If you’re thinking about expanding your family, we’d like to invite you to join ours. At InterMed Women’s Health, resources, experience, and compassion come together to create truly exceptional care. This means we can take the time to focus on getting to know our patients and their goals. So, no matter what phase of family planning you’re in, we can help you every step of the way. We’re now accepting new patients. Learn more about us at InterMed.com/womenshealth, or call (207) 560-1989 to make an appointment. Meredith, 19 Meredith, 29 Meredith, 33 INM-20682.WomensHealth.PrintAd2.PortMagazine.June.FR.indd 1 5/22/17 1:09 PM SUMMER 2017 University of New England Innovation Hall * (formerly the Armory) 772 Stevens Avenue *Gallery is currently under renovation Wed., Fri., Sat. and Sun., 12–5 p.m. Thurs. 12–7 p.m. and by appointment Please call (207) 221–4499 www.une.edu/artgallery BLACK AND WHITE and COLOR Selections from the Permanent Photography Collection Jan Pieter van Voorst van Beest, NYC, Subway Portrait (detail) intrigue 258 P r t L a n d montHL maga ine nocence, she also hired a private detective to investigate further and provide the de- fense team with whatever information he could discover. or two weeks, the prosecution pre- sented its case, citing family disputes and lust for his father-in-law’s riches as de Marigny’s motives for the killing. Sir Harry’s widow testified against her son-in- law, and for physical evidence, the Crown of- fered a single fingerprint that Capt. Barker claimed to have obtained from the Chinese screen. So certain was the prosecution of a conviction that the government ordered the rope for de Marigny’s execution. But when the defense cross-examined Capt. Barker, the tide in the packed court- room began to turn. The detective admit- ted that he’d lifted the crucial fingerprint without having first photographed it on the screen. So questionable were Barker’s methods that defense attorney Godfrey Higgs had little trouble casting doubt on his testimony. He directly accused Bark- er of lifting the print from a drinking glass that he’d given de Marigny during ques- tioning, and of later planting the print in Sir Harry’s bedroom. Nor could Barker come up with an ex- planation as to why neither he nor Melchen had fingerprinted the dozens of people en- tering and leaving the bedroom–after ini- tially lying by stating that they had. And when Nancy testified that Barker had told Lady Oakes of finding de Marigny’s print several days before it had been identified as de Marigny’s, the jury’s doubt deepened. Further undermining Barker’s evidence was the testimony of Capt. Maurice O’Neil, a forensic expert for the defense, who swore that de Marigny’s print had not been tak- en from the screen at all, but rather from an entirely different surface. According to O’Neil, a print lifted from a drinking glass would display no background texture, but a print taken from the Chinese screen could not be lifted without carrying the back- ground texture of the screen along with it. If it doesn’t print, you must acquit. In the absence of any evidence other than Barker’s perjured testimony, the jury took less than two hours to free de Mari- gny. The courtroom, full of a crowd who until recently had wished him hanged, erupted in cheers. There was a rider to the verdict, however: de Marigny was banished