Bertha Berner had served Jane Stanford for years.
This was not a stranger who appeared shortly before the poisoning.
She was secretary.
Travel companion.
Household insider.
Confidante.
Her position gave her extraordinary access to Jane's private life.
She traveled with her.
Managed personal matters.
Knew her habits.
And knew which medicines and remedies she routinely took.
For many years, that closeness was one reason investigators found the idea of Bertha as murderer difficult to accept.
Why would a trusted companion poison the woman who employed her?
Early accounts often emphasized affection between them.
Jane's will even described Bertha in unusually warm terms and left her a substantial bequest.
Bertha received $15,000 as well as a home, a much larger legacy than ordinary household employees received.
To earlier investigators, that could suggest friendship.
To later investigators, it could also suggest motive.
Richard White spent years examining correspondence, household relationships and financial records.
His conclusion was that the relationship between Jane and Bertha was much more difficult than the public version suggested.
According to White's reconstruction, Bertha had left Jane's employment more than once.
Jane could be controlling.
She interfered in Bertha's personal relationships.
Bertha needed the job partly because she supported her mother.
And by early 1905, that mother was seriously ill.
Bertha reportedly did not want to accompany Jane to Hawaii because she wanted to remain near her.
Jane insisted that if Bertha wanted to retain her position, she needed to travel.
White also uncovered allegations involving money.
Jane knew of a relationship between Bertha and a member of the household staff and reportedly had evidence of financial misconduct involving them.
If accurate, Jane possessed information that could threaten Bertha's future.
At the same time, Bertha knew she was a beneficiary of Jane's estate.
None of this proves murder.
People endure difficult employers every day without poisoning them.
Inheritance alone is not evidence that a beneficiary killed someone.
But historians examining an unsolved homicide naturally ask three questions.
Motive.
Opportunity.
Means.
White argues that Bertha may have had all three.
Opportunity is the easiest to establish.
She was present during both poisonings.
In January, she came into Jane's room after Jane complained about the water.
In February, she was in Honolulu and handled the bicarbonate Jane later swallowed.
Again, presence is not proof.
She was Jane's secretary.
Being nearby was her job.
The question of means is more interesting.
The first poison appeared consistent with commercial rat poison.
The second was more refined.
White's research points to a relationship Bertha had developed with a pharmacist, giving her at least a possible route to pure strychnine.
He considers that association one of the strongest additions to the historical case against her.
Then there were Bertha's accounts.
Historians studying the original testimony have noted discrepancies and changes in details she provided about the bicarbonate bottle, its origin and the events leading to Jane's death.
Some contemporaries also noticed her careful performance during the inquest.
Again, inconsistency is not proof of guilt.
Witnesses under pressure often remember details imperfectly.
But when the same person is present at two poisonings six weeks apart, inconsistencies acquire more weight.
Bertha was never convicted.
She was never even prosecuted for Jane's death.
No modern article can responsibly state as fact that she murdered Jane Stanford.
Richard White's conclusion is a historical argument based on surviving evidence.
Stanford's current public materials refer to Berner and Jordan as the two principal figures of suspicion while still describing Jane's murder as unresolved.
There is another mystery inside White's theory.
If Jordan suspected Bertha, why would he protect her?
Because pursuing Bertha would require acknowledging that Jane had been murdered.
And acknowledging murder reopened every problem Jordan wanted closed.
Scandal.
Police inquiry.
Public examination of Stanford's finances.
Questions about Jane's household.
Questions about the university.
Questions about Jordan himself.
White argues that Jordan may have concluded that protecting Bertha was less dangerous than proving murder.
Whether that exact calculation happened can no longer be established with certainty.
But Jordan's documented behavior after the death is difficult to dismiss.
He fought the poisoning verdict.
He hired a physician to produce an alternative explanation.
He attacked the Hawaiian doctors.
He reassured Bertha.
And the investigation eventually collapsed.
There is a final detail that makes the mystery particularly frustrating.
The bicarbonate bottle did not originate in Honolulu.
Evidence at the inquest indicated that it had traveled from California.
That meant the poison could have been placed inside before the ship ever left San Francisco.
The murderer may never have needed access to Jane's hotel room.
A container packed in California could travel silently across the Pacific.
Then wait.
Days.
Weeks.
Until Jane happened to use it.
If that was the method, the second poisoning was chillingly simple.
The killer did not need to follow Jane into Room 120 on February 28.
The trap may have been traveling inside Jane Stanford's own luggage the entire time.