ABSTRACT
The trials of accused murderesses Mary Ann Robson Cotton and Florence Chandler Maybrick had several things in common: Both were convicted of killing their husbands through the administration of arsenic in late-Victorian England and both claimed innocence. Indeed, these trials not only caused wide-range public scandal, but they were deeply shaped by it. The investigation into Mary Ann Cotton was sparked by rumors about her numerous dead husbands and children, while Florence Maybrick’s extramarital affair resulted in her conviction when the judge voiced his opinion that she had murdered her husband to indulge in her sexual desires. This chapter is grounded specifically in questions of what makes for a legal scandal: The intersection of class, gender, evidence, and legal and journalistic representation provide a framework for a comparison between the two women’s trials. Stir into this already heady mix the public’s long fascination with poisoning crimes and its voracious consumption of crime fiction featuring poisoning women, and the result is two trials which were shaped as much by scandal as they were by physical evidence. By examining how the many rhetorical strands of scandal get woven together into a cohesive narrative, this chapter reveals the subtlety of criminal scandal, the relatively small differences which could result in radically different outcomes for the accused, while also demonstrating the impact scandal had on the Victorian judicial system.
