Abigail's Reviews > Did She Kill Him?: A Victorian tale of deception, adultery and arsenic

This was an interesting look into death and justice in the late-Victorian era.

James Maybrick, Liverpool cotton merchant, died of suspected arsenic poisoning in May 1889. His young American wife, Florence, was accused of his murder. But did she do it? Were their public (and private) arguments, her infidelity (not to mention his infideility - oh wait, this is the Victorian era, male infedility is totally OK), and various debts enough to warrant poisoning her husband? I won't give it away too much, but given the time period, I can't see how the verdict isn't obvious.

Florence would be judged, then, not simply under the law but against complex ideals of womanhood[...]

Le sigh.

This was well researched and interspersed with some interesting sections about the feminist agenda, forensics and scientific analysis, and some medicine. The descriptions of the city and all the trappings of middle-class life were a real asset. Unfortunately, the conjecture and questions, and the excessive fictionalisation of many parts - the swish of her skirts, the thudding of a heart - detracted from the portrayal of facts.

Laying out all those facts made the pace painful at times, especially once the trial began. It picked up a bit in the final chapters, which documented the imprisonment and remaining life of the characters, but the appeal process slowed things down once again. I'm not sure what could have been done to alleviate this slowness and complexity, because the finer details of the trial were key. But oh boy, were they confusing.

I found myself - like the judge, jury, reporters and probably everyone attending the trial - utterly muddled.

Most reporters, though, struggled to keep abreast of the multiplying details of what foods or medicines were prepared, when and whether they were actually swallowed, trying to understand whether there was a clear relationship between these and the onset of the dead man's symptoms.

For this reason, I didn't do a good job of puzzling this one out: there was simply too much information, and too much of it was conflicting. And once the author introduced idea that an arsenic addiction could kill a victim when they simply stopped consuming arsenic, I felt that a conclusion had already been made: James Maybrick had been addicted to arsenic, possibly among a handful of other drugs and medicines of the age, and was on his steady way to killing himself anyway. It was just an unfortunate coincidence that doctors prescribed and withheld various medicines during the final week of his life.

Did his young wife have a hand in it? I don't think so, seeing as she had quite a bit to lose by his death (view spoiler)[(not least the respectability of having a father for her unborn child) (hide spoiler)]. The trial was a long slog towards a predictable verdict, given the era; a verdict that hardly seemed to matter, really, given the above.

This was a good read - it introduced a lot of the attitudes and prejudices of the era, and the changing landscape, and the beginnings of a feminist movement - but it was tedious at times and I was actually quite glad when it was over. 3.5 stars, rounded down.