Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 01.pdf/367

326 de la Pommerais came into the possession of the half-million francs which accrued under the policies and the will. Here occurred a singular incident in the trial. It is clear that if the Count had intended the fraud in earnest when he proposed it to Madame Pauw, and really designed to obtain for her an annuity by its means, thus securing to himself a life-income, he could have had no serious motive for killing her. And this was actually his defence against the charge of murder. He declared, and tried to prove, that he really meant to carry out the fraud, and that Madame Pauw's death was a catastrophe and an accident. Thus, in trying to clear himself of the grave crime, he coolly confessed the lesser. But the proof contradictory of his case was too clear; he was convicted and duly executed.

It has been said that a very important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is that of opportunity. To show want of opportunity, that is, an alibi, is an absolute answer to the strongest indictment, and produces a fatal flaw in the chain. Opportunity to commit the crime must be either proved outright or inferred from the most conclusive presumption. There never was a more striking case illustrative of this than that of the young Scottish girl, Madeleine Smith, whose trial at Glasgow may easily be remembered by many of our readers. It may be said that the trial was one of the most interesting in British judicial annals. Madeleine Smith had engaged herself to a young Frenchman named L'Angelier. It was clearly proved that she had tired of him, and was anxious to disentangle herself from the connection. But L'Angelier clung to her, and refused to be rebuffed. There is no doubt that on several occasions, just previous to his visits, she had purchased poison; or that, always after these visits, he was seized with severe illness. On the 17th of March Madeleine returned to her house in Glasgow, after a brief visit to some friends. The next day she purchased some arsenic, "to kill rats with," as she said. The arsenic bought, the next thing she did was to write to L'Angelier inviting him to tea on the evening of the 19th. He happened to be out of town, and did not, therefore, get the note until it was too late to accept the invitation. She wrote again on the 21st, urging him to come the next evening and saying: "I waited and waited for you, but you came not. I shall wait again to-morrow night, same time and arrangement." This note L'Angelier received. So far the proof was clear. It was also in evidence that he started from his lodgings in excellent health on the Sunday evening, and that he sauntered in the direction of Madeleine's house: this was at nine o'clock. Twenty minutes later, he called on a friend who lived but a short distance from her residence. Here the evidence utterly failed, and left a blank for four hours and a half. At two in the morning, L'Angelier was found at his own door, writhing and speechless; and in a few hours he was dead. The autopsy betrayed a large quantity of arsenic in his body. But, between twenty minutes past nine and two, no human being could depose to having laid eyes on him. Madeleine herself denied that she saw him at all that night; nor was the slightest proof forthcoming that she did. She was put on trial for the murder of L'Angelier; and although her desire to get rid of him,—that is, a motive; her purchase of arsenic,—that is, possession of an instrument similar to that which was found to have been fatal; and her notes of invitation,—that is, a fact from which a strong probability of a meeting between them that night was established—were fully proved, the absence of all proof of actual opportunity to commit the deed availed to save the prisoner's life. She said, in effect: "I was at my house, and can prove it; he was not there, for I defy you to prove it; therefore I have an alibi." The Scottish verdict of "not proven" set her free, but did not clear her of the stain of deep suspicion.

The story of the Danish pastor, Soren Quist, is one of the most touchingly tragic in judicial records, and once more