|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 5, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Maybrick, James:
Archive through April 5, 1999
Author: Caroline
Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 11:41 am |        | PS to Bob,
You'd be surprised by what some gals have between their legs (ahem!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 12:51 pm | | Bob,
I'm glad it was 'fun-claws', I don't mind them at all. So were mine actually, as they usually are. So let's try understanding each other better.
Am I scared of clever men? NO, not at all. I'm so non-PC I actually find men much more interesting than women (Most of whom bore me slightly I'm afraid - all present company excepted), and I was, for once. quite serious when I said I love men who impress me.
My ideal man is one who dazzles me with his looks, his charm and his intelligence, and at whose feet I sit like Heloise worshipping Abelard. If he has a legal or academic gown somewhere, all the better. He's a rare animal, but I've found one or two who come close, and when I do, I'm as soft and sweet as marshmallow.
That's a promise.
Dekker:
Thanks for the suggestion about Harrison's book. I did read it a few years ago, but can't remember much of the background, and our local library only had one book on FM, that went missing about three years ago.
So maybe I'll just never know who 'Mr. Levy' is unless I get off my coccyx and find out for myself.
I think Peter makes some good points though. I've wondered myself if FM was really shown to be as above suspicion as some suggest. She was soaking those flypapers for some reason, I suppose. And Maybrick died of some sort of acute poisoning, didn't he?
Karoline |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 04:05 pm | | Me again.
I've just re-read Bob's and Peter's postings, and, I think I understand that Levy is some legal person who wrote about the appeal process, is that right?
Bob - I tend to agree with Peter that the quotation you supply is probably not a direct quote of Matthew's words, but a sort of dramatic summary of what Levy thinks Matthews was thinking.
I admit I know almost nothing about the case (even less than I know about porphyria), but it doesn't seem at all probable that a Home Secretary would express views like that in an official document. I think it would surely be illegal to voice an intent to imprison someone for an offence that didn't exist!?
From what I've gathered from your postings I think what happened to Florie is pretty straightforward. She was found guilty of murder, and sentenced to death. Was the death sentence mandatory, as 'life' is now?.
Whether it was or not I think the system used to be that, if there were thought to be mitigating circumstances, then the Home Secretary was entitled to reprieve the death sentence to one of life imprisonment. And sometimes he did.
It looks as if this is what happened in Florie's case.
I honestly don't know if she was guilty or not, but it doesn't seem from what has been written up here, that Florie was treated in any way unlawfully.
If there was no appeal system, I guess Matthews did about as much for her as he could. You say he should have released her. But, whether rightly or wrongly, she'd been found guilty of murder. Probably no one could order her release until that conviction was overturned. How did they overturn convictions before there was a court of appeal? Could they issue a pardon or something? I guess however it happened, they would have needed some powerful new evidence, and I don't suppose there was any. So, from my semi-informed position, it's hard to see what more anyone could have done for her.
D you think, Bob, that you might have misunderstood Levy's 'dramatic licence' and got hold of the wrong end of the stick?
And tell me someone please - is it just, as Peter suggests, a sentimental thing about pretty girls not being able to do murder? Or is there genuine reason to question the justice of her conviction?
regards
Karoline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 09:22 am | | Hi Karoline,
you last point in one of the above postings is interesting. The common perception was that Maybrick died of acute poisoning, yet the doctors weren't willing to state that. And only a minute portion of arsenic was found in his system. Although I'm not a doctor I would suggest that if someone had the same symptoms today the diagnosis would more than likely be actue withdrawal from an addictive substance rather than arsenical poisoning. But that's just my opinion.
Dela |
Author: Karoline
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 10:01 am | | Dela:
I gather that 'proving' acute arsenical poisoning as a cause of death is often difficult - unless very large quantities remain in the digestive tract and other organs. The symptoms of gastric inflammation can be confused with gastro-enteritis, and frequently were, allowing murderers (like Armstrong), to get away with their crimes - at least for a while.
To try and help answer your question, I'd like to ask a few.
Did Maybrick display any neurological symptoms immediately prior to his death? Did he complain of numbness in his limbs, tingling or pins and needles? Did he find it hard to move his legs, complain that they felt cold?
If he did, this would be a pretty strong indication of arsenical poisoning.
I'm not sure that withdrawal from an addictive substance is likely to kill a person. Does anyone know about that?
And, anyhow Dela, what kind of addictive substance would you be thinking of? I understood that the only thing Maybrick is supposed to have taken was arsenic, which (as far as I know), isn't a substance that produces the kind of physical addiction you mean.
Can I take the chance here to suggest that some of the assumed truths about this case could do with looking at again?
How much independent evidence is there that Maybrick did take arsenic? Is it just hearsay, or third hand testimony or is there prima facie evidence of purchase etc.?
Because you know, if that supposed fact could be shown to be in even the slightest doubt, then a good deal of current assumption would have to be questioned in a very fundamental way.
I do sense a certain mythology growing up around polarised images of Florie as innocent angel and Maybrick as the villain in the top hat.
But life just isn't that simple, so I wonder what the muddled reality behind these images really is.
Have a good Good Friday
Karoline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 10:35 am | | Hi Karoline,
I don't really want to go into Maybrick's death much right now. I'd really like to go back and do some reading and it really should have it's own board. However, Maybrick's symptoms included numb hands, severe vomiting (and I think diarrhoea) and a raised temperature. The whole problem with an acute poisoning scenario is that it took some eight to 12 days for Maybrick to finally die after showing these symptoms. If there was a fatal dose it seems the doctors were going to say it occurred on the 3rd May. The symptoms may suggest arsenical poisoning but I've also heard of similar symptoms for people who've had rapid withdrawals from drugs such as heroin. Death can result as I understand but I think it's usually from someone drowning in their own vomit. Perhaps someone with medical expertise may be able to enlighten us further. Even so, most of the doctors of the time wouldn't have the expertise that people have today. I think the only doctor with significant expertise acknowldge at trial that this didn't appear to be a case of poisoning (but I'll have to check that).
I think there is a grwat deal of evidence that Maybrick took arsenic - several witnesses at the trial testified to it. He was also a hypochondriac which adds to the problems in determining in possible complaints about his health - was he just complaining or were some symptoms serious?
I am not taking sides in any of this. On the evidence (and I have read the trial transcript) I would've found it impossible to convict Florie. That's why people campaigned for a pardon.
Dela |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 02:36 pm | | Hi, Karoline:
You asked: "Did Maybrick display any neurological symptoms immediately prior to his death? Did he complain of numbness in his limbs, tingling or pins and needles? Did he find it hard to move his legs, complain that they felt cold? If he did, this would be a pretty strong indication of arsenical poisoning."
From my study of the Maybrick Case, I can say that James Maybrick showed all of those symptoms prior to his death.
As for whether Florie was unjustly convicted, there is an interesting letter quoted in Trevor Christie's "Etched in Arsenic" which was written, I believe to Levy, author of the "Necessity for Criminal Appeal" that has been mentioned on this board. The letter is from the son of Lord Russell of Killowan who protests the attempts to free Mrs. Maybrick. He points out that the evidence clearly showed that she had attempted to kill her husband, i.e., with arsenic she had obtained from the flypapers she had purchased. So it is probable that similarly the Home Secretary saw justification for her remaining in jail, on the basis of her allegedly proven attempt to kill her husband if not for his actual murder.
Chris George |
Author: Dekker Falconetti
Friday, 02 April 1999 - 02:40 pm | | | Karoline- Yeah...guilty or not, it's very very clear that FM was treated poorly by the legal system. Even the press and general public at the time seem to have been shocked by the guilty verdict from what I've read...and I've heard of no evidence condemning FM either...the flypapers, for example, were being used for cosmetic purposes...sounds far fetched to us, of course, but after her conviction they found one of FM's perscription that included the use of the flypaper...as far as I know, nobody's come up with anything that contradicts the poor gal's claims...and the doctor's reports are oh so suspicious! |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 03 April 1999 - 04:57 am | | Apparently, any arsenic that could have been extracted from soaking fly papers would not have amounted to enough to kill much more than said fly. Perhaps we could have some expert medical opinion to confirm or deny this crucial point.
Florie does not come across to me as a stupid person, yet any attempt to hide what she was doing from the household was obviously unsuccessful. And if she knew how much 'medication' her husband was tucking into, she had only to wait a while for nature to take its course, surely, instead of hastening Jim on his way to a premature grave.
Maybrick became addicted to arsenic when he took it as an antedote to the malaria he had contracted in earlier years, after the usual remedy (quinine I think) did not agree with him.
Also, I read that coming off arsenic can be the equivalent of signing your own death warrant, so if hardly any was found in his system after death, it could indeed indicate that the withdrawal killed him, not the stuff itself. Again, we need medical experts here, don't we?
Dela, aren't you supposed to be watching or playing footy? Wish Chelsea luck for me, I've recently bought an official football with all the up-to-date team signatures! (Proceeds to 'chairidy')
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline
Saturday, 03 April 1999 - 09:12 am | | Chris, Dela, Peter, Caroline, Dekker and any one else:
It seems to me that we have several different, but connected questions, that we should be careful to keep separate.
1. Was Maybrick really an arsenic-eater prior to his last illness?
2 Was his death probably caused by acute arsenical poisoning, or by natural causes, or by some other agent?
3. If his death was indeed 'unnatural' was Florie guilty of his murder?
4. Guilty, or not, did the prosecution prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and was her subsequent reprieve and imprisonment properly handled?
As far as evidence goes, there seems to be a huge mountain of inference built on inference - you know 'IF Maybrick was really an arsenic-eater, and IF Florie was realy soaking those fly-papers for her skin, and IF his symptoms were really ambiguous, then maybe....'
I think this is maybe the way myth begins to obscure and re-shape history, and the recent 'diary' stuff probably only serves to further deluge the subject with a fresh shower of supposition.
Is it possible that a great deal of what is 'known' about JM, this persona of deranged brutality that the 'diary' reinforces, is actually not the whole, or even necessarily a true image of the man?
I suspect it is based largely on what Florie's defence team made public about him, through the statements of her and other witnesses. This is not to say that it was necessarily untrue, but that it was, inevitably tailored to present the man in as bad a light as possible. Assassinating Maybrick's character was maybe the only hope her Counsel had of saving her from the gallows.
Might this have given us a skewed and partial view? And if we change perspective a little what does the case look like then? Does Florie stop being an angel and become a selfish opportunist who inflicted a terrible death on her own husband simply because he was in her way?
Not my opinion - I don't have any fixed views, don't know enough - just a suggestion.
Dela: from what I know of deaths by arsenic, a time span of eight to ten days is not an impossible period, particularly if repeated near-fatal doses were administered.
My (non-expert), reading tells me arsenic is a complex substance that produces both short and longterm effects. There are acute gastric symptoms in the short term, heart and renal failure in the medium term, and neurological symptoms (numbness, tingling, etc.) in the medium to long term. Death can result from any of these, and I presume from other complications as well. I believe that a high temperature is also sometimes a feature.
On the face of it, Maybrick's symptoms do look like classic arsenical poisoning. Athough this in itself is not proof of anything.
But this begs the question of why so little of the stuff was found in his organs.
Does anyone know how extensive (and reliable) the tests were? .
I ask because the low levels Bob and others describe are hard to explain in any scenario.
As any crime-writer and reader knows, arsenic builds up in the tissues, nails and hair, and if JM had been an habitual user, then he would surely have been full of it. Were his nails and hair tested? If his nails and hair were included in the tests , and there was next to no arsenic in them, then this pretty well conclusively proves that he was NOT an habitual arsenic user, doesn't it?
Does anyone know if such tests were done?
As Caroline says, so 'appositely', we need more facts and less supposition.
Any thoughts from anyone else?
And Bob, when you get back, and just incase you miss my other reply, explain something for me:
I talk about how much I adore clever men, and you tell me you only like being violent to women in bed.
Umm... what's the connection? You'll have to tell me, I can't figure it.
But anyway, I have this lovely mental picture of you - pounding away like a pile driver at the girl of your dreams. Personally, I 'm more interested in finesse and technique than violence. Let's hope for her sake that she isn't.
(fun claws - don't get cross).
regards to all
Karoline |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 03 April 1999 - 10:22 am | | There's not a lot that I could add to Karoline's masterly analysis of the problems that we have regarding whether Florie murdered her husband. It's important to remember that very few of us are experts on the Maybrick case per se: our main interest is in the infamous diary and whether JM was JtR. Therefore the major sources of our information are Shirley and Feldy's books. Both these works demonise JM to the extent that in her pb edition Shirley suggests that JM may have murdered his mother!
Going back to earlier books based on the trial and on interviews with participants it's clear that JM was known to have been taking drugs (arsenic, strychnine etc.) as a "tonic" for years before and during his marriage and had mentioned this to friends. Now the physiology and reactions of an habitual taker of small doses of these drugs has to be different to, for example, Mrs. Armstrong whose case is really the next great arsenic crime post Maybrick. We are told that those iritating Stygian peasants who take arsenic doses to "improve their wind" also build up an immunity to the poison. Would it therefore be logical to say that to poison a Stygian peasant with arsenic the dose would have to be much larger than usual? Would it also be logical that arsenic would pass through the system of such peasant quicker than normal? I don't know but it might explain two things: that Maybrick had less than half a grain of arsenic in his body whereas the lamented Pierre L'angelier (Miss Smith's friend) had 82 grains in his stomach and that a fatal dose of arsenic could have acted relatively slowly. In 1889 it was thought that a fatal dose (less than 2 grains) would kill in under 24 hours. In Armstrong's case (1921) more modern research moved that time up to 8 days before death. One of the strong points in Florie's defense was that she was pretty much under control from the afternoon of the 8th May to JM's death on the 11th and this may have been one of the problems that caused the Home Secretary to reprieve her. We now know that she could have poisoned her husband a week or more before he died, and several days before her letter to Brierley was found and suspicion fell upon her.
There were quite certainly large amounts of arsenic tucked away in Battlecrease House. A packet of the stuff was actually found in Florie's trunk and a bottle of meat-juice prepared by Florie was found to have arsenic in it. It has been said by one of our persistent correspondents: "Apparently, any arsenic that could have been extracted from soaking fly papers would not have amounted to enough to kill
much more than said fly." This is nonsense: in Seddon's case (1911) this was how the poison used to kill Miss Barrow was produced. Let me close by quoting from that eminent QC F.E. Smith (Lord Birkenhead) who said, on the Maybrick case: "...I think that if I were a juror in a civil action, judging by the probabilities, I should have found against her (Florie.) But on a criminal charge, where a reasonable doubt entitles to aquittal, I should have aquitted. But if I had to consider the case on appeal, I should hesitate very long before I could see my way to disturb the verdict."
Peter. |
Author: Caroline
Sunday, 04 April 1999 - 04:27 am | | I only want the truth. If Florie was guilty then fine. Attractive confident young women who fall in love do not have a monopoly on innocence, as bearded loathsome-looking 'foreigners' with the same sexual habits as 99.9 recurring % of male adolescents do not have a monopoly on serial killing (grin). However, it does seem to my untrained eye that some of the posters among us would have Florie hung drawn and quartered for daring to go her own way, when James was so obviously a saint, who only frequented prostitutes to make up for her being the less than the dutiful little wifey.
Unfortunately, life is never that black and white, and plenty of Victorians did seem to have a certain obsession with wives taking poisonous revenge on the double standards of their menfolk. Perhaps it was what they expected to happen deep down, knowing what their own behaviour was really like.
I've said it before, that women are not all the same. All 'Flories' will not automatically me murderesses.
If my 'persistent' correspondence bothers you Peter, I'm so sorry but, as the saying goes 'Tough titty mate'. Enjoy your chocolate digestives.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline
Sunday, 04 April 1999 - 05:20 am | | I think all of us here want to arrive at the truth. My posting about myth obscuring reality wasn't intended as a comment on the motives of anyone posting here, and I think it would be awful to lose this fascinating discussion to another empty round of sniping.
We'v identified 3 or 4 interesting questions, and produced a couple of answers.
We seem to have established (anyone please correct any mistakes I make here):
1. that Maybrick's symptoms did closely resemble those of acute arsenical poisoning.
3. there was arsenic in the meat juice bottle that had been in Flories's possession
4 there was arsenic elsewhere in her possession
5 she was also soaking flypapers to extract the arsenic (she said it was for a skin-preparation).
All this is a surfeit of arsenic and looks damning yet we have :
6. that Maybrick did not have enough arsenic in his stomach to kill him.
Where does that leave us?
The answer must hinge on how extensive and reliable the tests were, whether only the digestive tract was examined, or whether other organs were too. What the results of those tests were. Whether it is possible to die from the effects of arsenic, even when most of the poison is eliminated from the digestion.
Are there for example other cases when death by arsenic was established while a similarly small amount was present in the digestive tract? Or is this impossible?
And how does this tiny amount square with the image of Maybrick as a 'professional' arsenic-eater?
WAS he in fact an arsenic-eater?
I take Peter's point that several people came forward at the trial to testify to Maybrick's consumption. It's signficant, but not conclusive.
People make things up, or exaggerate. And in a murder trial, I think the defence will go to considerable lengths to find people who will say what they want them to say. Inevitably things can become distorted.
Before we can take such stories as fact, it would be nice to have some prima facie evidence to back them up.
I think the question of whether his hair and nails were tested is pretty significant, because such a test, if positive for arsenic, would provide the only verifiable evidence that this hearsay was true. And if such tests were negative then, the hearsay would be discredited.
Does anyone know if such a test was done.
We need someone who's an experienced pathologist, an expert in jurisprudence and interested enough in JTR to be looking in here.
No problem, must be hundreds of them.
Karoline |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 04 April 1999 - 06:52 am | | Hi y'all.
If Agatha Christie and a hundred other mystery authors wrote true - arsenic acts as a preservative on the body. So, there's always the option of digging Maybrick up and testing his nails and hair now. :^)
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Sunday, 04 April 1999 - 12:01 pm | | Just a few small points about the above messages:
Caroline: When I say the word football I actually mean Australian Rules Football. Although I do follow the results of the English Premier League in what we Australians call soccer I'll let someone else be the expert in that regard.
Chris George: I'm not sure quite what you're getting at but Lord Russell was Florie's defence counsel and afterwards campaigned to have her freed - I doubt that he protested against the attempts to have her freed.
To everyone else: I strongly suggest that everyone reads the case and makes up their own minds on whether the evidence was sufficient for a verdict of guilty. On my reading of recent analyses it seems that then, as today, there is still some dispute about whether Maybrick died of arsenical poisoning. I suppose the evidence of doctor's of the day and their methods of diagnosis means that that issue will never be fully resolved.
Dela |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 04 April 1999 - 06:25 pm | | Hi, Dela:
The following are quotes from the letter from Justice Frank Russell, son of Florence Maybrick's defense counsel, Sir Charles Russell, to Trevor Christie about Mrs. Maybrick. Make of it what you will:
"That she was wrongfully found guilty of murder is beside the question--the wrongness of the verdict depending only on the fact that the weight of evidence was against the view that the arsenic found in the body was sufficient to cause [James Maybrick's] death by arsenical poisoning. But that she tried to kill him is beyond doubt.
"My father never held her up as an innocent woman deserving of sympathy. He only thought that her conviction for murder was not justified by the evidence and on that ground pressed Home Secretaries for her release."
Chris George |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Monday, 05 April 1999 - 09:25 am | | Thanks Chris,
A strange quote indeed. At least it clears up the fact that Sir Charles wasn't protesting against her reprieve. It reinforces the argument that there was insufficient evidence of murder (although attempted murder was not out of the question). As I recall from reading the case transcript several years ago the prosecution didn't do a very good job at all in proving that she tried to kill James, but I'll have to go back and have another read of it.
I just find the letter somewhat perplexing - if it was beyond doubt that Florie tried to kill James then why would an eminent lawyer such as Sir Charles Russell want to fight so hard to overturn the state of affairs?
Dela |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 05 April 1999 - 09:53 am | | Hi, Dela:
I think part of the problem with Florie is that she was having an extramarital affair and Victorian opinion was against her for that. Part of the letter from Russell fils that I did not quote slammed her for the affair. Sir Charles lobbied the Home Office for the reasons you state, that the evidence of arsenic in James Maybrick's body did not seem enough to kill him, so on those grounds Sir Charles felt that she was convicted on insufficient evidence. However, again, the feeling was that she had developed an illicit relationship with Brierely and she wanted to dispose of James for that reason. From our modern perspective, we look askance at Victorian society's hypocricy but that is how it was back then. Similarly, as you know, the Victorians of the day were appalled that the servant Alice Yapp would dare to open Florence's letter to Brierely even though that letter proved her infidelity.
Chris George |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Monday, 05 April 1999 - 09:58 am | | Hi Karoline,
In reference to a few of your previous posts, I think it's drawing somewhat of a long bow to say that the defence assassinated Maybrick's character - they did no such thing. Much of the evidence centred upon the days and events leading up to his death and medical opinion as to whether he died of arsenical poisoning. There were some witnesses who testified that he was in the habit of taking arsenic but at no time did they paint James in a bad light .
I would have to day that all the witnesses in the trial were credible. I think one of those who testified to James' use of arsenic came from the US - I don't think he'd have made anything up or have reason to. Anyway, it was you who said we need supposition not facts - yet you seem to be introducing your own supposition when we have sworn testimony!
It must be remembered that the diary is a recent discovery. Florie's trial has been argued for much longer and it has been known for a long time that James was suspected of being an arsenic addict. It was also well known that he was a hypochondriac - and there was evidence to that effect at the trial. That didn't make him a monster. It's true that the pro-diary authors have attempted to tie in the facts surrounding his death with those that support the diary. But it's important to look at Florie's case in isolation.
The facts are that James exhibited symptoms which (on the known facts as stated by the doctors of the time) MIGHT have indicated arsenical poisoning. They were also symptoms which MIGHT have indicated he died of something else.
Today I believe that you can't really say one way or the other because the doctors knew so little about arsenical poisoning and the tests which could be carried out to detect arsenic were primitive. Medical knowledge has advanced significantly - in 1889 it would've been much harder to diagnose accurately because doctors couldn't run tests on a sick patient like they can do today. The doctors making the diagnosis couldn't have said conclusively. Indeed it wasn't until after his death that arsenical poisoning became an issue. The doctors saw him for eight days - why didn't they transfer him to hospital if it looked that serious. Most of them diagnosed something other than poisoning - only changing their opinion after his death when it was suggested to them. I don't doubt arsenic was present in James' body. I do doubt whether he was poisoned.
As for Florie and her flypapers. Florie did have a script for a facial treatment in which arsenic was the active ingredient. It wasn't located until after the trial. Had it been located earlier it would undoubtedly have strengthened her defence.
All I can do is suggest you get hold of a copy of the transcript - it's in a book by H.B. Irving called "The Trial of Mrs Maybrick". And while reading remember that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You can view the evidence and be your own juror. Guilty or not guilty?
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Monday, 05 April 1999 - 10:08 am | | Hi Chris,
Sorry I didn't reply straight away about your last post but I was writing that long one to Caroline. Yeah, society does tend to let peripheral issues cloud it's judgment. My father had a secretary whose father was convicted in one of our country's most controversial cases and it was a commonly held belief that he was wrongly convicted. As with Florie this man had a "motive" in that he was having an extramarital affair. That seemed to cloud everyone's thinking on whether he murdered his wife - and this was in the 1970s not Victorian times - I think that such an issue would still invoke that sort of response today. Ballistics tests were botched - later tests proved that he couldn't have shot his wife as the prosecution alleged. He was released after serving about 15 years and still proclaims his innocence.
Dela |
|
|
|
|
