Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/141

 114

have it over with. Women can wait in pa tience, buoyed up meanwhile by the confi dent hope of final success. Another difference is in the lack of selfcontrol shown by the prisoner. In a former paper the self-command of the women from the administration of the poison to the time of the trial was pointed out. The men showed no such power over themselves. They were unable to exhibit such natural-seeming grief as to allay suspicion; several of them could not contain their joy. They showed nervous apprehension when informed that foul playwas suspected. Most of them confessed be fore execution. The one channel through which the women relieved the strain—the writing of letters or secret confessions—was not used; these men talked instead, to any one — to casual acquaintances, to mere strangers, if no more familiar confidant was at hand; and their talk was as aimless and as compromising as the women's letters. In the few instances when they wrote it was with the deliberate purpose of misdirecting suspicion. An effort was made in every case to escape detection; but in each case the effort was so clumsily contrived as only to furnish addi tional evidence against the defendant. Are men then so entirely unable to plan and exe

cute a .crime without detection? Are they so inferior to women in concealing their acts? One would be tempted to say so, upon a comparison of cases. The defendants here were of all grades of education and intelli gence; but each of them doubtless (and with reason) ascribed his conviction to his own stupidity. In none of the cases stated was there, on the evidence, a reasonable doubt of the de fendant's guilt; they therefore throw no light on the conjecture that juries are anxious to convict one charged with poisoning. Only one similar case has fallen under the writer's observation where the evidence leaves the question of guilt doubtful—Pettit's case, in Indiana, a few years ago. In that case the jury convicted, but the defendant was granted a new trial by the Supreme Court.In these cases the verdict of the jury was re ceived with approval by the public, and the execution of the criminal was hailed with joy. Mary Blandy's body was followed to the grave by multitudes of mourners; Mrs. Maybrick's innocence is believed, and her pardon urged by thousands who never saw her face; but no one can be found to believe the inno cence of Dr. Pritchard or Dr. Harris, or to lament their fate.