As regards white arsenic, also produced by these women, it must be observed that not only was it not shown that Mrs. Maybrick had purchased any, but it is submitted that the judge _ought to have pointed out to the jury_, as the fact is, that it would have been almost impossible for her or any woman to have obtained any white arsenic at all. No shopkeeper dare sell it to any one except to a medical man, and even then under the stringent restrictions of the Sale of Poison Act. At the trial a wholesale druggist (Thompson, of Liverpool) gave evidence that James Maybrick constantly visited his cousin, who had been in his employment at his stores, where he could have obtained white arsenic from him without any difficulty; and it will be observed that it was found in his hatbox. It is a remarkable thing in this connection that, while Edwin Maybrick called the police in on Sunday night, and gave them the black solutions and white solutions which Mrs. Briggs had found on the Sunday morning, he did not give them the black powder which Alice Yapp had found on the-night before; and, in fact, that Michael Maybrick did not give it to the police until Tuesday, the 14th. It is also a remarkable fact that, although these black solutions and that white solution of arsenic and that solid arsenic which Mrs. Briggs had found, were not handed by the police to the analyst until several days afterward, and were therefore _not known to be arsenic by anybody, yet Mrs. Briggs was able to inform Mrs. Maybrick on Tuesday, the 14th, as was testified to, that these bottles contained arsenic_. It is submitted that Mrs. Briggs could not have known that without some other means of knowledge than looking at them. The importance of this _misdirection_ of the judge as to the question of possession of arsenic by Mrs. Maybrick can not be overstated. It was _conclusively_ shown that no decoction of fly-papers or of the black powder was the source of the arsenic with which certain articles found in the house and office were said to be infected, because the analyst said he had searched for the fibers of the papers and for the charcoal, _and could not find any traces of either_. If Mrs. Maybrick knew of the pure arsenic, why should she have bought the fly-papers, either for a cosmetic purpose or murder, and what should she have wanted with “poison for cats?” MISDIRECTION AS TO “TRACES” OF ARSENIC Out of the list submitted by the police, therefore, the only two things which could have been the source of the arsenic were the bottle of saturated solution, No. 10 in the Police List, and the bottle of solid arsenic, No. 11 in the Police List. It may be observed that if all the arsenic or “traces” of the same, with which various things were said to be infected, were collected together, it would not constitute a fatal dose, the smallest fatal dose recorded being two grains, and this in the case of a woman, and surely not in the case of a person addicted to large doses of arsenic.