The Trial
The case created enormous public interest, not
only in Glasgow but all over Scotland. The trial took place in Edinburgh before the High Court of Justice.
The following is a description of how Madeleine
Smith appeared on the day of the trial:
‘Shortly
thereafter, Madeleine Hamilton Smith, a very pretty girl, was placed at the bar. She was dressed in a white straw bonnet,
black silk mantle, grey cloak, brown silk gown, lavender gloves, and carried a silver mounted smelling-bottle in her hand.
She was pale but quite composed. She was accompanied by a female warder.’
Although circumstantial evidence pointed
towards her guilt, the uniquely Scottish verdict of ‘not proven’ was given. The jury did not believe she was innocent
of the charge. However the Prosecution failed to make a strong enough case against here and therefore the evidence given was
insufficient. The defence claimed that L'Angelier was an unstable man who had taken his own life.
Many people thought, that if Madeleine had
been allowed to take the stand, she would have been found guilty. Perhaps so, but in Victorian times the accused was not permitted
to give evidence on their own behalf. There is no doubt that she had great charisma and strength of character. How many 22-year-old
women of that period could have entered a courtroom with the air of a belle entering a ballroom? She was always mentally and
physically durable and the self-possession she showed at her trial was quite remarkable.
Did she or didn’t she kill L’Angelier?
Madeleine had in fact bought arsenic on three occasions at around the time L'Angelier became ill, suffering three bouts
of stomach illness. She explained to the chemist that it was to kill rats, although she later said at her trial that it was
used to whiten her face and hands. The most damaging testimony was given by Mary Perry who testified that Emile had told her
he experienced his first attack after drinking a cup of cocoa prepared by Madeleine, adding, ‘If she [Madeleine] were to poison me, I would forgive her.’
However there was no proof that Madeleine
had met L'Angelier prior to the times when he had been overcome by the bouts of illness. L'Angelier had been in the habit
of taking quite a lot of medicines for stomach ailments. He had also been an ‘arsenic eater, a habit which some believed
beautified the body, and about which he openly boasted. The defence believed that he was an unstable man and had committed
suicide. L’Angelier often talked of committing suicide over affairs of the heart.
And then there was the central mystery of the
case. L’Angelier was taken ill three times. He spoke to people of forgiving Madeleine if she poisoned him, thus planting
the suspicion of murder before he was even dead. A suspicion grew that perhaps he was actually framing Madeleine for his own
murder, so determined was he that no other man should have her. This evidence was excluded from the trial since his odd motives
could not be subject to cross examination.
Similarly, some Madeleine
supporters have stated that Emile could not have accidentally swallowed that much arsenic in cocoa without distinctly noticing
the gritty texture of the poison. However, during Madeleine’s trial a witness stated that in the few weeks before
his death Emile had said, ‘he was not surprised at cocoa not agreeing with him,
as he was not accustomed to it.’ Therefore, as far as Emile knew, cocoa could indeed have been gritty in texture,
and he would not have known the difference. Also, this notion rests on the idea that Emile received only a single ‘gritty’
cupful of the ‘dark liquid’, when he might have received smaller doses in several cups.
Later
Life
The crime and trial were so notorious that
Madeleine decided to leave Scotland. She later married a man named George Wardle on 4 July 1861and raised a family in New
York. After she separated from her husband at the turn of the 20th century, her final years were lost to view. There is a common theory that she died in New York in 1928 under another name, where
the woman’s death certificate stated she was 29 years junior to the age she would have been at the time of her death.
There were other questionable stories of her which have her living and/or dying at various different places, including New
Zealand and New Orleans.
Final
Thoughts
The case and trial are an enduring ‘cause celebre’. Scholars and amateur criminologists have spent decades
studying and analysing the case. What would have been her fate had the Scottish
jury not had the option of the ‘not proven’ verdict? Many modern scholars hold the view that Madeleine did commit
the crime and the only thing that set her free was the fact that no-one was an eyewitness to the case. It was also interesting
to note that after the trial started, The Scotsman newspaper ran a small article, stating that a witness had come forward
to claim that a young man and woman were spotted outside Madeleine’s house on the night of Emile’s death. However
as the trial was already in progress, the witness could not give evidence at the hearing.
Further reading
Notable British Trials Series- Trial of Madeleine Smith New edition- edited by F.Tennyson Jesse William
Hodge & Co. London, 1927
Henry Blyth. Madeleine Smith - A famous Victorian murder trial.
Duckworth & Co, London, 1975
John Mortimer QC. Famous Trials, originally edited by Harry Hodge and James H. Hodge. Penguin, 1984
Web references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Smith
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/madeleine/2.html
http://www.historyscotland.com/features/madeleinesmith.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/madeleine/6.html
http://www.amostcuriousmurder.com/Defence.html