|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 2:07 pm: | 
|
hello everyone,
am i (i nearly put i am but that would have been a typo!) right in thinking james jnr died in mysterious circumstances, where can i find out more if that is correct?
jennifer |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 132
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Hi Jennifer
There was nothing suspicious about his death.
He had mistaken a glass of cyanide for water and drunk it(How he could of mistaken it, I don't know). The verdict was accidental death. This happened in 1911, when he was 29. By this time he had changed his name to James Fuller (Fuller was the surname of the person who brought him up, Dr Charles Fuller). And his death occured while he was working as a mining engineer in Le Roi gold mine in British Colombia.
You'll find the information from Shirley Harrison's book.
All the best
Rob |
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Hi! He was murdered by his wife Florence Maybrick who was having an affair. Their marriage was a turbulent one. I recently purchased a book "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" supposedly James Maybrick! James Maybrick was exhumed and found to have been poisoned to death. I haven't yet read the diary properly but know his wife Florence was sentenced to death, but she died in old age.
At the wall above the body of Mary Kelly can be seen the letters FM (possibly written in blood). In the particular book I have in possession these letters are circled. Being "sceptic" I looked elsewhere to satisfy myself that it wasn't touched up. I saw other prints of the same photos and still can see the "M" in particular, the "F" is less obvious. I must admit though that the photo on this site doesn't show up the letters.
But I'm satisfied they are there.
The diary is mainly believed to be a hoax, but it is very weird and fascinating. If it's a hoax there's still a lot of questions to be asked.
Could Florrie have killed him because she knew of his activities? And was she the reason that James Maybrick became the ripper?
Mary Kelly perhaps reminded him of his wife, with her age, attractiveness and reddish hair!
lol! I've rambled on and noticed that you said Junior - did you mean the son of this person? If so sorry, for going off on a tangent! lmao |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 134
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Hi Maryanne
I see you wrote your post before I wrote mine, you probably realise now that James Chandler Maybrick was the son of James and Florence Maybrick.
All the best
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 9:12 am: |
|
hello,
thank you robert
jp |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 9:26 am: |
|
Hi Maryanne,
Actually it is suggested that James Maybrick (senior) was addicted to arsenic (sorry if i spelt that wrong). There was no real proof that Florie poisioned him. She was sentanced to death but her sentance was changed to life imprisionment but only served 15 years and was released in 1904.
I have heard that it was a thing for gentlemen of the late 19th century to be addicted to arsenic, although we are not sure that he was, however Maybrick's brothers didn't want Florie to inherit anything because of her affair and I believe they set her up. Servants heard Maybrick and his brothers arguing the night before he died and it turned out they were forcing him to change his will. Why would they do that? It was as if they knew he was going to die.
To be honest, even if she had killed him, which I doubt, I think he deserved it. He cheated on her, hit her and did all the things wife abusers would do.
Regards, Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:04 am: |
|
Hi Sarah,
I think we can be pretty sure James was addicted to arsenic. But during his final illness, he may not have had access to his usual supplies for several days at least, which can apparently lead to extremely nasty, even fatal withdrawal symptoms, and they were unable to find enough arsenic in the man after his death to claim the cause was arsenic poisoning.
We don't know that the brothers were forcing James to change his will. But certainly the whole affair is full of little mysterious gaps just waiting to be filled with our various speculations about what was really going on in that household during 1888 and 1889.
Florie effectively ended up serving 15 years for the conclusion that an adulteress would naturally want to be rid of her husband and therefore probably made the attempt, though they conceded that it wasn't safe to conclude it was the attempt that finally finished him off.
Love,
Caz
|
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 12:18 am: |
|
Find out more in Ann Graham's book:
The Last Victim: The Extraordinary Life of Florence Maybrick The Wife of Jack the Ripper
aka The Only Woman Who Survived Jack the Ripper
|
Rosa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 3:06 am: |
|
Greetings Everyone:
One - Florence Maybrick was too dotty to recognize if her husband was Jack the Ripper. [although fifteen years in prison will cure all dottiness.]
therefore it seems unlikely she would have killed him for that reason. I for one don't believe he was capable of being Jack the ripper and I believe he killed himself through his own addition.
Two - James Maybrick was a hypocondryaic, obiously mine is for spelling, he would have felt himself too ill to go, and there would have been too many germs for him!!!
Three - he was a long time arsenic eater and he was destined to die a very early and unpleasant death. It would also account for his unstable behaviour, mood swings, feelings of weakness and paralaysis, months prior to his death.
Four - Considering Michael's postion in "London Society" and his inflated ego he would have felt much better if his brother was murdered rather than have died from his addiction. And would have bent his thinking towards that out of wishful thinking rather than intent. whatever the thought behind his accusations was, Florences "affair" helped him, as well her being a foreigner played very nicely in the courts. She was sentence to death, given a stay of execution, then granted life prison, then finally release for lack of evidence based on an appeal. She died in her 80's, 1941 approx, alone, in a small cottage in new england area, and loved cats.
She wrote a book called, "My fifteen years", and did a writer's circit for awhile then no one gave a damn about an old injustice. After that she went back to her maiden name and kept mum about her past.
My problem with the diaries are that they are too convientant. 100th year anniversary! And nothing in the diaries has changed my mind.
Rosa |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 773
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 5:51 am: |
|
Hi Rosa,
Diaries? Don’t tell me another one’s turned up! To pinch Mark Pardoe’s expression – bogger.
Can you imagine James, on his death bed, delirious with pain and fear, saying to Florie: “Bunny, forgive me. I have something to tell you before I pop me clogs - I’m Jack the Ripper”?
No, nor can I. 
But many innocent men did claim to be Jack, and not just when it came to last confessions time. Florie would probably have said, “Yes, of course Jim dear. Now don’t worry your poor head, you’re just hallucinating.”
And many widows suspected their late husbands of having been the ripper – some even wrote to the authorities, I believe, about their suspicions.
Did you know that a little hand-drawn card was found in Florie’s little house after she died? It is in the Trevor Christie Collection and is a childish drawing of a cat, with the words ‘Ha! Ha!’ underneath.
Quite an apt epitaph when you think about it.
Love,
Caz
|
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 2:17 am: |
|
"Michael would have felt much better if his brother was murdered...."
Ain't that the truth!
I wonder where he was when James Jr. died? |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:45 pm: |
|
And with James Jr. dead in Canada, one wonders why Florence went back to England in her old age to see her "children". Who could the other child be? Maybe Anne Graham's ancestor. Another example of dottiness?
Ms. Graham's relation to Florence I assume is generally dismissed what with all the provenance questions. She doubts it herself.
Fancy forging someone's Diary and then finding out you might be related to the man's wife! How's that for providence! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 828
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:51 am: |
|
Hello MF,
if you want to prove to me this stuff about 'paper parents' you're going to have to try really hard!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 1:28 pm: |
|
What does it take to make you guys squirm a little for a change?
Okay forget about Florrie wanting to see her children. She was old and probably not right in the head.
But according to Last Victim, she was in England during her teenage years in time to have an illegitimate child and that was not publicly known until 1994 or after the Diary came out.
Mr. Harris says Florence's old family name was supposedly Ingraham, hense the adopted family. She's traced back to 1626 and there were lots of Ingraham's in the 17th Century.
And you can't tell me Anne Graham doesn't look anything like Florence. From the one photo I've seen, I'd say Florrie's papoose was on the loose. And I'd also say, Very nis.
|
Shane Fremouw
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Im 15 and in the 10th grade. Jack The Ripper fascinates me only because of how he was able to cut the women open and always get away with it. I believe that Micheal could have been "Jack" but, yet there isn't enough proof to prove it.
Love,
S.F. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1780
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Re. the Maybrick children, I did some research a way back about what happened to them after James Snr's death. The following BMD and census details may be of interest:
Children:
James Chandler Maybrick
Birth
June 1882
Toxteth Park 8b 211
Gladys Evelyn Maybrick
Birth
September 1886
West Derby 8b 662 (or 682)
Census:
1891:
33 Albany Street, St Pancras, London
Head: Charles C Fuller aged 60 born Hackney - General practitioner - duty surgeon
Wife: Gertrude M Fuller aged 42 born Salisbury
Mother in Law:
Mary Aylward aged 50 born Madras
Visitors:
James Fuller aged 9 born Liverpool (i.e. James Chandler Maybrick)
Gladys Fuller aged 4 born Liverpool (i.e. Gladys Evelyn Maybrick)
Eva Martha Fox aged 21 born Manton, Lancashire
1901:
Corbett Road, Ryde, Isle of Wight
Head:
Michael Maybrick aged 57 born Liverpool - Composer of music
Wife: Laura Maybrick aged 45 born Huntingdon
Niece:
Gladys Maybrick aged 15 born Aigbrooth (sic)
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2014
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Below is a full transcript of the inquest proceedings in the Maybrick case as reported in The Times. I am currently working on transcribing the trial proceedings and will post these when done.
Chris
Times articles on the Maybrick case.
20 May 1889
CHARGE OF POISONING
The Lancashire county police stationed at Aigburth, near Liverpool, have been for some days investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of the late Mr. James Maybrick, a cotton broker, of Liverpool, who resided at Battlecrease house, Cressington road, Aigburth, and who died last week. The post mortem examination of the deceased disclosed symptoms suggestive of poisoning, and the viscera, &c., have been submitted to the county analyst for testing, while the police found a packet of arsenic in a cupboard of the house. Mrs. Maybrick, wife of the deceased, is under arrest. On Saturday afternoon Colonel Bidnill, J.P., went to the house of the deceased, accompanied by Mr. Swift, magistrate's clerk, and Superintendent Bryning, of the county constabulary, Mrs. Maybrick having been certified to be too ill for appearance in the county magistrate's court. Colonel Bidnill met at the house Drs. Hoffer and Humphreys, besides Messrs. A. and R.S. Cleaver, solicitors representing Mrs. Maybrick. After a brief consultation in the porch it was agreed that the doctors should visit Mrs. Maybrick, who was ill in bed, to ascertain whether or not she was fit to hear the charge. They returned with an affirmative answer. The clerk to the magistrates consulted with Mrs. Maybrick's solicitors as to whether they would consent to a remand without any evidence being taken. Mr. A. Cleaver inquired what was the nature of the evidence the police proposed to give. Mr. swift replied in effect that the police were in a position to offer very grave evidence against Mrs. Maybrick of having administered arsenic to her husband from time to time. Upon hearing this Mr. Cleaver consented that the case should be remanded without evidence being called. With the concurrence of the medical men it was arranged to convey Mrs. Maybrick in a carriage to Kirkdale Gaol that afternoon, accompanied by the doctors and one of the professional nurses in charge. It is expected that she will be brought in court next Monday (27th).
28 May 1889
THE ALLEGED POISONING AT AIGBURTH
Yesterday forenoon the clerk to the county magistrates at Liverpool received the following medical certificate in reference to the condition of Mrs. Maybrick, who is under arrest on suspicion of having caused the death of her husband by poisoning:-
"This is to certify that in my opinion Florence Maybrick, in her present condition, cannot be removed from here and undergo the strain of an inquiry without incurring grave risk of serious consequences on medical grounds. G. Beamish, medical officer. Her Majesty's Prison, May 26, 1889."
Mr. W.H. Anderson, J.P., Mr. Swift, clerk, Superintendent Bryning, and Mr. R.S. Cleaver, the prisoner's legal adviser, proceeded to the committee room at Walton Gaol, and Mrs. Maybrick, in charge of a female warder, entered the room. She was dressed in mourning, but presented no symptoms indicating physical ailment. Superintendent Bryning then charged her with having murdered her husband, the late Mr. James Maybrick, at Garston on the 11th inst. Acting under the advice of Mr. Cleaver, she made no reply, and was formally remanded until Monday next.
29 May 1889
THE CHARGE OF POISONING AT AIGBURTH
The adjourned inquest on the body of Mr. James Maybrick was held before Mr. S. Brighouse, county coroner, in the Reading Room, Garston, near Liverpool, yesterday. Much interest was shown in the proceedings. The deceased's widow, who is under arrest on suspicion of poisoning her husband, was unable to be present. The police were represented by Superintendent Bryning and Inspector Baxendale, Mrs. Maybrick by Mr. Pickford, the relatives of the deceased by Mr. A.G. Steele, and a witness by Mr. Mulholland. Plans of the deceased's residence, Battlecrease house, Aigburth, were produced.
Mr. Michael Maybrick, professor of music, of Wellington mansions, Regent's Park, London, said that the deceased was his brother, and was in his 50th year. His wife was about 27 years of age. His brother had recently been to London to consult a physician. On the 8th of May witness went to Liverpool in consequence of a telegram and met his brother Edwin. They proceeded to Battlecrease house, where, inconsequence of what witness heard, he took possession of a letter (produced). It was addressed to Mr. A. Brierley, Huskisson street, Liverpool. The deceased was in bed, in charge of Nurse Gore. Witness told Mrs. Maybrick that the patient ought to have a professional nurse and a second doctor. Next day he saw Dr. Humphreys and Dr. Carter was called in. The following day, the 10th of May, he saw Nurse Gore, who told him something, in consequence of which he removed from a little table near the window of his brother's room half a bottle of brandy. Later, after Nurse Gore, who had been out, had told him something else, he took possession of a bottle of Valentine's meat extract, similar to the bottle mow produced. It was placed between two washing basins and in the centre of the table. He gave the bottle to Dr. Carter on the same day. After taking possession of the meat extract bottle he walked round the garden for a while. On returning to his brother's room he found Mrs. Maybrick changing the medicine from one bottle to another and changing the labels. She said it was on account of the thick sediment in the smaller bottle. Witness then said he was very much displeased and should have the prescription remade. In consequence of what witness saw he had the nurse changed. After this time deceased grew rapidly worse, and died on the evening of Saturday, the 11th inst. About an hour after his brother's death witness gave instructions to the children's nurse, Alice Yapp, who subsequently brought him a box and a parcel in brown paper. The first thing he saw in the box was a white packet labelled "poison." On one side was a label, "poison," and on the other "arsenic poison" and "for cats" in writing. These witness had sealed up in presence of his brother and Mr. Steel, a neighbour. Powder was running out of the parcel, which was open at one end. He locked it up in the wine cellar, and afterwards gave it to Inspector Baxendale. His brother was the only person besides himself who had a key to the cellar. He had given some letters found in Mrs. Maybrick's bedroom to Mr. Baxendale.
The Coroner - The documents consist of two letters addressed to Mrs. Maybrick, a third letter not in an envelope, and a slip of paper that seems to be the draft of a telegram? - Yes. The last is in Mrs. Maybrick's handwriting.
Alice Yapp, the children's nurse, gave evidence about the events that occurred on the Grand National day. Witness heard the deceased say to his wife, in the bedroom, "It will be such a scandal, it will be all over the town tomorrow," and as they proceeded downstairs witness heard Mr. Maybrick say, "Florrie, I never thought it would come to this," adding, "If you once cross this threshold you will never enter the house again." She found in Mr. Maybrick's bedroom some flypapers with liquid on the top of them. On the 27th of April Mrs. Maybrick told witness the master had taken an overdose of medicine, and on the following morning Mrs. Maybrick said, "The master is ill again." Mrs. Maybrick went downstairs and got a cup, the contents of which witness did not see, saying, "It will make you sick and remove phlegm." She then said that Dr. Humphreys said that it was Mr. Maybrick's liver which was out of order. On the 6th of May Mr. Maybrick was very ill, and witness suggested that Dr. Hopper should be called in, but Mrs. Maybrick refused. On the following evening witness saw Mrs. Maybrick on the landing pouring the contents of one medicine bottle into another. When she saw witness she put the bottles down and went away. Subsequently Mrs. Maybrick gave witness a letter to post. It was in her handwriting and was addressed "A. Brierley, Esq., 60 Huskisson street, Liverpool." The baby dropped the letter in the mud, and so as to put it in another envelope witness opened it in the post office. She caught sight of the words "My darling," and she then read the letter and gave it to Mr. Edwin Maybrick.
The Coroner read the letters, which was written in pencil, and ran as follows:-
"Dearest - Your letter under cover to J. came to hand just after I gave them to you on Monday. I did not expect to hear from you so soon, and delay ommitted in giving him the necessary instructions. Since my return I have been nursing all day and night. He is sick unto death. The doctors held a consultation yesterday, and now all depends on how long his strength will hold out. Both my brothers in law are here, and we are terribly anxious. I cannot answer your letter today, my darling, but will relieve your mind of all fear of discovery now or in the future. M. has been delirious since Sunday, and I know that he is perfectly ignorant of everything, even to the name of the street, and also that he has not been making any inquiries whatever. The tale he told me was a pure fabrication, and only intended to frighten the truth out of me. In fact he believes my statement, although he will not admit it. You need not therefore go abroad on this ground, dearest; but in any case please do not leave England until I have seen you once again. You must feel that these two letters of mine were written under circumstances which must ever excuse their injustice in your eyes. Do you suppose I could act as I am doing if I merely felt what I inferred? If you wish to write to me about anything do so now, as all the letters pass through my hands at present. Excuse this scrawl, my darling, but I dare not leave the room for a moment, and I do not know when I shall be able to write to you again.
In haste, yours ever,
Florrie."
Witness further said that after the death she found in a closet a chocolate box and packet of powder marked "poison" which she took to Mr. Michael Maybrick.
Bessie Brierly, housemaid, gave evidence of quarrelling between Mr. and Mrs. Maybrick on the night of the Grand National and about the discovery of the fly papers.
Thomas S. Wokes, chemist, Aigburth, said that about the end of April Mrs. Maybrick purchased of him two dozen fly papers and a lotion.
Elizabeth Humphreys, cook in the house, deposed to bread and milk prepared for the master testing different when returned to her. The witness was kept out of the sick room for some time. When she saw her master he asked her for lemonade as he was dying of thirst. This was on the Wednesday morning before. The lemonade was prepared, but was taken out of witness's hand by Mrs. Maybrick, who set it down, saying the doctor had forbidden it. On Thursday morning, the 9th, Mrs. Maybrick followed witness down to the kitchen and cried, and said she was blamed for all this trouble. She said, "It was all through Mr. Michael Maybrick," who had had a spite against her since her marriage with master. "But," she continued, "I suppose I must submit to it for the time being. Once Mr. Michael goes out of my house he shall never enter it any more." She then cried very bitterly. Afterwards during the day Mrs. Maybrick said he would never pull through.
Mary Cadwallader, housemaid and waitress, gave evidence corroborative of that of the other servants.
Ellen Anne Gore, certificated nurse of the Liverpool Nurses' Training School, Liverpool, said she assumed charge of Mr. Maybrick on the afternoon of the 8th inst. Soon afterwards Mrs. Maybrick brought medicine in a medicine glass and asked witness to give it to the patient. She did so, and put the glass on one of the tables in the bedroom. About half past 6 that evening Mrs. Maybrick said, "The medicine is due now." Witness said she would give food then instead of medicine, and did so. Previously she had looked for the medicine glass, but could not find it in the room. Witness went to the lavatory, and there saw Mrs. Maybrick, who had mixed the medicine in the missing glass. She said it must have so much water in it else it would burn the patient's throat. Mrs. Maybrick then put the glass containing the medicine in a glass of cold water to keep cool. She went downstairs and witness threw the medicine down the sink. The next day witness gave Mrs. Maybrick some Valentine's meat juice from a table on the landing just outside the door. The bottle appeared to have been unopened. Mrs. Maybrick had said her husband had had Valentine's meat juice before, but that it had always made him sick. Witness, however, did not observe any ill effects to follow the portion she had given him. While he was sleeping Mrs. Maybrick and herself were in the bedroom. The open bottle of Valentine's meat juice still remained on the table. Mrs. Maybrick took it into the dressing room, pushed the door to, and remained there about two minutes. Then she returned, and while talking to witness put the bottle of Valentine's meat juice back on the table. Witness made a statement to Mr. Michael Maybrick, and afterwards saw him taking the bottle of Valentine's meat juice from the room. That was the last she saw of the bottle.
Margaret Callery, a nurse of the Nurses' Institute, Liverpool, also gave evidence. On the Friday the deceased was very much exhausted, and complained of his throat and of pains in the abdomen. He said, "Don't give me the wrong medicines again," Mrs. Maybrick said, "What are you talking about? You never had the wrong medicine."
By Mr. Pickford - The nurse going off duty never leaves the room until the next one comes on. While witness was on duty nobody gave the patient anything except on one occasion, when Mrs. Maybrick gave him a small piece of ice.
Susan Wilson, also a certified nurse from the Nurses' Training School, Liverpool, said that when she took charge on Friday she found in the room nurse Callery and Mrs. Maybrick. Mrs. Maybrick stayed in the room most of the time. On Friday at 6 o'clock the deceased said three times, "Oh, Bunney, how could you do it? I did not think it of you!" He seemed all right then, not delirious. Mrs. Maybrick replied, "You silly old darling, don't bother your head about anything," and she remarked to witness, "We cannot think what is the matter with him or what has brought this illness on."
By Mr. Pickford - When I heard the deceased say, "How could you do it?" I knew that Mr. Maybrick believed he had reason to complain of the conduct of his wife. I did not know the facts, but I suspected what was the matter.
Mr. Michael Maybrick, recalled, produced the will of the deceased. The document was handed to and glanced at by the Coroner. Witness said that the seal on the will had not been broken, and he did not see how Mrs. Maybrick could have any knowledge of the contents.
The Coroner - I thought it was suggested that the will was very much in favour of the widow, and that she had an opportunity of knowing it.
Mr. A.G. Steel - Only £2,000 at the outside, I think.
By Mr. Steel - There is no truth in the suggestion made by Mrs. Maybrick to the cook that I have had a spite against Mrs. Maybrick; quite the reverse. I have done all I can to assist her married life and make her happy. A short time ago I entertained her in London. I never had the smallest word of discussion with her in my life until the other evening about the doctor's certificate.
Christina Samuelson, wife of Charles Eyton Samuelson, 5 Princes park terrace, said that she knew the late Mr. James Maybrick and Mrs. Maybrick. About a fortnight or three weeks before the Grand National witness and her husband were staying at the Palace Hotel, Birkdale. The deceased and his wife were stopping at the same hotel. Mr. Alfred Brierley was also stopping there. While at the hotel witness had a conversation with Mrs. Maybrick, who said she hated her husband. On the 29th of March witness was at the Grand National with Mr. and Mrs. Maybrick and Mr. Brierley. While at Aintree she saw Mrs. Maybrick return to the omnibus in Mr. Alfred Brierley's company. She said to witness, "I will give it to him hot and heavy for speaking to me like that in public."
Cross examined by Mr. Pickford - There was a little unpleasantness, and I understood Mrs. Maybrick to refer to that. She at the time was very angry.
The inquest was adjourned until Wednesday, June 5.
6 June 1889
THE AIGBURTH POISONING CASE
The inquest on the body of the late Mr. James Maybrick, cotton merchant, of Liverpool, who died at his residence, Battlecrease house, Aigburth, under circumstances stated in The Times, was resumed yesterday in the Garston Reading room, before Mr. S. Brighouse, county coroner. The room, which will accommodate about 500 persons, was filled, those present including a large proportion of well dressed ladies, and there was a large crowd out side the building. Mrs. Maybrick, who was brought from gaol, was present but was kept in the library.
Superintendent Bryning and Inspector Baxendale again appeared for the police; Mr. Pickford for Mrs. Maybrick; Mr. Mulholland watched the case on behalf of Mr. Brierley (whose name has been mentioned in evidence); and Mr. E.G. Steele represented the deceased's relatives.
On the application of Mr. Pickford, made as a consequence of the recent exhumation of the deceased's body, it was agreed, after some discussion, to proceed first with medical evidence as to the cause of death, Superintendent Bryning stating that he had no objection, his only object being to have an exhaustive inquiry.
Dr. Richard Hopper, physician and surgeon, Liverpool, who had been medical adviser to Mrs. Maybrick from April last to the present, and medical adviser to the deceased from 1881 to last December, stated that during that time had had treated Mr. Maybrick for deranged digestion and nervous disorders, prescribing strychnine and nux vomica but never arsenic. He believed that the Maybricks lived happily; but on the 30th Match last Mrs. Maybrick visited witness with a black eye and said she desired a separation from her husband. Witness persuaded her to put the thought aside. The same day he visited Battlecrease house, and, having heard that on the previous night the parties had had a serious quarrel about matters which had occurred when they went to the Grand National, he endeavoured, at deceased's request, to effect a reconciliation. Witness had a conversation with Mrs. Maybrick, who expressed repugnance for her husband. On the 1st of April witness called again, by arrangement, when a conversation arose regarding Mrs. Maybrick's debts, and she stated the amount. The quarrel appeared to refer to a gentleman, whose name was not mentioned.
In cross examination, Dr. Hopper stated that he had prescribed the drugs mentioned as tonics. The deceased was in the habit of taking medicines recommended by friends, and he had told witness that he sometimes took double doses, and that when he left America, in 1882, he was acquainted with the properties of arsenic as an anti periodic. In June, 1888, Mrs. Maybrick told witness about deceased's habit of taking the poison, and desired that he might be spoken to about it. Witness left the parties reconciled on his visit to Battlecrease.
Dr. Richard Humphreys, surgeon, said that on the 29th of April he was called to Battlecrease to attend the deceased, whom he found in bed. Mrs. Maybrick was sitting in the room. Deceased expressed fear of paralysis on the stomach, and stated that the symptoms had come on after breakfast, and he attributed them to a strong cup of tea. Tea had produced the same symptoms before, and he had resolved to give it up. He also complained of headaches, which he had for nearly a year, dating from the Ascot races. This was the Sunday after the Wirral races which deceased had attended. Deceased also said that he felt a stiffness in the legs, and on dining with a friend after the races he spilt some wine owing to weakness in his arm. He added that his sight was affected, near objects appearing far off. Witness ordered soda water and milk and prescribed prussic acid. Being called again to Battlecrease in the evening, he found deceased still in bed, and he spoke of a stiffness in the lower part of the legs. The patient was comparatively well. This continued until May 3, change of diet having been ordered. About midnight on Thursday, May 3, witness again saw the deceased, who complained of great pain in the thighs, which were rubbed with turpentine, and of having been twice sick since coming from business, adding that some inferior sherry had made him as bad as ever. On visiting deceased next day he found that the pain in the stomach had disappeared, but on the following day (Saturday) deceased was again sick after taking anything; consequently witness advised him not to take anything whatever. On Sunday Mr. Maybrick was better, but complained of a nasty, filthy taste on his tongue and in his throat. Next day, May 6, witness found deceased's throat slightly red. The disagreeable taste continued and caused much irritation. Except for his throat, the patient was on the 7th of May much better. Tinctures were prescribed, but although for a little time his throat was improved it again became worse. On the 9th of May he suffered from throat and bowels, there being great irritation and pain. Mr. Maybrick was then under the care of a nurse. On the 10th he was visited three times by witness and also by Dr. Carter. Next day the illness had become dangerous and deceased could not swallow. That evening he died. Witness decided in his own mind on Friday night that the result would be fatal, but had never remarked to any one that Mr. Maybrick was sick unto death and did not remember telling Mrs. Maybrick that she alone was to attend her husband. He did not believe either that he said that, or that he told Mrs. Maybrick no one but she was to give the patient food and medicine. On Sunday or Monday he suggested to Mrs. Maybrick that another doctor should be called in, but she replied that so many medical men had seen her husband, and he had derived such small benefit from their attendance, that she did not think a second doctor necessary.
Superintendent Bryning - Can you tell me whether a small quantity of arsenic has any appreciable taste? - I should say not.
Can arsenic be taken in fatal quantities without exciting suspicion? - It has been taken in certain cases.
I want you to describe what the symptoms of a person suffering from arsenical poisoning are? - The symptoms of arsenical poisoning, as described in books, not from my own knowledge, depend entirely upon the dose. If a large dose is taken then you will have all symptoms of cholera; then if a moderate dose is taken you will have a diminished degree of this. You may not have so much diarrhoea, vomiting, or pain in the stomach, or perchance none of the symptoms will appear; but the patient or the person will be struck down as if with a large dose of narcotic. He will be comatized, he will be asleep, or he may have convulsions. Then if a small dose is taken once there will be no effect at all most probably. If a small dose is taken for a prolonged period you may have diarrhoea, pains in the stomach, vomiting, redness of the eyes, falling out of the hair, and skin eruptions of various kinds.
In reply to further questions witness said that a person might recover from the first effects of the poison and yet die from exhaustion, and, as a matter of fact, the quantity found in the stomach and organs was not a criterion for the quantity actually taken. Witness had prescribed for the deceased Fowler's solution of arsenic of potash, the dose being one fifteenth of a drop every hour. Deceased complained that the medicine hurt his throat, and after a few doses it was discontinued. The solution, however, contained only 1 per cent of arsenic and 99 per cent of water.
In reply to the superintendent, witness described the appearances presented on the post mortem examination which he had made of the deceased's body on the 13th of May, in company with Drs. Carter and Barron, and gave minute details as to the condition of the various organs of the body. On the 28th of May he further examined the body when it was exhumed.
Superintendent Bryning - Having regard to the post mortem appearances described and the symptoms you observed before death, and the symptoms described by the witnesses, what is your opinion of the cause of death? - That they are consistent with some irritant poison.
I will put that again. What is your opinion of the cause of death? - That it is consistent with an irritant poison. The actual cause of death was exhaustion set up by an irritant poison. (Sensation.)
Did you form the opinion before the death of the deceased that he suffered from the effects of some irritant poison? - Of some irritant poison, I did.
When did you first think that the deceased was suffering from some irritant poison? - When the diarrhoea came on. It was after the Wednesday, at any rate.
The Coroner - Can you say that on the Friday you thought he was suffering from some irritant poison? - You see I was under the impression that he might be, so that I cannot say exactly. I was put in a peculiar position, because it had been suggested to me. That strengthened my opinion after the suggestion.
After the suggestion was made and after you say you formed your opinion that the deceased was suffering from some irritant poison, will you tell the jury what the symptoms were that led you to that belief? - It was the diarrhoea and the straining together with a great failure of the heart that was taking place.
The Coroner - Are the jury to understand, Dr. Humphreys, that the deceased before death presented symptoms that were consistent with subsequent death from arsenical poisoning? - Certainly.
Before the suggestion was made to you, did the symptoms seem to be explainable? - Explainable when the suggestion was made as to what might probably be the cause.
Before the suggestion was made as to what might possibly be the cause? - Certainly, from what I assumed to be acute congestion of the stomach.
The Coroner - Then we come back to this - that these symptoms were consistent with acute congestion of the stomach or with the taking of an irritant poison? - Certainly.
You thought they arose from acute congestion of the stomach until the suggestion was made that they arose from the other source? - Certainly.
You are of opinion now, as Mr. Bryning put it, taking into consideration all that you saw during life, taking into consideration the result of the post mortem, that the deceased died from exhaustion consequent upon the taking of an irritant poison? - I am.
Being cross examined, Dr. Humphreys said that when he advised that a second doctor should be called in he was confident that the deceased would recover, but he was anxious about the case because he did not know much about the patient. Up to the Wednesday before Mr. Maybrick's death the symptoms did not suggest poisoning. On that day a suggestion of poisoning was made. He considered the case unsatisfactory. Deceased described the sensation in his throat as being like a hair continually annoying him. To relieve the dryness of the throat witness prescribed japonandie - a medicine introduced into this country about ten years ago from Africa or America. When taken in large doses this was a poison. Not knowing that the deceased was suffering from the effects of arsenic, he considered it in some form a proper medicine to use to alleviate the symptoms.
Mr. Pickford - In what way? - Because with arsenic I had before alleviated persons suffering in a similar manner.
Deceased was not suffering pain? - No, only discomfort.
The foreman of the jury - When you were called in on the 28th of April can you tell us what you believed to be the malady from which Mr. Maybrick suffered? - From the condition of his tongue he was evidently suffering from dyspepsia.
Why did you refuse to give a certificate of death? - Because arsenic was found.
Mr. Pickford here interposed, and witness said he refused to give the certificate for certain reason of his own.
Dr. William Carter, Liverpool, said he was called in on the 7th of May, and found deceased's throat dry, read, and glazed, and although the tongue was dirty his breath was quite sweet. After a consultation with Dr. Humphreys, who described the course of his illness and treatment, it was agreed that the deceased should take japonandie, chlorine water to wash his mouth, and small and frequent quantities of food. On May 10 deceased became worse, and a new symptom developed, his hands becoming white and bloodless, while he grew weak in spite of every effort to support him and complained greatly of sleeplessness. On Saturday he gradually lost consciousness and died. On the 9th of May Mr. Michael Maybrick handed witness a small bottle of Neave's food, and on the 10th of May a bottle two thirds full of Valentine's meat juice. These he took away with him. The bottle of Valentine's meat juice he examined the same day.
Superintendent Bryning - What result did you get from it? - I found there was a steel gray deposit upon the copper foil which I boiled with it with a little hydrochloric acid. I dried this and put it in a dry test tube till next morning, when I further examined it and found that it was arsenic.
By the Coroner - I did not attempt to make a quantity analysis. I got the deposit immediately in the copper, and I felt that there was a good deal of arsenic; it was so immediate. But I did not attempt to find the quantity.
Superintendent Bryning - On the 14th did you make a post mortem examination of the deceased? - I did, and Dr. Humphreys and Dr. Barron were present. Dr. Humphrey's statement as regards it was absolutely correct.
Did you assist at the further post mortem examination? - I did.
You have heard Dr. Humphreys describe what was done? - That is perfectly correct.
Having had the advantage of hearing the witnesses describe the symptoms exhibited by Mr. Maybrick, and having seen him yourself at various times during life, and having assisted to make the post mortem examination, what in your opinion was the cause of death? - Irritant poison.
The Coroner - Are you prepared to say what kind of irritant poison, doctor? - Most probably arsenic, Sir.
Did you form this opinion previous to death? - I did.
On which day of your visits did you form this opinion? - The presumption was raised on Thursday, the 9th; he was then suffering from the effects of some irritant poison.
Was your opinion strengthened on the Friday and Saturday? - Very much. I felt morally certain then. I was as certain as any one can be without actually demonstrating it. I was very strongly of opinion that the cause was poison.
Then did you treat the case as one of poisoning? - We did, Sir.
Will you tell the jury what were the symptoms displayed by the deceased that enabled you to come to this conclusion? - From vomiting, which was extremely obstinate, urgent, and continued; the diarrhoea which followed it, and tenesmus, unceasing thirst, the choking feeling in the throat, and gradual failure of the circulation, followed by sinking. That was a concourse of symptoms which, in the absence of any organic disease, impressed me strongly with the belief that it must be due to some irritant. Then there is the negative fact that there was no disease in the organs to account for this. Of course that was an important negative.
That was found by the post mortem examination? - No, the vital examination. The heart, lungs, and brain were all sound, and the liver also, as far as we could determine.
Mr. Pickford - Did you form this opinion before any suggestion was made to you? - No; the suggestion was made on the second day of my visit.
And you did not form any opinion that he was suffering from poison until after the suggestion was made to you and Dr. Humphreys? - No; but I thought from the account I heard of his dining at the Wirral races and the illness that followed, not knowing the gentleman, that he had been indulging somewhat freely, and had taken - I expressed this opinion to his brother - probably some irritant wine or decomposed food - as I expressed it, a very grave error of diet. I did not suspect any one, but in the first instance I said it was not a disease per se, but that it was something that was taken that had caused all these things. By poison I should comprehend decomposed tinned meat. I heard this gentleman had been at the races, and that it was a race dinner. I thought that wine might have entered into it, and as his mode of living was unknown to me entirely, I said, when pressed for an explanation, that some grave error of diet must have been committed which must have set up this irritation.
The Coroner - But from your further opportunities of observing the deceased and the post mortem you are now of opinion that the deceased had died from the effects of an irritant poison? - I am.
Most probably arsenic? - Yes.
On May 7 did you say anything to Mrs. Maybrick that would lead her to say that her husband was sick unto death? - Certainly not. I never spoke to Mrs. Maybrick except on the first day, and then not knowing who she was.
If on the 8th she said, "Her husband is sick unto death," it was not from anything you had said to her? - No; quite the contrary; I thought he would recover.
Did you say anything to the effect that it would depend how long his strength would hold out? - No.
Dr. Alexander Barron, Liverpool, who was present at the post mortem and exhumation, confirmed the evidence of the other doctors, and arrived at the conclusion that death resulted from an irritant poison.
Arthur B. Flatman, who had various addresses in London, including 82 Chapel street, Cavendish square, identified some letters and a telegram as having been received by him on the 18th, 19th, and 20th of March last.
After a discussion with Mr. Pickford and Mr. Mulholland, the Coroner said - First of all the name of Mr. Mulholland's client is not mentioned in the letters in any shape or form. They go to this, that the wife of the deceased communicates with the witness now before you by telegram and letters, and asserts that her sister in law and her husband - that is to say, Mr. and Mrs. T. Maybrick - are about to come to town, and as their agent she makes the necessary arrangements for their arrival. Bear in mind that the Grand National is on March 29, and Mrs. Maybrick returned on the 28th, Thursday. On the 16th, the Saturday before the Grand National, a telegram was sent; then a letter on the 18th, one on the 19th, and then a letter of no date; but the text of the letter shows it must have followed the one of the 19th, so I think you may take it that it was sent on the 20th. The telegram and letters came to this, that Mrs. Maybrick, the wife of the deceased, said - "My brother in law and his wife, Mr. and Mrs. T. Maybrick, are coming to town. Can they stay in your house?" There is a reply, I presume, because arrangements are made for Mr. and Mrs. T. Maybrick to stay with the witness at the hotel.
Mr. Mulholland - The jury understand that this gentleman keeps an hotel, and she occupied rooms. Having read these letters, did, on March 21, a lady present herself at your hotel? - I presume she did from my books. I have no other knowledge; I produce my books. I only know that someone, purporting to be Mrs. Maybrick, came to my house, and stayed there from the 21st to the 24th.
Alfred Schweasal, head waiter at the hotel, stated that he remembered a lady, whom he understood to be Mrs. Maybrick, coming to the hotel on the afternoon of the 21st of March. She had with her a portmanteau and dressing bag. Witness was sent into the library where Mrs. Maybrick was sitting and on returning into court stated that she was the person who came to the hotel. The day she arrived a young gentleman came to the house about half past six o'clock and took her out to dinner and to the theatre. Witness did not see her return to the hotel, and she said her husband was staying out late.
Superintendent Bryning - The next morning the 22nd had Mrs. Maybrick been joined by another person? - Yes, Mr. Maybrick.
What name did he give? - It was her husband, as far as I know.
They stayed at the hotel as man and wife, I understand? - Yes.
How long did they stay on those conditions? - From the Thursday to the Sunday morning, from the 21st to the 24th.
Do you mean they slept in the same bedroom? - Yes.
By the Coroner - The gentleman who called on the day of her arrival called the next morning to see Mrs. Maybrick, but she was not in, and he did not call any more.
Superintendent Bryning - And on the Friday morning you found a gentleman at the breakfast table who you believed to be the husband of the lady? - I saw him at the breakfast table. From that time up to the Sunday they lived together as man and wife.
Who is the gentleman? Have you seen him in this room?
Witness (standing) - To the best of my belief he is that gentleman there (pointing at Mr. A. Brierley).
This statement elicited some hissing, whereupon the Coroner said that if there was the slightest manifestation of feeling he would have the Court cleared.
Mr. Mulholland - Was the gentleman who called on Thursday the same gentleman you saw there afterwards? - No.
That gentleman took her out to the theatre, and you know nothing more about him except that he called to see her next morning and she was out? - Yes, he never saw her again.
When did the gentleman you have identified come? - I saw him at the breakfast table the morning after the lady arrived.
But he was not the gentleman who took her out the former evening? - No.
Thomas Lowery, a youth employed as clerk by the deceased at his office in Liverpool, and Eliza Busher, who cleaned out the office, gave evidence about the deceased lunching at the office.
Mrs. Isabel Briggs, Sefton park, Liverpool, intimate friend of Mr. and Mrs. Maybrick, stated that after Mrs. Maybrick was taken into custody she, in witness's presence, wrote to Mr. Alfred Brierley a letter, which the Coroner read, as follows:-
"Battlecrease, Aigburth.
I am writing to you to give me every assistance in your power in my present fearful trouble. I am in custody without any of my family with me at present and without money. I have cabled to my solicitor in New York to come at once. In the meantime send some money for present needs. The truth is known about my visit to London, and your last letter is in the hands of the police. Appearances are terribly against me, but before God I swear I am innocent.
Florence Maybrick."
Mr. Pickford - About this letter, did you know whom she was writing it to? - Yes.
At the time she was writing? - Yes.
Did you advise as to writing to this gentleman or not? - I warned her that anything she wrote would be handed to the police.
Do you mean you cannot recollect whether or not you suggested she should write to this gentleman? - I might have said if he knew he would send her money - help.
She had told you, I suppose, she was in want of money? - Yes.
And it was then you suggested if this gentleman knew he might send her money? - Yes. If he knew she was in trouble he would help her.
And then she wrote? - yes.
Did you tell her it was your intention to hand the letter over to the police? - I did. I said she was not to write anything the police could not see.
But did you tell her before she wrote the letter that you yourself intended to hand it to the police? - Certainly. I told her to telegraph and not to write.
What difference would that have made, if I may ask?
The Coroner - Do you wish the jury to understand that although she was writing that letter she was perfectly persuaded that as soon as she had one it would be handed to the police? - Certainly.
Mr. Steele - About this letter, did you think the police would take a copy of it and send it on through the post to Mr. Brierley? - Certainly I did.
Mr. Mulholland - You suggested she should write to Mr. Brierley, but warned her you would show it to the police before it went? - Yes.
Mrs. Briggs also testified to the finding of several bottles and letters which were in Mrs. Maybrick's room.
The inquest was adjourned until today, and Mrs. Maybrick was removed to a neighbouring police station in presence of a large crowd, but order was maintained by a strong force of police.
7 June 1889
THE AIGBURTH POISONING CASE
Yesterday Mr. Brighouse, County Coroner, resumed the inquest on the body of Mr. James Maybrick, cotton merchant, Liverpool, whose death is attributed to poison. The inquiry was again held in the Garston Reading Room, near Aigburth, where the deceased resided at Battlecrease house. There did not appear to be the same public interest in the case as on the previous, when Mrs. Maybrick was present. Mr. Pickford again appeared for Mrs. Maybrick, Mr. Mulholland for Mr. Brierley, and Mr. A.G. Steel for the deceased's relatives.
Mr. Edwin Maybrick, one of the deceased's brothers, was the first witness called. He said that he came to Liverpool from the America on the 23rd of April, and saw the deceased at his office the next morning. He saw him again on the 27th and 28th, dining at his house on the latter date. The deceased, who was lying on the sofa in the morning room, complained of being very unwell and suffering from an attack of numbness in his legs, but was recovering. About 9 at night he had another attack of numbness, and at his request witness rubbed his legs, after which he recovered their use. Witness saw deceased at his office on May 1 in the forenoon, and he appeared to be unwell. Witness also saw him after luncheon, and he then seemed worse than before. The deceased had a luncheon, which was brought down from home; it was some kind of farinaceous food. He kept medicine in his office, and had some on the mantelpiece. On the morning of May 1 witness took down from Battlecrease to his brother's office a parcel tied in brown paper, and given to him by Mrs. Maybrick, who said, "This is your brother's dinner; will you take it to the office?" At the office his brother opened the parcel, which contained a small brown mug exactly similar to the one produced. Witness saw the deceased warm the contents in a saucepan and then pour them into the basin produced. He then partook of the food. Witness was at Battlecrease on Sunday, the 5th. He went out by the 9 o'clock train, and found his brother ill in bed and unable to retain anything at all on his stomach. Mrs. Maybrick was attending on him. Witness gave him some brandy and soda at his request in the afternoon, and the brandy and soda remained in him until Mrs. Maybrick gave him some medicine, when he vomited. On the Tuesday he was still in bed and much the same. Dr. Carter was called in that night to consult with Dr. Humphreys. Next day witness found his brother worse, and in the evening Nurse Yapp gave him the letter produced last week, and addressed to Mr. A. Brierley. He gave the letter to his brother Michael, who arrived that evening. Nurse Gore was engaged that day, and witness handed to her an unopened bottle of Valentine's meat extract similar to the one produced. Nurse Callery was called in to assist Nurse Gore. On Friday the deceased was rather better, and from something which was told to witness Nurse Callery was changed and Nurse Wilson was brought in her place.
Superintendent Bryning - All this time where was Mrs. Maybrick?
Witness - She was either in my brother's room or in the dressing room adjoining his room.
The Coroner - What do you mean by all this time? What period? - From the Sunday previous to his death.
Superintendent Bryning - On Saturday, the 11th of May, was Mr. Maybrick still worse? - Yes.
Was Mrs. Maybrick apparently in distress about his condition? - Yes.
Did she say anything about it? - About 3 o'clock she called me and said, "Isn't this sad?" I said, "What?" She said, "That Jim suffers so, and that I should not be able to relieve him."
Did you remain about your brother's room until evening? - No; I went to town for about two hours, and returned about 1 o'clock. Then I remained there until he died, about half past 8 o'clock.
In reply to further questions the witness said that on May 12 he and his brother Michael and Mrs. Briggs searched the room off deceased's bedroom and found two hat boxes in a corner. In the upper box was a slouch hat with the lining downwards, and under the hat were two or three bottles, one of them, a Valentine's meat bottle, partly full. In the box underneath there was a tall silk hat placed in the ordinary way, and lying across the bottom of the hat was a small hat brush, such as is generally used by hatters to rub hats, and between that and the side of the hat was a glass. On the day after the death Nurse Yapp came down to breakfast about 12 o'clock and gave his brother a small box.
Is this the box? - Yes, or one very similar to it. There was a handkerchief with the box, but I cannot identify it. The nurse gave the box and its contents to my brother Michael, who, on the advice of Mr. Steel, who was present, sealed it up.
Do you know where the box, after being sealed, was put? - My brother locked it up in the wine cellar. (The articles were here produced and identified.) There was also a piece of linen soaked in the liquid in the glass. The things were put back as found and subsequently handed to Inspector Baxendale, with whom witness entered the room, which had been kept locked, the key being left in witness's possession. He also gave the inspector a bottle which he had found wrapped in a handkerchief in a small cupboard in the room. It was in consequence of what was said to him on the 8th that his suspicions were aroused.
Mr. Pickford - After Wednesday, the 8th, I think the charge of Mr. Maybrick was taken out of Mrs. Maybrick's hands and placed in the hands of nurses? - Yes.
And your instructions were that she was not to give him any medicine after that? - My instructions were that the nurses would attend to him in every way.
On the morning of the Wednesday she telegraphed to you to send out your doctor? - On the Tuesday she telegraphed suggesting that Dr. M'Shane, who is a personal friend of mine, should be sent.
Had you suggested getting another doctor before that? - I suggested to my brother that as Dr. M'Shane was a friend of mine, I should ask his opinion. I did not propose to bring him there in a professional way. Dr. M'Shane could not come, and I sent Dr. Carter.
Did you know Mrs. Maybrick had telegraphed for a nurse on the Wednesday morning? - I did not.
Had you suggested she should send for a nurse before that? - No.
You have told us you found a number of things, bottles, &c.; none of them were locked up, were they? - No, none of them.
A juror - On Sunday, April 28, when you dined at your brother's house, did you partake of the same kind of food? - My brother was ill and not able to take solid food. I dined in the dining room, and he was in the breakfast room all day. He only took what little food the doctor ordered him.
Dr. Humphreys was recalled, and stated that at the request of the police he took certain sediments of liquid from the lavatory and other private rooms in Battlecrease house, the drains being opened for the purpose. He placed the sediment in bottles and jars, which he gave to the analyst.
Frederick Tozer, chemist and druggist, in the employ of Messrs. Clay and Abraham, Liverpool, stated that he hade up prescriptions for Mr. Maybrick and described their nature. There was no arsenic.
Inspector Baxendale, in charge of the county police at Garston, said that about 8 o'clock on the night of Sunday, May 12, he received information of Mr. Maybrick's death, and went to Battlecrease house to make inquiries. Witness asked to see the deceased's body, and was taken to the room by Mr. Edwin Maybrick. He took possession of the bottles, glass of liquid, and other articles which had been described. He also attended the post mortem examination, and handed over the viscera to the analyst, Mr. Davies, of Liverpool. On searching Battlecrease on May 18 witness found in the lavatory a bottle bearing the label of Messrs. Clay and Abraham, and containing a dark mixture. On the same day he found at the deceased's office in Liverpool another bottle with a similar label. Both were delivered to the analyst. Witness also attended at the exhumation of the body at Anfield Cemetery on the 28th of May, and handed over for analysis the vital organs which were then taken. He likewise procured for analysis fly papers of the same description as those proved to have been purchased by Mrs. Maybrick from different chemists.
Police sergeant Davenport testified to finding on May 17, in the linen room at Battlecrease, an unlabelled bottle containing a light coloured liquid, and in a dressing case in a closet in the same room some white powder and pills.
Mr. Isaac Bryning, superintendent of the county police for the West Derby Division, said that under his instructions the pipes and drains were opened and the sediment and liquid from them taken as stated by Dr. Humphreys. This was on May 13. On the following day he saw Mrs. Maybrick, who was in bed, and said to her, "Mrs. Maybrick, I am superintendent of police, and I am about to say something to you, and after I have said what I intend to say, if you reply, be careful how you do reply, because what you say may be given in evidence against you." Witness then said, "Mrs. Maybrick, you are in custody on suspicion of causing the death of your husband, Mr. James Maybrick, on the 11th of this month." She made no reply. On the 27th of May witness saw her in Her Majesty's Prison at Walton, and cautioned her in similar terms to those used on the 14th ult. He said, "You are now charged with murdering your husband, Mr. James Maybrick, at Garston on the 11th of May." She made no reply.
By a juror - On the last occasion a solicitor was present, but not on the first.
Mr. Edward Davies, analytical chemist, Fellow of the Chemical Society of London, Fellow of the Institution of Chemistry, and for 11 years public analyst for the Isle of Man, said he had a laboratory in the Royal Institution Buildings, Liverpool. Questioned as to the Valentine's meat extract he received from Dr. Carter on May 11, he said - I tested it with the Reinsih test. I took 10 drops of it, and I obtained a strong deposit of arsenic upon a slip of copper. I then heated that slip of copper in a tube, and obtained crystals of what is commonly known as white arsenic. I also took some more and put it in Marsh's apparatus, and obtained spots of arsenic from it. Those are some of the spots (produced) from Marsh's apparatus. I passed the gas into nitrate of silver and got a precipitate of silver.
The Coroner - What does that mean? - That shows the presence of arseniuretted hydrogen - arsenic. I adopted another test with the result that I got a distinct precipitate of sulphide of arsenic, soluble in ammonia. I have since made a quantitative analysis. I weighed the arsenic as sulphide of arsenic, and for this purpose I took 100 grains, with the result that I got 12 per cent of white arsenic. On the contents of the bottle that would be as nearly as possible half a grain.
By the Coroner - There were 375 grains when I had taken 35 minims out, so that we may say there were 411 grains in the bottle when I got it.
It seems there is no doubt in your mind that there was arsenic in the Valentine's meat extract as given to you by Dr. Carter? - Oh, I am absolutely certain.
In reply to other questions the witness said he analysed another bottle of Valentine's meat juice found in a box in Mrs. Maybrick's room at Battlecrease. That did not contain arsenic, and on comparing it with the contents of the first bottle he found that it had higher specific gravity, from which he inferred that the contents of the first bottle had been diluted, and that the arsenic must have been added when in solution. There was a trace of arsenic in two of the bottles containing sediment from the lavatories and drains. The bottle found in the dressing table in Mrs. Maybrick's room did not contain arsenic, but the handkerchief round it had a dirty red stain, part of which he cut out. From this he obtained distinct crystals of arsenic. A bottle found in the chocolate box in Mrs. Maybrick's trunk room contained a dark liquid, which was the same as the arsenic contained in the package marked "Arsenic - poison," but with water added. The bottle which was now produced contained 10 or 12 drops, and the solution was strong enough to poison two or three persons. A second bottle in the same box contained a saturated solution of arsenic, with solid arsenic at the bottom, and a third several drops of arsenic in solution strong enough for several drops to prove fatal.
The Coroner - You are not talking about the chronic use of arsenic? - No, a single dose.
To put it on the safe side, we will say there is a grain in the bottle. Would that quantity produce unpleasant solutions, without causing death? - I do not know. I suppose it would depend upon a person's idiosyncrasies. I cannot take much of a dose myself. (Laughter.) I have had it ordered for me, but it did not suit me. (Renewed laughter.)
Witness went on to say, in reply to other questions, that a fourth bottle in the box contained 15 to 20 grains of arsenic. The glass containing white liquid found in the hat box in Mrs. Maybrick's room had just about 400 grains of fluid, in which was 3 per cent of arsenic altogether. The tumbler and a handkerchief in it contained 20 grains of the poison.
The Coroner - Twenty grains? - Yes, I should say so.
There is a fatal dose in the glass? - Oh, yes. The stuff in the glass seems to be same as the black mixture in No 8.
Can you tell us what the black is? - It is a powdered charcoal.
The foreman - Is charcoal used for any domestic purpose? - No, but it is mixed with arsenic in the poison for cats.
The Coroner - There is nothing in 13, 14, 15, and 16? - There was nothing in the bedding? - No, I cannot get a distinct analysis.
Now go to 17. Did you receive in a box a sealed packet marked "Arsenic for cats?" - Yes, it is arsenic mixed with powdered charcoal. I believe that, under the Arsenic Act, it must be mixed with one sixteenth of its weight of soot or indigo. That in this bottle is about 92 per cent of arsenic and eight of charcoal. Continuing his evidence, Mr. Davies said that in the bottle found by Inspector Baxendale in the lavatory at Battlecrease there was such a distinct presence of arsenic that, after mixing distilled water with the few drops of liquid that remained in the bottom, he found that he was able to obtain arsenic crystals from so small a quantity as 20 grains. In the medicine bottle from the defendant's office there was a distinct trace of arsenic in only a few grains of the medicine. When he found arsenic in the latter bottle, which bore the label of Messrs. Clay and Abraham, witness went over to the firm's shop and took samples from the store and dispensing bottles from which deceased's prescription had been made up. On being tested separately the samples were found free from arsenic. He next examined the brown bag in which the luncheon which deceased used to take to his office was placed by Mrs. Maybrick. At the bottom of it were one or two small pieces of a farinaceous substance. These he removed by means of hot distilled water, reduced the liquid to a small bulk by evaporation, and tested it by Reinsch's test for arsenic. He obtained distinct crystals of arsenic, and a second slip of copper which he boiled in the liquid was decidedly stained also. The deceased, he had been informed, cooked his luncheon in an enamelled pan. To be certain that arsenic did not come from the enamel witness bought a new pan of the same description, and after boiling distilled water in it for an hour he found it free from any trace of arsenic. Other bottles containing arsenic were tested, among others a bottle of Rice's patent glycerine. A second bottle of the same substance which witness had bought was free from arsenic. On testing the fly papers submitted to him by Inspector Baxendale he found in each two grains and a half of arsenic. Replying to the foreman of the jury, witness said that in cold water the arsenic with the papers dissolved slowly, but he considered that in 24 hours there could be obtained from several of the papers by soaking them in cold water a solution sufficient to poison any ordinary person. The witness was next examined as to his analysis of the viscera. He stated that he took one ounce from different parts of the intestines and obtained distinct crystals of arsenic, but in very minute quantity. He doubted whether he could obtain a weighable quantity from any manageable portion of the intestines. From the coats of the stomach he failed to obtain evidence of arsenic, and also failed to find it in the contents of the stomach. Arsenic, however, was distinctly present in the liver, there being in six ounces 2.02 grains of the poison. It was distinctly present also in the kidneys, but not in a weighable quantity. Analysing portions of the heart and lungs he obtained faint indications of crystals, but whether or not they were arsenic he could not swear. He described the steps he had taken to be certain that the materials he used were pure.
Cross examined by Mr. Pickford - When he spoke of not being able to get a weighable quantity he meant that he could not find up to the hundredth part of a grain.
The Coroner - Is it absolutely necessary to find a fatal dose in the body in order to arrive at the conclusion that death was due to arsenical poisoning? - No.
In replying to further questions from Mr. Pickford, witness said that in this case he had found in the liver less than half the quantity of arsenic which he had found in previous fatal cases if arsenical poisoning with which he had had to deal. He made analyses in the Flannagan and Higgins's case in Liverpool, about two years ago, which was a fly paper case.
The Coroner drew attention to a letter which had been referred to in the course of the day, and which had been held in abeyance.
Superintendent Bryning - I will put the letter before you, Mr. Coroner.
Mr. Pickford - I understand, Sir, that a communication was made to you at the first sitting by the gentleman who was sworn foreman of the jury. I should like to know whether it is proposed to call him.
The Coroner - No.
Mr. Pickford - Of course I have no official knowledge of what he communicated to you, but I understand it was something in relation to the case that he deemed so important that he ought not to act as foreman of the jury. You know what it is, and you know whether it is relevant or irrelevant.
The Coroner - I feel perfectly certain that it is not relevant. The foreman went himself to view the body. He made a statement to me when I arrived at the place of the inquest. I communicated that statement to Mr. Steel, who was then representing the Maybrick family, and Mr. Superintendent Bryning, and I said, "If you think that this statement is useful, if either of you think it is evidence, and you think that the foreman of the jury ought to appear as a witness, then I will discharge him." They both thought that would be the better course, and I did so.
Mrs. Constance Louisa Hughes deposed that she was at Battlecrease on Sunday, the 12th, the day after the deceased's death, and was alone in the bedroom - in the room where Mr. Maybrick died. While searching for keys she found the letter (produced) in the middle drawer, by Mrs. Maybrick's dressing table.
The Coroner then read the letter, which was as follows:-
"My dear Florrie,
I suppose now you have gone I am safe in writing to you. I do not quite understand what you mean in your last letter about explaining my line of action. You know I could not write, and was willing to meet you, although it would have been dangerous. Most certainly your telegram yesterday was a staggerer, and it looks as if the result was certain; but as yet I cannot find an advertisement in any London paper. I should like to see you, but at present dare not move, and we had better, perhaps, not meet until late in the autumn. I am going to try and get away in about a fortnight, and I think I shall take a round trip to the Mediterranean, which will take six or seven weeks, unless" (and the next five words are underlined) "you wish me to stay in England." (The Coroner - You will recollect in her letter she says "In any case, do not leave England till I have seen you again.") "Supposing the rooms are found, I think both you and I would be better away, as the man's memory would be doubted after three months. I will write and tell you when I go. I cannot trust myself at present to write to you my feelings on this unhappy business, but I do hope that some time I shall be able to show you that I do not quite deserve the strictures contained in your two last letters. I went to the D. and D., and of course heard some tales, but myself knew nothing about anything. And now, dear, good bye, hoping we shall meet in the autumn. I will write to you about sending letters just before I go.
A.B."
A juror - Is there any date to the letter?
The Coroner - No, nut I think you will find, by expressions in his letter, taken together with the letter of Wednesday, which Nurse Yapp intercepted, that this is the letter she refers to. I think it is absolutely certain some expressions of her letter are used in it. In this letter he says, "supposed the rooms are found," she answering, "I know he is perfectly ignorant even of the name of the street." I think it is very evident that her letter of Wednesday was a reply to this.
This being all the evidence, the Coroner summed up and said - The case is now before you, and on the evidence you have to find how and by what means Mr. James Maybrick came by his death. You must put on one side any matter you may have read in the papers, or anything you may have heard outside this room, and on the evidence, and the evidence alone, find the verdict you are about to give. You know very well a good many comments have appeared in the Press on this case, and I feel it is my duty to urge that matter strongly upon you - that you have to give your verdict on the evidence, and the evidence only. Now, although the object of your inquiry is to find out how and by what means Mr. Maybrick came by his death, the practical part of the inquiry is as to the connexion of Mrs. Maybrick with the death of the deceased, and as to whether on the evidence you can say she is criminally responsible for the death of her husband. The law presumes that every person is innocent until the contrary is proved; and we must take it that before the commencement of these proceedings, so far as you are concerned, Mrs. Maybrick was an innocent woman. In conclusion, he asked them three questions:- Did they believe that death resulted from the administration of an irritant poison; if so, by whom was the irritant poison administered; and if it was administered by Mrs. Maybrick, was it administered by her with an intent to take away life.
The jury retire to consider their verdict, and in 35 minutes returned into court.
The foreman, in reply to the Coroner, said that they were unanimously of opinion that death had resulted from an irritant poison, and 12 of the 13 were of opinion that the irritant poison had been administered to Mr. Maybrick with intent to take his life.
The Coroner - That means a verdict of "wilful murder" against Mrs. Maybrick. (To the police.) Bring in Mrs. Maybrick.
Mrs. Maybrick, who during the afternoon had been detained at the Garston Police station, was then brought into court, and addressed by the Coroner as follows:- Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, the jury have inquired into the circumstances attending the death of your husband, and they have come to the conclusion that he has been wilfully murdered by you. I therefore commit you to the next Assizes to be held at Liverpool, there to take your trial upon that charge.
The accused, who seemed to be dazed, made no reply, and was at once removed. She was dressed in deep mourning. She is to be brought up on remand before the magistrates on Wednesday next.
|
aaron flatt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
man thats a long post, no wonder nobody else has posted anything, they're probably still reading it |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Almost a year and a half ago Caz wrote:
"Did you know that a little hand-drawn card was found in Florie’s little house after she died? It is in the Trevor Christie Collection and is a childish drawing of a cat, with the words ‘Ha! Ha!’ underneath.
Quite an apt epitaph when you think about it."
I just saw this post after doing some trolling through the archives. Is this true, Caz ? And is there any of Flo's handwriting available ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Lets hope there is some of her handwriting available esp. if you are suggesting what i think you are suggesting.
Because if you are suggesting that, whilst not suggesting not to compare Flo's handwriting to the diary for claritys sake (in fact there are a few people's handwriting i wouldn't mind comparing if only examples were available but lets not go there) i would think there would be some things that would need to be explained.
But maybe thats not what you are suggesting and i am jumping the gun?
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
" if you are suggesting what i think you are suggesting. "
Hey Jenni - if one is willing to speculate that a certain journal-that-shall-not-be-named is indeed older than skeptics think, I'd put Flo and Flo's friends on a list of handwritings I'd like to check out. As we've said on another thread, someone has indeed done a job on Maybrick's reputation, and I'd have to think that Flo had ample reasons to want to sully the dead. She lived into the 1940s so it's not as if we have to insist on the journal-that-shall-not-be-named being Victorian.
Likely ? Nah. Interesting ? To me at least. As interesting as The Watch being sold by a man from the town that Flo's jury pool was chosen from. A random fact for the armchair detective....
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
I'd put Flo and Flo's friends on a list of handwritings I'd like to check out.
Don't be so coy! Which of Florence Maybrick's "friends" would you put on the list of suspects for this obviously modern fake?
As interesting as The Watch being sold by a man from the town that Flo's jury pool was chosen from.
I must have missed that Amazing Coincidence. Do you by any chance mean the county town, Lancaster? Astonishing!
The mind boggles at what is being suggested by this mention of the watch and Florence's jury. Would you care to explain what you are actually hinting at? Or is it just one of those glorious bits of suggestive innuendo, that melts into nonsense the minute anyone starts to question it?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Chris,
It's typical. It's how the game is played. And it is, of course, ridiculous.
But allowing faux-mysterious rhetorical questions and vaguely suggestive innuendo to take the place of (non-existent) evidence in the desperate hope that it might distract from the fact that a simple and common sense explanation accounts for all the textual problems in the book has become the only strategy left to those unwilling to admit the obvious.
It's a sign of desperation and it's why there is still no such thing as an "old hoax theory."
It's a joke here people -- a sad and desperate joke about an obviously modern fake. Please remember that as you read this sort of comic foolishness. There is no scholarship or responsible investigation happening here. Everyone is just pretending.
It's make-believe.
It's Diary World,
--John  |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 9:58 pm: |
|
"Which of Florence Maybrick's "friends" would you put on the list of suspects for this obviously modern fake?"
Define modern in this context. I'm skeptical that the Diary dates from the Victorian era but I also doubt the Barretts hoaxed it -- that leaves a lot of room .
Paul Begg wrote in "The Facts" : "...We are possibly looking at an old forgery, a con that was created but never used..." (p.417)
Folks that didn't care for the victim (James) belong on the list of suspects. Going to the trouble to create it but not use it is odd at the very least. It's also one of the reasons I don't believe the author was Jack the Ripper, either. The text says that he's going to confess everything to his wife, and I have a funny feeling that when Flo was sentenced to hang, she'd have taken that moment to bring the court up to speed with respect to Sir Jim's nocturnal hobby. (And for that matter, if it was being hoaxed at the time of the trial, I still think it would have been brought forward in a bid for clemency.)
So where does that leave me in terms of time frame for creation ? After Flo's trial, and before the Barretts got their mitts on it. Only about a hundred years to sift through....
Someone emailed me with the comment that Flo autographed the American edition of her book "My Fifteen Lost Years". Anyone with it have a scanner ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 4:18 am: |
|
Sir Robert
So no answer to any of my questions?
Par for the course ...
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1961
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
in fact there are a few people's handwriting i wouldn't mind comparing if only examples were available but lets not go there
Why not go there? Handwriting examples of the following have been published to my knowledge:
Mike Barrett (Final Chapter)
Tony Devereux (Casebook and Ripper Diary)
Anne Graham (Ripper Diary)
Billy Graham (ditto)
Gerard Kane (ditto)
Who else's handwriting would you like to be able to compare with the diary, assuming none of the above tickles your fancy?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Say, isn't there one really important name left off of Caroline's list?
I know his handwriting is available.
I know some of it has even been published.
It is, of course, very relevant to the case.
And yet she fails to include him.
Just an unconscious slip, no doubt.
Who?
You know, the guy that supposedly wrote the thing....
Just a reminder,
--John
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Caroline,
why not go there? Because the subject of this thread is in fact the death of James and Florries son! And you know how I get about these things!?
But hey,
I didn't say none of those people were the one's i was thinking of. i didn't mean my own comparison, i meant a proper comparison for which of course a proper actual example, not a copy is the best way of doping things. Since i don't happen to have the person or people in questions handwriting freely available - well you get the idea, i assume
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1974
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I think Maybrick was the expert on the best way of doping things. 
You did say that you wouldn't mind comparing a few people's handwriting if only examples were available, so I didn't realise you meant that if only you could obtain original examples, you would be able to get an expert to do the comparisons for you.
I may be wrong, but I think that professional document examiners do often work with photocopies. But of course, if you are serious about this, you can find out.
Either way, if you can arrange a professional comparison, I could certainly try to help you obtain an original or two. Obviously I can't help with Kane originals, because we haven't managed to discover their whereabouts.
Bear in mind, though, that RJ's theory is that the penman is a friend of Mike's, so not anyone yet named. There is zero evidence that Gerard Kane and Mike Barrett knew of each other's existence in 1992. So if their association has had to be such a closely-guarded secret, and if Kane really held the guilty pen, wild horses wouldn't have dragged a handwriting sample out of him, never mind a stranger on the doorstep. If Kane did it, it should have been as good as a confession to volunteer that sample. But it wasn't - and that should tell you something.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Caroline tells us that,
"RJ's theory is that the penman is a friend of Mike's, so not anyone yet named."
RJ,
Is this true? Is this sentence an accurate and precise summary of your theory?
Interested,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Caz - it is my understanding that "Bones" Thomas was a detective connected with Scotland Yard's Organized Crime Squad, and that he compared the Barretts' handwriting with that of the Diary. Is that correct ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1977
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
I don't know, Sir Robert. But if the police didn't compare their handwriting with the diary, I'm not sure how they could reasonably have concluded that they didn't have enough evidence to proceed with their fraud investigation. It sounds like a rather basic procedure, doesn't it, if you have the prime suspect for forgery in front of you?
If Mike's or Anne's or Tony's or Billy's writing had looked anything like the diary, I wonder if we'd ever have had the pleasure of posting here.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on August 03, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
"I don't know, Sir Robert. But if the police didn't compare their handwriting with the diary, I'm not sure how they could reasonably have concluded that they didn't have enough evidence to proceed with their fraud investigation."
I have not had the pleasure of speaking directly to "Bones" Thomas, but if you can track him down, supposedly he was the fellow that did Scotland Yard's handwriting analysis. I don't think it is a giant leap of faith to infer he concluded that he didn't have a match, as it would have been 'game over' then and there.
Which would have been a mercy....
Anyhow, while I've got you, lemme ask another question. Has the Diary ever been fingerprinted ? Unless the hoaxer used rubber gloves, I'd have to think his or her prints would be on every page.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
So has anyone ever professionally compared Mike's and Anne's handwriting to the diary or not?
We're not just working on vague and uneducated assumptions here, are we?
I hope not,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2769
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 6:57 am: |
|
Caroline,
its so endearing when you pick up on my typos...
Jenni
"Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1988
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Jenni,
It's so endearing - It's
Hi All,
I've always felt that if anyone out there seriously thought there was a cat in hell's chance that Mike or Anne's handwriting is in the diary, they would have put their money where their mouth was an awfully long time ago and got some professional analyses done.
But as it is, I can't imagine why anyone would now pay out a single penny to confirm what even Melvin Harris (my new role model) knew. If the diary writing didn't look even less like either of the Barretts' than James Maybrick's, maybe someone somewhere would have had a shot at it by now.
It's only worth testing reasonable hypotheses. No one would seriously suggest that Mike's cat should be tested to see if it has traces of pre-1992 Diamine on its paws, but to me there's not a lot of difference.
Love,
Caz
X |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
"if anyone out there seriously thought there was a cat in hell's chance that Mike or Anne's handwriting is in the diary"
We know that at some point in time both Scotland Yard and the Sunday Times would have entertained precisely those thoughts, and would not have hesitated to nail either or both of them to the wall.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
So does this mean that neither Mike's nor Anne's handwriting has ever been professionally compared to the handwriting in the diary?
Or has it?
I'm confused.
If it hasn't, then apparently the assumption that the writing is neither of their's turns out to be just a vague and general feeling of some sort.
Interesting, indeed.
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Caroline,
exactly, it is. And you know what else is endearing. Never blooming mind!
John, Robert,
has Anne's and Mike's handwriting been compared to the diary?
Jenni |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2792
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
I've always felt that if anyone out there seriously thought there was a cat in hell's chance that Mike or Anne's handwriting is in the diary, they would have put their money where their mouth was an awfully long time ago and got some professional analyses done.
But as it is, I can't imagine why anyone would now pay out a single penny to confirm what even Melvin Harris (my new role model) knew. If the diary writing didn't look even less like either of the Barretts' than James Maybrick's, maybe someone somewhere would have had a shot at it by now.
No offence intended towards Harris when I say, was he a expert on handwriting now?
I'd like to put my money where my mouth is (if i had any) but that would involve having actual copies of the handwriting involved. I dont know a lot about it but my understanding was copies plural would be most helpful?
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 504
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
"has Anne's and Mike's handwriting been compared to the diary? "
"Bones" Thomas of Scotland Yard was apparently the gentleman who took handwriting samples from the dynamic duo. To be clear -- I have not spoken directly to him, but to a researcher that has. (And no, it's not Caz. Not that I would doubt her, but to be as clear as I can be.)
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
And were they ever professionally analysed or not?
Still asking,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
It would appear the clock is chiming midnight.
"Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when everyone has to throw off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked? Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this? Or are you not terrified by it? I have seen men in real life who so long deceived others that at last their true nature could not reveal itself; I have seen men who played hide and seek so long that at last in madness they disgustingly obtruded upon others their secret thoughts which hitherto they had proudly concealed."
Søren Kierkegaard -- From Either/Or
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
So were Anne's and Mike's handwriting samples ever professionally compared to the handwriting in the diary or not?
I had always assumed they were, but now it seems no one knows for sure whether the collected samples were ever thoroughly analysed.
Interesting,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1990
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Re fingerprinting, I suppose that would have been an excellent idea back in April 1992, except that even then, several hands would have been over the pages, including those of the Barretts (at least by the time their typed transcript was handed over), Doreen, Shirley, and whoever else had already been asked to have a butcher's. And since we don't know how many more people may have looked at it before Mike brought it to London, and in what circumstances, I should imagine it would take some doing to match up each set with a known living person and then to judge who, if any of them, actually wrote it.
Now it would be an impossible task, I should imagine, as you'd have to eliminate so many people who have examined the document over the years.
Talking of which, I believe that forensic handwriting examiner, Sue Iremonger, has seen examples of Mike's, and possibly Anne's handwriting, although I don't think she was commissioned to compare them with the diary. She was apparently fascinated by the diary, yet if she noticed any potential similarity with the Barretts' writing, she never remarked on it.
Once again, if anyone seriously thinks their money would be well-spent commissioning Sue or anyone else to look for such similarities, that's up to them.
Anyone on the internet can come up with some unevidenced, untested crackpot hypothesis. But when they whinge because no one immediately says, "What a good idea, sod the mortgage, the school fees and eating this month - I'll use my hard-earned cash to get Sue Iremonger to compare Mike's writing with the diary, just so I can see her face when she bursts out laughing", I can't get too worked up about it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Anyone on the internet can come up with some unevidenced, untested crackpot hypothesis. But when they whinge because no one immediately says, "What a good idea, sod the mortgage, the school fees and eating this month ...
The ludicrous lengths some people will go to, to avoid answering a simple question!
Or, perhaps, to avoid saying "I don't know".
Chris Phillips
PS I thought you said you were going to give us a break.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
So were Anne's and Mike's handwriting samples ever professionally compared to the handwriting in the diary or not?
I had always assumed they were, but now it seems no one knows for sure whether the collected samples were ever thoroughly analysed.
Interesting,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2799
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
Its not Mike Barrett's handwriting I'm particularly concerned with myself - but of course that said. I guess it would have been checked at some point. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1998
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
We have been arguing for years here about whether Shirley or Feldy should have spent some of their research money on analyses of the Barretts' handwriting.
Yet no one condemns the people who suspected Gerard Kane enough to obtain his handwriting, but evidently not enough to have it analysed. That was an utter shambles that has left Kane in a state of limbo, neither eliminated nor accused.
No one questions why on earth a Liverpudlian, traceable via a dead acquaintance of Mike (who was also brought into the story by Mike), would willingly write that diary in a hand that is similar to his own, let alone volunteer a sample to a stranger on his doorstep long after the diary had been declared a modern hoax in the press.
And ok, the Barretts can blame themselves for the suspicions against them, but no one can say their handwriting remotely resembles the diary. So once again we have yet to hear a decent, verifiable theory about the penman's identity. And if anyone has one, they have yet to test it and declare the result.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on August 09, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1658
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
So apparently, the same discussion is now taking place on two threads.
And in neither of them has anyone been willing or able to give a simple and direct answer to two obvious questions.
Since the other thread's in Pub Talk and the discussion will soon vanish, I'll repost those simple questions here, in the vague and naive hope that someone will actually answer them.
1.) Has Kane's or Mike's or Anne's or anyone's handwriting ever been professionally compared to the writing in the diary?
2.) And if so, has anyone seen the specific results or know where they can be found?
As far as I can figure it, there are only three possible answers:
"Yes, they have been, and the results were..."
"No, they have not been."
"I don't know."
I don't know. Does anyone?
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2812
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
I am not a handwriting expert so I wouldnt like to comment on who's writing does or does not resemble it. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2813
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
ps I don't know John!!
i should make that clear knowing what you are like!! |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Jenni - I found this trawling through the detritus of old posts :
"Meantime, Kane had been interviewed by Det Sgt Thomas of Scotland Yard who concluded that Kane's handwriting and that of the diarist weren't the same – similarities were a "strange coincidence" – and I believe he also dismissed any thought of Kane's involvement."
It seems to me that one way to cast some light on all this is to interview "Bones" if he has retired from the police force. None of us are in a position to know exactly what Thomas did or did not do within Scotland Yard with the handwriting samples he obtained from all the principal suspects.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Thanks. At least someone here has offered an honest and simple answer.
And I think Sir Robert has just said "I don't know" as well. Although, with him it's not always easy to tell.
By the way, anyone know who he's quoting?
Perhaps he'll tell us. Perhaps not.
Could this be deja vu all over again?
And I suppose Caroline doesn't know either? If not, that makes a total of no one. It's beginning to seem as if no one here knows whether Kane's or Mike's or Anne's or anyone's handwriting has ever been professionally compared to the diary.
It's always very interesting to learn just what we actually do know around here and what we don't.
Not really surprised,
--John
|
Annette
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
I wonder if anyone has had any luck, by any chance, in regards to Gladys Evelyn Fuller (Maybrick), and what became of her, who she married etc? Whilst Im aware of the circumstances surrounding Bobo's death, Id be very interested if anyone had any info on Gladys at all? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
