|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 10:07 am: |       |
Here's something trivial for those interested in the Maybrick poisoning, and the sordid saga of Jim & Florie.
While researching something else, I happened upon a ship passenger list for the Baltic sailing from New York to Liverpool, dated March 1, 1882.
Two passengers are listed as Mr. & Mrs. James Maybrick. [The New York Times
prints this as 'Mr and Mrs. James Mayboick"]
The S.S. Baltic is the same ship Jim & Florie met on almost exactly two years earlier, and, in itself, there's nothing too interesting about the couple travelling back to Liverpool after a trip to the states. The oddity is that 'Bobo' Maybrick was born in Liverpool on March 24th, 1882. Is it really likely that a respectable Victorian lady would be sailing the Atlantic while eight months pregnant? Or does this suggest the cad Maybrick was still cohorting with his 'other' Mrs. Maybrick? RP
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
his other mrs maybrick?
? why not travel when pregnant one has to get home and exactly how long had they been away long enough to ger a certain way. how longs it take to cross the atlantic in a boat of that kind anyhow
jennifer? |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 5:10 pm: | |
Hi RJ:
An interesting find. Actually I concur with Jennifer that it was likely Florence, though pregnant, who was traveling with James.
All the best
Chris |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 5:26 pm: | |
Chris/Jennifer--Maybe, but read what Bernard Ryan writes--
"By late autumn [1881]Mrs Briggs and Mrs Hughes noticed a growing change in Florence's appearance. They took it upon themselves to tell Florence that ladies in her condition simply were not seen on the street. Wasn't it time now for her to remain in seclusion at home?" *** James Chandler Maybrick was born on 24th March, 1882. To celebrate his arrival, James Maybrick promised his wife that they would move to Norfolk as soon as she was well recovered from the birth."
Bernard Ryan, The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick pg. 23.
Maybe I'm wrong, but would Florie be taking a trip to America in the last month of her 'confinement?' At the very least, I think it is an open question whether this might be Maybrick's mistress.
I'll be out for awhile. Hope to drop in again in a couple of weeks. --RJP |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 10:23 pm: | |
Hi, all,
I can only remark that when the Titanic sank in
1912, one of the millionaires who were lost was
Benjamin Guggenheim. Guggenheim died with a degree of dash, by refusing to wear his life belt,
and meeting death dressed in formal evening wear,
like a gentleman. He and his valet were listed
on the passenger lists as travelling alone. His
wife was in the United States at the time. But
in the first New York Times editions of the disaster and the survivors, a Mrs. Benjamin
Guggenheim was listed among the latter. A family
member who went down (in the hope that Benjamin
had survived) to see the Carpathia's docking saw
Ben's mistress going down the gangplank. [I
remember reading this in Stephen Birmingham's
OUR CROWD].
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 8:39 am: | |
Hi All,
Ryan also writes on the same page on the same subject:
Florence resented their presumption. She knew that any self-respecting expectant mother kept herself out of public sight. She had been about to retire from trips to Church Street or St George's, but didn't know why these meddling Janion sisters had to tell her what to do.
Was Ryan the presumptuous one, regarding Florence's knowledge of 'correct' behaviour and how strictly she planned to observe such conventions?
And this:
Maybrick did not go so far as to say that his business had been handicapped by his absence from the Norfolk Cotton Exchange during the trading this season, but the move was based on business needs.
And this on page 25:
Before New Year's Day, 1884, James Maybrick announced that at the end of the market in March they would pack their things and return to Liverpool.
On the surface it would appear that Florie did an about turn and defied convention in order to accompany her husband to America at some point between late autumn 1881 and the end of February 1882, when it was decided that they would return to Liverpool for the birth and miss the market in March that year in the process.
I think I prefer the mistress theory - a bit of how's yer father for James while 'er indoors is, well, indoors, heavily pregnant and tucked nicely away out of sight and mind. Also a bit of consolation for the bad timing that meant he had to absent himself from America and the Norfolk Exchange during March because he felt it only right to put in an appearance when his child was due to put in his.
Love,
Caz |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
i think my point was whan did they go to america how long were they there. was it a long monthly process crossing the atlantic. was florrie home in time for the birth if it came early?
i had forgotten i had posted in this thread!
who else might it have been?
it seems to me that James it is implied had a few on the go in this time alledgedly from reading feldman, is this a misinterpretation?
jennifer |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 5:52 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Well, according to Ryan, Florie was in England in the late autumn of 1881 when her condition had become obvious. I think the crossing only took a few days, and I don't know if the baby arrived early, late or on time. But I can't imagine they would have left it fine, and risked a first birth on board ship. So the timing does seem a little eccentric to me.
As for who else this Mrs Maybrick could have been, who knows? It could have been Sarah Robertson, said to have been Jim's mistress for many a long year, but it could have been just about anyone. Working on both sides of the pond, there would have been bags of opportunity to impress other women besides young Flo and the older Sarah. I can't see that persuading one to share a romantic sea voyage as his wife would have presented too much of a problem, whether she was based in England or America.
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hi, Caz:
Is working on both sides of the pond the same thing as working both sides of the street? 
By the way, we should not ignore the fact that births on board ship were apparently not a rare phenomenon in the decades of the 18th and 19th century.
Possible Jack the Ripper victim Carrie Brown ("Old Shakespeare), formerly Caroline Montgomery, murdered in New York City, April 23, 1891, is variously said to have been born in Liverpool or on board ship in transit to the United States in 1832. Similarly, the future American president Andrew Jackson was, according to some accounts, born to Irish parents while on board ship on their way to British North America during the colonial period in 1767, just before the American Revolution.
Of course, it might be argued that James and Florence Maybrick were not emigrating and that they were well off enough to ensure that their future son James Chandler Maybrick ("Bobo") would be born on terra firma and that the pregnancy of the wife be as comfortable as possible. However, who is to say that the decision to travel back to Britain, if it was Florie with James, might not have been a last minute decision?
I have the impression that despite the ferreting of Bernard Ryan, Trevor Christie, Shirley Harrison, and Paul Feldman, etc., the exact whereabouts of Florence and James are not entirely known for all of the earlier years of their marriage. Am I wrong?
This is also of course why James Maybrick, whether he is a genuine candidate for Jack or not, makes an excellent suspect: there exists no journal, or even complete business papers, that would tie his movements down.
Best regards
Chris George |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 4:26 am: | |
Hello Chris,
Although nothing to do with Maybrick, I hope the following is of interest.
The Parish of Stepney in East London was the home of the biggest shipbuilding industry in the late 1700's and early 1800's. It was England's boom town.
The Board of Trade had its offices there so anyone born on board a British registered vessel anywhere in the world on the high seas had their birth registered in the parish of Stepney. So Stepney could rightfully claim to be the biggest parish in the world.
Also in Ye Olden Tymes Stepney or Stybeney at it was in years gone by, could claim to be the richest Parish in England, the Royal Mint was once located there.
Andy. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 6:48 am: | |
Yes, Chris, we can only make educated guesses as to whether Flo decided to travel to America and back with Jim in the later stages of her first pregnancy, unless there is more information out there that can shed light on her whereabouts that winter. It still seems more likely to me that Jim would have gone without the missus on this occasion and booked his return trip so he would be back in Liverpool in good time for his first child's arrival in late March.
And yes, on the face of it, Maybrick does make a good choice for a hoaxer in that no one has been able to show from James's business or social calendar in England, or trips to Norfolk, or all those visits to various chemists, that it would have been impossible for him to be in Whitechapel, London, at the right time. But then, we're only talking five nights supposedly spent away from Battlecrease but still in England. And if James was still seeing another woman, or women, during the last year of his life, he would have had good reason to leave a less than full and accurate picture of all his comings and goings. So it was obviously felt well worth taking the risk. Perhaps whoever wrote the diary knew that little things like alibis tend to make no headway against some ripper enthusiasts' convictions. 
Hi Andy,
Funny you should mention Stepney in connection with births on the high seas and whether James travelled with a heavily preggers Flo or his fancy piece. I believe his mistress, Sarah Robertson, was a Stepney lass.
Good luck with the board game. See you and Sue next Saturday I hope?
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 8:43 am: | |
Hi, Andy et al.:
Thanks for the tip that the Board of Trade had its offices in the parish of Stepney, so that anyone born on board a British registered vessel anywhere in the world on the high seas had their birth registered in the parish. I will look into that in reference to Carrie Brown, whom I will be mentioning in my talk in Liverpool based on her supposed birth in that city by other accounts.
Caz, you make a good point that the good Mr. Maybrick had reasons to cover up his tracks due to his womanizing and drugtaking let alone for any reason that he might have been Jack. He does appear to have been a man who led a double life.
All the best
Chris |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 5:58 am: | |
Hi All,
Keith Skinner just gave me the following information:
Paul Feldman independently found RJ's snippet about the Maybricks' 1882 voyage in December 1996. It forms part of his original and unpublished research into the backgrounds of James Maybrick and Florence Chandler, which is being developed by Bruce Robinson for his screenplay about the Maybrick Case for Columbia Pictures.
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 10:13 pm: | |
Hi, Caz:
The article on Bruce Robinson in the Daily Express of Monday, March 24, 2003, made it sound as if Bruce's connection with the film project for Columbia Pictures has been severed, and that he is instead writing a book that will reveal all. Do you have any information that would suggest he is still working on the script for Columbia?
While the Express article stated that Mr. Robinson had been engaged to work on a script for "a major American film company", he couldn't bear to see his script butchered or to "change the locality to New York." So was going it alone with the book instead.
All the best
Chris |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 6:26 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Only the very latest information that Keith has given in my post above: '...which is being developed by Bruce Robinson for his screenplay about the Maybrick Case for Columbia Pictures.'
This suggests to me that Bruce is indeed still working on it! I think I would sooner take Keith's word for it than rely on the newspaper article.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 10:28 am: | |
In regards to Jennifer's question... Crossing the Atlantic by steamship took about 7 or 8 days. The record crossing in 1881 was 6 days, 20 minutes by the "Parisian."
I can see a steerage passenger like Carrie Brown's mum "being in the family way," but someone like Florie, first-class and mingling with the elite of Liverpool, it seems highly unusual. It weren't dun.
Caz--I'm interested in your comment about Florie risking "a first birth on board ship." Is this a slip, or a conscious dismissal of the Anne Graham genealogy? All the best, RJP |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
I don't understand. Don't you people know that the diary is fake, therefore James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper. Why can't it just end their and why is so much time wasted on it?
-Phil- |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 7:19 pm: | |
But of course it's all a waste of time, isn't it?
There's more shadowy figures creeping in the gaslight than just Jack the Ripper. 'The Aigburth Mystery' was written about long before any diary was ever heard of. Neill Cream, Deeming, Phoenix Park, Israel Lipski, George Chapman---there's a lot of history just off center stage. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 5:53 am: | |
Hi RJ,
No slip, nor a dismissal of anyone's genealogy, conscious or otherwise. I was under the impression that nothing had been proved in that connection. Do you know something I don't? 
Er, Phil, who out of 'we people' has been arguing that James was Jack? You don't need to waste any time at all on 'it' and it can all just end their [sic], as far as you are concerned, surely? Don't worry your sweet head about the diary or the Maybrick saga if you don't want to, but let's not forget it was the diary that led, directly or indirectly, to this website which allows you and 'we people' to air our various views and share snippets of information, historical or hysterical.
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 101
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 8:19 am: | |
Phil,
LIFE....is full of surprises.
Consider the fate of these poor creatures, struck down by the most cruelest of debates, a debate that leads them back to the begining, a debate that twisted and turned for many a year and will do for many more to come.
These creatures need your pitty not scorn,
They need to be loved,
And the results are plain for all to see..
Ladies and Gentlemen...and Phil of course....I give you....
.....THE DIARISTS
Monty
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 8:41 am: | |
Hi Monty,
Surely the 'poor creatures' are the ones who can't stand the diary, or the debates the thing has inspired.
The happy souls are those who are perfectly at ease to see this inanimate object still floating around, as a reminder of one of life's little puzzles - why does it plague some while providing amusement for others?
Answers, as always, on a saucy postcard.
I thank you.
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 105
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Forgive them Phil.....for they do not know what they say !
I was joshing Caz....duh !! Well, to a degree.
Yes, there are those out there who enjoy the cut and thrust of the diary debates (you yourself pointed that out to me many moons ago when I was but a slip of a boy) and power to them.
But it has got little further than that...just debate, debate, debate, debate. The ink is pre 1927, Annie says this whilst Mike says that, Feldy argues this and Shurely never at any stage agreed to the other....blahdy blhady blahhh..
And while that holds you and yours in its grasp it interests the rest of us little....and thats why I used the word poor.
That said, Im sorry if the phrase 'poor creatures' cuts you, I mean no offence....I shall rephrase it to 'these poor HAPPY creatures' ??
Because I cannot deny it....you do seem happy in it....just like pigs.
Just as we are on the other threads.
Answered though not on a saucy postcard...but more of a cheeky one.
Lots of Love,
Homer Monty
ooooh, I got a vote....thank you fans, you are my inspiration...as well as perspiration ! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 1:16 pm: | |
Dearest Monty,
No offence taken.
'Poor happy creatures' it is then. But don't forget, it's the poor pigs what sniff out the truffles that make men rich.
And I do like to keep my snout in good working order.
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 111
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 11:15 am: | |
Caz,
true...true
Monty
 Oink !! |
Michael Meade
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 8:10 pm: | |
The possibility that Florence accompanied her husband to America during her pregnancy sounds unlikely, but it's really not that impossible. Florence, like many people who are unable to exert control over the major events of their lives, could be surprisingly stubborn in getting her own way in small matters. If she insisted on tagging along with James (maybe she had suspicions about his activities when he was away from home), he may not have been able to talk her out of it. Also, she had relatives in New York (her mother's cousin was Mrs. Cornelius Vanderbilt) and she may have felt a buring need to surround herself with her own people at a crucial time in her life (the Maybrick family circle, including that nasty Mrs. Briggs, can't have offered much in the way of genuine support). It's even possible that her mother was in America at that time.
To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, an ocean crossing on a state-of-the art liner like the "Baltic" would take a little under two weeks, maybe 10-14 days depending on the weather. A generation later, faster ships like the "Lusitania" would whittle it down to a week and the ill-fated "Titanic" would perish in an attempt to do it in a record five days. If James and Florie sailed on March 1st and their baby wasn't due until the end of the month, they had ample time to make it back home to Liverpool before the birth. In deference to proper Victorian conventions, Florence could have minimized the impact of her pregnancy by wrapping herself in thick shawls and capes and remaining secluded in her cabin for most of the crossing. The timing may have been purposeful; James may have wanted to make sure that his firstborn child was born on British soil.
All of this is conjecture, of course, but I'm throwing it out to point out that Florence being on the "Baltic" in May, 1882 isn't out of the question. |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 654
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:55 am: | |
Saw this general article about arsenic eating today. It was the timing that intrigued me - it was published on 10 April 1889, a month almost to the day before maybrick died.
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 10:59 am: | |
Fascinating article, Chris, and not a bad advert
for arsenic! I think I'll stick with my sausages, though.
Robert |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
