Talk:Onion Pie Murder

Comments on various points of detail

I live near where this murder took place and I've taken an interest in the people involved. It's a difficult case to summarise at some points. The detail can be convoluted and not all the facts are known. Below I quote various passages from the article and comment underneath, following the headings used in the article.

Sarah Ann French

Sarah Ann French was found guilty of wilfully murdering her husband, William French, on 19 March 1852.^[1]

More accurately, Sarah French was found guilty on the following day, 20 March 1852, as the source indicates that the trial began on 19 March 1852 and lasted two consecutive days. Confusingly for me, an alternative date is given in the Criminal Registers for England & Wales, 1791-1892. Here it states that Sarah French was convicted and sentenced on 16 March 1852.

Lewes decided to end public hangings because they were led to believe that French had been motivated to murder her husband with poison, as three years previously she had been a spectator at the hanging of Mary Ann Gearing, who also murdered her husband with the use of poison.^[5] They came to question that public sentences had no beneficial impact on society and that they should be carried out only in front of customary officers privately inside the prison, so as not to risk influencing others to commit the same crimes and ultimately meet the same end.^[3]

It is not said in either of the quoted sources that Lewes decided to end public hangings as a result of this case. Source [3] does cite the opinion of the Sussex Express at the time that ‘Public executions have not the slightest beneficial influence on society. We are more inclined, indeed, to believe that they are absolutely injurious.' It would be good to have clarification on this point.

Murder

French murdered her husband by lacing his meal with 3d worth of arsenic in Horsebridge.^[4] The arsenic had been bought by her husband . . .

According to the first sentence, the murder took place in Horsebridge whereas, according to the source, Horsebridge is where the arsenic was bought. The Wikilink Horsebridge incorrectly links to Horsebridge in Hampshire, whereas the Horsebridge intended is Horsebridge near Hailsham, in East Sussex.

I question this alleged 3d worth of arsenic bought in Horsebridge by William French. At the trial three separate purchases of arsenic came to light. William French bought ‘a half-penny-worth’ on two separate occasions – 1 November 1851 and 20 December 1851 – both at Mr Noakes’s shop in Chiddingly. Sarah French bought ‘tuppence’ worth from Naomi Crowhurst, the wife of a farrier in Horsebridge, on Monday or Tuesday, 5 January or 6 January 1852. These three purchases do add up to the 3d worth mentioned in the source but I conclude that the arsenic that was bought in Horsebridge was bought by Sarah French, not William French, and it was to the value of 2d, not 3d.

The arsenic had been bought by her husband in order to kill mice in their house, and he gave it to Sarah to put away in a safe place where their child or anyone else could not find it.

No source is given for this but it seems to come from testimony given at the trial by James Hickman: "On the Saturday before Christmas I was in the cottage with the prisoner and her child, and her husband came in with some shop goods; and he pulled out a paper, and said it contained poison for the mice, and he told the prisoner to put it away where no one could get at it, and she took them [the shop goods] into the brewhouse."

The meal in question, an onion pie, was served to William French on Christmas Eve in 1851. That morning, Sarah French told his co-worker William Funnell that this was a rarity in his household and in fact his favourite meal, and not even days later William French started to show symptoms of illness and rupture.

Again no source is given but these matters are covered elsewhere.

Sarah's motive for murdering her husband was so that she could marry a man named James Hickman, as she on many occasions (even before her husband died) said that she had strong feelings for him.^[5]

This is true but the quoted source does not address the matter. Source [1] is preferred.

It was originally believed that Hickman had poisoned William French, however it became apparent after he testified against her that her feelings towards him were not reciprocated.^[1]

There is no mention in any of the sources cited in the article that it was originally believed that Hickman had poisoned William French, though according to source [1] it was contended that he might have done, later on at the trial, by Sarah French’s defence counsel, Mr Rodwell. The finding at the first inquest was that William French had ‘died from natural causes’, as noted later in the article under the section ‘Trial’. I'm not saying the article is wrong on this point but it would be good to have a source.

Trial

From these findings and the testimonies from the witnesses, Sarah French was found guilty for the wilful murder of her husband William French on 2 February 1852.^[5]

This date of 2 February 1852 contradicts what was said earlier in the article, that Sarah French was found guilty on 19 March 1852, and the quoted source does not address the matter. In fact the guilty verdict mentioned here was the verdict returned at the second inquest, not the final verdict returned at the trial.

References

Equestor (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)