7/27/2019 la farge.txt
1/2
impact of marie la farge case on forensic medicine and crime
scene investigationThe primary study of toxicology concerns the
dosage of poison used in an
y situation. Almost every substance has the potential to be
poisonous given theright circumstances, but whether or not it
becomes dangerous depends on the amount of poison involved.
symptoms of poisonson trial
Toxicology was first systematized by the Spanish physician
Matthieu Orfila (17871853). Toxicologists examine blood and tissues
to ascertain the presence and quantity of drugs or poisons in a
person's body. Toxicological reports can assist investigators by
showing whether the drug ingested was fatal and the approximate
time the drug was introduced into the body.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/toxicology
Marie Lafarge, a Frenchwoman, was convicted of poisoning her
husband with arsenic in1840. This was the first case in which
someone was convicted mainly upon forensic analysis
results. She had purchased arsenic from the apothecary saying
that it was to beused to killthe rats that infested her house. Her
husband, Charles Lafarge, fell ill and wasseen by adoctor. His
condition was thought to be due to cholera, a disease that was
common at thattime. Later, suspicions were aroused when residues of
white powder were found ina glass hehad drunk from. Soon Charles
was dead and samples from his body were taken for analysisusing
tests which showed that he had ingested arsenic. Marie was brought
beforethe court,found guilty and sentenced to life
imprisonment.
http://www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk/dl/91fa4fbd070d1be1cdded979f9339049d3ddc7d0/26577-catalyst23%204_548.pdf
a man in his late twenties was complaining of severe stomach
pains allegedly after eating a cake sent by his new wife who was
reluctant to marry him in the first place.
Evidence presented for the arrest consisted of testimonies
regarding Marie's purchase of arsenic prior to her husband's
iterminent stomach pains. This was admit
ted 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 being a woman of renowned charm, the
public indisputably did not takeher case lightly. The controversy
became the center 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.
7/27/2019 la farge.txt
2/2
"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 foundin the milk,
eggnog and the box from which Brun saw Marie take the white
powder.Some who studied the ----- 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 resultsallegedly
obtained by the chemists, as to him, 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 batchof chemists were then hired to
reexamine the precipitate extracted from Charles'remains. This
time, however, tests proved negative.
The prosecution, however, were unsatisfied with the results and
further moved toexhume 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.
Unrelented, 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 body, that this arsenic
does not come from the apparatus n
or the substances utilized in testing, that the amount of
arsenic supersedes theminute levels found in the human body. It was
then that the very man whose suggestion almost exonerated her weeks
ago now declares her guilty.
The jury later found her guilty and sentenced her to hard labor
for life.
