Archive through April 1, 1999

** 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 1, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Maybrick, James: Archive through April 1, 1999

Author: Stephen P. Ryder Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:29 pm
Discussion of James Maybrick as a suspect has its own Topic at the top of the board, due to the incredible amount of traffic devoted to this subject. Please enter your commentary there.
Author: jgarlo Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 06:19 am
I don't think anyone could ever seriously think that Maybrick was the Ripper. I have been reading Ripper books for 25 years and I found the Diary the least convincing piece of "evidence" ever put forward. John Garlington
Author: JamesMacabe Monday, 08 March 1999 - 06:08 pm
What about his wife? Did he discover her secret? Would explain the F M on the wall of Mary Kelly's room? His death...poison? Of course that's insane. But it sure makes sense when you look at it that way. Scary, eh?
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 12:24 am
Mr. Garlington, Your years of experience in the case dwarf mine by about 5 to 1. May I ask you who you think the best suspect is? Thank you. David
Author: Claes Friday, 19 March 1999 - 01:15 pm
Im quite new at this but i think that the J.Maybrick teori sounds ferly tru, all thu i think that there�s alot of questions around the way they descowered the diry.. As mr David I allso would like to hear who u think did the ripping. Regards Claes Haglund Gothenburg Sweden
Author: clint Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 02:42 pm
although the names of the victems were public knowledge why would somone put that kind of information on the inside workings of his pocket watch it makes no sence unless it was some morbid sence of humer or or a way to secretly remind him of the women whose lives he toke the ripper was just sick enough to do domething like that.
Author: Bob_c Monday, 29 March 1999 - 02:36 am
Hi all, Back again for a few hours. Clint, the main problem with James's watch is that it is evidently a lady's watch and therefore unlikely to have been carried by either James or Jack. The so-called 'FM' bit on Kelly's wall and all the rest of the Maybrick 'evidence' leads me, at any rate, to conclude that we only need to add a slight extension to our fantasy to be able to start suspecting the man in the moon. The real Maybrick story is tragedy enough with Flo probably being one of the most improperly condemmed persons of the century, home secrateries evidently not being able to discerne Her Majesties Law from their own personal whims. To add the ripper scandle to Flo's other suffered injustices is, I submit, wholly unfair. Dave, I've been reading ripper books for about 6 months! You beat me as well. Best regards, Bob
Author: Caroline Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 06:11 am
Hi Bob, It's about time someone spoke out for Florie. Thanks mate. For her 'Fifteen Lost Years', I think you can add the rest of her natural too. And I always hate that 'pardon' thingy, when the powers that be decide they've made an utter balls-up. How can anyone pardon someone who turns out to be innocent, there is nothing to pardon, surely? Ooh, I could spit blood. Lots of love and stuff, Caroline
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 04:30 am
Hi Caroline, You're quite right, she suffered a life sentence of the worst kind. I too fail to see how you can 'pardon' an innocent person. My main point on poor Flo was, however, that she was not sentenced for the crime she was charged with, but at the pure whim of a high civil servant she was punished for a crime which she was not even charged with! Not even the newspapers of the day seemed to found anything 'odd' in that. Did the whole legal proffesion of the day sleep as it happened? Maybe someone can enlighten me. Love Bob
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 08:42 am
Hi Bob, At least poor Flo was released once Queen Victoria had shuffled off her mortal coil, eh? No significance inferred. I seem to remember a statement at Maybrick's inquest to the effect that he had most likely died at the hands of his wife, what a disgraceful thing to say before the lady was even brought for trial! Seems like some influential people have always had a dislike or mistrust of strong women. I'll resist the temptation to give an example of an exception in the UK of the 80s. It might put me off my Cadbury's (grin). Hope your fair is going well. Happy Easter, Love, Caroline
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 10:44 am
Hi Caroline, Thanks for the good wishes and enjoy your easter eggs. I'd send you a german one if I knew where to send it. Flo's life sentence wasn't of course, just spent in effin jail. Even after she was let free, she kept herself away from people (not to wonder, after being treated like that) and more or less remained as a recluse. Have a few lovely days with Caz Jnr. and Hubby, hope the sun shines. Love Bob
Author: Peter Birchwood Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 12:52 pm
Hi Bob: Florrie was "reprieved" from the death penalty, not sentenced for something she never did. People did get reprieved in those days: look at James Kelly who was reprieved because he was a nut. It is nice to think that our poor Florrie was wrongfully sentenced by a wickedly-deranged judge but if she didn't do it, how do you explain the fly-papers? Was Madeline Smith also innocent because she was young, pretty and the victim was not a very nice person? Her Scottish jury weighed the evidence and decided that the victim was thoroughly objectionable and deserved receipt of Madeline's boiled flypapers in his cocoa. Madeline's guilt was found "not Proven" Do you think she was innocent as well? Peter.!
Author: Karoline Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 01:42 pm
Bob - You're scaring me - was FM really sentenced for a crime she'd never been charged with? How on earth did they get away with that? It seems incredible - but then again almost everything about the judicial system does. You seem to know a fair bit about this, (confession time : with Caroline it's chocolate, with me it's a man who can impress me. I go all shivery) I'd love some more information, if you could find the time. What charge was she put away on, and how was it all engineered? Karoline
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 03:08 pm
Hi all, Oh Peter! Oh Karoline! I have been licking my fat lips for hours and sharpening my mental claws, just waiting for the time to come to pounce. Oh doubters of the scripts! Hear ye, and be stilled. I did not talk (write) of the murder charge, nor of Flo's 'reprieve', what ever that might mean. Either she bump her old man off, and was guilty of murder, or she didn't, and was innocent of the charge OF MURDER. I refer as simple explanation to a highly exalted Sage and his well remembered analysis of the trial of Florence Maybrick Enter J.H.Levy.......: "I submit that the Home Secretary was not entitled to say '....you may not be guilty of murder, perhaps you are not. But you are, in my opinion guilty of another crime for which you have not been tried; therefore I shall make use of the warrant of conviction and sentence of murder to punish you for the other crime of which I have found you guilty' This upstart Henry Matthews had the ignorance and cheek to find Florence guilty of a crime with which she was not charged and probably didn't even exist. Placing himself as Judge, prosecution and jury, he pronounced his 'judgement' of a 'crime' he himself defined AS AN OPINION and inserted it in lieu of a death sentence that had been reprieved because of the grave doubts of the guilt of the prisoner AS CHARGED! Like Mr Levy, I also submit that Matthews was not entitled to say that, or anything like it. If FM was guilty or not, grave doubts were known to exist and, quite properly, the reprieve was spoken. Matthews indeed had all grounds to have her released in such a situation. He didn't, and should have been castigated for it. Defence rests. Regards Bob
Author: Karoline Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 04:26 pm
Bob - I think it would be fairer if you sharpened your claws on Peter, who can compete with your knowledge. I don't know anything about FM and just wanted to know a little more. Your post didn't really help me, I'm afraid. I don't know who Mr. Levy is, and I havent got a clue what the personal opinions and things refer to. But if I ask I suppose you'll think I'm just trying to catch you out or something. So maybe we'd better leave it. Relax Bob. Girls with brains don't have to be scary. If you're up to the challenge, they can be a lot of fun. Love the bit about the defence resting. How did you know that of all the men who impress me, barristers are tops? (I love the gowns, and the Latin, and the effortless superiority). Don't suppose you're a barrister? Karoline
Author: Dekker Falconetti Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 01:06 am
Karoline...it'd be a good idea to read The Diary of Jack The Ripper...full of #@$@# or not...it is a pretty good source of info on the Maybricks...
Author: Bob_c Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 03:39 am
Hi Karoline, I assure you that I am not some swaggering macho staring in sweat-covered panic at the boards whilst chewing my fingernails to the elbows in case some female person dare to question my authority on Jack. I am a relative beginner and when I sometimes let my odd humour drive me to something like the above, it would be better when you could see the smile that goes with it. You, and anyone else, irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex are absolutely welcome to question, discuss and even argue about anything that interests us with me. Even when I lose, I win, and I lose often. I do not find brainy girls scary. Indeed it is refreshing sometimes to be able to discuss theory with a person with different feelings than men. But I like strong opinions from people who can think and my respect for certain people or not depends, if you all will excuse me, on what they have between their ears, not their legs. No, I am not a barrister. I am a lowly researcher in laser medicine in a small university in Germany. That means I sit in a lab full of lasers, computers and other stuff and try to find out how to make something work. From the little bit I have gleaned from the board over you, you are critical, observant, artistic and undoubtedly intelligent. So let me put the ball back in your court and say (write) 'Karoline, I notice in your posts the tendency to separate the sexes, mentioning a number of times men as against women. Should you maybe not consider if this could indicate that you be scared of brainy men? Now let us see the colour of your writ. (grin) Quite right, Dekker, including the #?!!�. That was my prime source, although I did do a little background work just to make sure that Shirley didn't lay a cuckoo egg in my nest (Sorry Shirley). Best regards to all, Bob
Author: Edana Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 09:13 am
Here's a nice frothy Doppelboch for you Bob, mein Leiber, or perhaps a Heffelweiss might be more appropriate for the springtime. Edana
Author: Peter Birchwood Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 10:49 am
Bob: Now I accept that I haven't bothered to read through Levy's mammoth "Necessity for Criminal Appeal" from which I assume you've taken this quote. But are you completely sure that Levy is actually quoting Henry Matthews directly or is he just putting into Matthews' mouth the words that he (Levy) would like Matthews to have said? As, obviously, there was no appeal procedure and as the Home Secretary did not have to give reasons in public for his actions in this matter it seems impossible that the words that Levy (and you) quoted can have actually been said by Matthews.If you can prove that they were, I'd be happy to hear it. Until then, I submit that as Home Secretary, Matthews was within his rights to commute Florie's death sentence and indeed acted as mercifully as any Victorian Home Secretary would or could have acted in the circumstances of the case where despite our modern views that no pretty woman can be considered guilty murdering an inconvenient husband, there was good evidence that JM was murdered and that it was his wife who did it. As Home Secretary, Matthews had the right to do what he did: I doubt very much that there were grounds to release Florie and I suspect that legally this might not have been possible. I believe Bob that you are wrong in your comments but as ever, I am happy to be contradicted, provided you can bring forward evidence rather than comment. Peter.
Author: Caroline Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 11:39 am
Gosh, Bob, Edana et al, I now see what was meant by hilarious tripe! Karoline, I do hope this isn't going to turn into a battle of the sexes, because there are no clearly defined ones, are there? I went to the docs the other day, thinking I was turning into a man. I was complaining that I was getting a hairy chest. When he asked me how far the hair extended, I replied, 'Right down to my b......s' (just in case Skunthorpe's red tip is fired up). By the way, you are a stunning looker. Oh, my mistake. I was just looking at Dekker's photo after clicking on her name (as you do). Sorry, Dekker, didn't mean to confuse you with Kaz. Perhaps we could have a photo of your good self sometime, decked out in the Catwoman suit you promised to don for Yaz (who is absolutely fine, by the way, and sends his regards to all his ripper pals here). Sorry, Peter, Bob has explained it far better than I could (being the unwise young non-bird that you called me on the cats meat board), but I still maintain Florie was set up good and proper by all and sundry, and my opinion will take a lot of changing on that score. Happy Easter Love Eggs, everyone (wide grins all round). Love, Caroline