I have noticed other inconsistencies in Maria's story.
In the court case, her attorney said:
By Mr. Porter: We propose to prove by the witness upon the stand that the plaintiff after observing the conduct as stated by her, of her husband with Rose Ball, she went to the girl and secured from her statement that Mr. Russell at various times embraced and kissed her; that he called her his little wife and jelly-fish, and told that a man’s heart was so big he could love a dozen women, but a woman’s heart was so small she could only love properly one man: that after receiving this statement from Rose Ball, the plaintiff told her husband that, and he admitted that is was true.
Maria said in her testimony:
Q. Now, about the endearing terms.
A. She said one evening when she came with him, just as she got inside the hall, it was late in the evening, about eleven o’clock, he put his arms around her and kissed her. This was in the vestibule before they entered the hall, and he called her his little wife, but she said,"I am not your wife," and he said, "I will call you daughter, and a daughter has nearly all the privileges of a wife."
Q. And what other terms were used?
A. Then he said, "I am like a jelly-fish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others," and she wrote that out so that I could remember it for sure when I would speak to him about it. And he confessed that he said those things.
Her attorney claimed that Charles said to Rose Ball that Rose was his "little wife and jellyfish." However, later Maria claimed in her testimony that Rose Ball told her that Charles had told Rose that HE was like a jellyfish, not Rose. The attorney said that Charles had said "that a man’s heart was so big he could love a dozen women, but a woman’s heart was so small she could only love properly one man." However, Maria later does NOT include this memorable statement in her testimony. Her attorney would only know whether Charles had actually made that statement if Maria would have told the attorney in the first place. However, Maria claimed that Rose Ball had written the statement out for her so that she remember it for sure. Yet Maria's and her attorney's story does not match.
I have problems believing the actual statements to be true. For a man, especially for a Victorian preacher, to boast openly of his promiscuity to a woman is so unflattering to the person making the statement and insulting to women that it hardly qualifies as "endearing terms," or credible as a seduction line. Someone who is prone to boasts of their libido like that would certainly have made numerous statements to his own wife, yet Maria resorts to hearsay. I find this difficult to swallow.
It appears from the court transcript that in 1903 when Maria first brought the suit that the Rose ball story was not included, and she dated the origin of her complaints to 1897. However, in 1906 in her testimony she began her complaints with the Rose Ball story in 1894. The Court said she did not mention it in her libel. I find this curious, because if Rose Ball had written the testimony down so she would be sure, yet she did not recall this unforgettable incident of 1894 when filing in 1903. If ones today charge Charles T. Russell with child molestation and adultery and perversion, why would she neglect to do so, how could she forget it, and why did she not include it in her original suit?
When the evidence was stricken from her testimony, she then claimed that that she and her husband talked about it after 1896. This fluctuation on her part does not make her case strong in my opinion.
On the matter of Rose Ball being in Australia at the time, was it known ahead of time before 1906 that Rose Ball would even be mentioned by Maria Russell in her suit? It has been insinuated that Charles Russell got her out the country so she couldn't testify. However, the opposite case could be made that Maria surprised Charles during the trial with the Rose Ball story because she knew she lived in Australia and that it would take months for her to travel to the U.S. and would not be available to contradict her story.