The Diary

[caz]

The provenance, authorship and its existence as a primary source is not in question in regard to the marginalia. It was clearly written by a senior police official, it has remained in the possession of the family, been verified by experts, and is inextricably linked to the wwritings of a senior colleague.

Hmmmm, Phil. Where have you been? None of this should be 'in question' today, but for the longest time all these aspects were very much questioned in certain quarters, and even by some with excellent reputations in the field.

I don't think anyone need fret too much that the diary (or watch) will one day stop being questionable and therefore questioned, but that's how it should be in a case like this. It's not wrong or intellectually bankrupt to carry on questioning and seeking answers about its true origins, just because some have no interest in the subject, or think they know all the answers already, without bothering to look further than their nose.

To be honest, though with respect, a claim that the "diary" is older than 1930 is almost laughable, given that its only relevance is if it pre-dates Maybrick's death. If he did not write it then it has little value as what it claims to be. An old forgery remains a forgery.

How do you know 'what it claims to be'? It certainly doesn't claim to be in the real Maybrick's known handwriting. So until you know who wrote it and when, you will only be guessing that it was a serious claim by its author to be a genuine ripper confession by the real Maybrick. Why could it not have been the handwritten draft of a piece of fiction bringing two infamous cases together - someone's funny little literary exercise perhaps - never meant for publication, let alone to be taken seriously? It's not even technically a forgery, is it, unless you are suggesting it's a very poor copy of an original piece of work by Maybrick himself.

I agree that Maybrick's genuine ties to the area don't 'make the case against him stronger', but this is changing the goal posts. You claimed (wrongly) that he had no such ties. Why did you do that, if you were not arguing that this made the case weaker?

I have rarely actually entered the debate about the contents of the diary - recently only to point out that the references to graffitoi in MJK's room appear to be based on the famous photo of her body. I find that worrying and puzzling.

I find it worrying and puzzling that you continue to debate 'references to graffiti in MJK's room' which don't even appear in the diary! If you cannot pinpoint any such references, because they don't exist, how can they 'appear to be based on the famous photo'? It's probably just as well that you rarely enter the debate about the contents of the diary, having read it only once and not having much of a clue what it contains and what it doesn't.

My main and only contention here is about the use of the diary in wider discussions about the Ripper. Treating it as if a solid source at present simply makes us all look like credulous fools. There are academic standards which we should all follow, and nothing is worthwhile or will be sustainable unless we do.

But you have been using the diary (or rather misusing it) to claim that the MJK photo has been used by a ripper hoaxer in modern times. To me, that fits right in with any wider discussions about the ripper case generally. I agree there are academic standards that should be followed, and that includes getting the basic facts right before you start pontificating. What was worthwhile or sustainable about seeing stuff in the diary that isn't there, or claiming that Maybrick had no ties to the Whitechapel area?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The obscure poem that Barratt had in his loft.

Just a quickie here - there is no evidence that Mike Barrett ever had that obscure poem in his house until at least two years after taking the diary to London. All the evidence indicates that he tracked it down in 1994 to one of the modern sources in Liverpool library and later bought himself a copy in a second-hand bookshop, which he handed over to the private investigator he had recently engaged to help him prove how he had forged the diary (??! alarm bells anyone? ). So don't be fooled by the modern theorists who have been conned by Mike into believing he had the poem all along and plopped a couple of lines - badly - into the diary for good measure. It didn't happen.

Incidentally, the poem was also available, I believe, in the 1860s or 70s, from a Liverpool bookshop close to the real Maybrick family home, and the poet's father was once the vicar at the white chapel that gave Whitechapel London its name. You couldn't make it up and somehow I doubt that Mike could have known any of this.

The whole story is an awful lot more complicated than that, so I can quite understand why some posters would sooner bang on about their absolute faith in the diary being a modern fake, than to read the diary itself more carefully or to delve beneath the comfort zone surface and examine the events and people surrounding its emergence.

Love,

Caz
X

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Sir Robert, Tempus, and Caz

Your posts taken together suggest a scenario.

1) We know that Maybrick was addicted to strychnine and arsenic.
2) We know Florence was using a complexion creme that contained arsenic.
3) The flypaper thing was not just made up, it happened.

Ergo:

What if Maybrick knew he was dying? He wanted revenge on the "whoring mother" very badly. What better way than to frame her for his own murder by planting the handkerchief, likely with her initials embroidered on it?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

So why did they find her handkerchiefs in the place that this 'larger stash' was kept in? She either left them there herself, or they were placed there by someone else. All rather fishy.

Tempus

It's pretty clear that Edwin and Michael were eager to see Flo hung. There are so many bizarre elements to their behavior leading up to Sir James' death as well as afterwards that scream "frame job".

[caz]

Hi Tempus,

If, as I suspect, the real James was trying to set up his unfaithful wife, and planted her hankies among his stash of arsenic, I wonder if they were embroidered with her initials?

Could our diarist not have been thinking of something like this when having 'Sir Jim' refer to an initial here and an initial there, that would tell of the 'whoring mother'? The hanky was definitely something that would be found in his house after his untimely shuffling off.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Actually Flo did use an arsenic based cream for her complexion. Her mother found her prescription for it from a New York doctor after the trial was over. (And Flo was found with that prescription in her Bible when she passed after....Can't make this stuff up!)

I was refering to her using the fly papers to kill him.

And there can be no question that Flo wasn't the sharpest tack in the box. She may not have noticed the pharmacopeia in the house, or maybe it was known that it was verboten to touch Sir Jim's stash.


So why did they find her handkerchiefs in the place that this 'larger stash' was kept in? She either left them there herself, or they were placed there by someone else. All rather fishy.

But the fly papers, which at first blush appear damning, have a legit explanation.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Graham]

Thanks for your detailed reply, Liv. It's years really since I read anything about the Maybrick Case other than the spurious Ripper connection; must do so again.

Judge Stephen was of course also the father of J K Stephen, brilliant but slightly bonkers academic and another Ripper suspect.

Graham

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

There was no reason what-so-ever for Florence to use flypapers to obtain arsenic when there was heaps of it around the house.

Actually Flo did use an arsenic based cream for her complexion. Her mother found her prescription for it from a New York doctor after the trial was over. (And Flo was found with that prescription in her Bible when she passed after....Can't make this stuff up!)

And there can be no question that Flo wasn't the sharpest tack in the box. She may not have noticed the pharmacopeia in the house, or maybe it was known that it was verboten to touch Sir Jim's stash.

But the fly papers, which at first blush appear damning, have a legit explanation.

[Livia]

Thanks for this, Liv. (I love your posts - they're set out like blank verse!).

Could a wife bring an action for divorce against her husband in 1889? Flo and Jim were a right pair, but it seems everything was stacked, fairly and unfairly, against poor Flo.

Yes, as I recall no arsenic was found in Maybrick at the post mortems. (I believe there were two, the second following exhumation - is this correct?).

I also recall a story that Justice Stephen at first seemed inclined to sum-up in Flo's favour, but overnight he markedly changed his tune. He was also thought to be going rapidly off his head at the time, as well, or so I recall.

Foul deeds at their moustache-twirling best!

Graham

Thanks Graham. Easier to proof.

Grounds were limited, but women could obtain
a divorce. There was the physical abuse in front
of the servants and according to her mother,
Florence knew of the mistress and her children
with James, some of whom were said to be born
after Florence married him. But most of the time,
it was easier just to legally separate (as in the
case of the Janion sisters, Martha Hughes and
Matilda Briggs), thus avoiding the social
repercussions of divorice.

There was arsenic found in Maybrick's organs
in minute quantity (1/3 grain, I believe), but
the means of determining the amount were
suspect at best. A small portion of liver was boiled
in hydrochloric acid and a strip of copper was
dipped in the solution. If a residue was found
on the copper, it indicated the presence of arsenic.
The analytical chemist who did the test (Edward
Davies) then took the weight of the sample
found the amount of arsenic it contained and
multiplied it by the weight of the entire liver to
come up with this figure, which assumes the
entire liver contained arsenic. Pretty shoddy
forensics. But what is puzzling is, Dr Humphrey
tested Maybrick's urine and feces on Thursday
after speaking to Michael Maybrick and his tests
were negative (although he tried to backtrack when
questioned by the defense stating that he had conducted
the test by memory, might not have boiled the
samples long enough, might not have used
enough, etc). See "Verdict in Dispute" at
archive.org.

There were no symptoms of strychnine poisoning
shown by Maybrick in his last days. Strychnine
causes cyanosis of the face, foaming at the mouth,
severe muscle spasms (arching of the back so that
the body rests on the heels and back of the head),
and finally asphyxia. And Florence was not tried
for administering strychnine, but arsenic only. In
any case, if they could have tested for strychnine,
they most likely would have found some in minute
quantities, since Maybrick was treated with
nux vomica which is derived from the seeds and
bark of Strychnos nux vomica, a tree or shrub
found in Asia, America and Africa.

Another really dodgy circumstance is Edwin
Maybrick claiming he found a box of pills in his
brother's washstand while preparing the house
for clearance. The pills contained arsenic and
quinine and were prescribed in Norfolk VA several
years previously. The house had already been
searched by Michael, Edwin, the servants,
the Janions and the police. And after finding
them, he held onto them for a few weeks before
finally turning them over to Addison (the
prosecution).

The story about Judge Stephen comes from
Charles Dickens' son's autobiography. Henry
Fielding Dickens was a barrister and KC. He says
that he heard from another judge who was on
the same circuit and rooming with Stephen at
the time of the Maybrick trial, that he was
awoken by Stephen in the middle of the night,
muttering, "The woman's guilty". Upon returning
to court the next day to continue his charge
to the jury, Stephen's demeanor had changed
to a position unfavorable to Florence. In
addition, he had to be corrected several times,
by both the prosecution and the defense on
matters of fact. If only Florence had followed
her instinct and insisted on a change of venue,
you have to wonder what the outcome would
have been.

Liv

[Tempus omnia revelat]

They found very little arsenic in him but did not check for anything else did they?

As far as I am aware, miakall4, they did not. The accusation was based solely on the arsenic.

There was no reason what-so-ever for Florence to use flypapers to obtain arsenic when there was heaps of it around the house. Remember that Florence clearly knew of the existence of these large quantities of arsenic because - rather conveniently - at least one of her handkerchiefs was found in the same trunk as said poison.

You can't have it both ways. Either she knew about the poison, so why didn't she use it. Or she didn't, and so what a was her handkerchiefs doing in the same vicinity as them. I smell a bit of foul play.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[miakaal4]

As I understand it, It is widely believed that Maybrick was killed using strychnine. The tests that were done at the time did not cover this eventuality. Whether or not it was caused by him self-administering the drug, or by 'foul deeds', is a matter for debate. There were certainly some 'dodgy pills' floating around at the time, I know that.

Kind regards,


Tempus

They found very little arsenic in him but did not check for anything else did they?

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Regarding posts around the diary being unworthy of serious discussion etc, okay, but how can we ever know the truth about the diary if we never discuss it seriously?
If he had a wife and kids living in the area he would be known as a local. He would not look out of place and not be regarded as a stranger. He may have known some of the prostitutes in the area, and even have studied the beats of the police. "I am very clever!"

I've given up arguing with people over the worthiness of debating a diary that no one has proved a fake and that might just have been written by the killer, miakaal4. If people can't see the reason why someone would want to investigate such a document, whilst they then go off and investigate suspects that have little or no evidence against them, then that's their problem. Just let them get on with it, I say.

Indeed he may have been known, miakaal4. Perhaps he even spun a story about being a doctor, which is why when PC Spicer arrested that suspect in heneage street - whose description matched Maybrick exactly - he was able to get away with it by saying he was a doctor. Who knows?


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Thanks for this, Liv. (I love your posts - they're set out like blank verse!).

Could a wife bring an action for divorce against her husband in 1889? Flo and Jim were a right pair, but it seems everything was stacked, fairly and unfairly, against poor Flo.

Yes, as I recall no arsenic was found in Maybrick at the post mortems. (I believe there were two, the second following exhumation - is this correct?).

I also recall a story that Justice Stephen at first seemed inclined to sum-up in Flo's favour, but overnight he markedly changed his tune. He was also thought to be going rapidly off his head at the time, as well, or so I recall.

Foul deeds at their moustache-twirling best!

Graham

As I understand it, It is widely believed that Maybrick was killed using strychnine. The tests that were done at the time did not cover this eventuality. Whether or not it was caused by him self-administering the drug, or by 'foul deeds', is a matter for debate. There were certainly some 'dodgy pills' floating around at the time, I know that.

Kind regards,


Tempus

[miakaal4]

Regarding posts around the diary being unworthy of serious discussion etc, okay, but how can we ever know the truth about the diary if we never discuss it seriously?
If he had a wife and kids living in the area he would be known as a local. He would not look out of place and not be regarded as a stranger. He may have known some of the prostitutes in the area, and even have studied the beats of the police. "I am very clever!"

[Graham]

Thanks for this, Liv. (I love your posts - they're set out like blank verse!).

Could a wife bring an action for divorce against her husband in 1889? Flo and Jim were a right pair, but it seems everything was stacked, fairly and unfairly, against poor Flo.

Yes, as I recall no arsenic was found in Maybrick at the post mortems. (I believe there were two, the second following exhumation - is this correct?).

I also recall a story that Justice Stephen at first seemed inclined to sum-up in Flo's favour, but overnight he markedly changed his tune. He was also thought to be going rapidly off his head at the time, as well, or so I recall.

Foul deeds at their moustache-twirling best!

Graham