|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 05, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Maybrick, James:
Archive through November 05, 2000
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 07:06 am |        | Chris,
Excellent post.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 07:19 am | | Hi again all:
The other interesting thing about looking at the trial transcript is that you get a different view of Maybrick than you get by just reading the diary or the view of Maybrick given by Shirley Harrison. As has been noted earlier by someone on these boards (possibly Peter Birchwood?), the classic picture of Maybrick as a somewhat forbidding and self-assured man in a top hat may not be James Maybrick at all but his brother, the songwriter Michael Maybrick who wrote under the stagename of Stephen Adams. If that is so, and we presume that the photograph of the man with the ingrown-looking fair mustache in Harrison's book IS James Maybrick, that image shows us a much less secure-looking individual who looks frightened rather than self-assured. The view of Maybrick given by the witnesses at the trial of Florence Maybrick appears to give a different take on the man as a frightened hyphochondriac that contrast with the notion of an abusive and revengeful arsenic addict as pictured by Harrison.
Chris George |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 08:39 am | | Hi Chris,
Certainly James does not seem to have been some raging Macho, I concur with you that he may well have been a frightened hypho.
As far as I know, arsenic is habit-forming and assimulates rapidly to such an extent that a user very quickly reaches the point where doses lethal to non-users have to be taken. He is well and truly 'hooked'.
All in all the chances that James killed himself, albeit without intention, seem very high. In any case, if Flo really had intended to kill him, she would have needed a considerable amount to have done it. If she would have known that?
Of course I can't refute claims that Florence was guilty, but evidence is pretty strong for the opposite. The story of the Archbishop and Paisley does not include the silent answer that the Archbishop seemed to have taken his mouth pretty full in his presumption to speak for God.
Best regards |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 10:18 am | | Thanks must go to all for the high quality of the recent postings.
While Maybrick was definitely worried about his health I didn't get the impression that he was at all frightened. According to some of the doctors (I can't remember all the names but Fuller was definitely one) he was inclined to exaggerate his symptoms and clearly this was as much psychological as anything physical. He did complain about numbness, etc, for many years so this may not necessarily have been a symptom exclusive to his death.
In all of this I keep wondering whether his problems might have had something to do with his family. How did his parents die?
James' actions after the Grand National hardly point to a frightened man. He was clearly mindful of his reputation in Liverpool society.
The evidence at trial showed that Maybrick took a large number of "medicines" in the years, months and weeks leading up to his death. The most notable of these was his apparent overdose of something on 27th April. Florie had talked to both Michael and Dr Humprheys about Jim taking a white powder. This may have been arsenic, it may have been strychnine or it may have been something else. While tests were made for arsenic it seems that none were made for strychnine (and probably there was no test which could detect it). Therefore the investigators immediately ruled out some of the possibilities (probabilities?) in the cause of Maybrick's death. As such the investigation was flawed.
Florie admitted in her statement that James had given her a powder and asked that it be put in the Valentines juice. She said she did so but she didn't give him that food as he was asleep. This was the Valentines juice found to contain arsenic. In the only other suspect medicine which Florie was found allegedly tampering with there was no trace at all of arsenic.
In reference to arsenic being used as an aphrodisiac I am not saying that this was how Maybrick used it but this is how it was presented as being suggested by Hopper when he testified at trial. While he went into no further detail it is possible that Hopper suggested it because the conversation was about sexual stimulants. I make no judgment on this point.
As for the Florie being pregnant point - I don't make any judgment on that either but it is a possibility for her sentence being commuted. It's one thing to take a convict's life but taking an innocent unborn child's life as well is something different. Feldman needs to use this as the predominant factor if he is to sustain some of his shaky family trees. However, it is more likely that the public disquiet about the verdict is a more likely explanation. I wonder though if the politicians had the same vindictive view of Florie as Justice Stephen, who went as far as reading letters to the jury (which had not been introduced into evidence) in an attempt to discredit her and portray her as a lying, immoral woman. If so then public disquiet in itself may not have saved her.
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 10:27 am | | Hi Chris,
I don't think there's much doubt that the man in the hat is James. But it is interesting to note that the Pall Mall Budget's sketches on (8 August 1889) of the witnesses shows what is presumably Michael with the name given to him as James Maybrick.
Dela |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 10:38 am | | Hi Dela,
If I remember correctly, wasn't the Maybrick case Justice Stephen's last, his being then incarcerated in an asylum? If so, that would, I believe, have added to the disquiet. There is no mention of a pregnancy anywhere in the sources I have read, which does not mean very much.
Does anyone know what the usual procedure for condemed pregnant women were? Were they automatically reprieved or, as in some other countries, the execution was put off until after the birth (horrible)?
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 11:22 am | | A few things about the Maybrick trial which I was going to put on a day or so ago but due to one thing or another it got wiped from WordPad in favour of another more immediate message.
It's true I think that JM took tonics throughout his life which may have contained small doses of arsenic, strychnine and other drugs which in higher quantities could have fatal effects. The dosage of arsenic, for example in such a tonic might approach the amount of cocaine in the original coca-cola recipe: very small.
A brief calendar: The affair Brierly came to a head about the end of March. JM went to London in early April staying with his brother who told him that Florie had written that James was taking a white powder which she supposed was strychnine. JM said that that was "a damned lie." He returned home on the 22nd April. On the 23rd/24th April Florie bought flypapers. On the 28th he was gravely ill but began to recover the next day. On that same day, Florie again bought flypapers. On the 1st May JM was well enough to go to his office. The Cook prepared a liquid food for his lunches and put it in a jug which Florie gave her. This jug was later found to contain arsenic. On the 3rd May JM was ill again. During this period Florie was in charge of the house and looked after her husband. On the 7th May Yapp saw Florie pouring medicine from one bottle to another. The next day a packet marked "arsenic" was found. On the 9th Florie handled a bottle of meat-juice in the sickroom. This was later found to contain arsenic. She said that she had added a powder to it "at her husband's request."
Peter. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 01:48 pm | | Dear Ashling,
Thanks for the information about degrees in American murder. I was doing
something I know I shouldn't have - relying on memory. Having now looked it up I
find I was remembering Bernard LeGeros vs New York State in 1985, Judge Robert
Meehan presiding. In his opening address to the jury he stated "The indictment was
for second degree murder, in New York first degree murder could be charged only in
the death of a law enforcement or corrections official".
Now you know exactly what kind of useless rubbish is still lurking around the
darkened recesses of my mind!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 11:47 pm | | Hi Bob & Peter,
Florie's trial was the last case over which Justice Stephen presided.
As for items which Peter mentioned, there was no arsenic in the first bottle which Alice Yapp found Florie allegedly tampering with. There was half a grain of arsenic in the other bottle (the only item with which you could positively link Florie to Maybrick consuming arsenic) - not sufficient to kill Maybrick. There was a minute trace of arsenic found in the jug from the residue.
As I recall (I'll have to go back and check) there was only a small amount of arsenic in the solution derived from the flypapers. It was also scented which backs up Florie's story of a cosmetic use.
In all each flypaper had about 2-3 grains of arsenic. However, it is highly unlikely that soaking the flypapers in water would extract more than a trace of arsenic from them.
Dela |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 04:13 am | | Hi Dela,
I checked up about Justice Stephen, and as you say, that was his last case. He was committed to an asylum two years after the trial.
Without wanting to offend anyone, I have to ask myself what credibility the Maybrick case can now have in light of the following facts:
It could not be proven that Florence gave her husband a lethal dose of arsenic.
It could not be proven that Florence attempted to kill him.
It could not be proven that James died of poison.
It could not be proven that if James died of poison, that it was intentional.
He was administered arsenic by a doctor before his death.
The amounts of arsenic found pertinent to the case were insufficient to cause death.
Evidence tending to support Florence was suppressed.
Evidence having nothing to do with the case whatsoever was used to discredit Florence.
The Judge had one foot in a lunatic asylum.
Was Florence Maybrick guilty of murder?
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Caz
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 10:11 am | | Hi All,
Dela, thank you so much for all your great info. And thanks for your last bit about those fly papers. When I suggested the same thing earlier on this board I was accused of talking nonsense. Welcome to the club!
Hi Bob,
Nine dittos and a resounding "NO!" QED (IMHO, grin)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 10:46 am | | Can anybody tell me where Alfred Brierley lived during the time he was having the affair with Florie? From what I can gather he headed overseas about the time of Maybrick's death? Is this the case, and if so, where did he go and did he return?
Dela |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 11:12 am | | Hi, Dela:
Alfred Brierley received a subpoena to testify at the trial of Mrs. Maybrick and as a consequence cancelled plans to leave on holiday in the Mediterranean. He was not, however, called to testify at the August 1889 trial. After Florence's conviction, he left the country on the advice of friends. On August 22, 1889, he sailed for Boston on board the steamship Scythia. I do not have any information on where he resided while in Liverpool or whether he eventually returned to England from the United States. A senior member of the firm of Brierley and Wood, he was the son of a wealthy Liverpool family, and at age 38, unmarried, an eligible bachelor, when he fell for the charms of Florence Maybrick. He blamed the Maybrick case for the ruination of his business.
Chris George |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Friday, 16 April 1999 - 11:59 am | | Matthew:
Concerning whether the Maybrick case was in fact Judge Stephen's last trial, I don't know for sure but I have read that the Judge administered "justice properly and acutely both before and after this trial (Maybrick.)" There's therefore an implication that he did try other cases before his retirement. He also apparently wrote a book after the Maybrick trial but I don't know its name.
You're right, there wasn't any arsenic in the Yapp bottle and the bottle of arsenic water found after JM's death was weak. I don't remember it being perfumed though and I would have thought it odd if it was for cosmetic reasons that perfume would be added. I think you will find that on several occasions people have been charged with soaking flypapers to obtain arsenic and I believe Spilsbury showed that it was perfectly possible to obtain potentially fatal doses in that way.
Incidentally, this discussion is proving very interesting and I do appreciate other viewpoints. Hopefully we can carry on like this. Regarding your question about Brierley, Shirley says that he went to Venezuala, returned home, married twice and died in Hove.
Peter. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Saturday, 17 April 1999 - 10:25 am | | Hi Peter,
I believe the name of Justice Stephen's book was "General View of the Criminal Law of England", published in 1890. At least that's what I am assuming from a reference in Irving's book about the Maybrick trial. There is a quote there where Stephen states "In the course of the last five years (January 1885 to September 1889) 1216 criminal cases came before me...." This passage indicates that perhaps Justice Stephen did sit on cases after Florie's. You can decide for yourself.
According to Edward Davies (under cross-examination), the chemist who analysed all the samples found, Russell stated that the bottle found in the laundry had a a very weak solution of arsenic and some scent "as if it was scented water". Davies replied that he couldn't say whether the scent was mixed in at the same time as the arsenic or was previously present. The obvious implication which Russell is trying to make is that this was the cosmetic treatment which Florie derived from the flypapers to which she added elder water, or lavender water - as was the practice she had learned of in Germany.
Dela |
Author: Vorhees
Thursday, 20 May 1999 - 08:48 pm | | Hello everyone,
What I find amazing is that everyone is overlooking the simple question about James Maybrick. Why would he commit these hideous crimes if he were a hypochondriac? I believe it has already been established that he was! |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 20 May 1999 - 09:23 pm | | Mr./Ms Vorhees,
We used to have a fellow named Zippity posting to these Boards who wrote something like you do. He used to really just plop it out there and let it sit.
What I make of what you said is that Maybrick wasn't likely the Ripper because he was overly concerned about his health, and that therefore the hideousness of the murders doesn't fit Maybrick because over-concern about one's health doesn't go with hideousness. If one is a hypochondriac, one cannot also be a hideous murderer. If you're seriously concerned about your health, you wouldn't think of really messing with someone else's health.
Forgive me, but I seem to be missing something.
David |
Author: Caz
Friday, 21 May 1999 - 05:48 am | | Oh, David, I've just had a good belly-laugh at your post.
And no, you are not missing a thing, of course.
I'm just waiting for some idiot to misinterpret your words and accuse you of being a Maybrickite, because you believe a hypochondriac is quite as capable of murder as anyone else with a personal problem.
Have a great weekend, I shall be thinking of you in your hippy hippy shake gear and red bandana :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: david
Sunday, 23 May 1999 - 02:36 pm | | | All I am saying is that the penalty for death in the 1880's was to be hung. Now, why would a man who was definetely injured due to his arsenic and strychnine usage, along with his definite hypochondria commit these murders in a populated area of Whitechapel to face being hung and prosicuted for these crimes? Not to mention the fact that during the time of these murders James could hardly leave his house, and ran a chronic fever for month's due to his addiction's. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 23 May 1999 - 04:49 pm | | Hi y'all.
VORHEES-a.k.a. david (not Yost or Radka):
Serial killers' acts prove them to be insane by everyday standards (even if they don't meet the requirements for legal insanity.) Insane persons don't think like "normal" folks. Arrogance is a predominant characteristic of serial killers. They believe:
1) They'll never be caught or
2) They will be the ONE person in history to be tried & convicted, yet escape execution.
See the board from a few months ago - "Would Jack Hang?" for further info on laws of the day. Some criminals escaped hanging through legal means. Such cases would help bolster an insane ego in the mind of a man so arrogant he believed himself worthy of "playing God" (deciding who lived or died).
P.S.
Maybrick didn't do it.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: david
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 01:56 pm | | Damn!
That was good I understand where you are comming from |
Author: Boney
Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 10:39 pm | | In the absence of any other suspects, a drug-
addicted, jealous, wife-beating nut job would be
the obvious choice. I think we have become
inundated with suspects and theories, and have
failed to recognise the obvious. Unless another
obvious suspect is unearthed (ha ha!) Maybrick
is the only plausible one. I will debate this
and the Diary with anyone. If you'd rather not
debate, I can explain myself quite rationally.
Be seeing you. |
Author: Demi Kranikoglou
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 02:03 am | | Being new to this message board I greet you all... I have for a time been very interested with the Ripper and now my morbid fascination has grown to the internet - and thus to the James Maybrick page because I have just finished Harrison's book.
I believe it was a good piece of fiction but has anyone else kind of thought of the plausibility that someone would travel from liverpool to london just to murder some whores...? (no disrespect is meant to the deceased with that)that seems a bit shady to me from the getgo... and also the whole FM markings at each of the crimes (on the eyes and at mary kelly's bedside) seem a bit far fetched to me.
I am interested to know what everyone thinks about this, as I am a self professed novice trying to get more information for a little morbid curiousity...
Cheers
Demi x |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 04:04 am | | Hello Demi,
You've picked up on a couple of good points here. Your first one about a serial killer travelling to a completely different area to kill is a good one against Maybrick being the ripper. And the FM on the wall has been shown to be a theory on the part of diary investigators which isn't supported by the evidence.
The recent sometimes heated debates here on these boards have been mainly concerned with looking at who did write the diary (given that it is not in Maybrick's own hand) and when (given all the problems there have been in proving this scientifically).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Demi Kranikoglou
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 05:06 pm | | Caz,
Cheers for your reply... have they got any new clues as to who might of written the diary...? I mean the family who turned it in looked like a nice enough lot - but then again you never know, eh...?
And did they ever determine around what date the diary had actually been written - and the fact it doesn't match the dear boss lettres...?
Forgive me if I am rehashing old issues that have already been discussed here...
Love
Demi x |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 10:19 am | | Hi Demi,
If you take a look under the separate topic here on the Casebook: The Diary of Jack the Ripper, you will find some current discussions which may help you with your questions.
Happy reading.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Demi Kranikoglou
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 03:45 am | | Thank you so much for your help Caz.
you're an angel.
Love,
Demi x |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 07:45 am | | No probs Demi.
Just off to make myself a halo - I could do with the evidence!
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 10:00 am | | I have just been to the suspects page only to discover Maybrick rates number 3!!!!???
I would hate to think who rates 15 or 20 ...
I won't say it!
I need to change sides!!
There no fun in being a majority!
Maybrick needs more research ... by popular demand!
Anyone interested in Maybrick needs to address all of Harris's arguments first. Then ask yourself what it is that you need to prove the diary was written by Maybrick & then that he was the Ripper.
I have not thought about the wider audience before but it is important to say Maybrick shouldn't rate as a better suspect than Dr. Gull & the Royals.
Cheers John. |
Author: Barry Street
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 11:09 am | | John Dixon is quite right. And this reveals the nonsense of how the suspects are rated on the Casebook. Those who feature in the more popular and easily obtainable books receive more votes than those in the harder to find books on other suspects.
This rating system is totally unfair and may not reflect the true status of the suspect, as in this case where it has to be said that Maybrick was never a suspect anyway.
A similar situation prevails with the rating of books on the subject. Votes are cast, in many instances by those with very little real knowledge of the subject and who have read maybe only a couple of books.
Thank you John for highlighting an anomaly on the Casebook. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 12:44 pm | | Polls are only for the 'great unwashed' anyway, no serious researcher would be interested in polls.
:-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 11:58 am | | Hi All:
Listen, I was just reading the diary over and I've come across a very important transcription error. On p. 281 of the American hardback of the Diary, a section of the poem on the same edition's facsimile-page 234 is transcribed thusly:
One whore no good,
decided Sir Jim strike another,
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty
The logical assumption, given this transcription, is that a very disordered mind, displaying just the sort of dementia caused by arsenic addiction, wrote it. It seems to show lack of coherent thought processes and also the sort of remarkable stupidity which James Maybrick exhibited throughout most of his life.
The problem is, if you'll kindly refer to your facsimiles, that the transcription is wrong.
The stanza is the same, but for the first word of the second line, which is clearly (given "JM"'s obvious and consistent formation of final "d"'s and "s"'s) not "decided" but "decides." In other words, the stanza reads like this:
One whore no good,
decides Sir Jim strike another.
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty.
Now a coherent (and sickeningly glib) meaning surfaces, which, were it not supposed to be from the mind of someone who actually killed many women, would be quite a poem. If you consider the earlier lines,
damn it, I cried, hence forth did
I hide
The horse went and shied
begins to seem like less of a problem with intellect, and more of a problem with grammar and punctuation.
Now, seeing as how "JM" has recognizably used "damn it" as an interjection, but without the quotation marks, it seems that he might also forget his quotation marks elsewhere, likely in the same flash of poetic brilliance which produced what I will refer to as the "Matchbox Girls" stanza.
Bear with me. I think the Matchbox Girls stanza runs like this, in its edited form:
"One whore -- no good..."
Decides Sir Jim, "... strike
another."
{I showed no fright and indeed no
light --
"Damn it!" -- the tin box was empty.}
In this edited version, JM likens the women he kills to matches (the same matches he found on the person of the victim). He puns on "strike" as in "Jack Strikes Another Victim" and "strike" as in "Strike a match." One was no good -- he no longer derived the pleasure of the "fright" and the "light" of the erection -- and, upon discovering the "box" (a woman's genitalia is often referred to as a "box") was "empty" (the tin box had no more matches; the woman's genitalia was mutilated, and therefore caused him no more sexual or anger-related arousal), he thinks or says "Damn it!"
That "Damn it!" seems to be the theme of the poem. Earlier, in the "Horse Stanza," JM says:
With a rose to match the red
I tried to cut off the head.
Damn it I cried,
The horse went and shied
But I could still smell her sweet scented
breath.
Now JM puns upon "a rose" and "arose." He means here that **he** arose, or, got an erection. And an erection, red and full of blood, would match the deed he did. He may even have taken his penis out of his pants and smeared it with the blood. He also may have entered her through her "other wounds" -- the first, for a psychopath, being her vagina -- the possibility of which may have escaped the investigators of the time, who were unaccustomed to dealing with such horrors as men who preferred to use an opening they'd made for themselves (a sort of replacement for actually taking her virginity -- the skin of the belly stands in for the hymen, which is difficult to open, so he takes a knife with him to open her up).
But I digress.
The poem shows an unnatural fascination with heads:
In the first line is "a rose", which has a head of its own, if we take the line literally. If we take the line figuratively, the head is that of the penis, and it makes sense that "Sir Jim" would be referred to in the third person, since "Sir Jim" is probably JM's private name for his penis (many men have private names for their members, and the "crown" around "Little Jim"'s head is easily what knighted him. It also makes sense that it was Sir Jim, and not JM, making the decision of who went next -- a normal man lets his penis decide on casual sex, and a psychopath lets his decide who gets sexually assaulted and murdered next).
The second line is about the head (literal) of the woman JM killed.
The next two are about JM's frustration at not getting what Sir Jim wants.
Now, I'm not certain that it is a literal horse to which JM refers in the next line. His frustration and the breaking of the smooth lines of his evening plans might have so distracted him that he lost his focus on his erection and anger for a moment, feeling he'd lost control of them, too (and we all know, from our Serial Killers 101 course, that control is important to a psychopath). Once he'd lost the rage, he came to from his delicious (to him) rage and sexual pulping and destruction, long enough to realize, bent over her as he must have been in order to get the head, that, like the literal rose in the beginning, her literal head emanated sweet breath. I suspect he kissed his victims in order to silence them. It would be ideal, and could be why there was no screaming. After all, if the police see a known prostitute (and none of these girls were true novices) "lewdly" (that is, in an apparently passionate manner) kissing a shabby-genteel guy in an alley in the East End, they're not exactly going to pull the guy in. I wouldn't put it past Jack to bite the tongue of the girl he's kissing, or to hold a knife under the soft part of her chin so she doesn't move an inch and looks like she more or less wants to be doing what she's doing.
Anyway, the poem might actually have been good, in a sort of Immoralist-cum-Roamntic sort of way, if it (as I highly suspect) was written by the murderer, or at least someone close to him.
Sincerely,
Sarah
P.S. I still believe the diary is a relatively early forgery, but the writer, in effect, takes "James Maybrick" as a pseudonym, and directly takes "Jack the Ripper" as a pseudonym, as well. So I'll humor him by referring to him the way he wants to be referred to. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 12:01 pm | | Hi Sarah,
Kind of like the D'Onston theory, you mean? In which D'Onston tries to frame Dr Morgan Davies, when he could have been talking about what he did (or wished he'd done?) to the victims himself?
And so the diary author (ancient or modern faker) chooses James Maybrick as the main vehicle, adopting the 'Dear Boss', Lusk letter and 'Jewish joke' writers into his fantasy for jolly, to incorporate all the myths into his composition.
Interesting to hear a different interpretation of some of the diary rhymes Sarah.
If you find any other instances where you think the author's words may have been mistranscribed, I'd be interested to hear about it. Anne Graham typed the transcript from the diary herself, and I don't know if Mike has said whether her work was ever checked and agreed by the original penman. By the way, do you think Anne got the transcription of Mrs Ham(m)ersmith right? It looks okay to me, but I just wondered.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 11:28 pm | | Caz,
The "Ham(m)ersmith" question is interesting. It is both one to which I had given very little real thought, and one which gives a bit of insight into "JM"'s state of mind.
First, the mechanics of the penmanship: The two mentions on page 212 (Hyperion) display penmanship of strikingly different quality.
The first mention (which is also the first mention in the "Diary" of the personage) is cramped, starting with a nice, ordered "H," as if JM is attempting to decide whether or not to use the name, or just the letter "H." In fact, the page in general starts out very orderly (except for the second word), goes on to become more frenzied (but manages to get the correct spelling of "Hammersmith" in, plus a rather fancy "Mrs"), and, just in time for the word "June," gets all pleasant again.
That first mention definitely starts off with the letters, H-a-m-e-[very tiny nub of an]r-s. Then, the "m-i" is what I call a "hybrid letter." That is, a letter which consists of two other letters, which, in stumbling over one another in their haste, mated, totally unawares. The next is about as clearly a "t" as anything ever could be, and the very next is a "false 't'," (again my coinage -- one must coin these ideas when one's handwriting is as poor, and one's letters as difficult to identify, as my own) which is what happens when a "t" is "overcrossed" into neighboring "giraffenecked" letters. So, the final deal with Mention #1 is:
"Mrs Hamersmith," written in haste.
Now, the reason I believe that this was written by a Brit and not an American is this: So many mistakes were made in punctuation and capitalization that the writer's mistake-proneness could have given him away.
He never fails to *not* put a period ("full stop" to Brits) after "Mrs," which was probably bred into him by British teachers and/or parents, for the period is always present after "Mrs." is America, as shown in the word's last mention.
Now, the second mention is pretty clearly, "Mrs Hammersmith," which I believe you alerted me was a character in a book or a set of diaries of some sort. I know that Moll Flanders, the famous and fictitious repentant prostitute whose adventures were penned by Daniel Defoe, lived for a long stretch with a certain married gentleman who was identified only as, I believe, either "The gentleman from Hammersmith," or "Hammersmith."
Either way, I would need to know more about what kind of people lived in Hammersmith at the time, and whether a cotton merchant would have known them. (This could also apply to Brierly, who might have penned the diary himself -- I would certainly be bitter if I helped someone away from her supposedly-abusive husband and was thrown over for another brother from the same seemingly-noxiously-gladhandy, allegedly-woman-hating, family. I'd probably be bitter to plant the seeds of a later "discovery" that my colleague was JtR.)
WE ALSO MUST BE AWARE that any "dirty old man" would have read "Moll Flanders", along with "Fanny Hill," "Love in Excess," and any other "dirty" book which was famous for being "lewd" in that time period. In fact, any 19th-20th century gent who'd read such 18th-century classics of erotica would be familiar enough with the "epistolary" ("written like it's a series of letters") style of novel (see "Pamela," by Richardson, which records an absurd amount of detail in its sexual assault scenes), to have written something very like the "Diary," and forgotten all about it, coming back to it for his own personal pleasure. And wouldn't he be a *clever* little man for putting it in one of the family's numerous postcard/calling card/ photo-collection albums, so that he looks as if he's at his hobby, when he's really shining a whole other trophy?
Sick, yeah, but not exactly criminal.
At any rate, thanks for the alert!!
Sarah |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 03:42 am | | But, Sarah, what do you make of the modern hoax theory, which has the diary down as a shabby creation, showing little, if any, literary invention?
Melvin Harris has said that whichever amateurs devized the text, they wouldn't fall into the obvious trap of writing the thing for themselves. He reckons they would get it hand-written by someone well outside their obvious circle.
Incidentally, I went to school in Hammersmith, West London. I don't know what it would have been like in the 1880s, but these days its residents come from all classes, from the poorest (the 60s comedy duo Steptoe & Son, rag-and-bone men, were based in the area) to some of the wealthiest in the land.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 05:18 pm | | Hmmm...
"Little to no literary invention..." That's the comment of someone who suffers that very malady him or herself...! The diary-writer was evidently quite the proto-profiler, for, looking back at the FBI Profile Of Jack The Ripper, one finds that many of the attributes which supposedly "only apply to Joseph Barnett," actually apply to the "Diary"'s James Maybrick -- as opposed to th real one, who was dead of arsenic poisoning which I will maintain 'til my own dying day was caused by his wife's willful, criminally depraved murderous acts. Anyhow, here's the rundown on the "Diary"'s JM and the Profile:
These facts are in the public record, and so we know them to be true of the real James. They are also features of the Profile's JtR:
1)"Employed, since murders are associated with weekends" (Begg, Fido & Skinner, 132).
2)"Not surgically or anatomically skilled" (ibid. 133) Maybrick was a cotton merchant, and, if I may be so crude, probably wouldn't know the cervix if it jumped up and bit him (which it eventually did, in a way).
The problem is that many people fit the description, "Employed. Lacks surgical and anatomical skill." It takes the trial of Florie Maybrick -- with its vivid, graphic testimony, and its unusual breadth of inquiry into those affairs of a prominent household which would, by the era's standards of decency and privacy, customarily be strictly off-limits -- to fill in a great deal of the rest of the profile. The rest lies in a knowledge (or, in this case, a *lack* of knowledge) of Maybrick's whereabouts during certain key times during Autumn, 1888, to write a grand and, at times, a convincing, piece of historical fiction which gets at the same general point of Bret Easton Ellis's "American Psycho," and, for what seems like a great deal of personal rage against a specific target, do the job better, in a style far less slick and mechanical.
In my next posting, I will address the features of "JM"'s JtR Profile not created by any sort of reliable public record (I cannot count the defense testimony of a murderer or that of her fanatical paramour as reliable public record)... |
Author: Ian Antony Banks
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 11:20 pm | | | Thx I agree with u Sarah |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 08:47 am | | Hi Sarah,
Did the medical evidence after James's death ever point to arsenic poisoning as the actual cause?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 12:03 pm | | Hi, Caz:
Maybrick had arsenic in his system, but as it turns out, very little and possibly not enough to kill him. On the other hand, there was enough arsenic in the house to kill a regiment of Guards, so in effect Florie was largely convicted on the basis of the arsenic found in the house, some of it discovered in her private quarters, the knowledge that she had tried to obtain arsenic by soaking flypapers (which she claimed was to make a cosmetic), and her infidelity with Alfred Brierly, which the jury, and certainly Judge Stephen, took to be motive enough to remove her inconvenient and older husband.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 11:29 am | | But we now know, don't we, that Maybrick had his own stash of arsenic in the house, which could have been distributed around the place by mischievous hands. And Florie's prescription, sanctioning the use of fly papers for cosmetic purposes, was later found by Florie's mother. And if James was unfaithful, Florie could have got a legal separation without resorting to foul play. Is all that not enough to leave a reasonable doubt that she actually intended to poison him to death, even though it was finally accepted she didn't succeed?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
