Report of the trial of Madeleine Smith : before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, June 30th to July 9th, 1857, for the alleged poisoning of Pierre Émile l'Angelier / by Alexander Forbes Irvine, advocate.

  • Smith, Madeleine, 1835-1928.
Date:
1857
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the trial of Madeleine Smith : before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, June 30th to July 9th, 1857, for the alleged poisoning of Pierre Émile l'Angelier / by Alexander Forbes Irvine, advocate. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    305/330 (page 287)
    merely the recollection that a man with a mustache, who resembled the photograph, did enter these shops that day. It is not at all probable that the man was the same person who accompanied Ross. A few minutes after taking a hearty dinner was not a very hkely occasion for a man pouring laudanum down his throat. Alluding next to Mr Stevenson's evidence, his Lordship said he intended here to make some remarks on a course of procedure which, at an early part of the case, appeared to be more material than was actu- ally the case. At first it did look as if there was much more con- fusion about these letters, and that the prisoner had greater occa- sion to complain than it turned out she had. But there were serious defects in the mode of procedure in regard to these documents. When these letters were seized by waiTant of the Sheriff, an inven- tory should have been taken by the officer of the Sheriff!, the clerk— not that he was to be the custodier of them, so as to prevent the Pro- curator-Fiscal having access to them. Quite the reverse. But in order really and properly to ascertain what was found. No inventory of that kind ever was made up at all. But that they had all the letters that were found, he thought could not be doubted in tlie face of the evidence. He did not at all enter into the argument of the Dean of Faculty as to the loss of the letter wintten upon the Thursday night, and posted on the Friday. He did not think the Crown was responsible for that at all, and the letter was of no gi*eat value except as a loss to the Crown, because it might have so ex- plained the hour and place of meeting on the Thursday night as to suggest how he could accomplish his object on the Simday night. But there was another great defect, and it was this. As soon as these things were recovered, and brought pro])erly to the office of the Procurator-Fiscal, the letter and the envelope in w'hich it was found ought to have been marked by the same numbers at the time. That would not have excluded the chance and hazard of L'Angelier putting a letter in the wrong envelope, but it would have given them the certainty that from the time they Averc taken possession of by the Crown the same letters remained in the same envelopes in wdiich they were found. He did not alKide to this matter because the prisoner had sustained any grievance, but it might have been otherwise. It was quite obvious that, after taking posses- sion of these documents, these officers sat down at their leisure— taking a little time one day and a little time another—till about a fortnight was lost in this irregular procedure. There seemed to bo a great want of superintendence on the part of the three Sheriff's, as not one of them seemed to have superintended the examination of the witnesses, or tlie collection of these documents, which were relied upon by the Crown as most material evidence. • Passing next to the medical testimony, his Lordship said lie did not know if he should go over these long reports and the medical testimony. He understood it not to be disputed by the comisel for the panel that he died of arsenic.