The Diary

[Livia]

Good questions, Raven. Maybe a bit off-thread, but they are questions that I don't think were ever, or will be, answered. In those days the only sentence for murder, assuming that the perp was sane, was death. It's odd that although Flo was reprieved, she was never pardoned or charged with a new crime such as manslaughter, so for what crime did she spend the next 15 years in prison?

I really must re-read my (few) books about the case, which I haven't done for a long time.

As an aside, does anyone know if "Etched In Arsenic" by Trevor Christie is still in print? I had a copy once, but it disappeared.

Graham

Unlikely she murdered him. Why go out and buy
flypapers when she had enough arsenic and probably
strychnine too in the house to poison a regiment?
Why did she not get rid of it all before JM died?
Why did she tell her brother in law and the family
doctor that her husband was in the habit of taking
strong medicine, if she planned to poison him?

She already had grounds for divorce (the beating in front of
servants, the doctor treating her blackened eye). In
fact, she had already consulted two solicitors (Markby
in London, Donnison in Liverpool) to obtain a legal
separation, before Hopper arranged the reconciliation.

It's more likely Maybrick died from lack of arsenic than
a deliberate dosing. He had to have known what the
result would be if he stopped taking it (he had discussed
the arsenic eating habits of Styrian peasants with
Valentine Blake earlier in the year), and a former mayor
of Liverpool, Sir James Poole had warned him that he'd
need to increase his dosage over time and if he tried
to stop, it would kill him, so an argument could be made
that he was a suicide or he'd deliberately set Florence
up to take the fall.

It appears from the judge's charge she was tried for
infidelity. But then he was suffering from the throes
of an "insidious" disease. Guess which one.

What I'd like to know is, who put the arsenic in solution
in the meat juice that was submitted for testing by
Michael Maybrick to Edward Davies? Florence admitted
to adding a powder to meat juice, but Maybrick was
never given anything from that bottle. Arsenic takes
weeks to dissolve in water, so how did the arsenic
in solution get into the meat juice?

"Etched in Arsenic" is available at both Amazon and
Abebooks.

Liv

[Graham]

I think part of the 'problem', if any problem exists with regard to the discussion of the 'Diary', is that the two leading early investigators and writers about the case were very polarized - one totally for, the other utterly against the 'Diary' being written by James Maybrick. I refer of course to Paul Feldman and Melvyn Harris, neither of whom were shrinking violets or would listen to much at all that was in contradiction of their personal theories and opinions. I rather feel that this conflict of two strong personalities has carried over to the Forum over the years. Having said that, there's been some bloody good discussion and argument over the years!

Good posts by the way, Sir Bob!

Graham

[Graham]

@ Graham

It is indeed. The questions raised! Did Flo really poison James? Was it POSSIBLE to poison James considering the amount of poison he took on a daily basis? Why was the hanging commuted to life in prison? Why did she serve only 15 years, at a time when a life sentence in itself meant no parole? Did they even check for another suspect such as Flo's lover, perhaps?

Questions, questions

Good questions, Raven. Maybe a bit off-thread, but they are questions that I don't think were ever, or will be, answered. In those days the only sentence for murder, assuming that the perp was sane, was death. It's odd that although Flo was reprieved, she was never pardoned or charged with a new crime such as manslaughter, so for what crime did she spend the next 15 years in prison?

I really must re-read my (few) books about the case, which I haven't done for a long time.

As an aside, does anyone know if "Etched In Arsenic" by Trevor Christie is still in print? I had a copy once, but it disappeared.

Graham

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

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.

Most serious "Maybrickians" are looking at the question of who wrote the damn thing as it isn't in Maybrick's handwriting. That's where the real research is being done. Do you know how many people connected to the case came to live in - or near - Battlecrease prior to World War II ? It's staggering.

And once you get to a date before the publication of Fido's or Rumblelow's books you have the tin match box problem. So it's all connected in some Bizarro World manner we have not figured out.

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.

For the record I'm not on the same page as Tempus on these matters. I stick to what the Diarist actually said ("an initial here and an initial there...") and tread carefully when it comes to seeing things in the MJK photos. Beyond here be dragons.

[Phil H]

Sorry Robert, you misunderstand me.

I have NEVER even suggested that casebook posters should not discuss the "diary" or Maybrick to their hearts content.

I simply refer to the usual academic standards that are applied universally in the study of history and indeed of art.

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.

That the CONTENTS may be problematic is another question - but that is true of the gospels, which have proven to be ancient (though not necessarily by their putative authors) and which continue to be subject to useful textual criticism after a humdred years. They continue to yield information, using the historical method.

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.

There is a recently published book, which I have (as I have the "diary") called "The Autobiography of Jack the Ripper". It gained a foreword by Paul Begg, as I recall. It appears (so I gather) to be old, but are we to take that manuscript too as genuine, another confession by "Jack". I assume you would dispute its authenticity - so on what grounds?

You just posted that Maybrick had no ties to the area; he did. He also was quite adept at living a secret life. Does it make him the Ripper? Of course not. But the man could compartmentalize his life like no one's business and traveled to London and specifically Whitechapel on a regular basis.

So did many people, and many more lived in the area. There are those currently making the case for Lechmere as a suspect on the grounds that he walked past murder sites most days.... does that make the case against him stronger...?

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.

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.

With respect,

Phil H

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Whatever the views on my posts or of me (thank you Sir RA, I blush!) I have argued only one thing in the "diary" threads - and on that my position has not and will not change.

I didn't think it would and my respect for your posts on other subjects remains intact. I'm not trying to flatter you. Here, however, you are wading into waters based on a superficial understanding of the subject at hand. Superficial is probably too harsh a word - how about I say that the discussion over the years on the Casebook has been driven by a superficial understanding of the circumstances. If you are getting your info from Melvin Harris's "dissertations" you've made a very wrong turn.

I have not the slightest interest in whether the "diary" has been around for 20 years or 500, until it's authenticity is proven, it remains in limbo.

Be hard to argue with that although a 500 year old Ripper Diary would be something to behold. Don't give anyone any ideas.

It is not a "source" of any kind, it's contents have no place in any reputable discussion of the case, and none of us who question it have any obligation to treat it seriously, to consider it, take into account or be fair to it.

From what I have seen of the Swanson nonsense, the "reputable discussions" ain't holding up their side of the bargain any too well. No one gets to arbitrate what belongs on the Casebook other than the owners and moderators. And they have repeatedly ruled that Maybrick discussion is on topic and the normal Casebook rules apply. It would be as if I waded into a "normal" thread at random - Lechmere, anybody? - and kept interrupting posters saying you can't prove that or show me the actual police documents yada yada yada.

And I don't think the Diarist cared one hoot what anyone in the future would think.

You don't have to be fair but you shouldn't misrepresent. I hope we would agree on that.

You just posted that Maybrick had no ties to the area; he did. He also was quite adept at living a secret life. Does it make him the Ripper? Of course not. But the man could compartmentalize his life like no one's business and traveled to London and specifically Whitechapel on a regular basis.

Fond of whores, too. In Virginia he would go to the brothels three times a week. I would be shocked if the guy didn't contract syphilis at some point. And you know what they used in the States to treat the syph? (I mention this because one of the Liverpool sourced Ripper letters bemoans Jack's inability to pee.) But I digress....

It has no status, standing or relevance unless or until someone can prove, to the satisfaction of those in a position to know (not necessarily me, I assure you) that it is not a fake, forgery or in other ways bogus

The scientific tests done to date point to a origin before 1930 or so. That gives it status irrespective of any of our opinions.

[Sally]

Yes. He doesn't say 'I've left an FM', Sally, but by simple logic - and actually seeing things in pictures that look like FMs - we can determine what he means. Who do you think the 'whoring mother' is?! Come on! If we're going to go back to basics on that, then we've got real problems.


Kind regards,


Tempus

Thanks for answering my question Tempus.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Personally, I think the Maybrick Case even without any supposed Ripper connection is just as engrossing as Ripper case itself. I'm sure we know only a fraction of what went on in Battlecrease House, and within the Maybrick family. Juicy stuff!

Graham

I used to say the only thing missing to qualify as a full blown Greek tragedy was incest....and Livia recently found someone marrying a cousin. So there you go.

[Phil H]

Whatever the views on my posts or of me (thank you Sir RA, I blush!) I have argued only one thing in the "diary" threads - and on that my position has not and will not change.

I have not the slightest interest in whether the "diary" has been around for 20 years or 500, until it's authenticity is proven, it remains in limbo. It is not a "source" of any kind, it's contents have no place in any reputable discussion of the case, and none of us who question it have any obligation to treat it seriously, to consider it, take into account or be fair to it. It has no status, standing or relevance unless or until someone can prove, to the satisfaction of those in a position to know (not necessarily me, I assure you) that it is not a fake, forgery or in other ways bogus.

That would be the position were it claimed as the last will of Shakespeare , a Picasso painting, a fifth gospel or a claim to prove flying saucers are alien.

What those of you who are fascinated by it do with it, or how you spend your time is up to you.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Graham

It is indeed. The questions raised! Did Flo really poison James? Was it POSSIBLE to poison James considering the amount of poison he took on a daily basis? Why was the hanging commuted to life in prison? Why did she serve only 15 years, at a time when a life sentence in itself meant no parole? Did they even check for another suspect such as Flo's lover, perhaps?

Questions, questions

[Graham]

Personally, I think the Maybrick Case even without any supposed Ripper connection is just as engrossing as Ripper case itself. I'm sure we know only a fraction of what went on in Battlecrease House, and within the Maybrick family. Juicy stuff!

Re: any London connection, a Mr Gustavus Witt, cotton-broker who was a business acquaintance of Jim's, deposed that Jim looked after his London business, but not sure if he meant he did it from Liverpool or had an office somewhere in London. But there is no doubt at all that Maybrick was a visitor to London - at age 20 he went there to work at a broker's office and I believe that according to Trevor Christie this is when he met Sarah Robertson. Per your recent post, in fact.

Graham

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Who do you think the 'whoring mother' is?!

Just as an aside, both Livia Trivia and myself have wondered in the past if the reference isn't to Flo's mother, a pretty unique character in her own right. Sir James married Flo thinking he was going to get at her mother's loot....except it was all tied up in litigation or didn't exist. And the delightful Countess von Roques - who some suspect offed her first two husbands - saw a potential cash machine in Maybrick based on his misrepresentation of his business affairs. He was headed back to England with his tail between his legs financially speaking.

The real Maybrick story is charming in its own right.

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Tempus, you are avoiding the point here. But, fair enough, I didn't ask a direct question.

Here we are then - you said:

(my emphasis)

Now, are you claiming that the diarist specifically referred to the initials 'F' and 'M' in the diary?

I hope that's specific enough for you.

Yes. He doesn't say 'I've left an FM', Sally, but by simple logic - and actually seeing things in pictures that look like FMs - we can determine what he means. Who do you think the 'whoring mother' is?! Come on! If we're going to go back to basics on that, then we've got real problems.


Kind regards,


Tempus

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Actually Tempus I find Phil H.'s posts in general to be well reasoned and well thought out, superb actually. Except when it comes to Maybrick, and I don't doubt it's only because it's not his area of interest. That's not meant to be nasty Phil. It's just that a few of us have studied the "real" Maybrick case, the back story of how the Diary and the Watch came into the light of day, and of course the artifacts themselves for a loooooong time. I just gave a talk on the sorry tale of the testing debacles, AFI in particular. I've been at it for over fifteen years, and it's my area of interest in the Ripper case. Things that interest others on the Casebook don't fascinate me. I don't read much true crime or about SK's other than JtR.

Phil's posts on other threads may well be excellent, Robert, but I am dealing with his posts on here. If he wishes to post on a thread where he doesn't have as much knowledge as others on the subject, then he should be prepared for people to take issue with him - especially when he presents himself as having said knowledge. He stated that thwere is no connection with Maybrick and Whitechapel. This suggests that he has done his research - he obviously hasn't. That is all I am saying.

I'm sure Phil is good all round chap, and I can imagine that in his particular field he is excellent. But this is not his field and his understanding of the diary and it's nuances are severly lacking, I am sorry. I know what I am talking about with regards Maybrick and the diary, and I will continue to argue with anyone who ignores basic facts.

It's been twenty years since Barrett made that call to London, and we are no closer to a resolution. That's amazing in and of itself.

An Inconvenient Book: Everything You Wanted to Know About the Diary Tests But Were Afraid to Ask (York 2012) Only the intro is up at the moment.

http://jtrforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=636

Kind regards,


Tempus

[Sally]

Tempus, you are avoiding the point here. But, fair enough, I didn't ask a direct question.

Here we are then - you said:

an FM that no one has ever seen before, and that is specifically refered to by the diarist

(my emphasis)

Now, are you claiming that the diarist specifically referred to the initials 'F' and 'M' in the diary?

I hope that's specific enough for you.