|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 1:34 pm: |       |
hi
it strikes me that whatever you think about maybrick his candidacy for the riper, may still be valid.
what i am asking is if you assume the diary simply does not exist therby not worring aboutits authenticity or content what evidence is there against maybrick. surley this evidence is as good as the evidence against most people?
no?
jp |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 2:58 pm: | |
Hi, Jennifer:
Yes Jennifer you are exactly right that, as you say, the evidence against Maybrick "is as good as the evidence against most people." That is, James Maybrick and a few hundred thousand other people. More exactly, the Diary exists, which I and others believe to be a modern forgery, and nothing has been done to prove Maybrick was not the Ripper, but on the other hand apart from the Diary nothing exists to point to him having been the Ripper. It's just that he lived at the right time, died at about the right time, and led something of a double life.
Best regards
Chris |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 6:11 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
You can't pretend the diary doesn't exist then start looking at Maybrick as a potential ripper suspect. If the diary is a modern hoax, then the chances of those involved hitting on the real ripper for their funny little game by accident are as near to zero as you could probably get. On the other hand, if the diary was written recently by someone who had any evidence against Maybrick, they'd have done much better to come out with it, instead of producing 63 pages anonymously, and in handwriting that makes no attempt to pass itself off as Maybrick's own.
In other words, if the modern hoaxer(s) were exposed, you could forget the whole idea of Maybrick being a potential suspect.
If and when we ever find out who wrote the thing and when, and how it ended up in the Barrett household, we may just have a chance of addressing why Maybrick was the chosen victim, and how seriously the 'confession' was meant to be taken.
Love,
Caz |
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 18
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 2:08 pm: | |
Chris,
You forgot about the watch. While I don't hold to the Maybrick theory, the watch is "evidence" indepenent of the alleged diary.
Kaz,
Actually, from the standpoint of statistical probability, if I were going to pick randomly anyone in the world living at the time of the killings to frame as a suspect the chances of me blindly picking the real killer are exactly the same as the chances of my picking any other unique individual. But, once again, I don't buy Maybrick as a suspect.
Andy
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 3:19 pm: | |
Hi, Andy:
I think that the "Maybrick watch" like the Diary is a schlocked up artifact to make it appear Maybrick was the killer. It doesn't have anything going for it, any more than the Diary does. What is needed is contemporary (1888-1889) evidence/testimony that Maybrick was the murderer, not questionable artifacts that magically appeared in the 1990's.
All the best
Chris |
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 22
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 3:41 pm: | |
Chris,
I agree. I just wanted to make the point that there is more than the alleged diary. For me, the watch is actually more compelling than the diary, but neither are enough to make a good case.
Andy
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 6:04 am: | |
Hi Andy,
I agree with your observation about statistical probability. And that's exactly what I meant. The chances of anyone picking out the ripper at random must be practically zero, whether one picks on Maybrick, Joe Bloggs or Queen Victoria. 
The trouble with the watch being 'more compelling' is that, because of the sequence of events, if the Maybrick-as-Ripper scratches were in fact made decades ago (neither of the scientific reports concluded that they could not have been), the chances (here we go again) of those involved in a late 1980s diary hoax also picking Maybrick-as-Ripper for their funny little game by accident are as near to zero as you could probably get. (Mike Barrett brought the diary to London in April 1992, although the general public weren't aware of its existence when Albert Johnson bought the watch in a jeweller's shop in the summer of that year. Albert was unaware of any scratches at that time. Unless one is into highly improbable and convoluted conspiracy theories, the scenario of old scratches and new ink is just not viable.)
Love,
Caz |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 2:04 pm: | |
hi,
look, i know you can't really pretend the diary doesn't exist i am not advocating a book entitled why james maybrick was jTR which makes no mention of it. but as i said excluding it from deliberations there is as good a evidence against him as anyone. i say this believing at this point in time that this though true probably does not make him JTR. however, i think on msny counts the diary has blurred any case that people try to make against maybrick. if anything what i am saying is helpful to those whi believe he done it bcause i am saying proving the diary untrue doesn't vindicate james. just makes him look less dumb if you like as emans didn't write said diary!
jennifer |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 5:13 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
'...there is as good a evidence against him as anyone.'
No, Jennifer, there is no evidence linking him with the ripper crimes, whether you exclude the diary or not.
That said, there is precious little evidence to link anyone with the murders, although we do have the names of a handful of men considered as suspects by the police at one time or another, which at least links them with the investigation, even if all had eventually to be presumed innocent by the force as a whole.
Love,
Caz
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
hi,
i didn't say there was evidence, i said there was as good a evidence as anybody else, for examole walter sickert, lewis carrol etc. that does not mean i think he did it. i don't think he to be the most likely murder. therfore as you state there is little evidence to link him to the crimes as anybody else. but how exactly would this evidence go other than he might have been in london perhaps a bit mad i don't know. sounds like a few other theories to me anyway........ |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 9:35 am: | |
ps i don't agree that if the diary is a forgery of the modern variety one can simoly exclude maybrick. i can 'forge' badly a diary stating i myself was JTR and traveled back in time to do it. you would be ablke, i have no doubt to prove it a forgery, okay thats a bad example, stating my gt gt gt gt grandfather was JTR, noethe less you would be able to prove that this was a forgery, but does that mean that my gt gtetc grandfather was JTR(i hope he wasn't) but in itself it is meaningless it implies that one suspect already mentioned must be JTR when this is not necessarily the case.
also i said excluding the diary and so would question whether we really know that maybrick led a 'double life'
all the best
jennifer
ps i seem to have got a good few answers here. hurrah! |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 10:00 am: | |
Of course, Macnaghten states specifically that there was a strong circumstantial case against Kosminski. The fact that this "evidence" hasn't survived, doesn't mean that it didn't at one time exist. It almost certainly did exist. In several cases, there must have been at least the beginnings of evidence, or the beginnings of strong suspicion. Anderson wasn't keen on randomly arresting people; I don't think it would be wise to level the playing field on the assumption that the police were entirely without legitimate leads.
|
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 19
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 21, 2003 - 7:18 am: | |
Hi RJP!
Wrong board for your last post, perhaps?
All the best,
Martin F |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 21, 2003 - 12:21 pm: | |
Martin--Hi. Thanks. I can see where my train of thought has left me derailed! Let me try to back-up the engine, and be a little more coherent.. .
What I was attempting to respond to is Jennifer's idea that "there is as good evidence against him (Maybrick) as anyone"--
Or, in other words, while there isn't a shred of evidence against Maybrick, there isn't a shred of evidence against anyone else either.
Now, on one level, this is entirely true. There is a certain logic to it. In fact, it's a fairly common argument among some serious researchers.
Yet, while granting that it might sound perverse to those who share this thinking, I would argue that a complete lack of evidence against Kosminski (or Sadler or Cutbush or Druitt or Tumblety) is entirely more damning than a complete lack of evidence against Maybrick .
Why? (Here, finally, was my original point) Because Macnaghten informed us that there was at least circumstantial evidence against Kosminski; he even admitted that it was 'strong.' [And this would still hold true, I think, even if one accepted A.P. Wolf's interesting hypothesis that Macnaghten was deliberately trying to deflect interest away from Cutbush].
In short, we do have reason to believe that Scotland Yard had 'evidence' of some kind against a number of suspects.
At the risk of annoying you by quoted your own words (?) there is a rather concise and classic expression of this thinking in the A-Z 's entry on Druitt---
"The frequently proclaimed case for believing Druitt to be innocent on the grounds that 'there is not a shred of evidence against him' confuses legal with historical evidence: ie., it accurately indicates that we do not know what grounds there might have been for bringing charges against him, but irresponsibly extends this to imply that Macnaghten shared our ignorance."
For "Macnaghten" also read Anderson, Swanson, Littlechild, Leeson, Monro...
Finally....on a personal level, I can see where some people might be dissatisfied with the opinions of senior police officials. To me, though, contemporary suspicion is always intriguing. Somehow, I can even find the urban folklore or oral traditions rather tantalizing (such as the surgeon from Hampstead claiming to know the Ripper's identity), but theories that start from 'scratch' --without the least trace of a historic cue-- always leave me cold.
(By the way, very glad to see you hanging out, Martin).
--Cheers.
|
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 23
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 7:21 am: | |
Agree with you entirely, RJP. Paul, Keith and I don't retract a word of our insistence that historical and legal evidence are completely different things.
All the best,
Martin F |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 264
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 8:06 am: | |
Hi all
The question of "evidence" is a tortuous and, by definition, pervasive issue in a a case like this. Martin is exactly right in that there is a world of difference between evidence produced by an historical researcher which might suggest that a candidate is worthy of further investigation and the marshalling of sufficient legally admissible evidence which would persuade the Crown Prosecution Service that there was a case to be answered at law.
Of course we know that much evidence has been lost, some of which would be most intriguing to see - examples would be the large file on Tumblety mentioned in the Littlechild letter, the "private info" referred to by McNaughton, records of the interviews with Barnett, Hutchinson etc.
I really don't want to get drawn into a war of attrition on the subject of the Maybrick diary. I would just observe that this is not the only such document which has emerged which appears to have a bearing on the case - there are also the diaries of Robert Lees with his mentions of visiting the police about the murders and the alleged Abberline diary which featured in the book The Ripper and the Royals. Neither of these have generated as much heat or discussion as the Maybrick artefact.
My own feelings on the Maybrick diary affair would be in line with Somebody's Law (I can't remember the name gievn to it!) - "If it appears too good to be true, it probably is......"
Regards
Chris S
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 265
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 8:32 am: | |
I found an article which refers to a confession by a Harry Wilson to the Maybrick murder. Does anyone know anything more about him please?
Brooklyn Daily Eagle 11 October 1892
The Case of Mrs Maybrick
London, October 11.
In the next issue of the Review of Reviews, Mr. Stead, its editor, will have an article headed: "Ought Mrs. Maybrick to be Tortured to Death?" in which he vigorously and at great length reopens the whole case of the unfortunate American woman who is now undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment in Woking prison for the alleged poisoning of her husband, who was a well known Liverpool merchant.
In the course of his article Mr. Stead says that both he and Sir Charles Russell, the attorney general, have received from South Africa copies of the death bed confession of Harry Wilson, who declared that he, with a woman whose name is not given, placed arsenic in the medicine that was administered to Mr. Maybrick during his last illness.
Mr. Stead investigated into this matter and declared that he attaches weight to the confession but, he adds, even if it were valueless, it will be of service in directing attention to the travesty of justice which has exposed Great Britain to serious remonstrances from the United States, and which is not unlikely to become a subject of diplomatic remonstrance.
Mr. Stead makes a strong appeal for the release of Mrs. Maybrick before Christmas. Her condition is such, he says, that she will speedily die if she is not released. If Mr. Herbert Asquith, the home secretary, will not hear the case, then Lord Rosebery, the foreign minister and Mr. Gladstone must.
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi, Chris:
I am not sure I have heard about this alleged confession by a Harry Wilson in the Maybrick case. One of the nurses during Maybrick's final illness was named Wilson, she replaced Nurse Calley, but that may be just a coincidence of names.
Best regards
Chris |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 32
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 3:51 pm: | |
Hello All
It may be a coincidence but a Harry Wilson was heavily involved in the Cleveland Street Scandal. Henry Francis Wilson (Harry Wilson) Is described as follows in PRINCE EDDY AND THE HOMOSEXUAL UNDERWORLD, "Obliged to keep their lives secret this group of young barristers did what homosexuals have always done; arranged to meet each other...in some place safe from prying eyes. In this case the haven was provided by the leader of the group- Harry Wilson...This is the same Harry Wilson who had been Prince Eddy's closest friend at Cambridge,...who was destined, it was widely believed, to become the Prince's private secretary." (see pg 112-113)
Wilson is stated to have been active with Eddy in London as late as 1891, perhaps he left the country for personal reasons. I can find no record of his whereabouts in 1892. (See also THE RIPPER LEGACY)
Once again could be a coincidence.
Best Regards
Gary |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 3:26 pm: | |
hi again!
let me clear one thing up what i really want to know if is there any good evidnce. when i say as much evidence as anyone else, that does not mean i do not beleive there is more evidence against some peopl, some of whom are mentioned in the above p;osts. i am really thinking of people like cream or royal family members or even i might include sickert on that list. i was not originally impliying that there was any evidence simply that any any of you lot stated would be, if the diary was undiscovered as it were as good as the evidence which is used against others, if there is none then that is an entirely different matter,
have i put that a bit clearer?
i hope so
jennifer |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 8:16 pm: | |
Hi all,
I hate to throw water on the potential fire of
Harry Wilson and William Stead, but before delving
into the truth or falsity of Stead's revelations
one should keep the following in mind.
Stead was a very innovative and astute newspaper
editor of the Pall Mall Gazette and the Review of
Reviews. He was also an egomaniac and determined
to make his voice as powerful as possible. To his
credit he did the "Maiden Tribute of Babylon" series about selling young girls into prostitution in 1885 (and got so carried away as
to end up breaking the law, and serving a brief
term in prison - which he faithfully commemorated
for the rest of his life on the anniversary of his sentencing by wearing his prison togs to work). The success of the Maiden Tribute series led to his further forays into helping various
victims of judicial injustice (as he interpreted it)such as Mrs. Langworthy (regarding unfair
divorce laws), and our old friend Israel Lipski
(regarding possibly unfair murder trial proceedings against foreign born immigrants). One
can applaud him for being a defender of the weak.
In the case of Lipski this was indeed remarkable,
as the Pall Mall Gazette was notoriously anti-Semitic. But his critics felt he was trying to
replace the judicial system by "trial by newspaper", meaning swaying the system by newspaper induced public pressure. Again in the
case of Lipski, the fact that the judge at the trial was Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (a fact to
keep in mind) was a personal bete noir of Stead's
may have added another reason for Stead's attack
on that trial.
Sir James Fitzjames Stephen was also the judge at
Mrs. Maybrick's trial. As is well known, Sir James was suffering the beginnings of a mental
breakdown at Florence's trial, thus making it an
even more unsatisfactory trial than the questioned
evidence left it. Stead would therefore be enjoying any defence of Florence available, even
a questionable long-distance confession, if it
helped bring further blackening to Sir James's
judicial reputation.
As for linking his hearing of Wilson's statement to Sir Charles Russell's learning of it as well,
I find it hard to swallow. Sir Charles would have
welcomed any friendly voice in the Press (especially Stead) for his client Florence's sake.
But was Russell really that close to Stead? One
of the problems with Russell's career in the 1880s
was his political role as Liberal Attorney General
in Gladstone's Ministry (1880 - 1886) and his
clear support of Charles Stewart Parnell's Home
Rule movement. At the time of the Adelaide Bartlett Trial in 1886, Russell was active in
support of Gladstone and Parnell on Home Rule.
It has been suggested that his below-par handling
of the case against Mrs. Bartlett was due to his
preoccupation with the major political issue.
Well, while Home Rule was not up in 1889, Russell
had been Parnell's defender in the "Parnellism
and Crime" hearings in the House of Commons that
year. His masterly cross-examination/destruction
of Richard Pigott the forger was occuring about
the same time that he failed to prevent the
conviction of Florence. As this was a revolving
situation with Sir Charles, one can safely say that Home Rule and defending Parnell were high
on his lists of priorities. But by 1892 Parnell
was dead, ruined by the O'Shea divorce scandal.
And who was one of the leading Victorian moralists
who led the destruction of Parnell in his editorials? You guessed it: William Thomas Stead.
So - is it really that likely that Stead and
Russell would have been in this close a relationship? I don't think so!
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 5:17 am: | |
Hi All,
I thought I'd run all this past Keith Skinner and he made the following observation:
Paul Feldman's extensive research uncovered this death bed confession, along with other papers relating to the writer, over seven years ago. These documents form part of his unpublished material, now being developed by Bruce Robinson for Columbia Pictures.
Love,
Caz
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 3:13 pm: | |
what exactly is this picture is it a doc or is it a 'proper' film (i use those words with regret as cannot think of correct expression) likle from hell.
all the best
jp |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 270
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 12:11 pm: | |
Re. the article I posted above from the Brooklyn Daily eagle, I thought this editorial comment from the same paper of 18 October 1892 might be of interest:
18 October 1892
Mr. Stead, with the vigor which has been his cultivation ever since he compelled attention by a doubtful sensation, asks in a public article: "Ought Mrs. Maybrick to be tortured to death? " Of course nobody will answer that question in the affirmative. The trouble with advocates so extravagant as Mr. Stead and Gail Hamilton here is that they talk and write and protest and implore and denounce in precisely the same way. The only pertinent inquiry is whether Mrs. Maybrick is guilty. If Stead, Hamilton and the rest have any evidence to bring in regard to this matter they should produce it and there end. But that really seems to be the last thing which concerns them. If, instead of suffering capital punishment, she is, in due course of law, sentenced to imprisonment, without a point to hang a doubt upon, it is announced that she is to be "tortured to death." So, in ungoverned sympathy, if a man should be locked up for theft, Stead, Hamilton and the rest would as unhesitatingly proclaim that he is sentenced to be "tortured to death." What is really tortured in this case, so far as the real or the supposed object object of punishment is involved, is truth and justice. To such perverted observers neither the smaller crimes are too trifling nor murder too serious for morbid or sentimental consideration |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 271
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 1:19 pm: | |
A quick search revealed this further article referring to the alleged Wilson confession:
The Trenton Times (New Jersey) 12 october 1892
Mrs. Maybrick's Case
Washington, Oct. 12.
The attecntion of Secretary of State Foster was called to a London dispatch in regard to an article written by Mr. Stead in behalf of Mrs. Maybrick. The secretary said that he would at once telegraph the United States consul at the Cape of Good Hope, directing him to investigate the correctness of the statement that Henry Wilson made a deathbed confession that he and a woman other then Mrs. Maybrick administered the arsenic that caused Mr. Maybrick's death. Pending the consul's reply the secretary said that the department would take no action in the matter. The secretary intimated that if the statement was true the department would take steps to have the case properly brought before the attention of the English officials and request that Mrs. Maybrick be discharged.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
