New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-06-02
THE MAVERICK CASE.
NEW EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THE
PRISONERS INNOCENCE.

NEW EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW TIE
PRISONERS INNOCENCE.
To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: The question. why is Mrs Maybrick In
PRISON." having been put TO me with a request
that would answer It by the light Of the evidence
given the trial OF the prisoner in 1888. and the
recent evidence obtained by Mr. Harris. OF No %
Leadenhal-st. London. said that in my opinion
there is not a doubt 10 the reason. II IA from
first to last false conception" False conception Is
repugnant sound reasoning. 1t Is so because II is
at variance with the laws OF sound and logical
argument Imagination thus endeavors In vain 10
make that which Is unreasonable 10 be conceivable
Therefore human authority. where the Intelligence
is denied a rationale. will never be calmly sub
mitted TO- IT would be an error OF Judgment 20
submit 10 Il where in this terrible suffer
lnes, 10 say nothing OF the loss OF property and
utter ruin. have been the result. Intelligent men
and women could see that the evidence at the trial
was not sufficient 10 warrant the verdict OF the
jury or the decision arrived at by Mr.. Matthews.
whose opinions and theories rested on nothing but
conjectures without sufficient open proof OF guilt
No doubt Mr.. Matthews and Mr. Asquth consider
that there !s in their opinion some proof that Mrs
MAVERICK did attempt 10 administer arsenic 20 her
late husband with a feonious intent. But what
proof have they OF this intention? Neither Mr.
Matthews nor Mr.. Asquith has. up 10 the present
moment. found II desirable even TO make an at
tempt 10 ease the public mind which has long been
troubled respecting this case. II IS certainly the
duty OF our Parliamentary representatives, 10 ease
the mind OF their constituents for public opinion IS
now dead against any OF Her Majesty's subjects.
and particularly in the OF stranger being
condemned 10 penal servltude for life In the posi-
tive absence Of open proof. lie: Mrs. Mnybrick be
tried in open the charge for which she IS
stlll SUFFERING but for which she has never been
indicted and never been allowed to make her de-
fence
Hence the long-cortnued cutlery against the SEN
In md Cfaf1 and Trei
and America. The fact that Mr. Asquith
had admitted that he ready 10 hear what wit
nesses had TO say who could give fresh evidence
and throw light on this unfortunate business
has Induced several new witnesses TO come forward
with sworn evidence which upscts the chief points
made against the prisoner In the Judges charge TO
the fury as 10 missing links while further proof
OF her Innocence Is involved by the sworn dcclara-
lions II appears. however, that Mr.. Asquith has
not at present had time TO examine the witnesses.
notwithstanding that he was Informed OF their
being In London for the special object OF going be
fore him for examination. Had the new evidence
taken by Mr. Harris been available at the trial In
1888 q conviction would have been almost mpos-
slble but even had che been convicted or murder.
Matthews and others admitted there was "a doubt
IL would have been impossible with any degree OF
justice shown 10 the prisoner 70 nave cohiehineI
her on the evidence openly given TO RemaG srTv
ude for single day Not one OF ,he rome Oa'ior
authorities has. believe ventured 10 examine nm OF
cross-examine the new Witnesses and so ihr as /
gather Information the nome OIHce mas HOt
rendered a reason for refusing Mr.. Harrss appi-
cation for release unless. indeed, we are 10 De put
of with the insufficient excuse that the new lght
thrown on the case Is not suincient Did hOl lhe
Crown contend that Mr. Maybrick was person
who might have been killed by minimum dose OF
arsenic and DID not the Judge tell the jury that
two grains would have Killed him me new eVl-
dence skaters to the winds such remarks as thesr.
Mr. MAVERICK obtained a large supply or arsenic ~
February, 1889 and early IN March ms wife nrgea
powder which she believed was doing him n, harm u,
The new evidence proves beyond "A doubt that AR
Maybrick was large eater OF arsec' NM NM tnc
piained without imputipg crime TO any one but
himself. Mrs Maybrcks las; purchase OF the ny
papers was made on Aprii ~ 1902 whlcn IL soiie
proof that she did not know anything about the
store OF arsenic obtained In the previous FEBRUARY
by Mr. Maybrick. who was better AFTER Dr
speaks plainly for itself VIZ. that his suferings
were Increased for want OF arsenic The new eyi-
dence proves how Mr. Maybrck obtained his store
thority Informs me that under the provisions Of
a and Ii Wet CAP 49, Sec. 3, the sale OF arsenic
by a chemist is forbidden with the exception men
toned In the section) unless 1t Is mixed win a
certain proportion Of SCOT indigo The mixture
OF arsenic and charcoal which was FOUND IN Mr..
Maybrick's house after his death could not, there
without q violation Of the law. In the face OF the
new evidence-which hope will soon become pnD-
lie property-ro one with ordinary common srl n
and making reasonable use or H. can toT one
moment believe that Mrs Maybrck procured the
large quantity OF arsenic found In the house after
Mr. Maybrick's death. and which the police faiiei
10 trace whence II came. but the information which
the police could not furnish IL now given by me
new evidence, and most satisfactory reason also
previously. We must not forget that all the arsenic
was found in places 10 which other persons than
Mrs. Maybrick had access. As 10 the meat-lui,e
an atten,p. to administer It. The case is now more
than eyer one demanding public attention . We
must abandon truth. but we spah DO 80 IL we