Modern scholars and legal historians have revisited the case of Eliza Fenning

Modern scholars and legal historians have revisited the case of Eliza Fenning, often citing it as an example of the dangers of relying on circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. The lack of direct evidence linking Eliza to the poisoning, combined with the widespread availability of arsenic in households at the time, raises significant doubts about her guilt. Moreover, the alleged motive for the crime—Eliza's supposed jealousy or spite—appears weak and unsupported by any concrete evidence.