One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[RivkahChaya]

A Mr John Fleming of Halifax, Nova Scotia, was captain of a steam freighter called Wanda and this ship was used more than once by Maybrick to transport cotton. Capt Fleming stated that he knew Maybrick through business, and claimed they were very good friends. He said he once saw Maybrick sprinkle a powder on his food (whether this was on board ship or elsewhere I can't say) and when he questioned Maybrick about it, the reply was that it was Arsenic. Maybrick added that he took it once in a while as it 'strengthened' him.

This statement was included in a book The Necessity of Criminal Appeal by J H Levy, published 1899 as a direct result of the Maybrick Case and Florence's perceived unfair detention in prison following her reprieve. I haven't read this particular book, but plainly the above statement was included as evidence with which Florence could lodge an appeal.

There are other references outside the Diary of Maybrick's drug habits.

Please read a little about the Diary, Rivkah. It's quite interesting, actually.

I would also add that nowadays not many 'Diarists' or Ripperologists continue to claim that James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper. I certainly don't. However, some of us continue to maintain an interest in the Diary, its origins and its content.

Graham

I read the whole thing, plus every review and article I could find when it was first published, but since then, my reading has mainly been the bits about it that appear in larger books. I've known a lot about it, but I've also probably forgotten a lot.

Caz, good read.

Does anyone know how much doctors knew of the effects of arsenic in 1888? I mean, when Maybrick complained to his doctor about his symptoms, how much of a chance would the doctor have told him to stop taking arsenic?

One thing that was known, I'm pretty sure, was that quitting cold turkey could be dangerous-- people knew that about alcohol and morphine as well, the problem was that they didn't know how to treat withdrawal, or more to the point, didn't have the drugs to do so.

I'm not sure what the treatment would be for arsenic addiction now, since it just isn't something people abuse anymore. You can probably Google the treatment for acute arsenic poisoning, but that's not the same thing, and at any rate, the way it's managed now is probably different from the way the Victorians managed it.

I'm pretty sure I've read in more than one place that long-term arsenic users sometimes died from not being able to get ahold of their next dose.

[Graham]

I read the whole thing, plus every review and article I could find when it was first published, but since then, my reading has mainly been the bits about it that appear in larger books. I've known a lot about it, but I've also probably forgotten a lot.

I had to smile at this - reminds me of when Dr Samuel Johnson was pestered by a hanger-on, a fulsome young man who lamented that he had 'lost all his Greek'. Johnson growled, "I believe that must have happened, Sir, at the same time I lost my large estate in Yorkshire".

No offence.

Graham

[caz]

Caz, good read.

Does anyone know how much doctors knew of the effects of arsenic in 1888? I mean, when Maybrick complained to his doctor about his symptoms, how much of a chance would the doctor have told him to stop taking arsenic?

Cheers, Futz.

Oh there was many a doctor (and friends too) who urged Maybrick to go easy on all the stuff he was taking, but the trouble was, they kept prescribing more and more different 'remedies' in the uneven struggle against his failing health during his final weeks and months. And he was taking a lot more than just what the doctors had prescribed and was not going to be honest about precisely what or how much.

It is a widespread belief (which I share) that Maybrick died because he stopped taking his daily arsenic, which proved fatal as the last doses passed through his system. When he was confined to bed during his last days, he was probably unable to access his arsenic supplies, or made the conscious decision not to take any more. But whether or not he implored Florie to fetch his "medicine" for him, she was doomed if she did and doomed if she didn't. He'd have needed a lot to die of an overdose, considering that his usual dosage would have been fatal to anyone else, and giving him none at all was much more likely to polish him off.

A tragic story, with no happy endings for anyone concerned, not least Bobo and Gladys.

Love,

Caz
X

[Gladiator]

This thread has always - it seems to me - been one of the few places where it was acceptable to talk of the diary as though it could be the real deal; and so I find myself returning here to comment on the activity on another thread which is claiming that there is evidence that the artefact was retrieved somehow from Battlecrease House and brought to the world's attention by Michael Barrett through what would most likely by then be the thoroughly contrived route of Tony Devereaux's hands - contrived and worryingly convenient given that the man was by then unable to corroborate the story.

For anyone versed in the Ripper diary during the 1990s, the electrical work carried out at Battlecrease House shortly before the diary emerged into the world was always a teasing feature of the case, and one frustratingly disregarded by the apparent evidence of the history of the house - evidence such as the previous significant rewiring of the house which Paul Dodds stated could not have left such a diary unnoted. In this context, we turned to the Devereaux version of events and felt deeply uncomfortable, not least when the daughters cried foul so firmly and with such utter conviction. And then Anne's version built on Barrett's version and suddenly we all felt a little less inhibited and a little more liberated and the possibility of an actual link with Battlecrease House receded even further into the vault of research notes and passing thoughts long-since passed and largely discarded.

And now - in 2013 - we start to sense that there is actually evidence out there after all - and since at least 2007 - that the diary may well indeed have either originated or at least passed through Battlecrease House after all. And if that were proven to be the case, then the terrible confusion and inanity (nay, insanity) of the Barrett version of the provenance becomes condemned to its own skip in a Liverpool street, at long last recognised for what it was.

And were that ever to be the case, then we would be left to readdress the diary in the context of it actually having spent time in the very house which would most plausibly give its claims credence. And possibly a great deal of time in that place.

And if that were to come to pass, I would say that the position of those who have argued it is a modern forgery falls away profoundly. They would have to fall back on a deeply tenuous notion that the diary was secreted onto the premises solely to be immediately uncovered again. This would suggest the work of a modern forger who just wanted to have some fun, but not one who was expecting to make any money out of their efforts (because of course they would have lost ownership of the diary the moment they secreted it wherever they did).

In contrast, the argument - which is backed-up by the scientific evidence - that the diary had been created pre-1970 and possibly back at the time of the crimes themselves would suddenly become almost irresistible.

And in that moment we would be well advised to recognise that such a turn of events could equally support the notion that the diary is actually the true confession of James Maybrick, and also recall (before we recoil) that to date there remains not one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary.

Gladiator.

[pinkmoon]

If the diary was written in 1888 or soon after and not by James maybrick we have to ask why.Anyone who is prepared to forge something is obviously after making some money.Could the forger simple have lost their bottle realising it would be to easy for someone to check maybricks movements and prove diary fake.Could the forger not find a valid reason to convince people why they had the diary in their possession?Could they have been waiting for Florence to be hung so they could say it was her who gave it to them.If the forger was waiting for Florence to be executed then once that happend the diary could be sold to a newspaper it couldn't be disproved that it had been in Florence possession so it would make our forger some money

[Graham]

Excellent post, Gladiator, and if I may say so written in choice English too. I think you may be aware that I don't personally believe the 'Diary' to be the work of James Maybrick, but apart from that I can easily go along with everything else you say.

Graham

[Graham]

If the diary was written in 1888 or soon after and not by James maybrick we have to ask why.Anyone who is prepared to forge something is obviously after making some money.Could the forger simple have lost their bottle realising it would be to easy for someone to check maybricks movements and prove diary fake.Could the forger not find a valid reason to convince people why they had the diary in their possession?Could they have been waiting for Florence to be hung so they could say it was her who gave it to them.If the forger was waiting for Florence to be executed then once that happend the diary could be sold to a newspaper it couldn't be disproved that it had been in Florence possession so it would make our forger some money

Hiya PM,

not sure I follow all of this, but assuming that the 'Diary' was NOT written by James Maybrick, then obviously it's valid to ask (a) who did write it and (b) why. I used to think that the 'Diary' was written to show that Florence Maybrick was deeply tormented by her dreadful husband, who by the way was also Jack the Ripper, and therefore even if she did murder him it was completely justified, so she ought to be released. Remember that she was reprieved, which is the same as saying that she did not commit murder, yet she remained in prison for some years afterwards, an imprisonment which at the time was considered totally unjust (and which actually led in part to the foundation of the Court Of Criminal Appeal). There was much behind-the-scenes activity to get her released, much of this via her mother, and a lawer called Alexander McDougall.

However, these days I'm not so sure. If the 'Diary' really was an attempt to show that Florence's actions were justified, i.e., the poisoning and possible killing of a total rotter of a husband, then to my mind it was quite crude and even in the months following Florence's conviction probably wouldn't have convinced anybody. If it really was written for this purpose, then why didn't the author write "Yours faithfully James Maybrick a.k.a. Jack The Ripper" at the end? OK, you can say that there are enough clues in the script to identify the supposed author as Maybrick, but I rather think that even in 1889/1890 the-then legal mind-set would have required total proof, as in a signature rather than clues. And then, of course, there is the question of the handwriting.

Paul Feldman said that if the 'Diary' really was a forgery then the forger was an incredibly lucky person, as nothing he wrote purporting to allude to the life and lifestyle of James Maybrick could be disproved. And I agree with that. So - if James Maybrick was NOT the author of the 'Diary', there is a very good chance that it was written by someone who not only knew Maybrick personally, but also knew a lot about his life and lifestyle. Who, then, might be possible candidates? Any ideas out there? (I know Caz has).

Answers on a postcard to - nah, answers here, please!

Graham

[pinkmoon]

If Florence maybrick had been hung and then that diary suddenly appeared on the scene a newspaper would very likely have paid good money for it and it would have sold very well on the back of the execution .

[Graham]

If Florence maybrick had been hung and then that diary suddenly appeared on the scene a newspaper would very likely have paid good money for it and it would have sold very well on the back of the execution .

Possibly, PM. But are you aware that even before the date of Florence's execution someone in London was touting a 'diary' supposedly written by her, and couldn't find a buyer? And amazingly, the hopeful seller of this diary claimed that it had been discovered in Battlecrease House? All in Feldman's book.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Hi Graham,I think my idea answers the question of why diary was never released at the time it would have required Florence dead to enable forger a chance of making money

[Graham]

Hi Graham,I think my idea answers the question of why diary was never released at the time it would have required Florence dead to enable forger a chance of making money

Hmmm....James Maybrick died on 11 May 1889. Florence was sentenced to death on 7 August. Given the amount of detail in the 'Diary', I wonder if those 3 months would have been sufficient for anyone actually to write the thing in time for release shortly after her execution - which under British law at the time would have been after "three clear Sundays" had passed following the sentencing, i.e, the week commencing 26 August. Even supposing the writer had started the 'Diary' very soon after James' death, it still wouldn't be very long. This of course is pure supposition, as it cannot be established now if the 'Diary' was actually produced with profit in mind. I suspect that it wasn't.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Can't see any other reason to forge diary than to make money

[Graham]

Can't see any other reason to forge diary than to make money

I can only say: Watch This Space!

Graham

[pinkmoon]

I can only say: Watch This Space!

Graham

Please tell please send me a private message if you wish please please and please again

[Graham]

PM,
it really isn't my information to divulge, otherwise I would, and anyway it's only guesswork on my part. Let me just say that all will (hopefully) be revealed when Keith Skinner feels it right and proper to do so. Or you could ask Caz....

Graham