| Analysis of the case |
So what really happened?
The whole case turns on a few days over a period of a fortnight:
| Wed 28 Jan | Madeleine accepts William Minnoch's offer of marriage. She writes to L'Angelier. He just returns the letter to her. | |||
| Mon 02 Feb | The return of the letter gives Madeleine the excuse she needs to write to L'Angelier and end the affair. | |||
|
Tue 03 Feb |
L'Angelier receives Madeleine's letter - doesn't reply immediately - tells Thomas Kennedy, with tears in his eyes, that he would "never allow her to marry another man as long as he lived." | |||
| Mon 09 Feb |
Madeleine, still having had no reply from L'Angelier, and still unaware of the danger she is in, sends him an abrupt note (deliverable Tuesday). After she has posted it, L'Angelier's blackmail letter arrives (threatening to show her letters to her father). She writes again, this time pleading with him not to carry out his threat and telling him that she will be disowned. |
|||
| Tue 10 Feb |
|
|||
| Wed 11th | L'Angelier now wasted no time putting his plan for revenge
into action. He made the first entry in a diary. The entry gives no indication
of the crisis that he was living through on this, the very day after learning
that everything he had worked for, for the past two years, had been lost.
All it says is, "Dined at Mr Mitchell's; Saw M. at 12pm in
CH Room." The casual tone of his notes contrasts sharply
with the turmoil of his life at that very moment.
That, in itself, should have been enough to draw the attention of Madeleine's defence team but the most striking feature of this diary is that this entry - Wednesday 11th February - was the very first entry in the diary. There are no previous entries. From the first moment of putting pen to paper, this diary had only one purpose: to put a noose around the neck of Madeleine Smith. |
The unsuspecting victim
His scheme was so transparent - the diary is such an obvious fabrication - that it is hard to believe anyone could be taken in by it but, in the minds of all involved in the case - both prosecution and defence - his arsenic ridden corpse established the plain, obvious, and seemingly indisputable fact that he was the victim. How could it possibly be otherwise? As with all the best riddles, we are tricked by our own assumptions.
From that day on, firstly by making it known that he was suffering from unaccountable illnesses after visiting Madeleine and by priming his friends with heavy hints of poisoning, he set about creating a well of suspicion against her, and the diary, he believed, would put her guilt beyond doubt.
Mon 23rd Mar As he is attended by the doctor in his final hours, he now makes absolutely no mention of that which has been such a favourite topic of conversation for the past few weeks - coffee, chocolate, poison and Madeleine Smith. Obviously, he now has no choice but to feign ignorance. Had he made any mention to the doctor of his "suspicions," the question would immediately have arisen, "but why, if you thought you were being poisoned, did you take more?" In fact, the role of accuser has been assigned to Miss Perry. She, by now, was well primed for the task and, had she arrived earlier that morning, she could have informed the doctor that the possibility of poison must be considered, and his life might have been saved. He waited until daylight before sending for Miss Perry but, for whatever reason, Miss Perry did not come immediately. The best laid schemes of mice and psychopaths gang aft aglee. Under the combined influence of arsenical poisoning and the morphia which the doctor had prescribed to alleviate the pain, he fell asleep, never to wake.
And now, one more bizarre fact which had emerged in testimony falls in to place: L'Angelier, who was brought up in the gardening business in Jersey, was unusually familiar with arsenic. He not only knew it as a weedkiller and insecticide - he used it as a drug. He had boasted about how much arsenic he could hold without any ill effect. The cholera-like symptoms, indicative of arsenical poisoning, which he reported in the weeks prior to his death were exactly the same as had been witnessed by acquaintances long before he even met Madeleine Smith. He was well aware of the effect of taking more than a small dose of arsenic. He had also spoken about how it could improve the complexion (even the Lord Justice-Clerk observed that there is no doubt he had previously mentioned to Madeleine it's use as a cosmetic).
Reading through Madeline's letters to L'Angelier, one of the most prominent features to mark their unusual correspondence is her almost slavish response to his harping and advice on all matters, particularly regarding her behaviour and appearance. If there was an enduring and defining theme of their relationship, it was Madeleine's expected obedience to L'Angelier's wishes and advice. Now, with the threat of making her letters public, he had her more completely in his power than ever before; if he merely suggested she should use arsenic for her complexion, she was in no position to ignore his advice. Right on cue, she writes to L'Angelier, "My head aches and I'm looking so bad… but I'm taking some stuff to bring back the colour."
On the 18th of February, Madeleine tells L'Angelier that she has tried the arsenic, as he advised. On the 19th, believing that she is now in possession of the poison, L'Angelier reports his first "illness" but in fact it was two days later, on the 21st, when Madeleine made her first purchase.
On the 6th of March, Madeleine again bought stained arsenic from the chemists. On the same day, L'Angelier visited the Botanic Gardens where he used to lodge and where, at that time, - we have now (140 years after the event) established - white arsenic was then being used as a weedkiller. The Prosecution's agents made enquiries of Glasgow chemists to ascertain if anyone by the name of L'Angelier had signed his name on any of the poison's registers! Unbelievably, no attempt was made by Madeleine's defence team to put L'Angelier with a source of white arsenic. They knew he was at the Botanic Gardens on the 6th of March but they never made the connection.
John Inglis' defence of Madeleine Smith has gone down in legal history. His skilful and eloquent address to the jury has commanded the respect of generations of young lawyers. It is impossible to read that address without being impressed by the man's eloquence and by his force of argument. Madeleine Smith had, possibly, as good a defence as a murderess ever had but that was the problem - John Inglis believed that he had succeeded in getting a guilty woman her freedom. In actual fact, he condemned an innocent woman and her family to the stigma of suspicion which has persisted to this day.
"why has it taken us all this time to see through the twisted little bastard?"
|
|
[since Sept '97] |