“Maybrick’s symptoms are as unlike poisoning by arsenic _as it is possible for a case of dyspepsia to be. Everything distinctive of arsenic is absent._ The urine contained no arsenic. The symptoms are not even consistent with arsenical poisoning. “Regarding the treatment adopted by the medical men, and more especially Dr. Carter’s action with regard to the meat juice, we are justified in assuming that the doctors themselves, even _after_ a certain suggestion had been made to them, did not come to the conclusion that the illness of Maybrick was the result of arsenic. “It is noteworthy (1) that none was found in the stomach; (2) that Maybrick was in the habit of taking drugs, and among them arsenic. “Thus two conclusions are forced upon us: “(1) That the arsenic found in Maybrick’s body may have been taken in merely medicinal doses, and that probably it was so taken. “(2) That the arsenic may have been taken a considerable time before either his death or illness, and that probably it was so taken. “Our toxicological studies have led us to the three following conclusions: “(1) That the symptoms from which Maybrick suffered are consistent with any form of acute dyspepsia, but that they point _away_ from, rather than toward, arsenic as the cause of such dyspeptic condition. “(2) That the post-mortem appearances are indicative of inflammation, but that they emphatically point away from arsenic as the cause of death. “(3) That the analysis fails to find more than _one-twentieth_ part of a fatal dose of arsenic, and that the quantity so found _is perfectly consistent with its medicinal ingestion_.” THE MEDICAL WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION Such was the complete evidence of the cause of death. The quantity of arsenic found in the body was _one-tenth_ of a grain, and upon this evidence rests the first issue the jury had to consider, namely, whether it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died from arsenical poisoning. As to the value of the medical testimony on both sides, Dr. Humphreys _admitted that he never attended a case of arsenical poisoning in his life_, nor of any irritant poison, and that he would have given a certificate of death from natural causes had he not been told of arsenic found in the meat juice. Dr. Carter laid _no claim to any previous experience of poisoning by arsenic_, and was unable to say from the post-mortem examination that arsenic was the cause of death, which he could only attribute to an irritant of some kind, and he admitted that it was the evidence of Mr. Davies, as to the finding of arsenic in the body, which led him to the conclusion that arsenical poisoning had taken place. Dr. Barron did not see the patient, but assisted at the post-mortem examination, and stated that, judging by the appearances and apart from what he had heard, he was unable to identify arsenic as the particular poison which had set up the inflammation.