On July 15, 1876, according to the prosecution’s narrative published nearly a year later, Henri de Tourville arrived at Spondigna with his wife. The following morning, they set out together by carriage on an excursion. At a certain point along the road, they alighted and dismissed the coachman, stating they would proceed on foot. Toward the close of the day, Tourville returned alone. He related that his wife had slipped and fallen. The men dispatched to the spot he indicated discovered a hat, a broken parasol, a blood-soaked handkerchief, and a red smear upon the ground. The body lay at the bottom of a precipice, beside a small stream.
In June 1877, the Gazette des Tribunaux opened its report of the trial with the prosecution's hypothesis: Tourville had hurled his wife from the summit of a Tyrolean mountain. The verdict, reported on July 4, would find that he had committed murder on July 16, 1876. Between those two dates, the Court of Assizes at Botzen heard witnesses, examined medical reports, viewed the photograph of the corpse, and resolved to inspect the scene in person.
The initial dispatch designated the accused as Henri de Tourville. It recorded that the prosecution claimed he was born at Valenciennes under the name of Henry Perreau, and had subsequently been naturalised in England under his assumed style. The same dispatch represented his second wife as a widow, Mrs Peke, forty-seven years of age, whereas he was said to be thirty-seven. It ascribed to her a fortune of seventy thousand pounds, alongside a will bequeathing thirty-seven thousand pounds to her husband. The verdict itself, however, named the victim Madeleine Miller and styled her as Tourville’s wife. The four press reports do not explicitly reconcile these two names; this discrepancy remains unresolved in the archival record.
The first dispatch relates that the examining physicians deemed the victim to have been almost dead before reaching the bottom of the ravine. They also observed bloodstains upon the prisoner's trousers.
Upon his arrest, Tourville initially explained that his wife was subject to attacks of vertigo and was wearing boots with very high heels. In a subsequent interrogation, he intimated that she might have committed suicide. The Gazette summarised these answers without reproducing the interrogations in their entirety.
In the dispatch published on June 21, the Gazette reported that the court and the jury had examined several witnesses and resolved to visit the site. The subsequent bulletin, dated from Botzen on June 23, dwelt upon certain depositions. Mrs Scott, a friend of the deceased who had attended her marriage, testified that she had known her to be happy in the early days of their union. She related that Madame de Tourville had executed a will which she wished to keep secret, and had taken offence when her husband pressed her to disclose its provisions. Mrs Scott had also heard that the deceased had spoken of taking her own life should her husband ever abandon her. Thus, beside the testamentary wealth, there entered into the record a reported remark concerning marital separation.
Johann Zoller, who had informed Tourville of his wife’s death, asserted that the accused had offered him first one hundred, then two hundred florins if he would recover the corpse. Zoller had replied that this was impossible. He had no recollection of any man in the party sent to retrieve the body finding an earring. Kircher, an innkeeper at Trafoi, stated that Tourville had returned without his wife, and, upon being questioned, merely replied that she was unwell; he made no mention at that moment of any fall.
The shepherd Anton Gutsell was on the mountain with his flock. From his vantage point, he could see the spot where the woman had fallen. He perceived nothing unusual, heard no cry, and observed the couple walking together along a path; he did not see them again that day. The innkeeper’s wife related that the couple appeared to be on good terms when setting out. That evening, Tourville returned alone. Upon her inquiry, he replied, according to her account: “My wife is so capricious! She wanted to walk; we went too far; her foot slipped, and she fell.” He ordered a carriage to be harnessed to go in search of his wife, and then joined the two men who had already set out. Upon their return, suspicions were voiced, and Tourville was placed under arrest.
During the proceedings, the photograph of the body was handed to the judges and the jurors; the Gazette noted that it produced a profound impression. The journal depicted the accused as calm and composed while cross-examining witnesses. Yet what emerged from the reporting lay less in his demeanour than in the discrepancies between the various accounts: the explanation of the fall related by the innkeeper’s wife, the absence of any cry heard by Gutsell, the initial silence regarding the fall reported by Kircher, and the offer of money described by Zoller.
The bulletin of June 28 added the deposition of the gendarme who had arrested Tourville. The officer declared that Tourville had described his wife as “by no means a respectable woman,” claiming she was entangled in divorce proceedings. The gendarme had likewise observed stains of blood upon his trousers. The Gazette then summarised the medical reports: the body appeared to have been dragged along the ground before being cast into the abyss. The physicians believed the victim had not died by suicide, and had succumbed before reaching the spot where she was found.
The medical practitioners first summoned to the scene had previously stated they could not determine between murder and suicide. The account notes that they now concurred with the appointed experts. The bruises and contusions observed upon the hands of the deceased led them to conclude that a violent struggle had preceded the fall. The divergence between the initial findings and the subsequent conclusions was not glossed over: it was laid before the jury, together with the wounds and the other circumstances described in the dispatch.
Another deposition followed an unusual course. M. de Quillinan, secretary to the Portuguese Legation in London, agreed to testify but refused ordinary cross-examination, pleading his diplomatic status. The court ruled that his deposition should be taken in chambers in the presence of two witnesses before being made public. The bulletin of July 4 noted that the presiding judge read it aloud in German. Quillinan had known Tourville in America, and regarded him as a man utterly incapable of the crime laid to his charge.
The trial proceeded on July 1 and 2. The medical experts were finally heard before the jury. Two of them, whose initial depositions during the preliminary examination had been favourable to the prisoner, now maintained that the victim had been murdered. Two others, appointed as judicial experts, arrived at the same conclusion. Following their testimony, the public prosecutor addressed the court, followed by the defence, presented by Dr Markbreiter of Vienna.
The jury retired and returned with their verdict. The Gazette reported that Tourville was found guilty of having murdered, on July 16, 1876, his wife, Madeleine Miller; the crime fell under Section 136 of the Penal Code. By a majority of eleven jurors to one, he was pronounced guilty and condemned to death. The dispatches collected here end with this sentence; they record neither its execution nor any subsequent commutation.
Gutsell caught sight of the couple walking together along the path, then saw them no more. At the place pointed out by Tourville, searchers discovered the hat, the shattered parasol, and the blood-stained handkerchief; the jurors then inspected the photograph of the corpse before returning their verdict.