|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Maybrick, James
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Maybrick, James
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 05:52 pm |        | | Peter; You remind me of a preacher friend of mine.It is said that he cannot be cornored.They put it this way--If you put him in a square room, before he leaves it he will make a silo out of it.That takes some doing. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:39 pm | | It takes some doing!
I put it down to my stubborn streak.
 |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 07:12 pm | | Hi Peter,
I have read everything Paul F. has written about the diary that was discussed in the papers in 1889. I have also gone back and read the actual newspaper reports of the time in their entirety, where I could find them (this question interested me a while back). I have also traced the references to this earlier diary through the various sources both at the time and since, including what Florie's mom has written.
And so I really am looking forward to anything you might care to say about the diary mentioned in the papers at that time possibly being the diary Mike Barrett brought forward.
If you seriously want to argue that, please do. I will wait and watch, happily.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 07:49 am | | Harry,
English IS a difficult language isn't it? Working out subjects and objects, what's in parentheses and what's not and all that...
RJ (can you spell me name right please?),
this should probably move boards, but...
Okay, Abberline later mentions at least three possible stories...'one of the highest', the wombs and Chapman. Not sure how much we can take from that.
Yes, in looking at Tumblety there has to be some truncation of the number of victims, because we know he couldn't have done anyone past MJK (RIP), so already anyone putting him forward is ignoring McKenzie (RIP), Mylett (RIP)and so on. I was following the book, and we know that T. was only in London for a short amount of time, so the theory necessarily limits the potential number of victims; we are limited to Tabram (RIP) onwards until MJK. As you might have read on other boards, I don't have any pre-conceived notion on the number of victims, am perfectly able to provide arguments for inclusion or exclusion of anywhere from 3-10 of the poor ladies in question. Here, the limiting is done by his presence or otherwise.
So we have a potential six victims, to none of whom is T. in any way connected. Thus, we have to have a motive for the murders, and Evans/Gainey present us with the 'womb' story. We know however that Tabram (who I don't think E/G have as a victim, BCBW), Nichols (RIP), MJK (RIP), Stride (RIP) had their wombs in place (or at least not removed), which TO ME suggests the majority of potential victims don't fall under this hypothesis. And there doesn't seem to be another. It's for this reason that press and Police at the time abandoned the Wynne Baxter theory.
Yes, they could have been wrong, in that just three of the victims (Nichols, Chapman (RIP) and Eddowes (RIP)) were killed by the same person, even though one of those was still left with her womb. But then you're starting to let the hypothesis rule the evidence.
Yes, he was arrested on suspicion, and was, uhhr, released...so that adds him to a long list of those investigated. It's more evidence than against Maybrick, but that ain't saying much.
As for Evans 'abandoning MJK', sorry but you're plain wrong. On the recent JtR ITV documentary he quite clearly questioned whether MJK was one of the victims. The postscript to the current edition mentions the idea that T. was bailed (something I can accept, as it happens) and has a very interesting piece of writing on whether ripperology has been warped by the teleological progression towards MJK (something with which I am in full agreement). The next step, if you want to stick with T., is to suggest MJK was murdered by A.N.Other, which Evans is now clearly doing (unless his evidence was taken out of context of course). It's also something that is necessitated by the 'womb' argument.
Completely agree about never knowing who the Whitechapel Murderer was, but I have (as you can tell) a rather different ranking to you. I don't think E/G have even proved that T. was 'the lodger'; this strikes me as being on the same level as some of the suppositions made about Maybrick.
And absolutely and completely agree with your last para. I was not at all saying that we should abandon the POlice suspects but PRECISELY BECAUSE we don't know the real reasons why they were suspected, and that we can't take evidence from two different Police sources as cumulative, we also have to look elsewhere. Sometimes I think we don't use our own experience (of miscarriages of justice, of Police misleading themselves) to analyse the usefulness of this evidence. Which is why the Littlechild letter, thirty years after the case may not be as important as E/G have it!
And do you really think that opening chapter, on Lincoln, is anything other thahn a disingenuous attempt to influence the reader about what a strange man T. was? Oh, and a way of selling to the American market, 'natch.
Peter,
haven't you been through the argument with John over the Florrie diaries already? Don't you ever suffer from deja vu??
Vaughan |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 10:10 am | | Hi Vaughan,
All good points IMHO.
Hi RJ,
Assuming Tumblety was out on the streets, free to kill Mary Kelly on 9th November, and assuming he did so, despite already being in trouble with the police, is it reasonable that he would have gone to all the time and trouble of destroying her body in that way, and at that risky time, then left her womb at the scene - if that was his supposed target and motive for killing in the first place?
Or are you just saying all doors are open because
a) he was very possibly free to kill Mary, but
b) he very possibly didn't kill her anyway, and
c) even if he did, maybe he had other motives besides enlarging his womb collection by DIY harvesting techniques?
In other words, the case against him is reasonable whichever way we look at the evidence?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:45 am | | Vaughan--Hello. This is in response to your remarks about Tumblety, i'll repeat this post on the appropriate board; but first off, let me apologise for misspelling your name earlier.
I think we have some common ground, but I do disagree with a number of your points.
I think your claim about Abberline's 'three possible stories' [implying muddled thinking?] and how they might reflect what the police thought of the 'American doctor' story is quite debateable. I certainly don't believe Abberline said three different things. It's highly improbable, for instance, that Abberline ever said anything about the Ripper being the 'highest in the land'. This is merely an unconfirmed story by the writer Nigel Morland. [As the Casebook puts it: "Morland claimed that Abberline told him that the case was shut and that "I've given my word to keep my mouth permanently closed about it." Abberline went on to say that "I know and my superiors know certain facts."and that the Ripper "...wasn't a butcher, Yid or foreign skipper...you'd have to look for him not at the bottom of London society at the time but a long way up." Given Abberline's other known statements about the case this should be treated with considerable scepticism and caution"] In other words, this is nothing more than a wild story that goes completely counter to the statements made by Abberline himself in the Pall Mall Gazette.
So perhaps we are now down to two statements.
But, as for Chapman & the American doctor story---this is part of the same statement! [The Pall Mall Gazetter article, again]. So sorry, but I'd say your implications are wrong. Abberline's suggestion was that Chapman went out & attempted to supply the wombs to the American doctor. So it's still quite clear that Abberline was taking the American doctor story seriously----and fitted his suspect to his theory of motive. Thus, I still disagree with the too-sweeping statement that the police "disregarded" the story. But let me be clear. I'm not saying the 'womb' theory is correct, nor am I saying that this necessarily has anything whatsoever to do with the suspicions against Tumblety. I'm just saying that we don't know that it was disregarded, and, it is certainly completely obvious that it wasn't by Abberline.
Next you write: "Yes, he was arrested on suspicion, and was, uhhr, released...so that adds him to a long list of those investigated. It's more evidence than against Maybrick, but that ain't saying much"
Several things I'd say here. First, I think it is incautious to equate Tumblety with the many men who were picked up on suspicion and immediately released. The police had arrested Tumblety more than once during the Whitechapel scare[perhaps as many as three times] and they had a large dossier on him at Scotland Yard. They were still in contact with two American police departments after he was given bail. Certainly true with the S.F. police department. So it is certainly not true that the police had lost interest in him; Littlechild's statement makes that plain enough. The interest was on-going. If this makes him about on par with Maybrick, a cotton broker in Liverpool, then I think I have to shrug and chuckle.
By the way, I should have been a little more specific about my comment about the October police interest in Tumblety. I wasn't actually claiming that Evans & Gainey had proven that Tumblety was 'the lodger.' I was actually referring to the America-by-way-of-Liverpool man that was known for 'slumming' as well as for staying in first-class hotels--the man that had left his letters and pornography in his hotel room. [This is the guy Paul Feldman tries to turn into 'Mibrac']. I can't by any stretch of the imagination supply proof that this is Tumblety. But I think there is a strong probability that it was, and I perhaps I'll elaborate on my reasons at a later date.
Sometimes I think we don't use our own experience (of miscarriages of justice, of Police misleading themselves) to analyse the usefulness of this evidence. Which is why the Littlechild letter, thirty years after the case may not be as important as E/G have it!
Well, I of course I agree with this to some extent. But don't we also know of countless examples of the police questioning and releasing the guilty party during an investigation? Indeed, isn't this quite common? [We'll have to await the outcome of the Green River Killer trial in the U.S. to see if we'll soon have another example]. 'It might not be important' is exactly right. It might be important is also exactly right. But I'd have to say that Littlechild's opinion is certainly much more important than the Maybrick diary. But yes, I certainly think it is valid for you to look elsewhere.... there's just no guarantee that this won't mean that you'll be looking in the wrong direction.
Your remark about Evans & Gainey abandoning Kelly is, I still think, an unfair assessment, and I don't see where I am 'wrong'. Words have connotations as well as denotations. 'Abandoning' gives a rather sleazy motive of fitting the evidence to fit the suspect. But I don't read it that way at all. In their appendix, Evans & Gainey discuss at some length the very interesting and intelligent speculations of Alex Chisholm that the 'Ripper' might have been in large part, a product of the media. The idea is a legitimate one, and I don't see that they abandoned Kelly in an off-hand manner in order to make Tumblety more palatable. Besides, I still see a contradiction in your argument. Evans & Gainey argue that Tumblety was out on bail on the 9th; so doesn't this make your criticism rather moot?
Again, I think it is legitimate to 'look elsewhere'. I just am skeptical that anyone will be able to take the existing evidence and offer a more convincing suspect than those that rely on the frustratingly vague and [probably unknowable] suspicions of Anderson, Littlechild, or Macnaghten.
Caz--Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. "The case against him is reasonable whichever way we look at the evidence, because the evidence is insufficient to rule out Littlechild's suspicions.
It's not a very popular answer, I imagine. But I think the Whitechapel crimes are now out of the hands of the detectives and the lawyers, and in the hands of the historians. There's no crime scenes, no foresenisc evidence, no witnesses to question. One isn't going to look at the evidence and locate the murderer. One is going to dig through mountains of obscure files, newspaper reports, census numbers and old letters and rumors and find a probable suspect--and then do the very things that Vaughan finds so illegitimate...see if the he can be fitted to the evidence. And...yes!... the case finally compiled is going to be fairly shoddy and open to attacks on all sides. But it won't mean that the author is wrong. Not very satisfactory situation, I admit, but it is the reality of 114 years of ravaging time. Cheers, RP |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 01:22 pm | | John
So you think there were two diaries that came out of Battlecrease in 1889?
Of course you don't. Paul doesn't make a very strong argument that the 1889 diary is the same one we have today, that is he doesn't insist that it must be the same. What I am trying to say is that he doesn't shout it from the rooftops, nevertheless the inference is there and until I have re-read the relevant sections I do not intend to comment on it because I do not fancy being 'Omlorised'.
Later
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 06:49 pm | | Hi Peter,
Smart move. I do know something about this one. It's a good thing Paul doesn't insist. And "the relevant sections" in his book are a real problem.
But I'll wait. I'll be here.
--John |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 04:19 am | | Vaughn,
It is not that the English language is difficult,it is that so many make it appear so.
I would think that quite a few posters,and others that just read the posts,have had little litery training,and find some words and phrases difficult to understand.
Ivors style is ideal.Forceful and direct it may sometimes be,but the words are clear and precise.No long winded words or indirect phrasing,yet the meanings needs no interpretation.
Maybe prison teaches something that colledge never could.
Harry. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 08:47 am | | John
Perhaps if you were to list your objections to the argument that the 1889 diary could be the same one we have today then I would have some idea where you are coming from with this. Would you do that?
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 09:31 am | | Hi Peter,
Nah. I'll wait.
Trust me, Peter, there is no way it could be the one you and I have been reading.
Bye,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 12:40 pm | | Trust me? I don't think we can trust anyone in this debate, can we?
As I said before I don't really have an opinion on the subject until I have researched it more, but I don't think it would harm the credibility of James' diary being genuine even if it isn't the one that was being touted around the newspapers in 1889. It is another interesting angle to the debate though.
Do you play chess, John? I think you do.
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 04:56 pm | | Hi Peter,
Haven't played chess since jr. high school (my early teens). Play golf, though. Shot a 77 today and won a few bucks for beer.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 11:45 am | | Hi John
Went to a driving range one time. How on earth do you manage to hit that little white ball? Great exercise for the abs though, with the amount of times that I missed.
I wonder if James Maybrick ever played cricket?
Regards
Peter |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 06:11 am | | Hi Peter,
James Maybrick played a round, just like his wife.
But his was just par for the course, while hers marred the course of justice.
Love,
Caz |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 04:29 pm | | | Thats the part I don't understand. If Florie was into burning the candle at both ends, why did she get so undignant when she found out about James.She was indignant and cut him off at the trough.Her indignation was believable enough to get some kind of response from James.The men's gossip about Florie which went on at the exchange-There is not a man alive who doesn't make up all kinds of tales about the escapades of flirtatious and forward women.To their minds that was all that was on Flory's or any other woman -sex with many partners. You know as well as I do that men think women have nothing else on their minds, while that usually is the farthest thing from their minds. How much can you depend of the gossip at the club or exchange?That misconception about women was more evident in Victorian times than now,and now its pretty prevalent. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 05:45 am | | Happens all the time I guess David, with both sexes. One will justify their own straying but if their partner does it, all hell breaks loose.
I'm not sure we can assume very much about the frequency or number of Florie and James' flirtations and infidelities, or what caused them (apart from lack of self-restraint that is). All we know is that they both indulged at some point.
And once is enough to condemn, especially in Victorian times, and when it was a wife and mother who could resist anything but temptation.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 10:31 am | | Hi, David and Caz:
I would suggest that the gossip about Florie, whether it was true or not, was set up by the fact that she was a pretty young woman twenty-four years younger than her husband.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 03:43 pm | | Hi Chris
I'll bet you're glad to hear that Fergie is staying for another couple of seasons.
I don't think Florie was as discreet as she liked to think she was. She trusted Yapp with her letters, that ain't very discreet. She walked arm in arm with Brierley at Aintree, that ain't very discreet. She kept love letters from three men in her own room. Hmmmm. Was the woman just thick?
Later
Peter |
Author: TS Simmons
Thursday, 21 February 2002 - 08:20 pm | | | Poor James. The Liverpool cotton merchant wasn't even CLOSE to being Jack The Ripper. The diary is an inaccurate forgery. His descendants will probably be hounded for years to come because of these unfounded accusations. |
Author: diggerbarnes1
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 06:28 pm | | | Where has this watch come from that is suppose to have all the initials of all the victims scratched onto the back, plus the message i'am Jack.a fella brought it onto the telly in that trial of jtr. |
Author: Otto K. Gross
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 09:26 pm | | Hi,
I just posted something regarding James as Jack under "Beyond Whitechapel - other crimes: The Texas Ripper". I wasn't sure which heading I should post this. I originally had written much of what was posted as part of conversations in Pub Talk. So, Maybrick apostles and opponents alike, please check it and ....I may regret this but....."Comments"?
Otto |
Author: Billy Markland
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 12:03 pm | | Some background material re: Mrs. Maybrick's trial, from the U.S. State Department. These are the first references I have discovered in 4 rolls of microfilm of any of the players in the White Chapel mystery.
Billy
Lincoln to Blaine re: Mrs. Maybrick 8/24/1889
Dispatches from U.S. Ministers to Great Britain
National Archives & Records Administration
M0030 roll 155 frame 521
Transcribed by Billy Markland
No. 66
Legation of the United States
London, August 24, 1889
Sir,
I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of the translation of your cipher telegram, dated Bar Harbor, and received by me on the 22nd instant. It was found impossible to translate the cipher word, twice used, indicating the person whose sentence was the subject of the instruction, but having no doubt under all the circumstances I assumed that Mrs. Maybrick was indicated, and at once had an interview with Lord Salisbury and gave him the information and assurances substantially in accordance with your instructions.
His Lordship at once replied that the subject had been anxiously considered, and that he believed he could say that the death sentence would not be executed, as all the medical evidence attainable left a reasonable doubt as to the death having been caused by the arsenic administered by Mrs. Maybrick with the purpose – as to which no doubt was held – of causing death.
With the permission of Lord Salisbury I then sent you in cipher a telegram, of which a translation is enclosed. Late in the following night the commutation of Mrs. Maybrick’s sentence to imprisonment for life was officially announced to her.
I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Robert Lincoln
Telgram Transcriptions 8/22/1889
Dispatches from U.S. Ministers to Great Britain
National Archives & Records Administration
M0030 roll 155 frame 523
Transcribed by Billy Markland
Translation of cipher telegram received at the Legation August 22, 1839
Lincoln, American Minister, London.
Many prominent members of the Bar together with several hundred of the principal citizens of Portland, Maine, request that their petition for the commutation of Mrs. (?Maybrick’s) death sentence be respectfully laid before the British Government. Portland was her former residence and she is still an American citizen. Memorials to same effect from other parts of the United States are added. Without transgressing in any degree the limits of international propriety you may communicate these facts to Lord Salisbury and assure him of the profound interest felt in Mrs. (Maybrick’s) behalf by her fellow citizens. They view her execution with the deepest solicitude so long as in their opinion there may be a reasonable doubt of her guilt. Act promptly.
Blaine
2/66
Translation of cipher telegram sent from the American Legation August 22, 1889
Secretary Blaine, Barharbor [sic], Maine.
Had an interview with Lord Salisbury. Am authorized to express for your private information only until public announcement of final decision his belief that death sentence will not be executed.
Lincoln |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 05:52 am | | Hi, Billy:
Many thanks for looking into what there may be on the State Department microfilms that might have anything to do with the Whitechapel murders. I rather thought, as I stated earlier, that there might be communications in regard to Mrs. Maybrick since Secretary of State James G. Blaine received a number of appeals from private individuals and the Women's International Maybrick Society, founded by Mary Dodge, a cousin incidentally of Blaine's wife Harriett, to intercede with the British government over her case. I am glad that my supposition was confirmed. Thank you so much for transcribing these interesting communications between Robert Todd Lincoln, American ambassador to Great Britain, and Secretary Blaine. Good luck in finding anything else that might be related to the murders.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Billy Markland
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 10:18 am | | Chris, it is my pleasure. I hope, either tomorrow or Wednesday, to take a look at the Notes from the Minister from Great Britain to the State Department series (it will initially be hit or miss as there is no chronological index for the 145 films of that series) as well as film from the U.S. Embassy in Nicaragua to see if any reference is made to the alleged mutilation slayings which occurred late December 1888 or January, 1889.
One thing which has hampered the search through the communications from the U.S. Great Britain embassy is that, during the period of the Ripper killings, a diplomatic brouhaha was ongoing between the two countries. This involved the renunciation of diplomatic credentials, by the U.S. government, of Lord Sackville the British ambassador for allegedly interfering in American domestic politics. That led Mr. Phelps, U.S. Ambassador, to write either late 1888 or early 1889, paraphrase follows, that only the most necessary business between the two countries was being conducted. There were several requests for extradition to the U.S. for criminals during this period, only one was wanted for murder (in Wisconsin) with the remainder wanted for forgery or uttering.
I had mentioned in an earlier post that I had found another Kamensky who was a member of the Russian embassy. I now suspect that this was a erroneous transcription for the copy sent to Washington as I found in the latest roll a book of all Foreign Embassies to Great Britain listing personnel and rank. There is a Mr. Kroupensky listed in the Russian consulate as 3rd Secretary.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
|
