|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 09 February 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Real James Maybrick:
Archive through 09 February 2001
Author: Karoline
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 08:53 am |        | I've started this discussion because it seems to me a closer analysis of the REAL Maybrick might provide the best means of obtaining final proof about the status of his supposed 'diary'.
After all the 'diary' gives us a very definite image of the man: unhinged, confused, sadistic, and heavily addicted to certain substances.
The greater part of this image takes its inspiration from the oft-repeated story that Maybrick did indeed dose himself with dangerous poisons, and might even have ended up accidentally killing himself.
if this is true, then in that at least, the 'diary' has got it right.
But is it true?
Did James habitually take such substances in doses so large and so frequent as to confuse his mind and lead to his death?
For some time now I've been (intermittently), looking for answers to this question. So far, the only source I can find for the story of James's 'substance abuse' is the defence testimony of some of his aquaintances and friends.
Of course such testimony is significant, but on its own it doesn't amount to proof or even to very solid evidence.
Is there something better I am missing? Something that conclusively points to his habitual ingestion of large amounts of arsenic or strychnine?
Or is it possible that this image is false or at least wildly exaggerated? A kind of myth or lie promulgated by Florence herself and her often very vociferous friends?
Did Florence even deliberately set out to lay a false trail, claiming her husband dosed himself with dangerous poison, so that his sudden death from arsenical poisoning might appear to be an accidental overdose?
There is some evidence to support this possibility. In March 1889, only weeks before her husband began displaying his fatal symptoms, Florie began telling various people that her husband was taking strange 'white powders' that she was sure were dangerous.
She told this story to both Dr. Humphreys,the family doctor, and to James's brother Michael. Yet, when Michael asked his brother if this was true, James replied vehemently that it was a 'damned lie!'.
Was he just concealing his strange habit? or was Florie indeed telling 'damned lies' about her husband in order to pave the way for the sudden death she was already planning?
Apparently there was enough arsenic found in Battlecrease House to poison fifty people. Most of it could be traced to no single individual, but all that COULD be traced, belonged in some way to Florence, including a 'very considerable quantity' in a packet marked 'poison for cats'.
NO arsenic was ever traced to James. 20 bottles of medicine were taken from his office and examined, but no arsenic or strychnine was found in any of them.
In fact the only arsenic anywhere in his direct possession was found in a can of stew that he had brought from home to eat at work shortly before his death.
So, does the evidence as a whole does unequivocally support the prevailing image of James as a 'junkie', or does it suggest something altogether different?
Was James really the addicted arsenic-eater,
or was he a man whose tendency to hypochondria and to dose himself with esoteric 'remedies' was deliberately exaggerated, by the woman who killed him in order to deflect suspicion (as indeed it has) from herself?
Obviously these are important questions, not simply for the Maybrick case but for those interested in JTR. Because, if the popular image of James IS provably false, then so is the 'diary'.
So maybe the reality of James's life and death should be the subject of much closer analysis .
Just a thought
Karoline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 12:31 pm | | Hi Karoline,
I need to go back and check my sources (I'm sort of answering this of the top of my head) but it is fairly safe to say that James was in the habit of taking a lot of "medicines" which were potentially harmful to his health.
Dr Hopper, who was a witness for the prosecution, testified that he was a man given to frequently "dosing himself", usually with remedies other than those prescribed for him. And when the particular remedy he would be taking at the time had no effect then he doubled the dose. Amongst the medicines which Maybrick had been taking was strychnine - which definitely could kill if taken in large enough doses. Maybrick had a prescription for this which Hopper confiscated. If I recall, the defence then tried to link Maybrick's use of strychnine with that of arsenic as both were used at the time as an aphrodisiac (is this saying something else about Maybrick?).
In March 1889, Florie did write to Michael and tell Dr Humphreys that James was taking some sort of white powder which she thought was strychnine. She had also informed Dr Hopper of James' drug taking habits in either June or September of 1888. So if Florie was intending to kill James then she spent a long time thinking about it.
I have tried to avoid any mention of arsenic until now. I would appreciate if someone can inform us of the popular uses for arsenic in the 1880s. From what I have learned it was in common usage, just as there are many chemicals which we use for domestic purposes which could kill just as easily. And what about drugs? I would imagine that most people have a cabinet full of medicine at home which is full of tablets, capsules, etc, from which someone could easily overdose.
As for the arsenic around the Maybrick house, none of it can be specifically traced. The jug in which arsenic was found doesn't necessarily answer anything. The amount detected was minute. In any event it may well have been James himself who added the arsenic.
I will go back and read what I have and make a more detailed post. However, it is important to keep one thing in mind. Almost all of the information we have about James and his alleged arsenic eating comes from Florie's trial. There the issue was whether Florie poisoned James. I have already expressed my opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to convict Florie beyond reasonable doubt. However, when we come to the question of James' habits then we are faced with a new question. Somehow the trial evidence just isn't going to allow us to answer it beyond a doubt because it was never directed at the question in the first place.
Dela |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 06:32 pm | | Hi All,
Just a quick thought here as I read the preceding posts. Huge amounts of arsenic found around Battlecrease House? Hardly any found in James after death? Does this make any sense to anyone? If I was intent on killing someone in a house full of servants, doctors, rellies, friends etc, I'd make sure the poison was in the victim, not readily available for Messrs All and Sundry to find. 'D'oh' springs to mind, I'm afraid.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 07:22 am | | Just briefly here, The problem is of course that JM, although of interest to his family and friends really didn't get well-known until his murder. Most of the information about him is therefore from Florries defense team who, in the fashion of lawyers, attempted to make it plain that there was no crime committed and they therefore had to blacken his character as much as possible. Granted, he probably had faults but it is certainly true that Florrie had adequate motive to murder him. Most medicines of the day that contained poisons such as Arsenic, Strychnine etc. were homeopathic and therefore had minute, barely measurable quantities of ther poison. It seems probable that these are the medicines that James took.
Peter. |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 10:14 am | | Hi all -
Caz - I'll umm...bear what you say in mind.
Matthew - thanks for a thoughtful input. Yes, I know all the biographers have always SAID James was an habitual arsenic-eater, what I am after is whether they are right to say so, or whether this is one of those historical myths.
We need prima facie evidence - not another quote from so-and-so's book.
Peter - yes you are right. The prevailing image of James's arsenic-eating is taken from Florie's courtroom defence.
But this is not a good basis for an objective historical assessment.
Anyone who has ever had first hand experience of the adversarial judicial process (regrettably I have - as a defence witness), will know that the truth is the last thing either side is interested in.
Florie's barristers were briefed to get her off the murder charge, to save her life: and they were briefed to find the witnesses prepared to say the things that would maximise the chances of achieving this.
They were not briefed to tell the historical truth about her dead husband.
We really have to bear this in mind.
Her defence team would have focused on two things 1. to discredit James's chacter and 2. to show any possibility, however small, that he might have administered the fatal poison himself.
But even though this was their primary objective, all they managed to uncover were a few people from America and one from Liverpool who could testify vaguely to the effect that James took 'strong' or poisonous medicines.
But ,as Peter points out, these medicines were probably homeopathic mixtures, wherein poisonous substances are administered in such tiny amounts that they can hardly be measured.
The only person who could be found to even suggest the possibility that James habitually took large doses of arsenic was one chemist from Exchange Street Liverpool, who THOUGHT James's photo looked rather like a man he used to sell an arsenic preparation to.
If this is the best we have (and so far it seems to be), then it can't be regarded as good objective evidence that the man had a drug habit.
The case just isn't established, let alone proven.
And in contradiction to this prevailing orthodoxy, we have the fact that none of his close family seems to have noticed that James was taking anything unusual.
Except Florie that is.
Only Florie noticed the 'white powder' her husband was swallowing, and only Florie told other people about it.
When questioned, james himself vehemently denied any such thing.
So where does that leave us?
With questions I suppose.
If James was an habitual arsenic-eater, then where did he keep the stuff? And why did none of his 20 bottles of medicine kept in his office contain any?
If James was an habitual arsenic-eater then why was almost all the arsenic in Battlecrease House traceable to Florie?
Why did she lie about how the arsenic got into the meat juice she was giving him?(She said James ASKED her to add a white powder, but in fact analysis showed the arsenic in the meat juice was put in in liquid form).
And if James was an habitual arsenic-eater then how do we explain this?
Shortly before he died James was sent 2 bottles of medicine from Dr. Fuller in London. Neither were supposed to contain arsenic.
James kept one of these bottles at home and one in his office.
After his death they were both examined. The one at his office was completely free of arsenic. But the one he kept at home contained the posion in measurable amounts.
Like the 'revalenta' he brought from his home in the jug his wife gave him, just before he died.
Does all this begin to tell us something?
Was Florie maybe the ultimate winner in the PR game more because she had posthumous friends to handle her image than because hers was the righteous cause?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 12:18 pm | | Hi one and all interested in matter Maybrick,
The following is a short summary of the witnesses for the defence in the Maybrick trial. Only one witness (Stansell) had to be brought out from the U.S. All other witnesses came from Liverpool (or London in Dr Tidy's case) or were in Liverpool at the time.
Witnesses for the defence:
N Bateson - lived with Maybrick and testified that Maybrick had taken arsenic and strychnine on prescription in 1877 for a period of 3 months.
R Thompson - seaman who was second officer of the ship "Plantain" in 1880 - testified that in 1880 in Norfolk, Virginia he had spoken to Maybrick after being told that he was using arsenic - Maybrick neither confirmed nor denied the habit but said of the druggist's assistant - "Damn his impudence"
T. Stansell - was a servant for Maybrick from1878-1880. He testified that on 3 or 4 occasions he obtained arsenic from Santos' on Main Street, which Maybrick consumed. He also stated that he had been sent to the chemists for "a great many bottles", including quinine compund, cardamum pills and seidlitz powders.
Edwin Heaton was a chemist in Exchange Street East (adjacent to the Cotton Exchange) until April 1888. Maybrick had been a customer for around 10 years. From 1886 until about October 1887 Maybrick came to the chemist's 2 to 5 times a day for a tonic called "pick-me-up". Added to the tonic was liquor arsenicalis - on prescription. The original dose was 4 drops but increased to 7 by the time Heaton last served Maybrick. Under cross-examination Heaton said he knew Maybrick but did not know his name. He also stated that 7 drops in a dose of wineglass size was not a significant amount. He stated that other gentlemen frequently used liquor arsenicalis as a tonic. 7 drops taken 5 times a day would amount to about one third of a grain.
Dr Drysdale - consultations with Maybrick in Nov and Dec 1888 and then on March 7, 1889. Maybrick told him that he had been in the habit of taken nitro-hydrochloric acid, strychnine, hydrate of potash and several others. He did not mention arsenic and Drysdale did not prescribe it.
William Thomson - gave evidence concerning his meeting with him at Wirral Races on 27th April.
John Thompson - chemist in Hanover Street. Maybrick's cousin was employed by him. When the cousin left Thompson's employ Maybrick asked if Thompson would have him back again. The assistant had access to all the drugs. Thompson had seen Maybrick attend his shop on a number of occasions. He stated that if Maybrick had sought a particular drug then there was little to prevent him obtaining it.
Dr Tidy - gave expert evidence in relation to arsenical poisoning and in his opinion Maybrick did not die of arsenical poisoning.
On reading this evidence it is quite clear that the objective of the evidence which the defence sought to introduce was NOT to portray James Maybrick as a hopeless drug addict or to portray him in such a way as to discredit his character. The defence merely sought to show that James did have a history of taking arsenic. This would thus explain the presence of arsenic detected in his body. The evidence of Dr Tidy was aimed at showing that, despite the presence of arsenic, arsenical poisoning was not the cause of James' death. At no stage did it ever strike me that the defence was attempting to show that James poisoned himself or overdosed.
Karoline, who is the close family you were referring to when you said that none of James' "close family seems to have noticed that James was taking anything unusual"? Apart from Florie, who should have known? None of his other family lived with him. Michael was in London and probably saw him once every few months. Edwin was in the U.S. The other brothers didn't testify. In any event none of the witnesses were asked about his drug taking habits. I have four brothers and I don't have much idea about what, if any, medicines they take - and they wouldn't know about mine.
As for the other points you make I'll get back to them when I re-read the evidence as to what contained arsenic and what didn't. (For those who haven't read the transcript it's extremely confusing - even the participants occasionally got confused as to what was what). However, I don't think it's correct to state that all the arsenic at Battlecrease was traceable to Florie. First you really need to tell us what arsenic was traceable to Florie. Also I would be extremely wary of the evidence that the arsenic was added in solution. The only basis for this claim by Davies was that there was no undissolved arsenic. But given that the solution contained no more than half a grain, and not knowing how the arsenic was mixed together, I would say that this statement should be treated with extreme caution. It's just not possible to accurately say how the arsenic was added.
I've already mentioned my thoughts about the jug. The food was prepared by the cook and Florie gave it to Edwin to give to James. If there was significant arsenic in the food to kill James then who added it? 4 people handled the jug. There's no evidence to suggest any one particular person added arsenic.
Apologies for any grammatical/typographical errors in the above but it was a long post and I don't really fancy redrafting it.
Dela |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 01:18 pm | | Hi Matthew, and congratulations once again on some thoughtful points.
Re. the purpose of the defence. I think we have to accept that some degree of character-destruction or at least water-muddying was an inevitable strategy. They had to try and show that the arsenic inside James got there by means other than Florie; possibly by his own hand.
Why else were they calling witnesses who could testify to his usage of so many medicines?
If they could have brought eyewitness testimony of James's uncontrollable addiction, then they would certainly have done so. But they didn't. And this must be significant.
This is the point I am trying to make.
I think the list of witnesses you have helpfully typed out really underlines this. We can see from their testimony that the case for James taking large amounts of arsenic, as claimed by the pro-diary brigade and some other authors, just has no real basis.
What we see from their testimony is not some hopeless arsenic-eater, but an incipient hypochondriac, fearful for his health and inclined to dose himself on quack remedies, some of which may have contained poisons like strychnine, but only in small 'therapeutic' amounts.
This alone fundamentally undermines the credibility of the pro-diarists work, and their completely distorted image of James as a schizoid junkie.
Can any one disagree with that?
The suggestion that James might have put the arsenic in his food himself looks like special pleading. If he was dosing himself, he wouldn't need to conceal the stuff in food would he?
I think the case for his having been poisoned by anyone else in the house is also excessively hard to defend. Possible of course, but not probable.
The two primary possibilites must be 1. that he accidentally dosed himself to death, or 2. that Florie killed him.
So far, the evidence in the case seems much stronger for the second than the first possibility.
Florie bought arsenic, Florie possessed arsenic in large amounts, including the extraordinary packet labelled 'poison for cats'. The jug she handled contained arsenic.The meat juice she handled contained arsenic. And the bottle of medicine James kept at home contained arsenic (which was not part of the original prescription), while an identical one in his office did not.
Florie of course also had a reason to be rid of him.
Means, motive, opportunity, and circumstantial evidence.
Not enough to hang her perhaps, but certainly enough for us to name her as the most likely suspect.
Karoline |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 02:11 pm | | Matthew:
Regarding Bateson's statements about a three month period in 1877, I wonder if medicins containing appreciable amounts of (for example) arsenic and strychnine would have been prescribed? Surely, after those notorious poisoning cases (Christiana Edmunds, Wainewright, Strychnine, Palmer, Pritchard, Antimony, Smethurst, Arsenic,) poisons would have been more controlled. I do suspect that homeopathic medicines may have been meant here.
Thompson contributes nothing except second-hand testimony.
The other witnesses, by the names of the preparations mentioned do seem to be referring to homeopathic remedies which remember, would have been prescribed by GP's then and still are today. The best that you can say about such remedies is that they are harmless.
Regarding whether Florrie murdered her husband I would say that she probably did.
Peter. |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 01:21 am | | G'day everyone,
Florie was an air-head. As unflattering as that may seem, that is what she was. A description of her I read recently said 'at no time was there any expression of intellectuality, either in eyes or face'. (reminds me of some of the people I work with).
Anyway, given this description and other corroborating evidence that Florie had difficulty doing two things at once (thinking and breathing come to mind), I find it hard to believe that someone of this nature could possibly conceive a plan to murder their husband.
Just my opinion
Jules |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 06:21 am | | Hi all
Thank you Jules, for your thoughts.
Does everyone agree then that when we look at the evidence properly, it does not support the image of James Maybrick as portrayed in the 'diary'?
The evidence shows
1. the only 'poisons' James can be proved to have taken voluntarily were small doses in prescription medicines.
2. that all the stories of his taking large amounts of such poisons are traceable to Florie, or to one defence witness, Mr.Heaton, who did not even know for sure that the man he sold the arsenic to was Maybrick at all.
3 That none of the medicine found in James's office after his death contained any arsenic.
4.That none of the arsenic in the house could be traced to him
5 That a great deal of that arsenic belonged to Florie.
So, the image of blotchy arsenic-eating James put forward in the 'diary' and by its supporters is historically invalid, and since James would hardly have made such a mistake about himself, we have to conclude (surprise surprise), that he did not write the 'diary'.
Is this our last word?
unless someone comes up with some good counter-evidence, I think it's mine.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 06:28 am | | Hi All,
I was most surprised to hear Florie called the 'ultimate winner in the PR game'! I could think of some far more appropriate descriptions for her, but 'winner' of any kind is just about as far from the truth as one can get, I'm afraid.
Yep, Jules, I tend to agree with you that Flo was 'blonde' down to her pretty toes. She didn't know what the hell was going down in the merrie month of May, 1889. I think it went right over her head, while Michael, Yapp et al were rushing around like blue-arsed flies, arranging for things and people to disappear, like love letters and Edwin (packed off to the USA) for instance.
Just my opinion
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 08:42 am | | Hi, Karoline:
I do not agree with the assessment by Peter and yourself that James Maybrick took normal amounts of homeopathic medicines and that he did not take arsenic. There are enough testimonies, from diverse sources, both at the trial and made afterwards by different witnesses to support the contention that he knowingly took arsenic. Whether the arsenic-taking affected his mind to the extent of feeding into an urge to take revenge on his unfaithful wife is another question altogether, and that is the contention of the diary proponents that I would challenge.
Chris George |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 12:20 pm | | Hi Karoline,
Re your post of 5 July:
You say that the two possibilities were that James dosed himself to death or that Florie poisoned him. The defence in the Maybrick sought to argue neither. They sought to argue that James did not die of arsenical poisoning.
It is somewhat misleading to say Florie bought arsenic. There is no evidence of her ever buying any arsenic in solid or liquid form. She only ever bought the flypapers. These were discovered in the basin in the middle of April. Others which had been in the kitchen of the house for about 8 months - for which the cook gave an explanation - were destroyed having not been used. Amongst the articles found containing arsenic was a weak solution which was scented. This corroborates Florie's story that she bought the flypapers for cosmetics purposes. Only chemical processes would've been sufficient to obtain a significant quantity of arsenic.
Florie was seemingly suspected at least 5 days before James' death. However, the only article found in her possession which contained arsenic was the Valentine's meat juice. Florie states that she added a white powder which her husband had asked her to do. This meat juice was opened on Thursday 9th May. Between the time Florie admitted to adding the powder and the confiscation of the bottle none of the contents was administered to James. The bottle contained half a grain of arsenic. This was insufficient to kill him, even if he consumed the whole bottle. Since meat juice made him vomit then it is unlikely that he would retain much arsenic at all if arsenic was present. The prosecution alleged that it half a grain taken twice daily would lead to the symptoms which James had. The submission was that James have been given a number of doses over several days. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. The other meat juice which James had been taken did not contain arsenic. The contaminated meat juice didn't contain anywhere near enough to kill. him. No other medicine/food was proven to contain arsenic and James was constantly being administered medicine/suppositories for a week previous which caused almost constant vomiting. In short, there is no evidence that he was poisoned over a period of one to two weeks prior to his death.
Re "Poison for cats". This, too, is misleading. "For cats" was distinct and separate to "Arsenic - poison". The prosecution's opening statement even makes this clear. Therefore the label is too vague to allow any one interpretation.
I can't recall mention of two bottles - one at home, one at the office. Perhaps you can direct me to the witness deposition. However, if James did venture to the chemist's four or five times a day for a pickmeup (which amount to one third of a grain or more of arsenic) then he probably only need a home supply.
Re arsenic in the jug. While James may not have needed to conceal his dose, arsenic was taken in solution. As the food was in liquid form it is not inconceivable that arsenic was added to the food in order to dissolve it. As I've already stated, at least four people handled James' lunch on that day. That makes it a 25% chance that Florie added arsenic to the food. That wouldn't be enough to convict her on balance of probabilities let alone beyond reasonable doubt.
Re your post of 6 July:
There is no evidence of James taking large doses of poisons. But that's because nobody ever tried to prove that in Florie's trial. The defence merely sought to prove that the presence of arsenic in James' body could be attributed to the fact that he regularly consumed arsenic. I don't, myself, subscribe to the theory that this made him a raving lunatic and I don't believe the diary portrays this. It's only a few diary proponents who have sought to further their arguments for James being the Ripper. The diary does show that the author valued his medicine - but it doesn't say what the medicine was. The diary's author puts down the reason for the killings to a desire for revenge, Now, obviously there seems to be a link between the author taking his "medicine" and the killings, namely that he was feeling better or stronger. We already Maybrick was a hypochondirac and took all sorts of medicines/tonics to make himself feel better and relieve his symptoms (numbness, headaches,etc.) But I don't think anywhere in the diary the author suggests that his "medicine" makes him do what he did.
As for Heaton. No, he didn't know James by name but if you worked in a shop and a customer came in every day for ten years then I'm sure you'd at least recognise him.
I think you're possibly apply two different standards in saying who the arsenic is traceable to. Most of the arsenic was found in a hat boxes which in which were contained James Maybrick's hats. The other source was the packet marked "Poison..." in a chocolate box in Florie's trunk. However, just because arsenic was found in the house does not make it traceable to one person over the other. As I've already mentioned the only arsenic truly traceable to Florie were the flypapers and the meat juice.
Last but not least, I'm not sure there was ample evidence at trial pointing to motive. I've long thought that the existence of a lover was insufficient to attribute a motive of murder to that person. Very few people kill on the basis that are sleeping with another person. In any event there was little evidence as to a relationship.
Dela |
Author: Karoline
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 03:18 am | | HI all -
Chris: thanks for your input.A short while ago I would probably have agreed with you in assuming James's compulsive arsenic-eating was well supported by the evidence. But now I've begun to look a little closer, I really don't think it is.
Let me try and show you why.
Firstly, as I have said before, we have to remember that our image of his self-dosing is compiled of necessity entirely from the testimony of Florie's defence witnesses.
I think we have to accept that this is not a good start for establishing an objective view of the matter.
The defence were not trying to tell the truth about James and his medicine (sounds like Roald Dahl title); they were trying to convey a certain image, and they selected their handful of witnesses from those who were prepared to support that image.
This does not necessarilly mean the image is false, but it does mean we should be cautious in accepting it without careful examination.
In the circumstances what is NOT in the evidence is as significant as what is.
Florie's team would have spoken to as many friends and acquaintances of the man as they could find, looking for people who could give some credence to Florie's story.
Yet who did they eventually bring to the stand?
1. A chemist who claimed James's photo resembled a man he used to sell an arsenic-pick-me-up to,but who did not know Maybrick's name.
2. Another chemist who could not even claim to have given James any arsenic at all, but merely testified that if he had wanted to take some from the premises he would have been able to do so(!)
3. A friend from America who said James had been prescribed (PRESCRIBED, note), a preparation containing arsenic and strychnine for an attack of malaria in about 1880.
4. A friend of the above who had met James at about the same time and who claimed that SOMEONE ELSE had told him that James was taking arsenic.
5. A servant who worked for James , again at the same time as the above, and who claimed to have fetched him arsenic from a druggists.
This is all the testimony that amounts to even slightly more than hearsay.
Don't you think this is an oddly sparse account for a man who is supposed to have been an addicted arsenic-eater for years?
Surely if James had been taking the stuff in large quantities for a long time, then we would have different and better witnesses than this allusive handful. His brothers, however loose their family ties, would have had some inkling; his servants at Battlecrease House would almost certainly have known; there would have been many many business aquaintances with stories to tell and no reason not to come forward. But where are these people?
It is the absence of this kind of testimony as much as the sheer vagueness of what was offered up that makes me doubt.
The fact is that hardly any of the above quoted witnesses actually make the statement that James took arsenic in any unusual way at all. The others merely provide hearsay, or hints, or they describe the man taking prescribed medicines. (Okay those prescribed medicines may or may not have contained small amounts of arsenic, but to regard this as evidence for his substance abuse is like saying tjhat anyone who takes a sleeping pill is a heroin addict!)
In summary - the evidence that ought to have been there, if James truly was an arsenic-eater - is conspicuous by its absence. The evidence that was brought forward - the best, let's not forget that Florie's lawyers could find - is undeniably thin, inferential, short on facts and long on attenuated implications. It reads like a slightly desparate barrister making the best of a bad job.
The evidence does not, I think, do what it sets out to do. It does not prove or even make a very good case for James's arsenic addiction. And if the defence team, with their resources could not make such a case, then we have to consider it likely that this was because there was no real case to be made. That James simply wasn't what he is now supposed to have been. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 07:11 am | | My post on July 5 neglected to fully list all of the witnesses. I'd forgotten to consult the transcript for the next day. For the purposes of this debate only one other witness is relevant. Sir James Poole testified that in April 1889 at the Palatine Club James Maybrick had told Sir James that he took "poisonous medicines".
I'm beginning to wonder who was on trial here. Nobody had to prove that James was an arsenic eater, and nobody set out to. The defence sought to show that on a number of occasions over the previous decade James had taken medicines which included arsenic. More important to the defence's case was that James was a hypochondriac who was always taking different remedies and often took more than he should. It is designed to place in the minds of the jury that the possibility that James had recently been taking arsenic in one form or another amongst the many medicines that he was taking. He may even taken more than his prescribed dose in an effort to make the medicine effective. Hence, the fact that there was arsenic in his system was not necessarily indicative of arsenical poisoning, especially given that arsenic can remain in the body for long periods of time.
Another of the witnesses I neglected to mention was Frank Paul. One point which was raised by Mr Paul was that arsenic was present in the glazing of the pans, the class of which Maybrick used. Any arsenic detected in the utensils from Maybrick's lunch on 1 May may well have come from the glazing.
A point on the defence team and their resources - there is no evidence that the defence team had significant resources. Most of the witnesses who appeared were not acquired by the defence team. The witnesses volunteered the information after reading the papers. The defence's resources were minimal. Why? Because it comes down to the client's, ie, Florie's resources, which were nil. As James wife she relied on him to finance her. Michael suspected Florie of murder - he wasn't going to contribute to the defence fund. In short, the defence team were working for free - to be paid at a later date. Another consideration is this - perhaps they located a doctor who had prescribed arsenic for James. What if the doctor was unwilling to testify? There goes you're proof. Karoline, you were correct in saying that court proceedings don't bring out the whole truth - but the sword is indeed double-edged.
I don't think it's necessarily correct to say that if James was taking arsenic the servants or family would've known. People have suggested that Florie had a motive - ie, her affair with Brierley. Yet the prosecution provided just one solitary letter as proof of a relationship. The circumstances surrounding the letter are also far from normal. If the defence was, as Karoline claimed, "making the best of a bad job" then the prosecution - with the funding of governemnt behind it - wasn't doing any better
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 07:25 am | | Hi Karoline,
Firstly apologies for an error I made in a previous post. Two, not one, of the witnesses resided in the U.S. Bateson, however, was a Liverpool man, whose address is stated as Memphis. As a cotton merchant he may well have lived in both cities for certain periods of time throughout the year.
The friend im America (he had since moved to England) who testified that James took arsenic was Bateson, with whom he lived. Bateson testified that Maybrick took arsenic and strychnine for his malaria in 1877 for a period of 3 months. He also stated that it was prescribed by a Dr Ward. I don't think this could be considered hearsay. Maybrick obviously contracted malaria. Arsenic was one chemical used to treat it and so it is not unreasonable to suggest that Maybrick was prescribed it. Bateson tells us he took it (not just that he was prescribed it) and prosecution witnesses also give evidence of Maybrick discussing the use of arsenic in relation to his illness.
Dela |
Author: karoline
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 09:22 am | | Hi Matthew,
I wasn't neglecting you in my post this morning, but I had to cut it short(ish) and get out for a piece of live radio.
But now I'm here again, can I congratulate you on the meticulous care you are taking to quote your sources.It is a really professional approach that does credit to you.
Thanks for the note on Sir James Poole, but I do have a complete list of witnesses here with me. I left JP out of my above list because his is really only hearsay evidence that adds nothing to the over all picture.
RE. Bateson. If you look at my last posting, I think you'll see that I DON'T actually suggest Bateson's evidence was mere hearsay. On the contrary it's one of the most well-sourced pieces of witness testimony the defence produced.
But ALL Bateson says is that James took a PRESCRIPTION medicine (for malaria), over a period of only 3 months, that contained both strychnine and arsenic.
As I observed before, to infer from this that James habitually took poison, is like saying that everyone who takes sleeping pills is an opiate addict.
Evidentially it has no bearing on the murder trial or on James's drug habits at all.
It's just a water-muddying strategy, routinely practised by barristers when they know the unmuddied facts are not in their favour.
Re. 'why the missing witnesses aren't there'.
Of course we will never know for certain why no members of James's family, or his closest friends, or his business colleagues came forward to testify to his suposed addiction.
But, if you want to argue that the witnesses were there REALLY, it's just that no one noticed them, then you have to have some evidence for saying so. Otherwise you are just doing that special pleading again.
The fact is that key witnesses that ought to have known all about James's substance abuse problem, if there was one, are not there in the record. Occams's razor tells us that the most likely reason for this is that there was no substance abuse problem in the first place. That none of his family or friends or colleagues knew anything about this supposed arsenic-addiction, because it didn't exist.
Florie made it up, and even after the best efforts of her defence team, they could find no real evidence to back up her story.
I think this fits best with the known facts, though, as always I'm open to persuasion.
I won't talk about your other good points right now, because this post is already long enough, and I do have a few other things to do!
Karoline |
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 11:25 am | | Hi, Karoline:
Although we cannot seem to agree that Maybrick's arsenic-taking, if it took place, was excessive, I applaud you for wanting to have a stock-taking of the true facts, as far as we can ascertain them, about James Maybrick. The James Maybrick of the diary, it could be argued, was one person, and the true James Maybrick another man entirely. Although again it might be hard to ascertain the true facts, I think another aspect is that the diary camp have painted both Maybricks as being promiscuous. Feldman's book appears to infer that James Maybrick had illegitimate children up and down the British Isles, and Florence Maybrick is alleged to have had an illegitimate child before her marriage to James. This illegitimate child, as you know, is said to have been William Graham, grandfather of Anne Graham. Is any of this true? Or are the historical James and Florence Maybrick quite different people to the persons the diary proponents portray?
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 04:09 pm | | Hi y'all.
DELA: How financially stable was Michael Maybrick when James died? Did Michael indulge any expensive habits - gambling, drugs, women, whatever? I know James and Flo were on shaky ground financially, but hefty insurance on James' life or business might tempt the family to fight over his estate ... or perhaps I'm confusing the diary farce with the plot of an Agatha Christie novel.
Seriously, I'd greatly appreciate knowing if any of James' business associates and/or family members (excluding Flo) evidenced pressing monetary need around the time James died.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 09:02 pm | | Hi Ashling,
I've never really looked into the situation surrounding Michael Maybrick but I always gathered from what other people have written that Michael was extremely well off. While James lived relatively comfortably (anyone living in a mansion the size of Battlecrease house today would be considered very wealthy), the general picture I get was that Michael was a class above even that. He lived in the wealthy area of London and mixed in the highest of circles. Being a musician I suppose that he may always have been subject to down times but I have seen no evidence of that.
Since all the money in James' will was left to his wife and children then I see no reason why Michael would want to fight over that.
As for the other brothers, I don't know a lot about. Edwin had been in the U.S. so I suppose he'd been in regular employment. Like James he was a cotton merchant and I wouldn't mind betting that his work was closely connected with James' business (if anyone knows then please tell us). I suppose if James' business had been going downhill - and I do remember reading somewhere that he was experiencing some financial difficulties - then Edwin might also have been dragged down.
However, that's all speculation. I don't have any evidence of any of this and I don't really think that any associates or family members would've been after James' money.
One interesting point to note is that we are often told Michael suspected Florie of murder and possibly had it in for her. Yet when the dispute over Florie's entitlement arose he was seemingly on side.
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 09:14 pm | | Hi Karoline,
I've never suggested that James had a substance abuse problem (or at least what was considered at the time to be a substance abuse problem) - and here I'm taking it you mean problem with a particular drug. He did have an abuse problem with medicines. I don't think anyone disputes that. However, there is evidence to suggest James had taken arsenic on a regular basis at different points in time over the previous decade. Since arsenic remains in the body for a long period of time then it's possible that his use of remedies containing arsenic accounted for the presence of arsenic in his body. Other men also took arsenic - it's in the evidence and there nothing sinister suggested in its use. It was obviously commonly used at the time (medicines and other applications). Given that James often took more than he should then he may have consumed more arsenic than other men who took similar remedies. But this whole line of argument does not paint James as an uncontrollable addict. It didn't need to because James was not on trial.
I think there was probably greater evidence of James' addiction given after the trial was complete. However, I don't wish to say too much about this because my resources on this aspect are limited.
Dela |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 08 July 1999 - 09:04 am | | Hi all -
Chris: I think you are right about broadening the question. I suspect that we've got about as far as we can re. the arsenic-taking issue, without degenerating into repetition.
The question of Florie's and James's sexual conduct is certainly worth looking at.
I have the impression that the 'first lover' attributed to Florie by Feldman (the one who is supposed to have fathered her illegitmate child)has no factual basis at all, is this right?
And what about the other lover who is supposed to have preceded Brierley? Shirley H. tells us that he probably existed, but is there any data to support this? Or was his existence merely invented by Shirley to cover the embarrasing mistake in the diary?
Matthew.
I don't think we are really in much disagreement. You accept that the defence were trying to show that James took arsenic in sufficent quantities to explain the presence of the stuff in his system, don't you?
Right, well they obviously fielded the best evidence they could to achieve this, didn't they?
So, surely, IF James had been a hopeless arsenic-addict, as Feldy and others have repeatedly said, so out of his head that his personality was breaking down, and his handwriting had become unrecognisable, then we would expect the defence to have found at least one witness prepared to testify to this appalling state of affairs in court, wouldn't we?
It would, after all, have blown the murder charge right out of the water.
But the defence didn't say a single word about it.
Why?
The only sensible conclusion ,must be that it was because James simply was NOT the hopeless arsenic-addict that the pro-diary people have described on these boards, over and over again.
Therefore the image of the junkie, used by Feldy and others to explain away a dozen or more fatal anomalies in the diary's construction, is just not backed up by the evidence.
That's what I'm trying to say.
best wishes all
Karoline |
Author: Christopher George
Thursday, 08 July 1999 - 01:45 pm | | Hi, Karoline:
The topic of Florence's alleged child out of wedlock before she married James Maybrick bears scrutiny. The allegation is that Florence in 1879 gave birth to William Graham in Hartlepool. That northeastern England town is where Anne Graham's grandfather came from so the connection has to be made to give the diary some form of provenance. BUT if Florence had a child in 1879 at age seventeen, before her marriage to Maybrick, that certainly would have made her "damaged goods" in the hypocritical Victorian circles in which the Maybricks moved, and one wonders if Maybrick would have married her. Apparently, according to Anne Graham's 1995 interview on BBC Radio Merseyside, an attempt was also made to try to determine if she might have had an affair with her stepfather, the Baron Adolph von Roques. This also would have been while she was a teenager, before she married James Maybrick.
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 08 July 1999 - 05:50 pm | | DELA: Thanks for your reply. Actually it was your July 7th post that sparked the train of thought I'm on ---
"Michael suspected Florie of murder - he wasn't going to contribute to the defence fund."
I began to wonder if Michael:
1. Hated Flo from the moment he set eyes on her.
2. Grew to dislike her because she was a ...
a. Shopaholic spending James toward bankruptcy
AND/OR
b. An unfaithful wife.
In other words, was Michael pre-disposed to view Flo's actions during the last week of James' life as suspicious? Or did he witness Flo performing criminal acts?
"Since all the money in James' will was left to his wife and children then I see no reason why Michael would want to fight over that."
If Michael fanned the flames of suspicion around Flo (or out-and-out framed her) -- I thought it possible he might have gotten her disinherited and himself appointed guardian over the children ... Putting control of James' money in Michael's hands. Perhaps I underestimated the differences between British and American inheritance laws.
"One interesting point to note is that we are often told Michael suspected Florie of murder and possibly had it in for her. Yet when the dispute over Florie's entitlement arose he was seemingly on side."
Why the use of the qualifier "seemingly on (her) side"? Anyway, you're saying Michael tried to help Flo keep the money James willed her? I thought she wrote her mom saying James cut her out of the will and left everything to the children? Or was that just a threat he hadn't time to carry out before he died?
"James was constantly being administered medicine/suppositories for a week previous which caused almost constant vomiting." Almost sounds like the doctors cured him to death. Maybe they should have been indicted for malpractice.
I appreciate your patience and help ... I obviously need to read more in this area, and thank goodness Stewart will probably help with any strictly factual questions.
BTW, the above doesn't mean I suspect Michael of murdering James ... just exploring the possibility that he or someone else took advantage of a ready-made situation. So far, Michael appears to be Mr. Squeaky Clean.
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: Karoline
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 12:25 am | | Hi all
Ashling: re. Michael's role in accusing Florie.
It's often said that it was James's two brothers who initiated much of the ill-feeling against her, but like so much else in the case, this doesn't seem to accord with the facts.
On May 8, three days before James's death, Alice Yapp told two friends of the Maybrick family - a mrs. Briggs and a Mrs. Hughes, that Florie had been soaking flypapers. It was Mrs. Briggs who then sounded the alarm as it were.
She telegraphed Michael (who of course was in London), alerting him to the growing suspicion surrounding his brother's illness, and she repeated Alce's statement to Edwin, who was living in the house.
Edwin then spoke to Nurse Gore, who was caring for James, telling her that in future only she and the other nurses were to be allowed to look after his brother.
Meanwhile Michael left for Liverpool immediately on receiving the telegram and arrived that evening.
The next day he talked to Drs Humphreys and Carter, and so began the first steps towards Florie's arrest.
I think we can see from this that, rather than initiating the suspicions, or even over-reacting to them, both brothers really only did what could reasonably be expected of them (up until this point at least).
They were told of the suspicions about Florie, and so took steps to keep her away from their sick brother, while confiding these suspicions to the doctors in the case.
I wonder whether the supposed callousness of Edwin and Michael has been another exaggerated or mythologised aspect - part of the 'woman as victim' archetype that underpins so many accounts of this whole story.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 07:13 am | | Hi Ashling,
When I read the quote of mine which you included in your post I thought that perhaps it didn't quite read how I intended it. When I said that Michael wasn't going to contribute to the defence fund I meant that, given that he harboured suspicions about Florie, then it was unlikely that he would have contributed his own money if he thought she was guilty. Given he was a prosecution witness he might have been perceived to have "had it in" for Florie. This is probably not the case - he was probably just telling the events as he saw them. But as far as I know Florie's legal costs came solely from Florie's entitlement to James' estate. She assigned to her solicitor her entitlement under James' life insurance policy as security for the costs of the trial. Her costs would have amount to about 1000 pounds.
As for Michael's views. Whatever views he had before James' illness, he definitely arrived in Liverpool on the evening of 8th May with a number of suspicions placed in his mind. He received a telegram on that day stating that James was seriously ill and that strange things had been going on. On arrival in Liverpool he was met by Edwin who told him about the letter which Yapp had "intercepted".
Apparently on the evening of the 10th Michael directed Alice Yapp to search through the linen closet. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. At that stage there was no evidence of arsenical poisoning. In the closet was the trunk belong to Florie. It seems that the children's clothes were kept there. This is where the chocolate box was located. It contained the famous packet labelled "Arsenic - Poison" and "for cats" (the latter written in a different hand). The packet contained carbonised arsenic. A handkerchief, believe to be Florie's was found to have traces of arsenic. Other items in the box were several vials, including one labelled as a "solution of morphia" (with accompanying instructions as to dosage) and a box of quinine pills. Does it sound to you as if these may have belonged to James?
Michael was the one who had the bottle of Valentine's meat juice removed and given to Dr Humphreys. Davies the chemist got it from Dr Carter, so I don't know whether there's any inconsistency in the evidence or it passed from Humprheys to Carter. This contained half a grain of arsenic. He removed and locked up half a bottle of brandy (later gave to Inspector Baxendale) which contained no arsenic. He also confiscated from Florie a bottle of medicine which Florie had been changing from one bottle to another. This contained no arsenic.
Re MICHAEL & THE WILL
James' last will was executed on 25th April 1889. The will which Florie wrote to her mother about was a previous will. James tore up his will in December 1888. Whether he actually wrote a new will at the time is a matter of conjecture (see Appendix 9 of Melvin Harris' book, "The True Face of Jack the Ripper" - it's reproduced in the "dissertations" section of the Casebook in the article "Facts Please, Not Fallacies). As Mr Harris states, the letter from Florie too her mother never states that James actually wrote a new will at the time. However, if his intentions were as was indicated by Florie's letter in relation to her entitlement then it is not unreasonable to assume he may have written a new will at the time. If not, he'd certainly had a change of heart by 25th April.
Michael and Thomas Maybrick were the executors of James' will. Therefore Michael did have control over the money and was trustee to the children's entitlement. As executor he would have been entitled to stop any money going to Florie as it was against public policy for her to benefit from murdering her husband. However, I'm not aware Florie's entitlement was withheld. It's an area I'm currently researching so I'll say more at a future date. If Florie didn't get it then the children would have. I don't think Michael would've got away with pocketing the cash (apart from what he was entitled to as an executor).
As for the medicine James received in the week before he died - well if he wasn't otherwise going to die I'd say he was almost certain to by the time the doctors and nurses finished with him. I don't think they'd get too far in their profession these days if they administered some of the stuff which they did in 1889. At least the regular doses of brandy and champagne meant that James didn't have an entirely graceless departure from this earth.
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 07:38 am | | Hi Karoline,
I'd written my previous post offline and before I knew about your latest post and I probably repeated a few of your ideas. I haven't got much of an argument with your points.
Michael did have suspicions about Florie. Whether they were all his own or whether they came from other sources is really impossible to conclusively say. However, he did suspect Florie of no good. He was confiscating medicine before anyone even had evidence to suggest that James was being poisoned. Dr Humphreys stated that up until the 8th or 9th of May he did not suspect irritant poisoning. Something changed on or around the 8th May, for on the ninth he tested Maybrick's faeces for arsenic (and found none). Was Humphreys change of mind initiated by his talk with Michael? Michael Maybrick ordered a search of the house. Why?
Michael did come in and take control of affairs. He was critical of Florie's handling of the situation. Florie believed that Michael blamed her for James' condition but this, she thought, was due to her not bringing in more nursing staff.
We might suggest that Michael didn't think a great deal about Florie. If he didn't have any suspicions before reaching Liverpool then it's fair to say the talk of the staff probably accounted for his suspicion. Yet only a few weeks before Florie had written that James was taking a dangerous powder. Did Michael distrust Florie? Did he favour the servants' views to hers? If he didn't trust Florie then did he have knowledge of the affair?
Just as an aside, what the hell was Edwin doing all this time? At no time does he figure prominently in the proceedings or take any control whatsoever, even despite the fact that he was staying at Battlecrease. And he seems to have little to say about the events.
Dela |
Author: Caz
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 08:46 am | | Hi Dela,
I seem to remember a comment I read to the effect that Edwin would not even tie his own shoelaces without Michael's say-so, which seems odd considering Michael lived in London, but maybe the comment only referred to this strange period in May 1889, and thereafter, when Michael seemed to take charge of everthing.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 07:01 pm | | Hey Dela,
Do you think that James wrote the will dated 25 April? If he didn't, and Michael (with or without Edwin) did, what did he have to gain by writing Florrie out of any entitlement? And, did Michael know about the Edwin/Florrie fiasco before they found the letters? (which begs the question - if she was having an affair with her husbands brother, why the hell was she keeping the letters??). You mentioned that Edwin didn't seem to be involved in the events after James's death - maybe he was just keeping a low profile for a bit. He'd already slept his way into a bit of trouble.
Love Nikki. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 06:50 am | | Hi Caz and Nikki,
Caz, it seems that quote about Edwin, even if just meant to apply to the events of 1889, may well have equally applied in the more general sense. From what we know he was either not around much at crucial times or he was away with the fairies.
It may be that he had something to hide but that may be drawing too long a bow.
Nikki, I think you can rest assured that James did write the will of 25th April. There is no evidence that it was forged (except for Feldman's and Harrison's rather tenuous arguments). However, there were a number of different versions of the text floating around at the time, so perhaps the issue needs further investigating.
The will itself does not suggest that Michael forged it. For a start Florie is well provided for. Secondly, it is somewhat specific in relation to her entitlement, ie it specifies that she is to have the proceeds of his life insurance policy and the Scottish Widows fund policy. I doubt very much that Michael would know that James had taken out such a policy (unless he had seen a previous will).
Lastly, the will was witnessed by George Davidson and George Smith. I would assume that the execution probably took place at Maybrick's office. If the will was a forgery then the forger would have forged their signatures too. George Davidson would have been aware of what was in the will and what later transpired in the distribution of assets. I'm sure if there was funny business going on then he would've raised a complaint.
Dela |
Author: Karoline
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 09:24 am | | Hi Matthew and Chris - I think we've actually come a long way in separating the real James from his 'diary' matrix.
We have established there is little evidence to support the image of the mind-rotted 'junkie', and since both Feldman and Harrison have used this image to 'explain' many of the weakest points in their case, most signficantly, the fact that the writing in the diary is NOT James's, we have effectively unravelled that explanation.
Which leaves the 'diary' looking more questionable than ever.
RE. THE WILL.
I think the best thing anyone interested in that question can do is read Melvin Harris's masterly analysis here on the Casebook.
He shows conclusively that the entire issue was more or less invented by the 'pro-diarists' in order to try and explain why the 'diary' handwriting was nothing like James's own.
I won't be putting in any more of my own thoughts for a while, but I guess Chris and Dela can keep an interesting discussion going.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 10:08 am | | Firstly and more importantly I think it's a sad shame that karoline is forced out of these boards. It's obvious that someone out there has been hounding her for no good reason. We've seen the evidence here of the hatred one person has for her and I would appeal to Stephen Ryder to try to track down those who have been most to blame. If certain pseudonymes mask other, more well-known personalities it's important for us to know.
Regarding James Maybrick, Arsenic is not a habit-forming drug. It's cumulative, stays in the system. Hair clippings can show how long arsenic has been ingested. It still seems plain to me that notwithstanding those irritating Sygian peasants, regular use of arsenic does nothing for the health and will prove fatal. Undoubtedly JM was a hypocondriac like many Victorians and undoubtedly many Patent medicines as well as prescription drugs contained minute doses of arsenic and strychnine.
MPD: several members of our cast have been accused of suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder. This is a fashionable disease made popular in the '90's by those studying alien abductions and Satanic ritual abuse. If it exists at all it's unlikely to cause the sort of handwriting changes that have been suggested by those wishing to push JM as the diarist. Similarly with Ann Graham. The whole problem with the original diary researchers is that evidence pointing away from JM as author took second place to anything that might have put him in the frame. This attitude is evident in the research for Shirley's book as well as for Feldmans. Maybe it's time for a complete reappraisal of the whole thing.
Peter. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 11 July 1999 - 02:58 am | | Hi y'all.
DELA: Thanks very much for the overview of the case, especially the info on the life insurance. Also, your earlier post wasn't confusing - at least not to me.
I have no facts to offer at this stage of my research, but here's my thoughts/opinion on various points you mentioned.
1. I intend learning everything knowable on Alice Yapp ... her actions bespeak a deep-seated resentment towards Flo.
2. Addiction is a progressive disease ... some folks can function for years and years - going to work every day, etc. - so their co-workers and family are often the last to realize what is being so desperately concealed right under their noses. Michael & Alice's closet search points to typical behavior of an addict (James) stashing his dope all over the house.
3. Addiction is increasingly considered a hereditary condition, so IF James was an addict, the possiblity that Edwin was one too increases. Which might explain his behavior.
4. I hope to receive clarification from some kind of medical authority on whether or not arsenic is addictive. To me it's a moot point - an addict will abuse anything from baby aspirin to ice water ... but I concede that others have different perspectives.
5. James was NOT our Jack.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Sunday, 11 July 1999 - 07:16 am | | Hi all,
Karoline, re the will - Melvin Harris' piece is worth reading but I don't think it really should've been necessary. Shirley Harrison raised the theory that James didn't write it when the will was the only known example of James' handwriting (bar the signature on his wedding certificate). Since then a number of examples of James' handwriting have been discovered and someof them published in Feldy's book. It is quite clear that the memo from December 1881 is in an identical hand to the will. That should've been the end of the story. James' handwriting was established. Therefore it is highly unlikely the will was forged and, if so, it was an extremely good forgery. But as the original argument relied on the will's handwriting not being that of James then the argument is basically dead in the water.
I couldn't actually believe that Feldman tried to sustain the argument in his book when he published examples of James' writing which were consistent with the will.
Therefore we have to accept the handwriting of the diary is not that of James Maybrick, unless of course there are circumstances which tell us otherwise. Most people will choose to accept at this point that the diary is a forgery. And that is fair enough. However, there are two other possibilities which may explain why the diary is not in the same hand as the will. One is that the diary is actually a copy made by another party of an original which may or may not still exist. Obviously to sunstantiate this someone must provide us with evidence that someone copied the original script (eg, handwriting of a person known to be likely to have acquired the original), or to provide the real diary. The other possibility is that James could write in a number of styles. Feldman and Harrison have suggested James may have been schizophrenic. Perhaps he was just a unique individual who could write in different styles. The Freeman of Liverpool declaration and the note in Sarah Robertson's bible are examples of James' handwriting which do not accord with that in the will and 1881 memo. Apart from this there is no hard evidence to suggest that James was such a talented individual. However, I do believe both possibilities are worth investigating before we can truly consider the diary to be a forgery.
Dela |
Author: UpaBob
Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 02:37 am | | In reading the posts from last July, I myself have wondered about the "real deal" related to James Maybrick's arsenic use. I hope next week to go through Trevor Christie's (Etched in Arsenic) notes at the University of Wyoming (I have requested permission to view them) to see what original trial related documents he obtained copies of. Specifically, medical testimony from his plethora of doctors.
Bob |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 12:16 am | | | I wonder if Sir Jim had relapses of malaria. Maybrick caught 'swamp fever' in Virginia in 1877. Don't some strains of malaria recur for years afterwards, with symptoms of fevers, chills, numbness in the limbs, and digestive problems? |
Author: Stephen Butt
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 10:51 am | | Dear All,
I am new to this site. The focus of my own research is circle of journalists/newspaper editors and spiritualists at the time of the JTR murders, and principally Robert James Lees, who seems to fall into each of these categories.
In the 1890s, W.T.Stead wrote to Robert James Lees, saying that he was in possession of a prayer book which had been by the bedside of James Maybrick. The context of the letter is that of one spiritualist writing to another, and there is no textual reference to JTR.
However, I would be very interested to hear of any other references to this prayer book. I presume that all and any artefact in his room might well have been regarded as evidence at Florrie's trial? Was Maybrick the type of man who would have kept a prayer book by his bed?
In a further letter, Stead says that he know has an artefact formerly owned by each member of the Maybrick family. I've sought the assistance of W.T.Stead researchers who say that there is no record of any of these artefacts having been passed down through the Stead family, or having found their way into Stead archives anywhere...as far as anyone knows.
Regards,
Stephen Butt. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 12:31 pm | | Hi, Stephen:
I have studied the Maybrick Case and can tell you that I do not recall any mention of James Maybrick's prayer book at the trial of Florence Maybrick. The transcript of the trial is available as The Trial of Mrs. Maybrick in the Famous British Trials series edited by H. B. Irving. Although I do not own a copy of this volume, I recall that the exhibits at the trial mainly consisted of bottles of medicine, a bottle of Valentine's meat juice, etc., a number of which were found to contain arsenic. I would also like to say that it is not unremarkable that W. T. Stead and others may have wanted memorabilia from the case since her conviction in the murder of Maybrick was a cause célebre on both sides of the Atlantic. Wanting to obtain something from the case may be likened to the collecting interests of crime historians in our day, such as Stewart P. Evans and Richard Whittington-Egan. As you yourself have indicated, it does not betoken any thought (particularly in the aftermath of Mrs. Maybrick's trial in late summer 1889) that Mr. Maybrick may have been the Ripper. The only thing that I know of that is akin to the prayer book that you mention is a bible that has been found given by Maybrick to his common-law wife Sarah Robertson on her birthday in 1865. The bible and the inscription from Maybrick are pictured in Paul Feldman's Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, Virgin Books, 1997. Since Keith Skinner is given the credit for the illustrations in Feldman's book showing the bible and inscription, possibly he could tell you more about the bible and the search for other Maybrick artifacts. I have little doubt that Caroline Morris will see this post and refer it to Keith so he may get back to you on this matter.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 04:43 am | | Hi Stephen, Chris,
Consider it done. :-)
(Did the Maybrick curse strike again? Have prayer book, will travel - on Titanic!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 10:10 am | | From Keith Skinner to Stephen Butt
Dear Stephen
If you are interested, the background to my research into Sarah Robertson’s bible is detailed on pages 123 to 127 in Paul Feldman’s ‘Jack The Ripper The Final Chapter’ (Virgin Books 1997).
The W.T.Stead correspondence sounds tantalising. Could you give me a source for the letters please?
Best Wishes
Keith Skinner
Dear Stephen,
Keith has also directed me to a passage on Robert James Lees, found on page 223/4 of the JtR A-Z, as follows:
‘Lees’ daughter Eva, both before and after his death, showed her father’s clients and admirers ‘documentary’ evidence that he received a pension for his contribution to solving the Whitechapel Murders. A gold cross, now in the possession of his great-granddaughter, is said to be the gift of grateful prostitutes.’
Keith says he has in his possession a letter sent to him by Lees’ great-granddaughter, referring to the cross, if it is of any interest to you in your own research.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
