Such was the deduction Dr. Stevenson arrived at, _necessitating the assumption that arsenic was equally distributed in the intestines and liver_, whereas it is within the _personal knowledge of eminent men_ (such as Drs. Tidy and Macnamara) that arsenic may be found after death _in one portion of the intestines, and not a trace of it in any other part_. That in arsenical poisoning the arsenic may be found in the rectum and in the duodenum, and in no other part, is beyond dispute, and the _fallacy of Dr. Stevenson’s process must be self-evident_. The witnesses for the prosecution themselves supply the proof of the unequal distribution of the arsenic in the liver. Mr. Davies calculates the quantity in the whole liver as 0.130 grain. Dr. Stevenson, in his first experiment, puts it at 0.312 grain, and in his second experiment at 0.278 grain; in other words, Dr. Stevenson finds _double in one experiment_ and considerably _more than double in another experiment, the quantity found by Mr. Davies, and it is upon this glaring miscalculation and discrepancy that the case for the prosecution was made_ to rest, and Mrs. Maybrick was convicted. But with all this miscalculation the approximate amount of arsenic _can only be swelled up to four-tenths of a grain, less than one-fourth of a fatal dose_, and it was demonstrated that every other part of the body, urine, bile, stomach, contents of stomach, heart, lungs, spleen, fluid from mouth, and even bones, _were all found to be free from arsenic_. RECAPITULATION OF LEGAL POINTS The legal points of the case may thus conveniently be recapitulated under the following short heads: There _was no conclusive_ evidence that Mr. Maybrick died from other than natural causes (the word “conclusive” being used in the sense of _free from doubt_). There was no conclusive evidence that he died from arsenical poisoning. There was no evidence that the prisoner administered or attempted to administer arsenic to him. There was no evidence that the prisoner, if she did administer or attempt to administer arsenic, did so with intent to murder. The judge, while engaged in his summing-up, placed himself in a position where his mind was open to the influence of public discussion and prejudice, to which was probably attributable the evident change in his summing-up between the first and second days; and he also _assumed facts against the prisoner which were not proved_. The jury were _allowed to separate_ and frequent places of public resort and entertainment during such summing-up. The verdict was _against the weight of evidence_. The jury _did not give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt_ suggested by the disagreement of expert witnesses on a material issue in the case. The Home Secretary should have remitted the entire sentence by reason of his being satisfied that there existed a _reasonable doubt of her guilt_, which, had it been taken into consideration at the time, would have entitled _her to an acquittal_.