they would find the two bottles in which the medicine had been kept, among the rubbish of the ash-pit attached to her home. Mr. Hildyard rushed to Captain Legard, who was at home and it was agreed that Capt. Legard should instantly go to Eastwood, in his magisterial capacity.

Once there, the statements of several locals were taken and it was discovered that the key prosecution witness Mrs. Shaw, had lied to the court and that Sarah’s statement was true,

Mr. Hildyard afterwards found Ingham. He eventually broke down under questioning and confessed he told a tissue of lies about his movements.

Directions were given to have the ash-pit dug, the two bottles were discovered, and altogether nearly two drachms of arsenic were found. On Saturday, Captain Legard wrote out a statement of the result of his inquiries, and it was conveyed to Baron Parke, the judge who tried the case, and who was then at Warwick. The judge ordered a stay of execution pending a Home Office decision. This was rushed to London the stay was confirmed and rushed back to the Sherriff of Nottingham.

All this while nothing was said to Sarah, who completed the ritual of the condemned’s last days. It was not until the day before her scheduled execution when she was informed of the 14 day stay.

On Tuesday the scaffold was removed. On Wednesday morning, however “great numbers of country persons who had not heard of the respite assembled on the High Pavement to see the execution, and although on their becoming acquainted with the fact many of them appeared to be very well pleased, considerable numbers gave vent to their displeasure in expressions not particularly polite.” She was in due course reprieved and sentenced to transportation for life.

Sarah was sent to Tasmania in the “Anna Maria” on the 4th Oct 1851. The boat arrived in Hobart in late January. There she met John Hunter, a discharged convict himself. John Hunter gained his certificate of freedom on 9 February 1852. They were married at St John’s Presbyterian Church, Hobart on 23 August. On the marriage certificate their ages were both given at about 21. It wasn’t true for John. In fact he was 34 and was also only 5 foot 9¼ inches tall. He was a shoemaker by trade and could earn a living. They had four boys. Sarah was pardoned on 6 July1858.

Sarah and her husband were now free settlers themselves, and could earn money without limits. Her life was full and she had obviously finally found things that had always eluded her: her own family, a sense of belonging and an inner happiness. Unfortunately it was not to last long. On 20 May 1860 Sarah went into labour and died, her baby was delivered stillborn. She was still only 31.

Florence Maybrick

The trial and conviction of Florence Maybrick in 1889 is the last case in chronological order that obviously belongs to this study of miscarriages of justice against females accused of poisoning their husbands.

The problem for anyone trying to compress a trial that took three times as long as any other trial examined here is that the wild meanderings of a badly conducted prosecution carefully countered by the greatest advocate of his age (Sir Charles Russell, who went on to become Lord Chief Justice of England) had no effect on a trial judge suffering from advanced mental illness.

The real interest of the case is what happened after the unfortunate Florence Maybrick was condemned to death, and the further research into the evidence available to the prosecution and not produced at trial.

A Mad Judge

Florence Maybrick’s trial was presided over by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, Although only 60 at the time of her trial he was clearly suffering from what we would now recognise as an advanced stage of Alzheimer’s.

The Reviews Reviewed, contemporaneously, described the behaviour of Judge Stephen in his summing up the case as follows:

He came into the court and charged horse, foot and artillery upon the wretched and forlorn woman in the dock. The judge began by getting confused over the quantity of arsenic found in James Maybrick’s intestines. He then rambled obscurely on those quantities. Before long he addressed various letters and telegrams that have been found, claiming that they showed Florence was a liar. They had not, however, been produced as evidence! After lunch Judge Stephen made further errors of fact, saying that one of the bottles held in evidence had contain 94 per cent arsenic, when the percentage cited in court was actually 2.94 per cent then he launched into a tirade which ended: ‘It’s easy enough to conceive how a horrible one, in so terrible that position, might be assailed by some terrible temptation.’ The judge seemed to be asking for the jury to reach a verdict of guilt based on motive rather than the facts. His summing up took 12 ½ hours. The jury was out for only 38 minutes.

As the Directory of National Biography noted:

Stephen’s final years were undermined (by) steady mental decline. Despite accusations of unfairness and bias regarding the murder trial of Florence Maybrick in 1889, Stephen continued performing his judicial duties. However, by early 1891 his declining capacity to exercise judicial functions had become a matter of public discussion and press comment, and following medical advice Stephen resigned in April of that year. He died in a ‘nursing home’ (a reputed private asylum) in 1894.

The verdict was wildly unpopular. The headlines in the Pall Mall Gazette of 8 August chronicled what happened:
“GREAT OUTBURST OF POPULAR INDIGNATION IN LIVERPOOL JUSTICE STEPHEN DEPARTS AMID A STORM OF GROANS MRS MAYBRICK CHEERED BY THE CROWD”

On 7 August, the same day as the verdict, Sir Charles Russell wrote a letter to the Home Secretary Henry Matthews stating “In a long experience I have never heard any summing up which gave a jury less chance of differing from his clearly conveyed adverse view. Very strong feeling is very widely expressed and I hope you will get the best reports of the evidence you can. I will send you the local papers.”

The Home Office file discloses that on 16 August a high-powered conference was convened at the Home Office to discuss the case. Present: Home Secretary Henry Matthews, Lord Halsbury (the Lord Chancellor), Judge Stephen, Doctors Stevenson and Tidy, and Dr Poore (the Prince of Wales’s doctor). The Home Secretary opened with the purpose of the meeting. To reconcile the difference between his two Home Office consultant doctors, Stevenson and Tidy. Both of them stuck to their guns and at the end of the conference Judge Stephen summed it up: ‘You get a contradiction between two experts which you cannot reconcile.’

On 22 August, four days before the execution, the Home Secretary decided on his course of action. The press report issued from the Home Office stated: We are given to understand that the Home Secretary, after fullest consideration and after taking the best legal and medical advice that could be obtained, has advised Her Majesty to respite capital punishment of Florence Elizabeth Maybrick and to commute the punishment to penal servitude for life.

It was a typical pragmatic compromise at Florence Maybrick’s expense. Judicial face had been preserved, and the normal life sentence translated into 20 years in prison.

The Fight for Freedom

The enormous volume of the Home Office files bears witness to the unending transatlantic campaign to free Florence Maybrick. From America, a petition to the Queen was signed by the wives of the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Agriculture and sent on 7 August 1891.

It was received with contempt by the Home Office, an official making the following written comment ‘A truly astonishing document; for if ever there was a criminal not entitled to mercy it is Mrs Maybrick. How persons occupying stations of such high responsibility could sign this document on a slight and imperfect knowledge of the facts I cannot imagine.’

All the agitation was in vain. Even if one of the many successive ministers constantly bombarded by letters and petitions had been inclined to recommend a pardon they would have been blocked by the implacable enmity to Florence’s cause from Queen Victoria. She wrote to Matthews at the time of the commutation of Mrs Maybrick’s sentence: ‘The only regret she feels about the decision is that so wicked a woman should escape by a legal quibble! The law is not a moral profession she must say. But her sentence must never be further commuted.’

It was not until Queen Victoria’s death in 1901 that the Home Office reconsidered its options:

Memorandum 10 July 1901

It would be possible to fix 15 years as the period at which she might be brought up for licence, I think it would be well, if this decision is come to to inform the American ambassador at the interview on Friday that it has been so decided and to communicate the decision to the prisoner. This will give her three more years to serve.

Florence was finally released on 20 January 1904. The rest of her life was spent in a long period of declining health and the constant need for money, satisfied initially by her autobiography and lecture tours degenerating to relying on charity from others. In October 1941 she suffered a mild stroke and died two days later at the age of 79.

Was Florence Guilty?

The more I read and studied this case of an American woman’s experiences at the hands of a British court of justice the more I was reminded of a case I was involved in, a British young woman at the hands of an American court of justice at the turn of this century. Louise Woodward was charged with the murder of a young baby while she was an au pair to an American family. She too had the services of a defence team led by one of the greatest American defence lawyers of our age. Both juries were uneducated (the Maybrick jury consisted of three plumbers, a wood turner, a provision dealer, two farmers, a grocer, an ironmonger, a milliner, a house painter and a baker) and faced complex medical evidence. The jury preferred the evidence of a local medical practitioner who was asked by the local attorney to perform the autopsy, against more eminent medical evidence produced by the defence team which included scientific evidence making the alleged crime as charged by the prosecutors an impossibility. Nevertheless the young woman was convicted by a runaway jury. The great difference was the trial judge, who disagreed the verdict, had powers to set her free and exercised them.

Conclusions

It would be unfair to judge the Victorians by our current standards. In particular none of the women in the cases reviewed should have been convicted by a fair-minded jury operating with an impartial judge (as we have seen one of the principal factors in miscarriages of justice), but they do range from probably guilty to undoubtedly innocent. So how do these cases rank in order of innocence? One must bear in mind that being guilty of something is not the same as judging the prisoner for murder.

Elizabeth Pearson, probably guilty, but for the question marks noted in the discussion of the case, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Mary Ball, probably innocent of murder. On what we know it was at worst a spur of the moment self poisoning which could have been prevented by Mary Ball, and at best a straightforward accident.

Priscilla Biggadike, probably innocent, Proctor being the guilty party.

Sarah Chesham, probably innocent.

Mary Lefley, looking at the unanswered questions, firmly innocent.

Sarah Barber, undoubtedly innocent of murder. Guilty, on her own confession, of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by throwing away the bottle and helping her lover to flee.