from the physicians of liverpool

in a memorial for respite of sentence of mrs. maybrick, which was signed by leading medical practitioners of liverpool, the petitioners say in part:

“3. it was admitted by the medical testimony on behalf of the prosecution that the symptoms during life and the post-mortem appearances were in themselves insufficient to justify the conclusion that death was caused by arsenic, and that it was only the discovery of traces of that poison in certain parts of the viscera which eventually led to that conclusion.

“4. the arsenic so found in the viscera was less in quantity than that found in any previous case of arsenical poisoning in which arsenic has been found at all.

“5. there was indisputable evidence on the part of the defense that the deceased had been in the habit of taking arsenic, both medicinally and otherwise, for many years, and that the small quantity found in the viscera was inconsistent with the theory of a fatal dose at any time or times during the period covered by the illness of the deceased.

“6. lastly, your memorialists agree with the evidence given by dr. tidy, dr. macnamara, and mr. paul on behalf of the defense, that the medical evidence on behalf of the prosecution had entirely failed to prove that the death was due to arsenical poisoning at all.”

from the bars of liverpool and london

leading members of the bars of liverpool and london signed a memorial praying a reprieve of mrs. maybrick’s sentence “on the ground ... of the great conflict of medical testimony as to the cause of death” of mr. maybrick.

from citizens of liverpool

a petition for reprieve of mrs. maybrick’s sentence was signed by many and influential citizens of liverpool. among the reasons urged were:

3. lack of direct evidence of administration of arsenic.

4. the weak case against prisoner on general facts unduly prejudiced by evidence of motive.

5. preponderance of medical testimony that death was ascribable to natural causes.

[i feel a deep respect for the noble avowal given in the petition of the medical practitioners of liverpool, who must have felt the honor of their profession at stake, and that their individual dignity and humanity were concerned. the feeling among the bar on receipt of the verdict was an almost universal, if not a quite unanimous, one of surprise. i have already mentioned (in part one), the change of attitude of the citizens of liverpool toward me, as the trial progressed, from hostility to belief in my innocence.—f. e. m.]