|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The Texas Ripper?
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: The Texas Ripper?
Author: Barabbas
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 07:24 pm |        | | I'm certain I once read somewhere that a strikingly similar series of murder/mutilations was happening in Texas at the same time the Whitechapel killer was at work. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Sorry to sound so underinformed, but my own research into the subject has turned up nothing... |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 08:25 pm | | Hi Barabbas,
In Austin, Texas during 1885, eight women were killed by an axe murderer. The first killing took place on Christmas Eve, and the victim was a married woman named Eula Phillips whose body was found in her own yard shortly after she was seen going to bed. The other seven woman were thought to be prostitutes.
The manner of these killings appears very different from those of Jack the Ripper, however, I have uncovered one interesting fact. During the Ripper investigation, brief attention was payed to a suspect said to be a Malay ship's cook named "Alaska". Nothing seemed to come of this. I have discovered a newspaper story in connection with the Austin murders that states: "A Malay cook worked in a small hotel on Congress Avenue and at the time was suspected and watched by the police. But he disappeared shortly after, since which these bloody crimes have ceased." Curious.
Regards,
Mike |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 11:53 pm | | Hmmm. I tried following the Malay cook story, too. That's quite an interesting discovery.
It doesn't seem like these crimes would be linked, but here is a contemporary opinion that I found:
"I do not believe that the ten Whitechapel murders are the only acts of the kind which the unknown man has been guilty. Either he has performed similar acts on the living in deserted places where his cunning and other favorable circumstance secured immunity, or else he has served an apprenticeship on a dead body, be he butcher, medical man or amateur. It is not at all improbable that the hand that committed the Whitechapel murders committed the Texas murders." --Meeting of the "Society of Medical Jurisprudence" quoted in the New York Tribune, 14 December, 1888. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 02:15 am | | Hi R.J.,
Yet another intriguing dead-end.
Regards,
Mike |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 11:34 am | | Mike--In regards to the Malay cook 'Alaska', I managed to find a little more about this story. The name 'Alaska' seems to be a corruption of the word 'lascar':
[from E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.]
Lascar.
A native East Indian sailor in the British service. The natives of the East Indies call camp-followers lascars. (Hindu, lash-kar, a soldier.)
The police initially took the Malay cook story seriously, and it was thoroughly investigated. The ship the Malay allegedly was attached to --the Glenartney-- had left London on August 14th. The cook was not even a Malay, but a thoroughly respectable Chinese cook who had been with the shipping line for years. The superintendent of the Asiatic home in the East End was contacted, as were the employees at the Queen's Music-Hall. No one had heard the story of the alleged robbery or of the sailor named Dodge who originally told of 'Alaska'. The employees at the music hall denied that it could have happened without their knowledge. It appears to be a hoax; which makes the Malay cook story in Texas either nothing more than a coincidence or possibly the inspiration for this later yarn (?). What is interesting though, is that it shows how thoroughly Scotland Yard followed up even the slightest 'lead'. Cheers, RP |
Author: Michael Conlon
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 12:04 pm | | Thanks for that, R.J.,
I've got a number of stories about the Malay cook from American papers somewhere. I'll try to dig them up and see if there's any more I can add to your helpful information.
Wasn't a Japanese seaman (a cook?) arrested briefly on suspicion of being JTR?
Thanks,
Mike |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 04:25 pm | | RJ, Michael,
You can read a variety of articles about the mysterious Lascar descibed by the seaman named Dodge right here at the Casebook. You can link to each article in turn by using the Casebook Index system. Choose the entry entitled Malay to see a full list. You'll find thirteen references taken from British, American and Canadian sources.
Regards, V. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 06:50 pm | | Dear Viper,
Many thanks for the tip. The Casebook is quite a resource!
Best regards,
Mike |
Author: Otto K. Gross
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 09:11 pm | | My interest in Jack stems from an article I found in the New York Times in October of 1888 that compared the Whitechapel to murders that occurred in Texas in 1885.
From the New York Times, October 7, 1888, page 12 column 2
The London and Austin Murders
Austin Texas, Oct 4 - In 1885 there was a series of murders and assassinations of women, which extended at intervals throughout the year. Eight women in all were killed, including two white married women. The others were colored women and girls. Among the colored were Mary Rancy and Gracie Vance. The white women were Mrs. Hancock and Mrs. Eula Phillips. These murders have never been explained. The assassin left no trace whatever to identify him. There was a fearful similarity among all these murders - nearly all were killed about midnight and usually within a few days of full-moon nights. All the victims were struck with some sharp instrument about the head and on the side of the head. All were slain in profound silence, even persons in an adjoining room hearing nothing. The bodies were all found in the same position. All were dragged out into the back yard. On reading of the London Whitechapel murders citizens of Austin recognize a likeness to the servant-girl murders, as they are called, so startling as to lead to the conclusion that the London assassin is the Austin fiend of 1885.
I had never heard of these murders, and while I thought them unlikely to be related to Jack, I thought it would be good research material for an article or book. My first thoughts were just to investigate the Austin murders ( a.k.a. The Servant Girl Murders ) and write a short piece. The murders occurred over the period of about three years and had the same air of mystery about them that the Ripper murders had. The heads and faces of female servants were bashed in and/or carved up and no one heard a thing. On the surface nothing related to London. As I started reading newspapers, trying to catalog the murders, I noticed a letter to the editor about a similar situation in New Orleans.
About this time an idea popped into my head. I thought why not approach this along the lines of; "Out of all the suspects, who could have been in America at the same time as my murderer ?" Right off the bat you eliminate most of the suspects.
My current favorite Jack suspect is James Maybrick. I'm not sure whether I believe the Diary is real or not, but my arguments ( I find it difficult to use the word 'evidence ') do not depend on the Diary. I've also become a Florence-phile as part of my studies and she plays prominent part of the story I have forming.
Two other items related to James as Jack in America. First, Austin and New Orlean's weren't the only places in America with similar murders - I found the list of other possible places in the business section under the listings of cotton exchanges with trading prices.
The second thing I'll suggest is to read Charles Dickens, "The Uncommercial Traveller". I just picked up an 1869 copy on are our trip to Cape Cod. I'd been looking for a copy for years. The text is available through Project Guttenberg. I'd wondered, "Why Jack?" I know it's a common phrase for Brits for the period. If Jack is a foreigner, I'd expect letters worded as a Pole, Russia, or whatever nationality of the person who'd written the (valid) letters. I'd also expect the name to have some meaning to that person. There's nothing particularly fearsome about 'Jack' so I imagine the fear factor isn't it. If foreign, why not Stasha the Ripper, Boris the Ripper, or Moshe the Ripper?
But if you read this book by Dickens ( or just do a 'find' for Jack in the e-text) the main character, a cotton trader, refers to himself as Dark Jack or Light Jack or Commercial Jack as he travels to the lower parts of London. Speculation? Yes.
One of the things I'm trying to make sure I don't do is start convincing myself I've done it. My interest in finding the Servant Girl Murderer is still my focus - 100% sure he existed and traveled outside Austin; not 100% sure he's Jack just yet. I've told myself from the beginning that if I ever found some bit that proved Jack the Ripper wasn't ... American Jack - nah, sounds too much like cheese ... Dark Jack ( nice tingly working title ) I would be okay with it. I would still have my murders to write about. Having read every newspaper between 1873 to 1892 from most of the major towns throughout the South, I also learned more about the 19th century than just names and dates. It was amazing reading the Austin papers for this time period. I got a real feel for how people lived. I'd recommend it even if you're not interested in the murders.
I've looked at Tumblety and can't make him fit yet. I'll have to look at Holmes when I get some time. work, work, work. I have a 9 to 5 job - 9am to 5am  the rest of the day is all mine.
One of the main reasons I think James fits best just now is that I have three cities, each along the Cotton Belt Line railroad. That's so far. I'll be going to Savannah, Georgia in a few months. Hopefully, this will be the fourth town/area. My wife's family is having a family reunion in Atlanta and I'm hoping to drive down to the coast. If I can get a few days in a library I can scan the papers for my key years - 1882 - 1886. If I'm right ( about the serial killer, not necessarily the JTR connection) , Savannah should have several killings of servants. They'll be black women ( white women died in 1885 -1886 ) , from 13 years to early 30's ( most in 30's ) , hit in the head and their faces/head mutilated, and while the papers suggest, but never come out and directly mention it, sexual attempts , bodies generally manipulated or arranged in some fashion - one poor woman was arranged as on the Cross. Haven't found anything that fits the bill before 1882. I'm trying to connect up with people who know Florence well enough to suggest if she started cheating on James between 1880 and 1882.
We spent a few days in Norfolk, Virginia so I could go through the Norfolk Cotton Exchange records for the time James was in America as part of the Exchange. I'm comparing the records against the time table for the murders. So far James has not been in Norfolk when someone was murdered. The interesting thing I found in the records was that the railroad had a reciprocal agreement with the Cotton Exchange. Exchange members where on the railroad board to look after the cotton industries interests. The murders all occur short distances from the railroad. About a dozen in Austin, half that in Kansas City, one exact match in New Orleans ( tough town for news ) and a hand-full of maybes. But the same M.O.
I'm reading John Douglas' latest book on profiling and from what I've read in the JTR section of the book, he's not likely to agree with me either... yet. At least not until I dazzle him with my brilliant deductions... . The game is afoot...Mrs. Hudson, call me a cab! Whoever my murderer is he's certainly got the same , eh...personality disorder. In all three towns he used a railroad coupling pin to quiet his victims suddenly and quietly ( in Austin the papers refer to an ax being used, but in an autopsy report they list the same hole in the side of the head). Christmas Eve/Day 1885 was a double event.
But I still have lots of more work to do before I convince myself it could be James or anyone else. I also have a "Not a JTR suspect" folder because it is always a possibility the events are unrelated.
This is what the story looks like so far. James is in America starting in 1873. Gets malaria and via the cure, becomes addicted to Arsenic and Strychnine. The cotton industry goes down the drain towards the end of the 70's. There were two recessions in that time and cotton from other countries was cheaper than American cotton. With his business in the dumper and a nasty arsenic/strychnine addiction, James sees Florence as way out of certain ruin. She's in similar straights but neither one realizes it. They marry and they start to spiral down deeper and deeper. Ozzie and Harriet they're not. More like Mr. and Mrs. Satan. The both live in excess that their wallet can't support. Neither one lets the fact that they're broke prevent them from having a good time and living the Victorian life. Florrie and her Mother had just lost a fortune to their embezzling lawyer ( N.Y.T July 1889 article about Florence's trial says on the order of $1M in 1870's $$ ). The lawyer's name is Rosenthal, and had he not run off with their money, James would have been very wealthy ( "The Juwes are not the men who'll not be blamed for nothing." ??? ).
Between the drugs, the drinking, his age and his temperment, Bunny was certain to have looked for greener pastures. Somewhere in 1880-1881 James goes over the edge and evolves into Dark Jack, the character from Dickens "The Uncommercial Traveller".
The murders start (??? unless I find another town - we'll see) in Austin, close to Galveston; a cotton trading center. Austin is the hub for the Cotton Belt line in that area and everything and everyone goes through Austin. After a few murders, nothing. But then in Kansas City, another cotton trading town, the murders start. Then nothing for a while. Ditto for New Orleans ( but again this link is weakest. I must try to fly down there. They're refurbishing the Cotton Exchange there). So at this point, armed with the Norfolk Cotton Exchange records to see when James attends the meetings and old railroad maps I'm looking for similar murders in likely towns along the line. This continues through January of 1886 and then ( so far )nothing. I've gone into the 1890's with those towns and haven't come across anything like the originals killings.
I also would imagine that James' cloths would be foreign and, because of the traveling through the South, he'd be tanned, appearing to Londoners as Eastern European.
They head back to London....you know this part of the story already. Florence and James both have affairs, go deeper into debt, and James is suffering greater and greater effects from his habit. And the 5 (or more) women in Whitechapel die.
Fast forward....
In 1889 Florrie is accused of killing Jim.
In an article from the Review of Reviews in Nov 1892, Florence is quoted while be consulted regarding her trial as saying , " to spare Jim as much as possible." "I know", she said,"he has done many things wrong, but he is dead now, and I would be distressed if his life were to be made public." Odd thing to say when you're on trail. This article is mainly about a confession that a Henry Wilson made, regarding the death of James along with a woman names Sarah.
If you recall, James' demi-monde's name is Sarah. I'm also interested in finding out who Mr. Wilson is. You may recall that a Nurse Wilson was the chief witness against Florence in reporting James' last words as, "Oh Bunny, how could you do this to me." This critical piece of evidence is never questioned as hearsay ( or worse )in the Florences trial. Mr. Wilson died in 1892 in the Transvaal. I'm looking to see if there's a Mr. and Mrs. Wilson or brother/sister, etc. who may have had something against James or Florence.
I'm pretty certain Florence did give James arsenic and strychnine doses, but only because she was ordered to. She says as much in her book.
While reading about Victorian relationships, I read about a husband complaining to a friend that he was having problems with his wife as he " only had his wifes mere obedience." but wanted more than that. How Orwellian! But I read some really great stuff and I could go on and on...
Florence gets out of prison in 1905, moves back to America, writes her book. Moves to Illinois, then Florida, and finally Conn. where she dies in 1941. Her grave these days is marked with a simple stone marker with the initials "FECM" and the dates 1862 -1941.
While I believe James is Jack, I'm still not certain that the diary is real either. Every once in a while I wonder if James' brother Edwin is Jack. This project for me started with seeing if any of the JTR suspects fit the bill in both sets of murders. James is just the best fit so far. But I'm skeptical that I'm 100% correct and so I'll start on another suspect as soon as I get the time.
Funny story.... I never believed that the Queens son was Jack. Never doubted that for one second. I was in starting to read about J&F and was soooo convinced I was onto something. None of the other suspects were worth looking at any more. I was beaming!
So I'm scanning the papers around 1885 at the height of the Servant Girl murders in Austin ( looking for who's who in the hotels, etc. )and you won't believe it but The Duke of Clarence was in Texas!
The Homer Simpson "DOOOOOOH!!!!"  I let out is still echoing out there. But I learned an important lesson about mixing up what I'd like to believe and what I can prove.
Good night and "see" you around.
Otto |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 09:45 am | | Hi, Otto:
I continue in my belief that James Maybrick was not Jack and that the Diary is a fake. On the other hand, I find your research interesting particularly as I am also looking into American murders in relation to Tumblety. If such American murders were committed by James Maybrick before 1888, you have to explain why the raison d'etre for the Diary and the series of murders in the United Kingdom is, prima facie, Florence's infidelity in 1888 and the Diary makes no mention whatsoever of any prior murders--indeed the narrator definitely seems to indicate he had not killed prior to the first Manchester UK murder. Or are you saying that even if the Diary is a fake, it is still possible that Maybrick was the murderer and that he committed murders in the US and the UK?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 09:53 am | | Hi Otto,
Interesting post. Of course, since the "diary" is a fake, in someone else's handwriting, which has its fictional "James" get wrong even simple things like what his own famous brother did for a living (among a bunch of other stuff), it is historically irrelevant as evidence.
So you'll have to find something, somewhere that is both historically meaningful and that suggests James might have killed at least one person, somewhere, once. I don't believe any such evidence exists, but you never know.
Also, you'd have to find some legitimate historical reason to think James was ever in Texas. It's a very, very long way from Virginia to Texas (and was, practically speaking, a world away in the 1880's) and just because a rail line went there and there was a cotton business there, we can't place James there from any of the historical records or the biographies or the testimony at the trial or any other source that I know about.
But it's a fascinating line of inquiry and I wish you luck. Don't let the fact that the diary is a forgery and that there is no evidence of any sort that links the real James Maybrick an any way to the Ripper crimes -- or to the fake diary, of course -- discourage your further investigations into these other murders.
All the best,
--John
PS: Hi Chris. Our posts just crossed.  |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 05:56 pm | | John
You know full well that James wasn't mistaken about what his brother did for a living. Stop trying to convert Otto with another of your cheap sleight of hand tricks. You won't get away with it.
There is no 'fictional' James Maybrick. There was only one James Maybrick. He lived in Battlecrease House. He was Jack the Ripper.
It really is irresponsible of you to talk of the diary as a fake when you haven't proven it to be so. You haven't even started to.
Until you do ...
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 06:47 pm | | Don’t worry Otto,
I don't convert. I read. And the fictional "James" in the fake diary has his famous brother being successful at writing verse. It's a source of jealousy in the book. But the real Michael didn't make his name writing verse at all. He composed melodies and was well known for it. He had a partner who wrote the lyrics. He was well known, too.
Just one of the many goof-ups and inaccuracies and vagaries in this silly and ahistorical forgery (see also: Crashaw, Richard). Just one of the many problems that must be wriggled away using the desperate dream that language can mean whatever the Woods and Feldmans of the world want it to mean, despite the historical record and normal understanding. But a quick reading of the boards for the past year will show that clearly enough. I feel no need to add to what's already here.
Bye,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 02:28 am | | Hi John,
Just a quickie and from memory here, but I don't recall 'James' using the word 'successful' (which could mean professionally), to describe Michael's abilities at writing verse - just that 'James' wasn't as good at it as his brother. 'James' didn't write verse 'professionally' either, but he was having a stab (!) at it in the diary, wasn't he? If I write in my diary that I wish I could play the piano as well as my far more talented brother, how does that imply that I haven't cottoned on (!!) to the fact that he makes his living as a patents lawyer, and not as a pianist?
And 'James' does say that Michael 'writes a merry tune', so it's not like he doesn't know about the musical composing.
Just wanted to set the record straight.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 07:09 am | | Yes, I know, Caz, the word the fictional James uses is "succeed" and not "successful." And I'm sure Peter is going to tell me all the ways all the passages might be read to excuse the text.
"It shall come, if Michael can succeed in rhyming verse then I can do better, a great deal better he shall not outdo me. Think you fool, think. I curse Michael for being so clever, I shall outdo him, I will see to that. A funny little rhyme shall come to me."
The diary clearly has its fictional James be jealous over Michael's "success" at (or, if you prefer, ability for) writing verse. Another time, at another point: "curse Michael for being so clever the art of verse is far from simple," etc. And there is no historical evidence anywhere that Michael did write verse. His "success" came at writing melodies. He never wrote the words for his songs. Yet we get, "Michael would be proud of my funny little rhyme for he knows only too well the art of verse."
Of course, I know there will be wriggling around of all these quotes to suggest that the diary is not claiming what it appears to be claiming -- that Michael was a success at writing verse. Peter will soon be here. Anything to save the text, as usual. But the references are repeated and clear. The forgers needed Michael to be a versifier despite the historical record and so he became one in this work of fiction.
And what is the context of the line that includes the phrase "merry tune," anyway? "Michael is well, he writes a merry tune. In my heart I cannot blame him for doing so."
So all the talk of Michael's "success" and "cleverness" comes concerning writing verse specifically and the one single mention of Michael writing a tune says nothing about such things. Yet Michael was famous for writing tunes and there is no evidence at all that he ever wrote verse -- he certainly never even had a lyric published and no accounts in any of the testimony or the biographies ever have him writing lyrics.
But by all means, let's not read too literally. Let's just add this one to the list of "well, maybe it means..." and keep Peter's hope alive.
The thing is a fake, Caz. You know it, I know it and anyone with a simple critical ability to read and to reason knows it. Hell, I knew it was a fake the moment I learned it had its "James" character quote a line from Richard Crashaw, even before I learned that it wasn't in the real James's handwriting and that no science could place it in the nineteenth century and that there were a number of historical inaccuracies to go with the cheesy melodrama. This book has no more to do with the real crimes in Whitechapel than Johnny Depp does. And the book isn't even cute.
But I'm not going to argue over the many possible ways to read one passage or another. The case has been made thoroughly and repeatedly all over these boards for this thing as a forgery and it does not need to be made yet again. What we need is to figure out who forged it and why.
But thanks for offering your reading.
--John |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 05:40 pm | | John
You took a very long post to say very little.
You believe the diary is a forgery. Wow! I didn't know that!
The diary has not been proven to be a forgery. Far from it. Yes, you believe it to be a forgery, you simply can't accept that it is genuine, but you haven't proven anything.
To anyone who is interested in a critical reading of the text just take a moment to think about this: Were you aware that Elvis Presley did not write his own songs? Do you know if it is Elton John or Bernie Taupin who writes the words? Which of them writes the music? What about Robbie Williams and Guy Chambers? Several hit singles, but which one writes the words? Which one writes the music?
What reason, John, do you have to suppose that James Maybrick (a very real gentleman) would be intimately aware of his brother's livelihood? He was a cotton merchant for crying out loud!
Yes, he would have been aware that his brother was a stage performer, I'll grant you that one. But if James had seen Michael "in concert" do you think he would be automatically aware that Michael didn't write his own lyrics?
Come on John, you are just being silly now. Those straws you keep clutching at are growing thinner and fewer by the day.
Apart from the fact that James visited his brother in London, they led very much separate lives. One a cotton merchant, the other an internationally renowned stage artist.
Would you slate Michael Maybrick for not having intimate knowledge of the cotton trade? Of course not. But John, you have to find fault with the diary, right?
You have your explanation. Live with it.
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 06:41 pm | | Perfect!
James Maybrick did not know what his own famous brother did for a living.
He must not have -- because of the diary. Fit the history to the diary. Make the history conform to the diary since the diary must be real. It's all completely and logically backwards, of course.
But it's perfect.
Peter actually asks everyone here:
"Were you aware that Elvis Presley did not write his own songs? Do you know if it is Elton John or Bernie Taupin who writes the words? Which of them writes the music? What about Robbie Williams and Guy Chambers? Several hit singles, but which one writes the words? Which one writes the music?"
But of course the question is only relevant if you are Elvis Presley's brother. Or Elton's. Or Bernie's. Or Robbie's. Or Guy's. And not just their brother, but their fairly close brother, with whom you are in regular contact and whom you visit on repeated occasions.
No wonder Peter believes in the diary. His sense of logic and relevance is so out of whack that he cannot see the stunning and obvious inconsistency in the questions he has posed.
Then he asks:
"What reason, John, do you have to suppose that James Maybrick (a very real gentleman) would be intimately aware of his brother's livelihood?"
Well, Michael was James's brother and Michael was rather famous and Michael was regularly in touch with James and James wouldn't need to be "intimately aware" of his brother's livelihood, only know what his brother did for a living.
And there was sheet music all over Britain published with Michael's name as the composer of the music on it and his partner's name for the lyrics. And...
But, no, this is too perfect. I'm just going to let it stand. Peter is actually excusing the diary's historical nonsense by saying that real James Maybrick didn't know what his own brother did for a living.
And he asks this colossally stupid question:
"Would you slate Michael Maybrick for not having intimate knowledge of the cotton trade?"
A. Michael would not have had to have "intimate knowledge" of anything. That is a misleading phrase.
B. James wasn't the famous brother. Michael was.
So the question is once again pointless and irrelevant. But...
I'm sorry. I can't go on. I have fallen into a permanent smirk. Anyone who takes arguments like this seriously deserves to believe in this hoax.
I exit laughing.
Bye all,
--John |
Author: Otto K. Gross
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 09:18 pm | | Hi John,
Thanks. Finding James in these cities is one of my main tasks. I haven't found James in any of the "In the hotels" articles that were previlent in newspapers of the time. Even mis-spelled. In "Etched in Arscenic" Florence is quoted as saying that they routinely travelled under aliases. I've come to read this was not that peculiar; albeit inconvenient. I've even gone through looking for their friends names, etc. like Aunspaugh and names from the Norfolk exchange. I need to re-read the Exchange records to see if they prove that James was on the road.
The railroads and the exchanges had a agreement that put a member of the exchange on the road going from town to town, looking after the railroad-cotton industry interests. I need to go over it again to see if they mention James specifically. I had gone over the dates his name appears as attending meetings in Norfolk and there's no conflict at that level. But I realize that this could mean he was in the bar down the street and forgot the time.
An article written about James at the time of his death mentions the name of his man-servant in Norfolk. I unfortunately didn't come across this before I went to Norfolk. I'd like to see if he was inteviewed at that time by the local papers. So many leads, so little time.
The Pinkerton Detective Agency was called into investigate the Austin murders and I'm trying to locate someone who has Pinkerton historical records. Mr. Pinkerton wrote a famous cases book which ends a few years short of my mark. I've been checking around to see if wrote part 2.
Regarding the distance from Virginia to Texas being a world away.
That's what I'd have thought also. It turns out one could go from Savannah, Ga to New Orleans in about 20 hours at a cost of a penny a mile. Norfolk to Texas would have added another part of a day. There was an Exposition in New Orleans and I came across an article that discussed getting there, travel times, costs, etc.
Another assumption that I made but had corrected is that these murders were most likely the work of Indians or Mexican bandits. I soon discovered that it was more likely that Elvis impersonators dressed in poodle skirts were more likely to make it into Austin. The Texas Rangers had expunged the area so heavy-handedly that the normal townfolk were terrified to have them around. The local papers never considered it a possibility that a single Indian was able to infiltrate. There was a letter to the editor from someone that mentioned how "Indians were a problem in the Oklahome territory and that given a closed room and a gas pipe he and his men could take care of the Indian problem there also."
Austin law enforcement and citizenry did go through a similar form of denial as they did in England regarding who to suspect, that this was the work of lower-class members, then the lunatic theory - full moon and all. Eventually, they took photograghs of the eyes of the victims in hope that this would show the murderer in the final act. The Christmas Eve/Day double event in 1885 was so frustrating for the police they arrested every black person in Austin - men, women, and children.
Thank you, everyone, for the input. It's nice conversing about this with people who understand this type of battle of wits with bits and pieces. Weighing the value of this piece of knowledge, is that piece worth entering into the picture or not. Mental origami. The right set of facts filtered in the right perspectives. When all is said and done maybe time does reveal all..
I'll keep you updated. Where are those Exchange records.....
Otto |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 10:37 pm | | Hi Otto,
Sounds like you've got your hands full with plenty of stuff to research.
Best of luck. I hope it pans out and you find some evidence of some sort that helps you in your investigations.
I look forward to seeing what you learn,
--John |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 02:01 am | | Hi Otto,
I don't know if you have seen this before. If you haven't, you may find it interesting. It is a near contemporary map of Austin's red-light district.
Cheers,
John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 05:58 am | | Otto--Not to toss a wrench in your machinery, but don't you have a problem in that Maybrick permanently moved from Norfolk to Liverpool after March 1884? Just wondering...
Cheers, RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 11:13 am | | Hi, Otto:
I believe the Pinkerton archives are now at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Check there for whatever Pinkerton Detective Agency records might exist on the Austin murders. Could you please cite the page in Trevor Christie's Etched in Arsenic where Florence Maybrick stated that she and her husband "routinely travelled under aliases" if you would. Thanks.
When you talk about James's manservant in Norfolk I believe you mean Thomas Stansell, the black waiter, who served both Maybrick and another lodger, Nicholas Bateson, a cotton broker from Memphis but formerly of Liverpool, when the two cotton merchants shared lodgings in Norfolk from 1877 to 1881. Stansell's testimony at Florie's trial in St. George's Hall, Liverpool, would, I believe, have been mentioned in newspaper reports of the trial in August to September 1889 but Stansell would I think unlikely to have been mentioned in any news article written immediately following Maybrick's death in May 1889 as you imply. The African-American waiter was a defense witness and I believe few would have known about him until defense enquiries led to him being subpoenaed to appear at the trial and thus make the trip from Virginia to Liverpool, as I assume he did.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Vila
Saturday, 06 April 2002 - 01:02 pm | | Hmmmm,
I knew when my own brother was a truck driver, an electrical contractor wiring new houses, a maintenance man in a local hospital, and when he left that to be a maintenance supervisor at a local machine shop.
Why on earth would someone's family not know their means of employment? Unless there was some rift in the family, of course. I find any arguement that James wouldn't be aware of his own brother's actual job to be a bit suspect.
Vila |
Author: Otto K. Gross
Saturday, 06 April 2002 - 07:11 pm | | c:\My Documents\My Pictures
 03221884_p387.jpg |
Author: Otto K. Gross
Saturday, 06 April 2002 - 08:19 pm | | Okay. That hurt. Just lost the last post I was trying to write.... ouch. More more try.
John: Thanks. I don't have that exact map.
RP: The simple answer is yes, James resigned the exchange on March 22,1884.
The more complete answer is that James was a member of the Board of Directors for the Exchange as well as a member of the Exchange. He resigned from the Exchange and in that same meeting asked about staying on as a non-residential or foreign member. Page 387 of the Norfolk Cotton Exchange records shows both entries:
In the first "On motion" is the resignation of Maybrick from the Exchange. The third one, is :
On motion of Mr. E.C. Brooks the secretary was instructed to refer <word?> part of Mr. Maybricks letter bearing upon the question of Foreign or Nonresidential Members, to the Special Committee appointed to revise our Constitution, By Laws and Rules.
To me this means that James was leaving the Board but not necessarily the Exchange. True, he moved to Liverpool. But did he stay? In "The Final Chapter" page 267, the page starts with "James Maybrick made regular business trips to the USA, usually sailing from Liverpool to New York on one of the White Star liners. Between 1881 to 1887, in connection with his wife's claim to some land in Virginia and Kentucky, he wrote several letters to a letters to a lawyer, David W. Armstrong. ... so in 1888 Maybrick still had every reason to visit New York .....
blah,blah,blah....
Mr Armstrong:
Q. Mrs. Maybrick, did Mr. Maybrick pass a considerable part of each year at the City of Norfolk, Virginia?
A. Yes Sir; about six months in every year - sometimes eight.
The August 21, 1889 New York Times article, "To Save Mrs. Maybrick", states that "He (James) was a Liverpool cotton broker and used to cross the ocean half a dozen times every year."
In addition, as evidence that James was busy doing business in America, his brother Edwin was still living and working in America until 1887.
If he was he even a few months out of the year that would have been enough.
I think this is enough for me to continue my line of questioning of James' activities. Of course, I'm still searching for real evidence that James came back and travelled in the American South.
Chris: Thank you so much for the tip on Pinkerton's records. I'll get online and see what they have and plan a trip down my first free weekend. Fortunately, I only live about 3-4 hours from Washington. I'll figure out the reference to travelling using aliases first chance I get. And yes, It's Stansell. My hope there is that after his appearence at such a visable trial, the press who would not have normally given him the time of day, would interview him because of his newfound noteriety. I hope to order more/other microfilm for other papers in and about Norfolk.
All: While I was going through the Norfolk Cotton Exchange records, I came across James signature.
The Secretary would write down members names without saying Signed. This commendation says signed and has James' signature with the comment listing the Directors. Does this look like his signature to evryone?
FYI: page 250 in the Exchange Records just in case.
Otto |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 06 April 2002 - 11:39 pm | | Otto--Sounds like you are doing some in-depth research and are finding some good sources. Now you have my attention. Though I knew from trial transcripts that brother Edwin spent much of his time in America, I never had the impression that Maybrick himself crossed the water much after 1884. But if Maybrick's frequent travels to the USA are true, one must wonder about the possibility of Maybrick being in the US during August-September 1888-- which would be an important time of the year for cotton brokers. I wonder what Paul Feldman found out.
By the way, Christie's book mentions the fact that Maybrick & Edwin had much of their money tied up in a bank in Galveston, Texas.
Good luck on those Pinkerton archives. I tried to find a little information on them a while back in another connection. There seems to be at least 100 boxes or so at the Library of Congress, so there's bound to be interesting things in there, though it might be a rather daunting task to dig through it all. Good luck with your studies, and hope you crack the Texas case. RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 07 April 2002 - 12:25 am | | Hi, Otto:
Thanks for posting some valuable information and images in of documents in regard to James Maybrick's connections to the Norfolk Cotton Exchange. It appears that you are doing some groundbreaking work and are to be congratulated. The signature that you show from page 250 in the Exchange Records looks somewhat like James Maybrick's signature but I fear that since all those signatures look suspiciously alike in letter shapes and width of pen strokes, what we are seeing is a transcription done by the Secretary of the actual signatures, a common practice by clerks of the day.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Otto K. Gross
Thursday, 09 May 2002 - 11:32 pm | | I got to the manuscript room at the Library of Congress and went through the Pinkerton Records for Herman Mudgett. Quite an experience. He's off my list of suspects. James still tops my list.
I also did not find any involvement in the Austin/New Orleans/Kansas City murders by Pinkerton's. I went through their general ledgers for the 1880's. Plenty of entries regarding "labor problems -Jersey Central Railroad - $6.00 per day" and lots of blackmail cases. One particularly odd case was listed as "Damaged Guano", payed Pinkerton's $80.00...that must of been some good guano!
I came across a couple of things I found interesting though. The first was a code book used to transmit messages by people in the cotton business. Called the "Cotton Supplement of the Birchwood Code", it contains 5 character code groups that represent phrases, sentences, transaction types, and anthing standard things someone in the business might need to say via telegraph ( e.g. WAISA = delivered ex warehouse in Liverpool ). 90 pages of five character groupings. My hope was to find the code JUWES or JEWES listed and meaning something like, "I hate my wife and I plan on killing women! signed James"...no luck.
Might be something codebook-wise I can write up in Cryptologia though. I'm quite the envy of my crypto friends. First one on my block to have a copy...
The other interesting thing I came across was an advertisement for Valetine's Meat Juice in the Norfolk City Directory while trying to track down Mary Howard.
I didn't realise it was available in the US. I wonder if it was bottled and labeled here or just shipped in from England?
I re-read "Mrs Maybrick's Own Story: My Lost Fifteen Years" looking for clues. The search goes on.
Otto |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 10 May 2002 - 07:26 am | | Hi, Otto:
Thank you so much for updating us on your research efforts in regard to Maybrick, Norfolk, and the cotton business. Have you tried the Pinkerton files to see if there might be a photograph of Abberline? As you probably know, he worked for the detective agency in Monaco after his retirement from Scotland Yard. No known photograph of Abberline has so far surfaced.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Friday, 10 May 2002 - 04:54 pm | | Hello Chris-
I too searched through the Pinkerton archives in Washington looking for just that- a photo of Abberline. Although there were cases involving fraud against the Bank of England and a prolific Belgian safecracker, I could find no mention of the Inspector, let alone a photograph. Hopefully someone else may have better luck.
AAA88 |
Author: Otto K. Gross
Friday, 10 May 2002 - 10:55 pm | | Hi Chris,
I was not aware Abberline worked for Pinkerton's.
I'll add that search to my list of things for my next trip down. While he was notable enough to warrant a photograph for posterity, some of the contents of the boxes were in poor condition. One box of ledgers was in reality two ( or more - couldn't really tell ) that had been thrown together. Due to age and the poor conditions in the Pinkertons warehouse for all those years for all intents and purposes, unsepartable. Such a shame.
I wonder what might be available in Monaco? Newspapers or magazines on microform...hmmm. Something to think about.
Otto |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 11 May 2002 - 05:21 pm | | Hi, Jesse and Otto:
Jesse, thanks for updating us on your search in the Pinkerton archives for any photograph of Abberline. Otto, I appreciate your effort to search for one next time you go to the Library of Congress. Your tip to see what may be available on Abberline in Monaco may be a good one.
For your information, Otto, in 1898, Abberline became the European agent for the Pinkerton Detective Agency. An extract from his handwritten memoirs, which, frustratingly do not cover the Whitechapel murders, "Reminiscences of Ex-Detective Chief Inspector F. G. Abberline C.I.D. Scotland Yard. Three Successive Seasons or Twelve Months Behind the Scenes at Monte Carlo" appeared in the Bournemouth convention issue of Ripperologist, No. 37, October 2001.
A photograph or photographs of Abberline may exist, just as such images of Tumblety may also exist, but part of the problem in the case of both men may be that they died childless.
Best regards
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
