In the commission of this monotonous series of diabolical crimes, the culprit does not seem to have been animated either by animosity or cupidity. On the contrary, she always showed the warmest affection for her victims, and nursed them with the tenderest care and the most untiring devotion, as she watched the distressful workings of the fatal draught; nor did she derive the slightest material benefit from her course of conduct, but rather suffered considerable pecuniary loss by the death of her patients. The testimony of physicians and alienists furnished no evidence of insanity, nor did she show any signs of atavistic reversion, physiological abnormity or hereditary homicidal bent. Monomaniacs usually act fitfully and impulsively; but Marie Jeanneret always manifested the coolest premeditation and self-possession, never exhibiting the least hesitation or confusion, or the faintest trace of hallucination, but answered with the greatest clearness and calmness every question put by the president of the court. Even M. Turrettini, the prosecuting attorney, in presenting the case to the jury, was unable to discover any rational principle on which to explain the conduct and urge the conviction of the accused; and after exhausting the common category of hypotheses and showing the inadequacy of each, he was driven by sheer stress of inexplicability to seek a motive in “_l’espèce de volupté qu’elle éprouverait à commettre un crime_,” or what, in less elegant, but more vigorous Western vernacular, would be called “pure cussedness.” Not only was such an explanation merely a circumlocutory confession of ignorance, but it was wholly inconsistent with the general character of the indictee. Indeed, the persistent and pitiless perpetration of this one sort of crime by this woman, under circumstances which should have excited compassion in the hardest human heart, seems more like the working of some baneful and irrepressible force in nature, or the relentless operation of a destructive machine, than like the voluntary action of a free and responsible moral agent. M. Zurlinden, the counsel for the defendant, dwelt with emphasis upon this mysterious phase of the case and thus saved his client from the scaffold. The jury, after five hours’ deliberation, rendered a verdict of “Guilty, with extenuating circumstances,” as the result of which the accused was sentenced to twenty years’ hard labour. As a matter of fact, there were no circumstances of an extenuating character except the utter inability of the jurors to discover any motive for the commission of such a succession of cold-blooded atrocities.