Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 36, Number 49, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 February 1904 — MRS. MAY BRICK FREE [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

MRS. MAY BRICK FREE

HER PRISON DOORS OPENED BY SPECIAL ACT. Liberation Is Finally Granted American Woman for Whom Two Continents Have Pleaded—Present Abode Unknown. Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, of London, says that Mrs. Florence Maybrick, the American woman who was serving a life sentence for having poisoned her husband, has been released from the Aylesbury female convict.prison on special license after nearly fifteen years’ imprisonment. Her mother, Baroness De Roques, the paper says, hnd visited her the previous Saturday, and evidently was the bearer of important news. The governor of the prison on Sunday conferred with the prison officials with a view to arranging for the departure of tlie prisoner, which was carried out very qujctly. Present Whereabouts Unknown. Where she now is remains a mystery which no one in authority shows any inclination to clear. Reports from various sources conflict and help to confuse those eager to learn the truth. The London Daily Mail prints a story that TSlrs. Maybrick is now in Liverpool and that the following conditions attach to her release from prison: That she will not appear on the public stage or write a book of her experiences and shall in no way endeavor to attract public attention to herself. Other newspapers announce Mi' 9 - Maybrick's

removal from Aylesbury prison and express th<? belief that she will be released within two or three months. Charles Russell, the barrister who defended Mrs. Maybriek, said: “Mrs. Maybrick has been ‘released’ from Aylesbury prison and has been taken to a retreat, but where I cannot say. She will soon be restored to liberty, but I cannot tell you how soon.” Release bought for Years. For nearly fifteen years the friends of Mrs. Maybriek have sought her releas . Every possible influence has been brought to bear time and again. Influential Americans had inaugurated many movements to secure a pardon for the w.oman who, they thought, had been unjustly condemned, but all ended in failure. It was in Liverpool in August, 1889, that Mrs. Maybrick was found guilty of murdering her husband and condemned to death. This verdict the home office was induced to commute to life imprisonment.

Crime with Which She Was Charged. Mr. Maybriek was a victim of the arsenic habit. It is related by a Mr. Greenwood of Norfolk, Va M that he used it in large quantities, enough to prove fatal to a person not accustomed to its use. Mr. Maybriek was a chronic sufferer from stomach difficulties and nervous prostration. He was taken ill in July. 1889, with acute gastro-enteritis, and died after u few days’ illness. ' Mrs. Maybrick was very much disliked by tlie brothers of Mrr Maybrick, her “pert, American ways” did not please them, nnd a conspiracy was formed by them, it was alleged, to cast upon Mrs. Maybriek the suspicion of having poisoned her husband with arsenic. She was tried before an eminent judge, Fitzjatnos Stephens, and defended by the late Sir Charles Russell, afterward lord chief justice of England. Since "tli'i? trial it has been shown that this eminent judge was suffering from mental derangement at the time of the trial, which accounts for his otherwise unaccountable conduct. He displayed prejudice; even before the inquiry commenced he made on the bench a remark about the case which tlie papers next morning characterized as “a ghastly judicial joke." During the trial he fair in his rulings, harsh in his dictatorial nnd self-assertive to the jury. Ever since the trial the opinion lias been prevalent in both England and America that an innocent woman had been unjustly condemned.

MRS. FLORENCE MAYBRICK.