detail proves not, however, that this writing is not a true confession. The whole content of the same letters is dedicated to God, because the beginning of the letter told us immediately that the whole recognition is put before God. To secure her the protection of inviolable secrecy, it is enough that she had the intention of asking for a general absolution which the confessor can also not refuse to the sick person in a state of incoherence, because such confusions are not to be considered as enduring error, but rather as temporary assaults during which lighter moments can also happen. Indeed, a prayer which a human being directs in such condition to God, is a true prayer and not seldom finds His hearing.
“By the way, people can judge from all these details that Lady Brinvillier, as she wrote in these letters, really had a violent fever which deprived her of the free use of her reason. In the state of torments in which her heated blood put her, she could hardly keep the feather. The letters are so clumsy that people cannot recognize her handwriting; and the words can hardly be read. The acknowledgments contained in these letters are proved false. She accused herself of having killed her father who has died calmly in the year 1666.”
These were the precise grounds with which Mister Nivelle defended the Marquess. But the corpus delicti have been perfectly proven. The Marquess' two brothers have really been poisoned, as proven by the report of a doctor, two nurses and a pharmacist. However, that Saint Croix and the Marquess, through the help of LaChaussée, have completed the two murders, is distinctively made clear by the gathered testimonies; and the Marquess' answers contained an even stronger motive against her. We also communicate here the answers from the affidavit itself:
“As cause of her fleeing from France, she gives a certain embarrassment which she has had with her sister in law. The confession which people found among the papers in her coffer, was written when she was in a totally foreign country, abandoned by all her relatives and constrained to the most extreme necessity, so as to resort to borrowing a Thaler; her mind was so devastated that she did not know what she was doing, or what she was writing. Regarding the first paragraph of her confession in which she has put fire to a house, as well as on the questions about six other paragraphs of the same confession, she always answered bluntly that she has not done any of these acts, and if she has written them, hence, it is only due to the confusion in her mind. On the question whether she has poisoned her father and her two brothers or not, she answered nothing further than not knowing anything about these instances.
On the question whether she intended to poison her sister or not, which was grounded upon her sister expressing an opinion stating she will not live long any more, she answered that this presumption only relied upon the sickly condition with which her sister already then has been tormented, and of which she still suffers now. She says further that she has forgotten the time when she has written her confession, and confessed that she has left France on her relatives' advice. On the question why her relatives has given her this advice, she replied: “Because of the incident with her brothers”. She conceded that she has met again with Saint Croix after his liberation from Bastille. On the question whether Saint Croix has convinced her to kill her father or not, she answered that she can not remember such instance; equally little remembers she that Saint Croix has given her powder and other spices, and that he has said to her, then, that he knew the means to make her rich.
Eight letters would be presented to her, and she would be asked to whom she has written them. She answered that she cannot remember to whom. About the promissory note of 30 000 Pounds which she has established to Saint Croix, she said that she wanted to deposit this sum of money with Saint Croix to have it in case of need, a sum which her debtors knew nothing about. She has, for that reason, obtained from Saint Croix a receipt which, however, has been lost during the trip. Her husband knew nothing about this promissory note. On the question whether she has established this promissory note before or after the death of her brothers, she answered that she can not remember any more, and from her answers the case could not advance in any way.
Afterwards, however, she said that Saint Croix has lent for her the mentioned amount of money to one of his friends, and she has reminded him about it by showing him the relevant promissory note. She confessed that she has been three times at Glazer’s, to have his opinion about her health condition. On the question why she has sought Penautier's advice, she answered that she knew through his friends that he was capable to be expressly used in her businesses. Why did she give him the assurance that she will do everything that he has advised? She does not specifically know why; in her present condition, however, she is necessitated to ask good advice from everyone. Why did she write to Theria that he should free her? She answered that she did not understand what people wanted to know with that question. Why did she say in another letter to Theria that she was lost, if he can not take hold of her coffer? She answered she could not remember this particular detail.
She affirmed that she did not know anything about her father being sick, in the year 1666, during his travel to Offemont neither on the way there, nor on the return trip. As people showed her Saint Croix's small coffer, she said that it did not belong to her, and that she did not want to know to whom it belonged. Only with Penautier she affirmed having had some relationships, only because of the 30 000 Pounds which he was owing her. At another time, she has, together with her husband, lent 10 000 Thalers to Penautier, after which payment she has confessed further not having any relationships with him any more. The small coffer found at Saint Croix”s, she has demanded upon her relatives' advice.”
People needed only to read these answers to see how the truth which she oppressed, will come out even more forcefully. People sees in her the discouragement of a dark soul which is capable of committing the most gruesome acts without trembling, so long as she fears not to be discovered, but loses all prudence at the mere sight of a judge. She decided to deny everything; only that devastation and fear have put in her mouth answers which, against her will, revealed the truth which she strove to cover up with all the forces of her spirit.
If she was really innocent, would she have really only answered that she knows not that she has poisoned her father and her brothers, against an accusation which must have outraged her most inner being? Must not the mere question have provoked in her an answer in which were expressed the highest reluctance against her accuser and even against her judges? But she did not once have enough strength to pull herself back behind a determined “no”, and in her confusion knew nothing more than to protect herself behind the ignorance of some facts. She did not know whether she has killed her father and her brothers or not!?Yet, all her remaining answers carry traces of such knowledge.
The Marquess' personal testimonies, hence, together with the witness testimonies existing against her, were enough to convict her with the clearest evidence. People knew not whether the Parliament has also relied upon proofs from the confession or not; in the meantime, it is enlightening to observe that the trial had enough proofs to do away with this means which, one would like to remind the Marquess' opponents, might not be used either as recognition of a crime, or as a proof in the trial.
Hence, finally, on July 16th, 1676, in a session of the upper chamber and the Parliament criminal chamber, the following judgement would be pronounced against the Marquess:
“Mary Margaret of Aubray, the wife of Marquis of Brinvillier, will be herewith declared convicted and condemned of having poisoned her father, Lord Drogo of Aubray and her two brothers, Lord Anton of Aubray, Attorney and civil Lieutenant in Paris, and Lord Aubray, Member of Parliament, and of intending to kill her deceased sister. She will for that reason be condemned to the well deserved punishment of being brought on a cart barefoot, with a rope around her neck and a two-pound burning candle in the hand, on the gates of a main church of Paris to do repentance for the same crimes to the Church, and to recognize on her knees, publicly, that she has in a shameful manner, out of revenge as well as out of greed, poisoned her father and her two brothers and intended to kill her sister. From there, she should be led onto the public place of execution and to be beheaded on the scaffold erected for her for that purpose; her body will be burned, and the ashes scattered in the air.
Beforehand,
