Begin by reading all the questions on the sheet. Carefully read the extracts twice: once to annotote for language and meaning, and a second time to annotate for structure. Recommended time: 10-15 minutes Read Source A. Question 1: Read source A again from line 1 to 15 . Look at the list below and choose four statements that are TRUE. Shade the boxes of the statements you think are TRUE. Florence Maybrick's trial commenced in 1889. Even before the trial, things were looking good for Florence. Her lawyer Charles Russell was very experienced. The Lancashire jury remained impartial throughout the trial. The trial took place at St George's Hall in Liverpool. The levels of arsenic in James. body were not deadly. James had never consumed arsenic before in his life. The trial was expected to be straightforward. 4 marks Recommended time: 5 minutes Refer to sources A and B. Question 2: Use details from both sources. Write a summary of the similarities and differences between the evidence presented in the trial. 8 marks Recommended time: 8-10 minutes Refer to only source B . Question 3: How does Florence use language to convey her expectations for how the trial would proceed? 12 marks Recommended time: 12 -15 minutes Look at both sources A and B . Question 4: Compare how the two writers convey their opinions of the legal personnel involved in her trial. You should: compare the methods they each use: support your ideas with references to both texts. 16 marks Recommend time: 20 minutes Source A: Extract from Prejudiced: The Unjust Trial of Florence Maybrick by Emma Edwards Even before the trial commenced in the summer of 1889. Florence's fate was doomed. As well as her renowned defence lawyer Sir Charles Russell having no experience in a criminal court, the Lancashire jury assembled to prevent bias in the courtroom was 5 accommodated in a hotel where they drank with incensed locals every night. The jurors attended court each day influenced by the views of the locals. As the trial at St George's Hall in Liverpool got under way, much evidence was presented in Florence's defence. Firstly, a medical 10 examination concluded that the levels of arsenic James consumed were not enough to result in death, while numerous witnesses testified to James' addiction: doctors from whom he had sought prescription after prescription, and acquaintances who testified to James' regular bragging about his drug taking. The trial, based on 15 this evidence alone, was expected to be cut and dry. What they did not bank on however, was Judge James Fitzjames Stephen. a man in the early stages of mental decline and whose morals and values surrounding women were abhorrent. From the beginning of the trial, Justice Stephen was set on turning the jury 20 against Florence, treating her as a social pariah and punishing her for her immorality alone. Source B: Extract from My Fifteen Lost Years by Florence Maybrick This is an extract from a book written in 1904 by accused murderess Florence Maybrick as an autobiographical account of the death of her husband, James, whom she was accused of poisoning with arsenic. This extract details the delivery of her guilty verdict. When the trial began there was a strong feeling against me, but as it proceeded, and the fact was made clear that Mr. Maybrick had long been addicted to taking large quantities of arsenic, coupled with the evidence, to quote Sir Charles Russell, that there was no 5 proof that arsenic was administered to him by me, the prejudice agoinst me gradually changed, until, at the close of the trial, there was a complete revulsion of sentiment, and my acquittal was confidently expected. When the jury retired to consider their verdict I was taken below. 10 and here my solicitor came to speak to me; but the tension of mind was so great I do not recall one word that he said. After what seemed to me an age, but was in reality only thirty-eight minutes, the jury returned into court and took their places in the jury-box. I was recalled to the dock. When I stood up to hear the 15 verdict I had an intuition that it was unfovoroble. Every one looked away from me, and there was a stillness in court that could be felt. Then the Clerk of Arraigns arose and said: "Have you agreed upon the verdict, gentlemen?" "We have." 20 "And do you find the prisoner guilty of the murder of James Maybrick or not guilty?" The Foreman: "Guilty." A prolonged "Ah!" strangely like the sighing of wind through a forest. sounded through the court. I reeled as if struck a blow and sank upon 25 a chair. The Clerk of Arraigns then turned to me and said: "Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, you have been found guilty of wilful murder. Have you anything to say why the court should not pronounce sentence upon you according to the law?" I arose, and with a prayer for strength, I clasped the 30 rail of the dock in front of me, and said in a low voice, but with firmness: "My lord. everything has been against me: I am not guilty of this crime." BEYOND REVISION