Background of the case Youth Marie Fortunee Cappelle was born to a distinguished colonel in the artillery and to a lady

of an esteemed family in the early 1800s in France. Hailing from a family of aristocracy, she was accustomed a life of affluence. Her father, however, perished when Marie was still of tender age. And when she also lost her mother several years after, her relatives were therefore left with the burden of taking care of her. [Not too happy with the burden, her uncle then sought to find her a husband who could take her away. Apparently, this was not an easy task as Marie was definitely a lady of good breeding. A matrimonial broker was hired, and later, one Charles Joseph Pouche Lafarge, who represented himself as a man of huge resources, was introduced to Marie. They were immediately engaged and their nuptials were hurriedly arranged to the dislike of Marie, who consistently protested to be married to a man of coarse manners.]

Marriage [While Marie was living with his uncle and aunt, his uncle sought to find her a husband in order to relieve them of the burden of taking care of her. The said uncle sought the help of a marriage broker. The search of the said broker led him to find Charles Lafarge, a twenty-eight year old master ironworker who is supposedly rich. Maries uncle hid the fact that he sought the help of a marriage broker and introduced Charles to Marie as his friend. Charles and Marie were set to be married and the latter did not have any say in the process.] Only five days after their introduction, the two became married. After the two were married and upon reaching their new home, the new couple had a furious quarrel. Marie then shut herself in her room away from Charles. It was said that outwardly, Charles seemed to be well-off but in reality, the man was on the verge of bankruptcy. After some time, Marie had seemingly accepted the situation and the couple seemed to be living peacefully. Marie was even reported to have written letters to her friends telling them that Charles really has a good heart despite his tough exterior. Marie also helped Charles in trying to solve their financial woes. She was said to have written recommendation letters to banks in order for Charles to secure loans. She even executed a will in favor of Charles transferring her assets to him on the condition that the latter will also do the same. Charles fulfilled this condition, but unknown to Marie, he later executed another will assigning his mother as the beneficiary of all his assets. He then asked Marie to execute a power of attorney to grant him authority to sell her assets to secure certain funds. He then went to Paris to obtain the said funds. While he was in Paris, a package was sent by Marie containing two cakes. He ate one of the cakes after which he fell terribly ill. He refused to see a doctor as the Parisian illness was quite common at the time and he rationalized that probably the cake became spoiled during transit. He went home bringing the fruits of his conquest amounting to around 10,000 pounds in cash. However, he still felt very ill. Charles family became so worried that his mother came to their house along with a certain Anna Brun. This Anna Brun saw Marie put a white powdery substance to Charles food which aroused suspicion as Charles condition worsened. Brun told her suspicions to Maries mother-in-law. Soon after, Charles Lafarge died. Maries mother-in-law told their suspicions to the authorities. [It was soon discovered that prior to the days when Charles became ill, Marie asked a house servant to buy a significantly strange

amount of arsenic in order to kill the rats. 9 days after Charles death, Marie was arrested for the alleged poisoning of her husband.] Trial [Evidence presented for the arrest consisted of testimonies regarding Marie's purchase of arsenic prior to her husband's intermittent stomach pains. This was admitted but Marie interposed the defense of having bought said substance for mice control.] Her trial, which encountered several delays, finally took place on September 2, 1840. And because she was a beloved public figure, the people indisputably did not take her case lightly. The controversy became the centre of public discussions such that Paris newspapers regularly gave the public updates of the case; the court-house was always overcrowded; and that even later, inns could no longer accommodate outsiders who were likewise intrigued. Several articles even mention that it divided France into pro and con Lafarge factions. "You must be just; you cannot be so if you let this woman escape," said the prosecutor, whose opposition was the well-renowned M. Paillet as counsel for the defense. As the trial progressed, several chemists testified that arsenic was found in the milk, eggnog and the box from which Brun saw Marie take the white powder from. Some also testified that arsenic was likewise found in Charles' vomit and stomach content. It was during this stage that Mathieu Orfila, the forerunner in the field of poisons at that time, was contacted by the defense lawyer. It was Orfila who suggested that the chemists use the recently formulated Marsh Test because the results allegedly obtained by the chemists were inconclusive and unreliable. The prosecution's lawyers then moved for the adoption of said test to better determine whether or not Charles really died of arsenic poisoning. Another batch of chemists were then hired to re-examine the precipitate extracted from Charles' remains. This time, however, tests proved negative. The prosecution, however, were unsatisfied with the results and further moved to exhume Charles' body for further tests. The court acceded to this request despite finding the body in an advanced state of decomposition. However, after a series of tests were again conducted, results still yielded negative traces of arsenic. Relentless, the prosecution now moved to invite experts from Paris. Orfila then arrived and personally assured the court that amounts of arsenic would be present in the victim's remains, that this arsenic does not come from the apparatus nor the substances utilized in testing, that the amount of arsenic supersedes the minute levels found in the human body. However, was only on the third batch of testing that positive results were obtained. The court nevertheless gave credence to this result. The jury later found her guilty and sentenced her to hard labor for life. Death Marie spent the rest of her years in jail. While imprisoned, she wrote her memoirs which were published in 3 parts. Through the efforts of Charles Lachaud, her defense lawyer since the trial, she gained her freedom after being imprisoned for 12 years. During this time of imprisonment, her health deteriorated so much that she died only a few months after her release from jail. She died of tuberculosis at a young age of 36. Criticism of the Case Although Marie Lafarge was convicted of the crime of killing her husband, public opinion is still divided as to her guilt. Yes, Marie proclaimed her innocence until her dying day, but that is not the only reason

why there are still those who believe that the woman is innocent. For one, on current standards, the tribunal which heard her case has seemingly judged her as guilty even before the trial ended. In other words, the judge and the jury were seemingly not impartial in determining her innocence or guilt. This is because the judge kept on approving the motions of the prosecution to conduct a new test for arsenic compounds despite having done so many times before but only yielded a negative result. The court only became satisfied when Orfila conducted his third test which produced a positive result. While Orfila was indeed highly regarded and can truly be considered an expert witness (again, he is later to be recognized as the Father of Toxicology), his reputation or skill is not the one in question but the impartiality of the tribunal. The court seemed to have waited for incriminating evidence to surface and it grabbed the first opportunity to believe such evidence. The court convicted Lafarge based mainly on the expert testimony of Orfila, for which reason that a lot of sources point to this case as the first case in which toxicology is used in a murder trial. However, it must be remembered that the first two attempts of Orfila did not show arsenic compounds in the Charles remains - which were like the earlier tests done by other doctors/scientists. These numerous tests were considered by the court to have been outweighed by the last test conducted by Orfila. Two years after Maries conviction, a different case (Lacoste case) was being tried in which the presence of arsenic compounds were also an important fact. In this case, Orfilas assistant in the Lafarge case, Chevallier was questioned on the witness stand. He was asked whether the compounds found in the present case were of the same amount as that found in the Lafarge case. He answered that the amount found in the Lafarge case was so infinitesimal that it could not fulfill the conditions of a standard of comparison when we use the words more or less. The jury in that case was shocked and they realized that the basis of Lafarges conviction years ago rested on scientific evidence which was so small. In 1911, another Marie was facing murder charges for arsenic poisoning. Marie Besnard, who was later tagged as black widow of Loudon was charged of murdering 12 people including her husband and her mother. She was accused of killing those people because she had received benefits in one way or another in the death of those 12. However, this Marie had a different fate. She was acquitted of the charge because the defense was able to argue successfully that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the amount present in the bodies were sufficient enough to kill them. The prosecution in this case failed to discharge the said burden of proof thats why Besnard was acquitted. Therefore, Lafarge could have been also acquitted had the jury inquired into the quantity of arsenic present in Charles Lafarges remains.