Full report, extracted from the "Times", of the extraordinary and interesting trial of Miss Madeleine Smith, of Glasgow, on the charge of poisoning by arsenic of her late lover, Emile L'Angelier, including the correspondence.

Date:
1857
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Full report, extracted from the "Times", of the extraordinary and interesting trial of Miss Madeleine Smith, of Glasgow, on the charge of poisoning by arsenic of her late lover, Emile L'Angelier, including the correspondence. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    84/94 (page 70)
    explained in this way ; but he did not think it could he doubted that she was a truthful witness. The jury must, however, consider whether all this amounted to more than to give rise in their minds to very great suspicion, which might not warrant them in coming to a conclusion that he did get poison. They must remember that though he was ill on these occasions, and seemed to ascribe it to cocoa, there was no proof that the attack was really caused by arsenic, on either of these two occasions. The symptoms corresponded with those of irritant poison, no doubt, but then they might also be the symptoms of bilious attack ; and the jury must consider whether they were warranted in confiding in his statements, however strongly made, to Miss Perry, that these attacks arose from some poisonous substance, it did not signify what. Prisoner bought arsenic on the 21st of February, before the second illness, and therefore the fact of her possessing it on that occasion, of course gave much greater strength and point to his remark, that he did receive something which had made him ill on the 27th February. As to the evidence for the defence, that he had on one occasion threatened to throw himself from a window in the Rainbow Tavern, his Lordship observed that, as the witness was in bed at the time, the deceased had ample opportunity to have thrown himself over, if he had been so inclined, before the witness could have interfered ; and the jury would consider whether, when going about the room in an excited state, he had only thrown open the window to get some air. As to the other stories, that he would drown himself if he were jilted, they did not amount to much, when it was known that on one occasion he had been jilted and had not drowned himself. He also treated the story as to giving arsenic to horses on a journey in France as very unimportant; it was nonsense to say that it made them long-winded if only given to them once, because it was only the constant use of Jit which could produce that effect. Altogether, he did not see the importance or materiality of this evidence. It was brought to support the notion that he poisoned himself with arsenic; but if he was in the habit of taking it in small quantities, he knew its qualities, and therefore this did not aid the notion that he took an immense quantity on the 22nd March for the purpose of destroying himself. No doubt the prisoner was not bound to prove that he poisoned himself—it was enough for her to satisfy them that there wras not evidence to bring home to her the guilt of poisoning him; but it was a hazardous thing to set up in defence that L’Angelier went out that night carry¬ ing such a quantity of arsenic in his pocket, and that he swallowed it how, where, or when no human being could conceive. And therefore he thought the case stood far better for the prisoner on her real plea, that the guilt was not brought home to her, which was truly the matter at issue. Probably the jury would hold that the notion of his having poisoned himself was in reality ground¬ less, and did not strengthen the case. Proceeding to the evidence of the druggists at Coatbridge and Baillieston, he remarked that they had against that, Mr. Ross’s evidence that he walked with him all the way to Glasgow, that he never complained of being ill, and that he had not gone into any shop on the way. There must, he thought, be a mistake on the part of these people as to this being L’Angelier at all. It must also be remembered that he went home and took tea, and never complained that anything was wrong with him. As to the evidence that he bought a white powder in Kirk’s shop, Gallowgate, his Lordship said it was not even suggested that this was arsenic; if it was arsenic she was bound to write it down ; and he did not think the jury could believe that he bought arsenic there just after he left Ross, and before he saw the pannel, or knew what answer he would get from her. The witness Kirk iden¬ tified L’Angelier’s purse as that from which he had taken the money to pay for the powder; but it was very probable, his Lordship thought, that some of the jury might have a purse in their pockets exactly like it. As to the third letter put in for the deience, written by the prisoner to L’Angelier, denying that the