Norwich bulletin., 1922-03-09
FAMOUS TRIALS
the NINE. yos1Aux CASE.

From the spring of 1894 to eonsidera-
bly, more than year, Belgium, and,
indeed, one might say continental, so
ciety had been filled with all sorts of
reports and rumors as to q sensation
al criminal case. which was about to
come before the courts of Antwerp, but
the actual facts in the possession of
the public were somewhat scanty.
But they were numerous and eogent
enough to form a foundation for
geodly edifice of conjectures and sus-
picions. It was known in the early
spring of 1894 NJ. Alfred Ablay, a Bel
CLAN officer of good family. had died
suddenly in Antwerp at the house of
his sister, Mime. Joniaux, a lady Of
more than so years of age, the widow
Of NJ Faber, well-knoWn bibliophile
and the wife of an equally well=known
and distinguished Belgian engineer,
that the English Gresham" insurance
office with which the deceased had
been insured for 900 francs refused
to pay the policy money that the au-
thoritles ordered an examination of NJ.
Ab.ay's body and that the result Of
the inquiries of the Investigating judge
was the arrest of Nine. Joniaux on q
charge of having poisoned not only her
brother in February, 1894, but also her
sister, Leonie Ablay, in March, 1892,
and her uncle, NJ. Van Kerchone, in
March, 1898.
Nine. Joniaux was later convicted Of
all three crimes and sentenced to death
"a sentence which in Belgium is mere
" nenal servitude writ large" as it is
invariably commuted and It may be
interesting to analyze the evidence aa-
duced against her and draw the appro-
PIRATE morals from her case. The f1rss
| thing that the Belgian Crown had
! to establish was that the three deaths
| laid 10 Nine. Joiaux's charge were
| due to poison.
In the two earlier casas-those OF
Ieonie AflaY and NJ. Van Kerehpne-
| the evidence on this point was of a
negative character and If they had
i convicted Two years ELAPSED between
| Mile. Ablay's death and the post-mor-
| TEN on her BODY and, Of course, IN thai
! interval all traces probably even Of
| mineral and certainly Of vegetable > !
| son must have disappeared, nor were
| there any reliable circumstances t.
show that the symptoms which IRE
| eeded her death were due to morphine
which the prosecution alleged to hsyt
caused It,
All that the Crown experts ceule
have said was that they found In he
corpse no evidence that she had die
from natural disease. NJ. Van Ker
chone's case was still more mysteri
GUS, although his body was examines
one year after his death. Here, again
there were traces Of poison; It wa
admitted that the deceased had die
after dinner at his nleee's house, a
Which he had drunk champagne an
dIy 70 fhn Hoo
experts conceded that the death Nigh
have been due to alcoholism.
I. NJ. Alfred Ablay's case, hoYeye7
where the post-mortem examinatie
tack place nine days after deatl
the defense to rebut this fact WEI
rather unhappy. First, the presence {
. the poison was disputed. Then It wa
! contended that enough had not bee
n discovered to account for death TIL
line Of argument clearly involved til
fallacy Of at once attacking the Grow
experts for having said that there wa
morphin in n. Abiay's body, and ;
the same time unfolding them as su
9 fcientiy skilful to have detected enous
morphin to take away life II It WI
there.
? The jury probably saw this and CO,
S cluded that the case was one Of mo
t phin poisoning and reflected the
Judgment on this point back to the
earlier cases. Which of the three we
!. cases Of morphin poisoning, were tn,
: feleHlcls (and was Nine. Joniaux Il
: felon The FIRST branch Of this que
i tion admits of an immediate affirm
tive answer. There was really no s
rleus suggestion Of accident or suicid
70 The latter part OF the question is n
3 SO easily answered But assuming t
l. original Inference as to the cause 4
death to have been justificable-there
ne doubt that Nine Joniaux was rigi
IA IL convicted. All three victims died
q her house. she was interested IN t
/. death Of all three and was in serio
y peeaniary embarrassment at the tin
y Of their deaths.
Then there was evidence to show tn
she was in possession of morphln a
nethlng to prove that she used 1t I
% any innocent purpose. Opportunities
er1 administration she. Of course, post
W ed abundantly in each case. High
circumstantiai all this evidence,
course, was, but the jury regarded
q as sufficient. Nine. Joniaux's examir
% ton by the presiding Judge excelled
g point Of unfairness the average Of &C
S tlneatal criminal inaulsitions. I
- blinds Of the court are said to ha
abeen adjusted, 50 that the play Of I