If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The new ripper book just released, by Stettler, fingers Michael Maybrick as the real ripper.Does this mean that the administrator will start a new suspect heading under Michael, so we can all discuss him now?
What interests me about Michael is this. Hypothetically, if this diary was ever proved to be an old forgery, is there anyone else, other than Michael who could have forged it? I am not seeing it.He was the only Maybrick who really new about his trips to London, and his intimate secrets about Flo. Strangly, the witness sketch looks more like Michael than James.It was Michael, not James with the Royalty connection. Interesting to think about anyway. Q.
Like Mycroft Holmes, I have no energy for such matters, but I'm sure it would be possible for someone a lot cleverer than I to account for Michael Maybrick's whereabouts on the nights of the C5 Murders. As the foremost popular composer of his day, I'd doubt if he'd be at home most nights with his feet up to the fire.
If the Diary isan old forgery, then just about anyone with a passing knowledge of the Whitechapel Murders could have cobbled it together. What's in it that was known only to Michael Maybrick? And if it is an old forgery, then what was the purpose of it? To ensure that James Maybrick was forever labelled Jack the Ripper, or to provide Florence Maybrick with some means, however tenuous, of showing her accusers that she was living with a monster? Michael Maybrick is historically known to have been somewhat anti-Florence, so I'd venture to say that if he forged anything it might have been letters purported to be from Florence to her various lovers, and maybe vice versa. The 'old forgery' idea must mean, as far as I'm concerned, that it was manufactured very much by some pro-Florence lobby.
Feldman elaborated upon the Masonic connections of Michael Maybrick, and his connections with 'those at the very top of Society', but Feldman had his own reasons for doing so - i.e., he believed that James was Jack the Ripper, and that Michael's actions at Battlecrease immediately prior to, and after, James' death, was to ensure that Florence was indeed charged with the murder of her husband because she had discovered the 'truth'.
I think.
Cheers,
Graham
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Here's an interview printed in a New Zealand newspaper where Michael Maybrick denies James was ever an arsenic eater. He also claims there was only one occasion where he had harsh words with Florence, that occurring just before James died.
Here's an interview printed in a New Zealand newspaper where Michael Maybrick denies James was ever an arsenic eater. He also claims there was only one occasion where he had harsh words with Florence, that occurring just before James died.
Excellent find. Well done! Although we might doubt Michael Maybricks motives and actions in the evident railroading of Florence Maybrick at the inquest into James's death that led to her trial, it is very interesting to read quotes from him in his defense against such allegations of meddling in the case.
Chris
Christopher T. George
Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/ RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/
Seems like a public relations effort on Michael's part, and from what I've read, Florence would have had an entirely different take on Michael's behavior towards her, particularly in light of the fact that it was Michael who told police that he saw her tampering with her husband's food and drink.
It might be that the Maybricks had heard rumors of previous deaths by poisoning in the Chandler family. The following article is is entirely unsourced, but makes a lot of interesting though salacious claims in regard to Florence and her mother.
This reminds me of the Charles Bravo Case, where his wife's first husband also died possibly from poisoning, although that was never proved.
The odd thing about Maybrick is that (as far as I recall) there was very little arsenic found in his system during the post-mortem, and his cause of death was stated initially as gastro-enteritis. Yet there was Florie extracting arsenic from fly-papers for her complexion! I seem to remember that his body was exhumed and that larger quantities of arsenic were found. If so, how come they were missed initially? So did he, or didn't he, die of arsenic poisoning?
I have to admit that it's years since I read much about the Maybrick Case, but I always got the sniff that Florie was in it up to her elbows, and that Michael Maybrick was fully aware of this. The other strange fact is that, although Florie was reprieved and, apparently, cleared of murder, she continued to serve 15 years in nick. How come? Was our Michael, as a high-ranking Mason, behind this? Did he use his influence to ensure that his sister-in-law received something in the way of punishment, even though the charge of murder ultimately couldn't be proven?
Graham
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Comment