in respect of the so-termed poison plots was fairly clear. Even though perceived in her favour by Lewis Broad, Filson Young, Edgar Lustgarten, René Weis, Laura Thompson and others students of the case, the Court of Appeal held the poison-plots against her and against him: "if the question is, as I think it was, whether these letters were evidence of a protracted, continuous incitement to Bywaters to commit the crime which he did in the end commit, it really is of comparatively little importance whether the appellant was truly reporting something which she had done, or falsely reporting something which she merely pretended to do." Moreover, "it matters not whether those letters show or, at any rate, go to show, that there was between this appellant and Mrs Thompson an agreement tending to the same end. Those letters were material as throwing light, not only upon the question by whom was this deed done, but what was the intent, what was the purpose with which it was done" said the Court of Appeal to Bywaters. James Douglas, the chief reporter for the Express papers covering the trial in 1922/23, also took issue with the verdict, writing ‘I think the hanging of Mrs. Thompson is a miscarriage of mercy and justice ... I believe she was an adulteress. But we do not hang a woman for adultery. The Mosaic Law stoned the adulteress to death. Our law punishes adultery by divorce, not by death. Therefore, in judging Mrs. Thompson we must not mix up the crime of murder with the sin of adultery. ... Let us condemn her as being guilty of all she charges herself with in her letters. Having done so, let us see what she is not guilty of. 1. It was not her hand that struck down her husband. 2. Her husband did not die by poison or powdered glass administered by her hand. 3. There is no evidence that she put poison or glass in his food. 4. There is no evidence that at any time in any way she ever made any attempt on the life of her husband. 5. There is no evidence that she was guilty or premeditated connivance, collusion, or complicity in the actual crime. 6. There is no evidence that she was an accessory before the fact, apart from the incitements in her own letters. 7. There is no evidence that