Evening Republican, Volume 16, Number 1, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 January 1912 — WORLD’S FAMOUS POLICE MYSTERIES [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

WORLD’S FAMOUS POLICE MYSTERIES

TRUE RECORDS OF EXTRAORDINARY CASES IN ANNALS OF CRIME

By H. M. EGBERT

Hie Case of Madame Lafarge

(Copyright, by W. G. Chapman.)

mhk WO very similar poison* ■ A ing mysteries have at different times engrosß- ■ ed the interest of the ■ civilized world. One was ■ the case of Mrs. MayI brick, whom nearly all readers will recall; UEmIHR was convicted of poisoning her husband in the /r early nineties, and served a term of 15 years’ Imprisonment in an English jail, while thousands of her American compatriots continued ceaselessly to insist upon her innocence. The other case was that of a Frenchwoman, Mme. Lafarge. It was almost identical in every way. Each woman was young and of good family; each found sympathizers throughout the period of her Imprisonment; in each case extraordinary animosity before the trial was charged to partisanship afterward; and in each Instance the death sentence was communted. Marie Fortune Capelle was the daughter of a French colonel, one of Napoleon’s Guard, of good descent, md an intimate acquaintance of the wives of the great Corsican’s most famous Marshals —Mme. Soult, Duch--988 of Dalmatia, and Mme. Ney, Prinseas of Echmuhl. Her parents dyingwhile she was a child, she was left to the care of relatives, who sent her to- be educated at one of the fashion- ’ able schools of Paris. Here she made many friends, among them a young girl whom we will call by the name she took after her marriage, Mme. de Leautaud, who subsequently played a leading role in Marie Capelle’s sinister story. The girl seemed to have been endowed by fortune with every good gift. Tall and slim, with jet-black hair and a dead white skin, she could have made a match in her own station of life. It was necessary that Bhe should marry in order to assume her place in In accordance with the French custom, a marriage was arranged for her with a certain Charles pouch Lafarge, a man of lower social ytanding, but eminently respected—a well-to-do ironmaster. Lafarge’s wooing lasted but five days, during which brief period he pictured the beauties of his country mansion and estates so alluringly that he captivated alike the bride’s heart and her imagination. When they arrived at their home Marie was speedily undeceived. Her husband lived at Glandier, a squalid, dismal town, and the house, which was only an ordinary village edifice, perhaps a little finer than the others, was surrounded with a forest of smoking chimneys. The shock and disappointment proved too much for the poung bride's equanimity. She fled to her room and there I *, wrote the following letter to her husband: “Charles —I am about to ask your pardon on my knees. 1 have wickedly deceived you. I love not you, but another.” The letter continued in this Strain for several pages. “Release me from this bondage,” she continued. “Get ready two horses, ahd I will ride to Bordeaux, where I will take ship for Smyrna. I leave all my possessions to you; may God increase them to your advantage. As, for me, I will live by my wits, and none need know that I have ever existed. If this does not satisfy you, I will take some arsenic, for I have some. Marled’ Lafarge dwelt in the house with his ’mother and sister and his sister’s husband. Another inmate of the establishment was a certain Denis Barbier,. a confidential clerk of the ironmaster, a man of bad character, and, as was subsequently proved, at that time passing under a name which was not his own. The letter was found and read, and a stormy scene ensued between the bride on the one hand, tfticfihe relatives on the other. Finally, however Lefarge and Marie were reconciled "arid Marie acknowledged that there was that she had not meant what she had- written and would do her best to makeNjer husband happy. The mother* seem to have done their best to please the young wife, for about this time fehe wrote to her uncle, who was then secretary of the Bank of France: “I have come to accept my position, although it is difficult With a little strength of mind and patience, and with my husband’s love, I may become contented. Charles adores me and 1 cannot but be touched by the caresses that are lavtshed on me.” This was a period of great advances In the Art of metallurgy. Lafarge had made, an important discovery in smelting, and needed his riife’s fortune in order to turn this to good account She lent him a large part of her capital, secured an additional loan for him from her own and made , her will In his favor. Then he departed for Paris to secure a patent for his new invention, taking with him a general power of attorney to borrow money on his wife’s property. Soon after he had departed Marie conceived the idea of having her portrait painted and sending it to her husband. With French practicality, she further planned to enclose with it a number of small cakes, which were made for her, at her request* by her

mother-in-law. At Marie’s farther inslstence the mother wrote to her son urging him to eat one of these cakes at a particular hour upon a certain specified day. Marie was to eat one at the same time, in order that a bond of affinity might be created between them. The case containing the cakes and the portrait was dispatched to Lafarge and duly reached him, but not in the same condition as that in which it had been sent. - There were two indications that it Jjad been tampered with; in the first place, it had been fastened down with small screws when it left Glandier, but when it arrived, as transpired at the trial, it was secured with, long nails. Secondly, the numerous small cakes had been replaced by one large one. Lafarge broke off a portion of this confection and ate it. That same night he was seized with violent convulsions, and, upon his partial recovery, he relinquished his business in Paris and returned to Glandier. When the charge of murder was ultimately formulated against Marie Lafarge it was found that on December 12, two days before the box left Gland-' ier, she had purchased a quantity of arsenic from a druggist in a neighboring town. Her letter, In which she asked for this poison, was read In court, and ran as follows: ■ "Sir —I am overrun with rats. I have tried nux vomica, but entirely without avail. Will you and can you trust me with a little arsenic? You can count on my being most careful with it, and I shall only use it in a Jinen-doseb”-: —^ But if Marie had indedd,been guilty of a conspiracy against her husband’s life, why should she have changed the small cakes for one large one, after especially begging her mother-in-law to make the small cakes and to write to Charles Lafarge about them? This fact was not properly brought out in court; considered upon another hypothesis, however, it might have pototed to the possible intervention of a third,,party, who was guilty of the poison conspiracy. Lafarge returned to Glandier and took to his bed. On the very day of his return his wife wrote again to the druggist for arsenic, saying that she had made the first lot into a paste, Which her doctor had seen and approved. She also mentioned, incidentally, that her husband had returned unwell, but that - she expected that he would speedily recover his health again. Day. by day, however, ILafarge grew worse, and his symptoms were undoubtedly those of arsenical poisoning. Mme Lafarge, the mother, began to entertain suspicions of her daughter-in-law, and insisted upon remaining by her son’s bedside constantly. Marie resented this ahd demanded that she should be her husband’s sole nurse; the entire family opposed her, however, and compelled her to yield. The relatives now began to watch her narrowly, as developed at the trial. Many curious incidents were recorded. One woman deposed that she had seen Marie go to a cupboard and take from it a white powder,' which she had mixed into her husband’s medicines and food. The mother and sister, furthermore, showed the doctor a cup of chicken broth, upon whose surface a white powder was floating. The doctor said that it was probably lime from the wall, whereupon the ladles mixed some lime with broth, but this did not present at all the same appearance. Finally, it was testified that, when Marie gave her husbaqd broth to drink in which the powder had been mixed, he cried out: * “What are you giving me? It burns like fire.” To which Marie replied: “I am riot surprised. They let you have wine when you are'Suffering from inflammation of the stomach.” If Marie Lafarge was indeed slowly poisoning her husband with arsenic, her folly was incredible. During his illness she received a quantity of the poison from the druggist, and opened it in the presence of the family. It was brought to her at the bedside by the clerk, Denis Barbler, of whom mention has been, made, and she put tfee package in her pocket, at the same time informing her husband that it was flar the,purpose of killing the rafjf overhead, ©! which he had been o6mplaining. Lafarge took the poison from her and gave it. to If maid, desiring- her to make a paste out of it Meanwhile he continued to grow worse, and at Mat a new doctor was summoned from a distant town through the agency of Barbler, who, as he brobght him back, confided to him that he had often purchased arsenic tor Maries but that she had begged him to say nothing about it. The doctor's suspicions Were aroused. He prescribed antidotes for arsenical poisoning and sent some of the mysterious white powder which the iron-master’s mother had preserved, for examination to the druggist who had supplied the arsenic. His examination, however, did not disclose the presence of this poison, hut he wrote bade that nothing more should be given to Lefarge unless prepared by some trustworthy person. -r • - Upon receipt of this communication the mother denounced the wife to the

now dying man as his murderess. He heard her and believed. Marie made no protest against the terrible accusation, but from that moment until her husband's death she was excluded from his sight. She was not even allowed to be present at his death, so violently did the sight of her excite his antipathy. By the side of the corpse the denunciations and charges were renewed, and a terrible scene took place in v the death-chamber, with threats on the one hand and denials upon the other, and as a culmination, the seizure of the wife’s correspondence. following day the police were called in and a post mortem examination was begun. Marie waß arrested upon a charge of murder. And now while she was still awaiting trial pending the conclusion of the post mortem examination, a singular event occurred which was, perhaps, largely instrumental in convincing the jury who tried her that they were dealing with a woman of criminal nature. Mention has been made of Mme. de Leautaud, the wife of the Viscomte de Leautaud, who had been a school friend of the accused woman. While Marie Lafarge was still awaiting trial upon the murder charge, this woman brought another charge against her — that of a theft of diamonds while she was yißitlng her and the Viscomte at Busagny, just previous to her marriage with the Iron-master. The charge of theft, under the laws of France, took precedence of the murder charge, and proceedings were instituted before the correctionaljtribunal of Tulle. When arraigned Marie at once admitted that the diamonds were in her possession, and Indicated the place at Glandier where they were to be found. But she refused for a long while to state how she came by them, declaring that this was a secret of her accuser’s, which she was bound to honor and to keep inviolate. The prosecution certainly made out a strong case of theft against Marie Lafarge. It was stated that the jewels had first been missed after a discussion had arisen between the two ladies upon the difference between the real stones and paste. Mme. de Leautaud had thought little of the loss at first, for she was habitually careless with her things, and she imagined that either her husband or her mother had hidden the diamonds somewhere in order to frighten her and to give her a lesson. It was Marie Lafarge’s strange behavior when the loss was discovered, said Mme. de Leautud, which first aroused suspicion on her part against her. She had promised a situation to a servant who was about to be dismissed by her under suspicion of being concerned with the theft. Again, Marie had once submitted to be mesmerized by Mme. de Leautaud’s sister, and had on that* occasion simulated a magnetic trance, in which, being questioned about the missing jewels, she said they had been removed by a peddler who had disposed of them. Other circumstances were adduced as pointing to Marie’s guilt; for example, in Paris, before her marriage, she was observed to have in her possession a quantity of loose diamonds which she stated had been given to her at the De Leautauds’ chateau. Once after her marriage her husband had asked her for a diamond with which to cut a pane of glass, and to his surprise she had produced a large number of stones, saying that she had owned them from childhood, but that they had only lately been handed to her by an old servant. Marie made other statements which were equally at variance, such as that the diamonds had heen sent to her by an uncle at Toultiuse whose name and address, however, she was Wholly unable* to furnish. When these facts had been brought out in court, the accused woman confided her secret explanation to her counsel, and sent him to Mme. de Leautaud with a pathetic letter in which she urged her former friend to permit her to reveal the truth. The letter ran as follows: . , “Marie —May God never visit upon you the evil you have dpjrn- me. I know you to be rpally ’good at heart, though weak You have come to the conclusion that, because I am about r to be convicted of an atrocious crime, I may as well bear the blame of one less wicked. I kept your secret, left your honor in your own hands, and you have chosen to allow me to be Inculpated. "Now the time* to do me justice has arrived. Marie, save me, for the sake of your conscience and for the past! Remember the facts, for you cannot deny them. From the first moment of oar acquaintance I was deep in your confidence, and I heard the story of that intrigue begum by you at school and continued afterward, through letters that passed through my hands. “You soon discovered that that handsome Spaniard of yours had neither family nor fortune. To# scorned the love which you yourself had sought and transferred your affections to another to M. de Leautaud. , “The man whom you hrid floated cried for vengeance. The situation that'developed became intolerable and only to be ended toy a sum of money. I came to visit yon at Busagny, and It was arranged between us that

you should intrust your diamonds to me, so that I might raise money upon them with which you could pay the price that he demanded.” Marie Lafarge implored her former friend to save her from conviction upon the lesser charge. “Remember," she wrote—and in this we seem to, detect the threat of blackmail—"l have all the proofs in my hands, your letters to him aud his to you, and your letters to me. There is one thing for you to do. Acknowledge in writing under your own hand, dated June, that you consigned the diamonds to my care, with authority to sell them if I thought it advisable. This will end the matter.” „ , Mme. de Leautaud positively denying the truth of this accusation, Marie Lafarge offered' her statement to the jury. The diamonds, she said, had been given to her to sell that the proceeds might be given to a young who possessed the power to levy blackmail upon Mme. de Leautaud. Her accuser, she continued, had actually assisted her to take the jewels out of their settings; but as yet it had been found impossible to dispose of them. The young man was named Felix Clave, and was the son of a schoolmaster, whose acquaintance the girls had made while at schpol in Paris. Having occasionally met him while attending mass, they wrote him an anonymous letter making a rendezvous in the garden of the Tuilleries. (Here Mme. de Leautaud declared that it was Marie Lefarge who had been the sole object of his devotion.) According to the accused woman’s story, Mme. de Leautaud, after giving her the diamonds, proceeded to a number of tricks in order to create the impression that they had been stolen; and the police had even been summoned to search the chateau. All this procedure was to throw her husband off the scent and to prevent him from discovering her secret The jury refused to accept'this explanation, and Marie Lafarge was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for the theft. Meanwhile, however, the murder charge had been proceeded with.- The post mortem examination had been completed. But the French experts of that day seem to have been as much at variance as those of our own time. Despite the fact that Lafarge had died manifesting every symptom of arsenical poisoning, the presence of this drug in his body was never -satisfactorily proved. Orfila, the most eminent toxicologist of the day, could discover only half a milligramme of arsenic in the body.- Has pail, another distinguished French physician, found no more than the one-hundredth part of a milligramme, and therefore declared in favor of the accused woman, as did several other experts, who could deteet no arsenic at ail. But the outburst of public indignation, aided by the machinery of the criminal law of France which presupposes the guilt of flti accused until his innocence : is proved, induced the Jury to return a verdict of Marie Lafarge was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for life, after expesore in the public pillory.;; This latter portion of her sentence was, however, remitted. The shorter sentence of two years’ imprisonment for the theft of the diamonds was merged in the greater. Marie Lafarge was sent to the prison at Montpelier, where she remained dim log a period of 12 year*. The animosity sgainst her which had largely been responsible for her conviction nevrgave way to a revulsion U feeling.

Letters poured in upon her from all parts of the country. Of all, not more than half a dozen at most taxed her with the crime. V They were signed by persons In all ranks of society, offering marriage, suggesting means of escape, passionately affirming disbelief in her guilt During the period of her imprisonment Marie Lefarge replied to almost all of these, besides solacing herself by writing several volumes of memoirs, and prison experiences. Finally, when Napoleon 111. became emperor, she appealed to him, and obtained a full pardon in 1852. Many believed in Marie’s Innocence to the last, among them being her counsel, Maitre Lachaud, who afterward achieved high renown in his profession. Years later, after she died, he regularly sent flowers to decorate her grave. Another equally loyal supporter was Marie’s maid, who went to prison with her and remained for a full rear at her side; and another was a young girl, a cousin-of her husband, who likewise accompanied her to the Montpelier jaiL This case, which is one of the most celebrated in criminal annals, has been made the subject of an exhaustive report by two eminent Prussian jurists who have Insisted that no proof of guilt had been obtained, and that the jury convicted their prisoner in deference to popular clamor. But who, then, was the murderer? The German jurists wind up their argument by say&rg: “Had we been the public prosecutor, we would rather have formulated charges against Denis Barbier.” There vtrerd. In fact, as many suspicious circumstances to incriminate Barbier as to incriminate Marie. This confidential clerk, living in the house as had already bden stated, under a false name, was a man of notorious character. It developed that Lafarge himself had long made use of him in certain financial transactions of a very shady character. Among these was the manufacture of fraudulent bills of exchange which were /negotiated for advances of money. Barbier had conceived a strong dislike toward Marie. It was he who originated the reports against her, and he who had first suggested to the new doctor, brought in at the time when the iron-master’s sickness became alarming, that Marie had sent him to purchase arsenic and begged him to make no mention of it. When he was put into the witness box at the trial he frequently contradicted himself, saying, for example, on one occasion that be had volunteered this information, and at another time that he bad only confessed it when pressed for information by the physician. In fact, It was shown that Lafarge and Barbier had been confederates in a series of swindling operations, the discovery of which was imminent at the time when the iron-master was first struck down by .his mysterious aliment Furthermore, it developed that at the time when Lafarge went to Paris to take out bis pstent upon the new process, Barbier was there also, in secret When Lafarge was taken ill Barbier had constant access to his sick room, and it would have been just as easy for him as lor Marie to have added the poison to his food. And when the illness proved mortal, Barbier was heard to say: “Now I shall be the master here.” '■ Summing up this mysterious case, we may conclude that 1 Marie Lafarge was convicted unjustly; whether sha •was guilty or innocent, the evidence sgajnM her did not justify the yscdict

It was not even proved that her hue* i band was murdered; If so, Barbier may j just as well have been the murderer as I the woman who suffered for the crime. 1