|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 12, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Maybrick, James:
Archive through April 12, 1999
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 05 April 1999 - 11:32 am |        | Friends of Florrie:
Maybe she did it, maybe she didn't. The jury thought yes; the Home Secretary apparently thought it safer to commute the death sentence (which was, I believe, mandatory.) The phrase about Florrie "daring to go her own way" is uncertain and I'd be interested to know what is meant by it. Florrie was no romantic heroine: she was as guilty of adultery as her husband. Also, as far as I know, the only "evidence" of James being with prostitutes after his marriage is in the infamous diary.
If Victorians did "have a certain obsession with wives taking poisonous revenge on the double standards of their menfolk." then perhaps it was because a fair number of wives actually were accused of poisoning their husbands/lovers. It's much more romantic to see Florrie as the innocent victim of a repressive masculinist society but it's also simplistic. Seeing as how the evidence was pretty much against her, Florrie was lucky not to have swung.
Now if you were persistent and right, that might bother me. As it is, no worries cobber.
Peter |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 05 April 1999 - 11:34 am | | Karoline:
You're right, we do need to arrive at a consensus about the Maybrick case and to start with, I think we must agree that what Shirley and Feldy say about the case is not necesarily correct. Their interest is to show JM as a bestial wife-beating serial killer and FM as a loving, occasionally mistaken victim of injustice. This, as you say is the myth: can we get close to the reality?
My comments on the points you raise are: 1/ JM's symptoms did resemble acute arsenic poisoning but not, I believe gradual cumulative poisoning. 2 and 3/ there was arsenic in items that were under FM's control. There was a bottle of weak arsenic solution, the meat-juice, the packet in her trunk. Importantly, there was arsenic in the medicines JM took where, according to the doctor's prescriptions and the chemists' testimony there should have been none. There was arsenic in these medicine bottles which were kept at the house but when medicines that JM kept at his office were tested, there was no arsenic found.There was a jug containing "revalanta" which JM's cook prepared for him and which he drank for lunch at his office. Arsenic was found in this. And 4/ there is no doubt that FM soaked fly-papers supposedly for cosmetic reasons and there is also no doubt that enough arsenic could be recovered this way to make a fatal dose for a human.
The final mystery is, of course, so much arsenic in the house and so little in the body. A possible answer is the unreliability as to quantity of the then test for arsenic which could identify the presence of the poison but was very inaccurate about the amount. This could of course work both ways: JM might have had a lot of arsenic in him or very little.
In Seddon's case 2 grains of arsenic was found in Miss Barrow. I don't know whether in this case or in the Maybrick case tests of nails and hair were done. Maybe someone can enlighten me on this. There is evidence that he took medicines containing strychnine, quinine and arsenic but the quantities involved seem uncertain. We do need some expert assistance here.
Perhaps the only certain way to solve this is to dig up James and test him.
Peter. |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 03:28 am | | Dela,
I must have missed your long post to me. Where was it? I just got a short bit about Aussie footy!
Love,
Caroline (absolutely no relation to Karoline, to whom you did send a long post).
Peter,
I'd love to hear whether you think there have ever ever ever been any miscarriages of justice where people have been wrongly convicted. If you are anything like my father, they could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a thick felt tip pen!
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 08:16 am | | Sorry Caroline and Karoline,
Somehow I typed C instead of K. Perhaps I'll just have to write a long message to you, Caroline. I'm just all Floried out at the moment. This discussion is tempting me to go back and read the trial - although it's not going to make me change my mind on it. Anyway, I don't think that stating that you believe that someone was wrongly convicted means that you have some romantic notion of them.
Dela |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 12:30 pm | | Absolutely Dela.
No romantic notions at all, regarding Florie, from this poster at least. Just 'facks' as Peter calls 'em. I didn't mean I was expecting a long post from you, I just got the heebyjeebies at the thought of you mixing us up! (No offence to anyone.)
Seeya,
Caz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 12:56 pm | | Caroline:
I was in the middle of composing a nice long list of cases where I think the legal system failed and another longer list where the villain got away with it when I thought: "to Hell with it!" If I wrote it you wouldn't read it: you'd be perfectly happy in your idea that because I suspect that FM actuall killed her husband and got away lightly that I automatically defend the law on every possible occasion.
And to clear up a couple of confusions that you seem to have: the sentence about: "the fack's, ma'am" is, as you should know, a quote from Dragnet and ...but I was going to explain my point about your very first posting, but I suspect we don't want to get into that, do we? |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 02:00 pm | | OH Caroline,
have you no idea how TEDIOUS your perpetual sniping at me is?
Look - for the last time. I don't want to argue with you. I'm sure you're much more interesting, attractive, intelligent and successful than me. You're wonderful, and I'm a schmuck. But, you've got your 'unusual theories' board for gossip and sniping on. Don't start all that crap here as well.
On second thoughts, carry on. This was an interesting discussion that was going somewhere, but you know, suddenly I've lost heart.
Go on tell everyone about your life, so they can look on and envy you. I'll just buy myself a book about Maybrick and start from there. I've got a screenplay to write anyway.
But just a word of warning - I'm not the only one here who thinks things are getting very tedious. One or two might even tell you so.
Chris - thanks for the letter from C. Russell's son. I was going to make some comments, but maybe I'll Email you or something
regards to all
Karoline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 06 April 1999 - 09:17 pm | | Now, now people - let's not let personalities get in the way and ruin some good discussion.
Dela |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 02:58 am | | Just a few points about arsenic.
A Swedish chemist, Karl Wilhelm Sheele first pioneered a method of identifying
arsenic by analytical means in the 1770,s, however it wasn't until 1836 that James
Marsh published a paper detailing a method for converting arsenic traces in body
tissue and body fluids. This was a fairly accurate method and could detect amounts
as small as one fiftieth of a milligram. The principals of the Marsh test are still used
today although the Reinsch and Gutzeit Tests are more reliable and easier to conduct.
Molly Whittington Egan probably knows as much about arsenic as anyone.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Caroline
Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 04:18 am | | Thanks Peter and Karoline.
I'll wait for the others to tell me where I'm going wrong, if it's all the same to you.
Glad I was wrong about your views on justice, Peter. And why would you worry about what I would read of yours? Sorry I've never heard of Dragnet, wasn't in my O level syllabus obviously.
Karoline, why do you think I'm sniping at you? I have never ever wanted to be anyone other than who I am, that's all, honestly. Obviously I didn't want my posts to get muddled with ANYONE else's because we all say such different things. It is ESSENTIAL to know who we are talking to on this very complex subject.
And, on the personal stuff, please, please get it into your head that no one on God's earth need envy me. They have absolutely no grounds at all. I have none of the qualities you mention, I am your quintessential Mrs Average, but a very contented one, if that is what bugs you. You would not like to be me. Just get on with being yourself and write that screenplay. Now THAT would make me really envious of you if it's a goodun.
Love to ALL (REALLY),
Caz |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 09:10 am | | Thanks Bob,
If I recall correctly the test used to detect arsenic in the Maybrick case was Reinsch's test.
Dela |
Author: Rotter
Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 09:41 pm | | Here's some arsenic links for you:
http://www.grand-illusions.com/napol2.htm
http://hna.ffh.vic.gov.au/phb/alerts/arsenic.htm
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic42.htm |
Author: Julian
Wednesday, 07 April 1999 - 10:32 pm | | G'day Dela,
Isn't Reinsch's a Pilsner or Lager?
Jules |
Author: Dekker Falconetti
Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 01:16 am | | | I have had no trouble finding resources with information about arsenic poisoning, but I have found next to nothing about arsenic addiction...anyone have any ideas about where I can look? |
Author: Rotter
Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 05:09 am | | Isak Dinesen was a long term arsenic addict, due to her fear of getting syphilis from her promiscuous husband. The story is told in the book: Out of Isak Dinesen: Karen Blixen's Untold Story, by Linda Donelson. Iowa City,IA: Coulsong, 1998.
The appendix gives her medical history (the author is a doctor) and might be useful. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 08:21 am | | G'day Jules,
Geez mate, and I thought *I* was a beer geek. Pilsner *is* a lager, and Reinsch's is a weissbier.
Brewing and judging since 1987,
Jim |
Author: Julian
Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 05:39 pm | | G'day Jim,
Strangly enough mate, Pilsner is the only beer I can't guzzle, dunno what's in it but. Now give me a nice Bitter and I'm a happy man. I've tried some different beers, lagers, guinesses, stouts from other countries but you still can't beat an Aussie Victorian Bitter. I'll check out if we're allowed to send the stuff overseas and if we can I'll shout anyone a can who wants one. (••••, did I really say that?)
Arsenic. Bloody nasty stuff that. Cream used it to kill his prostitute victims. Takes a while to die, and during this time you suffer hallucinations, the body goes into spasms, you feel as if you're suffocating, yadda, yadda, yadda. Smother me with kisses when it's my turn to go, but arsenic? no thanks.
Jules |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 09 April 1999 - 03:37 pm | | G'day Jules,
Maybe not so strange mate, I can't hack more than a couple of Pilsner Urquells at a sitting, but I can drink bitter with the best of them. Spent lots o' time in English pubs proving it :-)
ObRipperContent:
I still haven't figured out who the Ripper was.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Edana
Monday, 12 April 1999 - 07:51 am | | Hi Jules, Jim. Hey Jim, I'm a brewer too, at least that is I have brewed some batches in the past. I am sad when there is no burbling carboy in my kitchen. I like most beers, although lately I can't drink it because of my no-carb diet.
Oh and to bring this discussion on topic...do you think that JTR was a beer drinker? What about that guy who was carrying a pail with him, one of Mary Kelly's clients?
Edana |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 12 April 1999 - 11:10 am | | Hi all,
I've answered some posts (Hanky Panky etc.) on another topic, so no need to repeat.(K, you're still wrong about me. Think of the difference between 'Violence' and 'Violent')
To return to Flo again. As far as I can ascertain, Levy's words about Matthews was a fairly good representation of what he, Matthews, said, and, much more to the point, did.
Just to be clear again, my point was that Flo was reprieved because of grave doubts, not niggling uncertaincies. The death sentence was 'in Dubio' and it arose from a murder charge, not an attempted murder charge. Any further punishment of any sort could only be rightfully levied by having Flo charged with a lesser crime.
To be found guilty of murder then, and into our times, obliged the death sentence. Only when very special circumstances spoke for commuting to life were the villians saved fron the noose, although guilty. Flo was evidently not guilty of murder or she would have hanged. There were no circumstances that could have saved her like a very violent husband, fear for her life etc.
So, very simply, if Flo tried to bump him off or not, she was eventually found to be not guilty of murder beyond resonable doubt. Any other punishment needed a new charge, because the law demands that you have the right to defend yourself as charged, not 'well it's a bit like the other so that will do.'
Today this problem is often got around by alternative charges viz. 'Charged with first degree murder, alternatively charged with second degree murder)'
I do not claim that Flo didn't try to kill James, even when I don't think she did. She should have subsequently been charged with attempted murder if it was thought that she had tried, but she wasn't. She could have been. She stood 'in peril' of a charge of murder and could not be recharged with that, but another were absolutely possible.
I still say 'poor Flo'
Best regards to all
Bob |
|
|
|
|
