Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maybrick and the diary.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mrsperfect View Post

    What are the odds of a 'murderer' being a murder victim?
    Actually there's little evidence that Maybrick was either....
    “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

    Comment


    • #17
      Hello Magpie!

      I have seen a documentary about poisoning victims.

      A criminologist on the programme thought, that the judge/jury of the time thought Florence Maybrick to be guilty mainly for the following reason:

      she admitted to have committed adultery!

      All the best
      Jukka
      "When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by j.r-ahde View Post
        Hello Magpie!

        I have seen a documentary about poisoning victims.

        A criminologist on the programme thought, that the judge/jury of the time thought Florence Maybrick to be guilty mainly for the following reason:

        she admitted to have committed adultery!

        All the best
        Jukka
        Hi Jukka!

        Yep, that's about the size of it.
        “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Magpie View Post
          Actually there's little evidence that Maybrick was either....
          Well put, Magpie.

          Yet how odd it is that there was so little arsenic found in him. He must have died of something, and here I quote from a letter written by Charles Ratcliffe to John Aunspaugh (both of them were Maybrick family friends):

          "....after Dr Humphreys had a conversation with Michael [Maybrick, James' brother] he refused to make out a certificate that death was due to [acute inflammation of the stomach] but said there were strong symptoms of arsenical poisoning though Dr Carter still insisted that it should be inflammation of the stomach...

          "....Michael wanted a post-morten examination. Humphreys and Carter performed it, assisted by Dr Barron. They found no arsenic. Michael was not satisfied and ten days after James funeral his body was exhumed...."

          There was no arsenic found in James' stomach during this second post-mortem, in which traces of a fatal overdose would be expected to be found, but some in his liver and kidneys which would be expected of an addict who took frequent but non-lethal doses of arsenic.

          The fact is - and this is relevant only to the Maybrick Case and not JtR - there was not even any concern for Maybrick's life until his brother Michael arrived on the scene at Battlecrease House.


          Hmmmm....

          Graham
          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi Graham.

            Maybrick died of gastro-enteritis, brought on by medical malpractice. Simple as that. All the evidence, including the original autopsy, bear that out.

            Michael definately used Maybrick's death to settle a few scores, and the doctors were happy for anything to take the spotlight of their own culpability.

            If Florrie hadn't had the misfortune of having a judge who was certifiably cuckoo, the charges against her would have been laughed out of court.

            “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Magpie View Post
              Hi Graham.

              Maybrick died of gastro-enteritis, brought on by medical malpractice. Simple as that. All the evidence, including the original autopsy, bear that out.

              Michael definately used Maybrick's death to settle a few scores, and the doctors were happy for anything to take the spotlight of their own culpability.

              If Florrie hadn't had the misfortune of having a judge who was certifiably cuckoo, the charges against her would have been laughed out of court.

              Yep, I agree that gastro-enteritis can be, and still is, fatal if not treated, but in Maybrick's case it must have done him in extremely quickly, as on April 27 he was at the Wirral Races, and on May 11 he died. Michael Maybrick arrived at Battlecrease on May 8, and until then the doctors saw no reason to fear for James' life. Yes, you're probably correct in saying that there was a degree of medical malpractise involved, but even so it still seems a trifle coincidental that until Michael's arrival James was ill but not apparently fatally ill.

              Would you like to elaborate re: the scores Michael used James' death to settle? Only out of interest....

              Cheers,

              Graham
              We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Graham View Post
                Yep, I agree that gastro-enteritis can be, and still is, fatal if not treated, but in Maybrick's case it must have done him in extremely quickly, as on April 27 he was at the Wirral Races, and on May 11 he died. Michael Maybrick arrived at Battlecrease on May 8, and until then the doctors saw no reason to fear for James' life. Yes, you're probably correct in saying that there was a degree of medical malpractise involved, but even so it still seems a trifle coincidental that until Michael's arrival James was ill but not apparently fatally ill.

                Would you like to elaborate re: the scores Michael used James' death to settle? Only out of interest....

                Cheers,

                Graham
                Hi Graham.

                There was a thread on the old boards called "japondie" (or somesuch).

                I went through all the testimony to trace down every drug or medicine given to Maybrick during his final illness. Almost without exception the side effect/toxicity of these chemicals jibed precisely with Maybrick's final agonizing symptoms (and ironically the effects of both arsenic withdrawal and overdose). It's possible that he had the beginnings of gastro-enteritis or even something as minor as an ulcer or gallstones. But by the time the doctors were done with James his stomach lining probably looked like swiss cheese.

                Going over the evidence, the question is not how Maybrick died, but how the hell did he linger on as long as he did!

                As for the scores, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that Michael did not like Florrie very much. Yap seems to have concurred, at least enough to help Michael with his conniving to get the kids and the estate out from under Florrie's nose.
                “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

                Comment


                • #23
                  The argument against Michael killing Maybrick is that it was his interfering that brought Maybrick's "murder" to light. Why insist on a second autopsy when he'd gotten away with the perfect crime?

                  I can see if there was suspicions about the death from the beginning, but Michael had nothing to gain and everything to lose by trying to frame Florrie if he himself had killed James.
                  “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Graham, Magpie and Limehouse:

                    I donīt know how many times do I have to tell you that my husband and I were invited to participate in the watch scam but we refused. Peter did not want his name and reputation associated with the watch scam. All this people live within a mile of each other ( Gerard, Barrett and the other one who died ) The whole thing is a charade concocted to make money. Caroline Morris has confessed that the diary is a sham this are her exact words:

                    " I believe in the diary because I know it exists. If you mean I ' Still believe ' it was penned by James Maybrick AKA Jack the Ripper, then you are quite simply wrong because I cannot ' Belive ' that and NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BELIEVE IT. ( my emphasis ) This is what Caroline wrote.

                    If you donīt believe me, you only have to look at it with your own eyes in my now defunct thread: Travelling Tips and Experiences.

                    Caroline and one of her co-authors, Keith Skinner went over to Liverpool and this co-author announced there that he had evidence that could prove without a shadow of a doubt in a court of law that the diary is genuine, but when he was pressed by John Omlor to show us this evidence, you know what ? Surprise, surprise, he NEVER produced it and next month is going to be a year since he announced that. Some daft people believed them and took them for their word, just like most are taking Albert or Skinner or Anne Graham for their word, but without any evidence....

                    There is no point in announcing that they have the evidence but once they are challenged to produce it.... Nuthing, nuthing, nuthing....

                    - Maria

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Maria,

                      I thought i made it quite clear in my post that I do not believe the diary was written by Maybrick and that I do not believe he was the Ripper.

                      I also made it pretty clear that I am sceptical about the watch, but that it is harder to discount than the diary. I don't know much about Albert Johnson, except what I read in Feldman's book so I can't comment on his reliability but many people seem to think he is genuine so I guess it is possible he possessed the watch but did not make the scratches.

                      What IS going through my mind is why someone would approach you to take part in what is essentially a type of fraud. I mean, I would be most offended if anyone I knew, or didn't know, singled me out to take part in a dishonest activity. I would take that approach to mean that they thought I was the type of person who would do so, perhaps for a large sum of money.

                      So, would you be willing to tell me why you were approached and what your role is in Ripper research?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Maria View Post
                        Graham, Magpie and Limehouse:

                        I donīt know how many times do I have to tell you that my husband and I were invited to participate in the watch scam but we refused. Peter did not want his name and reputation associated with the watch scam. All this people live within a mile of each other ( Gerard, Barrett and the other one who died ) The whole thing is a charade concocted to make money. Caroline Morris has confessed that the diary is a sham this are her exact words:

                        " I believe in the diary because I know it exists. If you mean I ' Still believe ' it was penned by James Maybrick AKA Jack the Ripper, then you are quite simply wrong because I cannot ' Belive ' that and NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BELIEVE IT. ( my emphasis ) This is what Caroline wrote.

                        If you donīt believe me, you only have to look at it with your own eyes in my now defunct thread: Travelling Tips and Experiences.

                        Caroline and one of her co-authors, Keith Skinner went over to Liverpool and this co-author announced there that he had evidence that could prove without a shadow of a doubt in a court of law that the diary is genuine, but when he was pressed by John Omlor to show us this evidence, you know what ? Surprise, surprise, he NEVER produced it and next month is going to be a year since he announced that. Some daft people believed them and took them for their word, just like most are taking Albert or Skinner or Anne Graham for their word, but without any evidence....

                        There is no point in announcing that they have the evidence but once they are challenged to produce it.... Nuthing, nuthing, nuthing....

                        - Maria
                        Originally posted on the JTR Forum


                        12-13-2007, 11:31 AM #538
                        Caroline Morris
                        Author




                        Join Date: Sep 2005
                        Location: Shirley Surrey UK
                        Posts: 541

                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Hi Paul,

                        Keith has clarified in emails to me what the context of his Liverpool remarks was meant to be.

                        Firstly his remarks were made in direct response to a question he was asked, and he chose to use the opportunity to show that the provenance of the diary was still being actively investigated and to express his personal opinion based on the results to date.

                        Secondly, Keith's talk was along the lines of how a court of history in the distant future might evaluate what evidence remained after all the witnesses were dead and gone. It was in this context that he spoke of what conclusions he believed would be drawn from a careful and cautious assessment of the surviving documents.

                        Another thankless task is posting information like this, as I am bound to be shot as the messenger in certain quarters.

                        But I thought I ought to clarify that Keith has explained his remarks, and in fact there has been a lot of discussion about the subject over at the casebook.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        I didn't do it, a big boy did it and ran away.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Maria,

                          Put on your glasses, dear, and re-read my Post No 15.

                          Limehouse,

                          I will be surprised if you get anything like a straight answer to your question to Maria.

                          Cheers,

                          Graham
                          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Dan Norder View Post
                            It's more likely that the watch wouldn't have had the nonsense scratched into it if it weren't for the diary.
                            Originally posted by Dan Norder View Post
                            Much like with the diary itself, I'm not sure who was the exact person or persons involved. There are some rather obvious candidates to choose from, and coming to the the conclusion that they are both fraudulent doesn't depend upon first determining who was responsible.
                            Dan, well put ! I could not have said that better !

                            Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
                            Maria,

                            I thought i made it quite clear in my post that I do not believe the diary was written by Maybrick and that I do not believe he was the Ripper.

                            I also made it pretty clear that I am sceptical about the watch, but that it is harder to discount than the diary. I don't know much about Albert Johnson, except what I read in Feldman's book so I can't comment on his reliability but many people seem to think he is genuine so I guess it is possible he possessed the watch but did not make the scratches.

                            What IS going through my mind is why someone would approach you to take part in what is essentially a type of fraud. I mean, I would be most offended if anyone I knew, or didn't know, singled me out to take part in a dishonest activity. I would take that approach to mean that they thought I was the type of person who would do so, perhaps for a large sum of money.

                            So, would you be willing to tell me why you were approached and what your role is in Ripper research?
                            Limehouse:

                            If you read carefully I thought I made it clear too when I said THE WATCH. Not the diary.

                            Money, money, money. It is always money and always will be.

                            Its alright, if you want to believe Caz or the other one Keith Skinner that he can prove things without providing the proof after nearly a year that is fine with me.

                            Do I have to repeat this whole thing all over again ?

                            Peter was approached by someone called Stanley Dangar friends with Shirley Harris who invited us to his house in Spain his wife had contacts with publishers as she has had some stuff published. What they proposed was to find things which would be coincidental about the watch to support the diary hoax and to dismiss anything in Peterīs investigation which showed that the watch is part of the hoax. Peter suggested that maybe we just ought to tell what are findings are without being bias that is... wherever the chips may fall. We were told that there is no money in exposing a hoax like there is no interest in writing a book about a fake Picasso, people are only interested if they think it is genuine so we were more likely to make more money in supporting the watch as part of the diary hoax.

                            And yes, we were most offended by this. There was also a detective by the name of Allan Grey who was also approached by Dangar with the same offer but Allan an ex-policeman and a man with integrity also declined the offer.

                            -Maria
                            Last edited by Maria; 04-13-2008, 09:02 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Maria,


                              It's not a case of who I believe. Caz and Keith are not asking me to believe them, but your post to me DID ask me to believe that you were approached by someone wanting you to become involved in a scam involving the watch.

                              Now, I am not saying you are lying - far from it. What I am asking is, why on earth should someone approach you to do such a thing? As I previously wrote, as an honest person, I would be very offended were such an approach made to me.

                              So, in conclusion, are you the type of person that people approach in order to assist them in a fraudulent conspiracy? And if you are so keen for Keith and Caz to produce evidence to prove their theories, why don't you do similarly and prove that you are somehow connected to the whole diary hoax?

                              And as for being a fool, I can assure you that I am not the one looking foolish right now.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Limehouse:

                                I had not finished answering your question because I simply got angry about Grahamīs put your glasses stuff and the new revised Caroline Morris version of events.

                                So I have now read your question and answered it above if you care to read how my husband Peter was approached and how this happened. I have had to repeat this story a zillion times and it discourages me to have to repeat it once a more. How many times will I have to repeat it and show the photos and the Dangar invitation to go to Spain ? It is really tiring and for what ? What do I gain from this except waste my precious time ?

                                -Maria

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X