The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-10 00:00:00

that the means were in th! prisoner's hands of corn-
mittng the crime. The possession of poison will
be the first thing that is absolutely necessary ; and
on the other hand the fact that the deceased on one
occasion was ill from the consequences of poison;
and on the second occasion he was ill from the
same cause • and that on the third he died from
the effects Of poison. But it would be the moo
defectivb of all proors of poison to stop at 'suck
fat's as these, for one I,erson may his in Vat) pos-
session of poison and another person die from.
the effec's of poison, and yet that proves no-
thing. You must have a third element. You
must not merely have a motive—and I shall
speak of a motive by and by—you must not merely have
a motive but opportunity, the most important of all
' elements. You must have the opportunity of the parties
coming into personal contact, or of that poison being
carried to the murdered person through the medium of
another. Now, we shall see how far there is the slightest
room for such a position here. The Dean then ex-
amined the first charge against the prisoner, the admi-
nistration of poison on the MI or 20,h- of Februarys
Mrs. Jenkins—than whom he never saw a more accurate
and trustworthy witness—was able to fix a data for the
second illness—namely, the 23d of February ; but she
thefi
w first
would
bringeightorthteemn days previous t
othe 13ttoh,the
r
second,'saidthat
which
thereabout ; and that he was ill about the 13th was
proved by one of the letters anti by the testimony of Mr.
Miller. As to Miss Perry, she did not recollect the date
of his first illness the first, the second, or even the third
time she was precagnosced, and it wee only by the most
improper interference of one of the Fiscal's clerks, who
read to her a date out of a book which has been rejected
as worthless in fixing dates, that she fixed upon the 19th.
But suppose the 19th was the date, notwithstanding that
the prosecutor had searched sal the druggists' shops is
Glasgow they had been unable to find that the prisoner
bought any arsenic at all till the 21st, when she went so
openly into Murdoch's, 'signed her name, and let it go to
her father's account. He left his learned friend to choose
one or other of the horns of this dilemma—either that
the deceased was ill from the effects of arsenic on the
first occasion, in which case it must have been adminis-
tered by other hands ; or that he was ill from some other
cause—a fact which destroyed the whole theory and foun-
dation of the prosecutor's ease. As to the second illness,
there was no proof whatever that the parties met after
this perchale at all. Mrs. Jenkins said she did not think
L'Angelier was cut of the house on Sunday night the
22,1. She said she had not given him the latchkey that
night, which she always did when he was to be out late;
that she should, have recollected it had he borrowed it
that night ; and M. Tnuau said he certainly did not let
him in that night, which was the only way he could get
in if he left without the latchkey. Letter 107, how-
ever, was founded on to prove they met that night ; a
letter which had no date—and which, though it had
been found in an envelope with the clearest date, it
would be madness to convict upon ; and with all the
possibilities of such a letter landing its way into a wrong
envelope, even in the hands of deceased, and still more
in the hands of those by whom it was recovered, and
with the date quite illegible, and which the Crown wit-
ness said had an "r" in the raonth, which sho wed it
could not be " Feb."—so that even the Crown discarded
their owes witness to carry out their theory—he was en-
titled to say that there was not merely a conflict of evi-
dence on the point, but an accumulation of evidence
disproving the theory that they met that night at all ;
and the failure to prove that certainly put an end to the
charge. If, then, deceased was ill from arsenical poi ,on
on that occasion, the inference he again drew was that
he was in the way of receiving arsenic from some other
hand. The Dean then proceeded to consider the third
and last charge. He referred to the missing letter, de-
ceased received from the prisoner at Bridge of Allan on
Friday. That letter evidently contained an appoint-
ment fora certain night, and when he found he could not
keep it he knew it was useless to come without a specie!
appeietweet. He then came to the second letter for-
warded to Bridge of Alfa'', bearing the postmark 21st
March, and, as beheld, making the appointment for the
Saturday evening. When was it she waited and waited ?
Thursday evening. The letter from the deceased to
Miss Perry coneusivaly proved
.that. When was it
likely she would write hernexisummons? I shouldthink
the next evenire, for she almost invariably wrote in
the eveeieg, and when she did not write in the evening
she mentioned the hour of the day. This all-important
letter was written, therefore on the Friday evening,
and posted on Saturday morning, addressed to Mrs.
Jenkins, and appointing the meeting for the Saturday
evening. It was written with the same notice which
she usually gave him out of their appointments, and she
believed him to be in Glasgow. There is no appearance
throughout the coire-pondence of any meeting haring
taken place without previous arrangement© being made,
and she bad constantly repeated her warning against his
making any signal at the window, as it was sure to lead
to di,eovery and risks of various kinds. On every occa-
sion she watched and waited for him. He never came
without preconcert. Having broken his appointment
for the Thursday, he never supposed he could procure an
appointment for the Friday. He waited till he got ano-
ther letter, and when he broke his appointment on the
Saturday why should he expect to have one on the Sun-
day ? On the Sunday night the family are at Prayers,
the servants come down stairs and go to bed one by one;
the cook not retiring till 11. The prisoner and her
youngest sister descend to their bedroom between half-
past 10 and 11. They take half an hour to undress.
The prisoner goes to bed with her sister, and, so far as
human evidence goes, the house is undisturbed and un-
approached up to the following morning-. Do you think
there could have been a meeting and no evidence of it ?
The policeman who knew him had not seen him that
"sight ; and you must remember that this is not a bust-
ling part of the town, but a quiet west-end square, about
hourwhich the appearance of a stranger at a late on
Sunday would be sure to attract attention. Neither
within the 'house nor without the house is there
the slightest vestige or ground of suspicion that
the meeting appointed for Saturday took place on
Sunday. .Then, as to L'Angelier, it is said he came
to the house to see the prisoner on Sunday night.
Even if that were a reasonable assumption, it
would not advance the prosecutor's case one step, but
the supposition was not a reasonable one—to suppose
that he came that distance to keep a meeting which had
been appointed for another evening. We do not know
what other letters he may have received at the Bridge
of Alan, and in one of his own he says " I have re.
'ceived no letters from Mr. Mitchell, and I should like
to know what he wants with me." The Crown has not
told us who Mr. Mitchel is, and I do not know. Who
can tell that be received no other letters at Bridge of
Allan, and for what purpose ho came so unexpectedly
home. L'Angelier came to Glasgow, and there is also
considerable mystery thrown over his identity in the
course of the journey. Ross did not describe a person
like the prisoner, andßoss was not shown the photographs
The mail guard professed to identify him , from it, and
yet the Crown objected to our relying on the photograph
when identified by the druggists. No one is called from
the inn to identify L'Angelier; and what was the account
the snpposed L'Angelier gave of himself to Ross ? Why.
that he had come from Alloa, and that he was going to
Glasgow to cash a cheque, of which paymet t had been
refused to him as a stranger—an account of which, if
given by L'Angelier, the Crown had taken no means to
test or account for. If L'Angelier was not with Ross he
gives no false account of himself, and the evidence of
the druggists at Coattaidge, Beillieaton, are 1 Gallnw-
gate, trout whom he bought laudanum, who all identify
the likeness, and one of them the purse out of which the
money was paid, were consistent with each other. If
these three witnesses wefts correct he was ill; and finally
in Miss Kirk's shop he purchased a white pt,wder, and
Miss Kirk can't tell you what this white powder was.
He comes to his lodging—he goes out at nine—is seen
in different streets, but not in Bjythswood-s pare ; so
that this proves nothing at all. He calls on M'Aleso
ter. Why is M'Alester not here, that he might, per-
chance, tell what brought him to Glasgow, and if he
knew anything of Mr. Mitchell? From half-past 9 to
half-past 2 he is absolutely lost sight of, and the Lord
Advocate admitted that the fact that prisoner and de-
ceased met that night is founded on inference and con-
jecture. Good heavens, inference and conjecture I In-
ference and conjecture whether on the night he was
poisoned he saw the prisoner who is charged with this
murder ! I never beard such expressions made use of
in a capital case before as indicating or describing a link
in the chain of a prosecutor's case. I have beard them
many a time in the mouth of a prisoner's counsel, and I
darn say you will hear more of them from ens to-day, but
fur the prosecutor himself to describe such a part of his
evidence as a piece of con;ecture and hypothesis is to me
a meet startlinz novelty. And yet my learned friend
could not help himself. It was a necessity he should so
verdict
he intended to ask a verdict at all,
thefor if
e
bead
did only on a series of
expresshe
could
askhimself
unfounded and incredible suspicions and hypotheses. The
v
Dean then referred to the- statements as to L'Angelier
having a suspicion on his mind that he had renzived
for;
poison from the prisoner, and said, if that,were true, they
were asked to believe that he took the poisoned cup
from the prisoner, in which there lurked so great a
quantity of arsenic as was sufficient to leave on his sto-
mach 88 grains, and from the hands of one whom he
suspected had been practising on his life. It was a dose
which, according to Dr. Christison, might have amount-
ed to 240 grains. It was a dose that, so far as experi-
ence wont, never was before successfully administered
by a murderer, and it was most difficult to conceive a
vehicle in 'which so great a quantity could be admini-
stered, far less to one who had his suspicions pre-
viously excited. Then the Crown had shown that
the colouring matter of any arsenic could after-
wards be found in the stomach, but their witnesses
say their attention was not called to that circum-
stance. Whose fault was that ? The Crown must
have known the importance of this inquiry, and the pri-
soner bad no means of being represented in this chymi-
cal analysis. Such was the evidence of the last charge.
It the case is a failure on the first and second charges, it
is a far more complete and radical failure in the last. In
fact, I have demonstrated that it was absolutely
impostside to bring guilt against the pri-oner. It remans not
only not proved, but the whole evidence connected with
the proceedings of that day seems to go to negative such
a supposition. I might stop there, for nothing can be
more fallacious ttan to suppose that it is for me to ex-
plain how the deceased came by his death. His lordship
Gill tell you a defender in this court has no further duty
but to stand on the defensive, and maintain that the case
fir the prosecution is not proved. No man living pro.
babillYdecranthteelsllhigohwteLst
'Angelisr came by his death ; nor am
i u
obligation even to suggest to you a
eessible manner in which his death may have been com-
passed without being at the hands of the prisoner. But
it is but fair that when dealing with matters of suspicion
and corjecture you should consider whether the supposi.
tions on which this charge is founded are preferable in
respect of higher probability to ether suppositions that
,may be fairly made. The character of this man—hie
origin, his previous history, the nature of his conversation,