Evidence has been withheld

[Steven Russell]

I seem to be missing something here. If Flo or her mother had an ace up their sleeve, why was it not revealed?

Best wishes,

Steve.

[Addy]

Hi Caz and Kaz,

I've read "the last victim" by Carol Emmas and Anne Barret, in there it says that Queen Victoria already regretted commuting the sentence so far and that she stated Flo was never to be released. She was only released after Victoria's death. It also says the hard work of the Baroness "probably put more years ont Florences' sentence than anything else". I can imagine, as she seems to have been a pest on the establishment.

Greetings,

Addy

[Kaz]

Hi Addy,

Indeed - which may have only made things worse in the long run. Florie's neck had already been saved, much to Victoria's chagrin no doubt. I can't imagine her being amused when Florie's overbearing mother tried to lay down the law and hinted that she would reveal something unpalatable if the Queen didn't give in to her request for a retrial.

Her Maj obviously dug her heels in and refused to budge, and yet mummy never did specify what this 'evidence' was. If it concerned the unjust way the whole case had been handled, by senile judge and establishment alike, the details came out anyway, leaving her with no purchasing power. If it concerned something else, mummy evidently chose to stay buttoned up all the while Florie stayed in prison. So whatever it was, Victoria called her bluff and won.

Love,

Caz
X

What do you think the "evidence in my possession" was then?

Maybe queenie relayed the message onto Michael Maybrick? Threats could have been made to 'hush' her up?


I'm half way through 'The American connection' now so still not fully up to date.

[caz]

Hi Addy,

Indeed - which may have only made things worse in the long run. Florie's neck had already been saved, much to Victoria's chagrin no doubt. I can't imagine her being amused when Florie's overbearing mother tried to lay down the law and hinted that she would reveal something unpalatable if the Queen didn't give in to her request for a retrial.

Her Maj obviously dug her heels in and refused to budge, and yet mummy never did specify what this 'evidence' was. If it concerned the unjust way the whole case had been handled, by senile judge and establishment alike, the details came out anyway, leaving her with no purchasing power. If it concerned something else, mummy evidently chose to stay buttoned up all the while Florie stayed in prison. So whatever it was, Victoria called her bluff and won.

Love,

Caz
X

[Addy]

Hi everyody,

I believe Caz is right, the Baroness wanted Flo retried, because her death sentence was muted to life imprisonment due to reasonable doubt that James died of arsenic poisoning. If the letter of the law was followed, Flo should have been set free, because the crime for which she was convicted did not exist anymore.
The Baroness wanted a retrial so Flo could be cleared of all charges. Still, it would be interesting to know what this evidence is, because it is used more or less as a threat/blackmail against the establishment.

Greetings,

Addy

[caz]

The overlooked point here is that the Baroness is not saying to the Queen that Flo didnt poisen James. She is saying " yes, my daughter did give him poisen" , " but there was a damn good reason for it , and any jury would see that." - properly translated.

Hi quasar,

Hm, I think you may be putting two and two together and making five here.

...and therefore I humbly pray your most gracious Majesty to pardon and discharge my daughter for that offence of murder, and let her be tried on the new charge of administering and attempting to administer posion with felonious intent, that her entire innocence of that charge, as well as the other, may be made to appear.

She is saying here that her daughter was only charged and tried for murder. So when the murder conviction was changed to the lesser one of attempted murder, due to a reasonable doubt that Jim had actually died from arsenical poisoning, she was denied the opportunity to be tried on this new charge and to defend herself against it.

Mummy is insisting that her daughter be given the chance to prove herself entirely innocent of both charges - ie that she didn't even try to finish him off, let alone succeed. And while this mummy could be a right pain in the arse and not always right, she was right about the unfairness of the situation. She may even have consulted a lawyer of her own who advised her on the best way to proceed. Her 'evidence' for all we know could have concerned this very irregularity in the legal process, or even the judge's senility and whether he could have judged the time of day. Maybe this was the kind of revelation she imagined the Queen would prefer suppressed and that justice would prevail without its dirtier washing being aired.

But it did no good, because Queenie wasn't listening. Florie may have escaped a neck-stretching, but she spent fifteen years in prison, convicted without trial of attempted murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

Kaz,

The third quote is an almost unbelievable irony. It fits in exactly with the decision to commute her sentence from death to life. It is uncanny.

The overlooked point here is that the Baroness is not saying to the Queen that Flo didnt poisen James. She is saying " yes, my daughter did give him poisen" , " but there was a damn good reason for it , and any jury would see that." - properly translated.

The Baroness is confident that the new charge would exonerate Flo. Once again, I am left utterly stumped.The only way that someone could poisen another person, and hope to be exonerated would be assissted euthenasia.Then have a bloody good reason for doing it.I have even asked a legal expert on that point before posting.
This tallies exactly with what is happening in the climax of the diary.
I am left so very confused. Thanks, Q.

Sorry to confuse your more lol

What does the "on the grounds of public policy ... " mean?

Has much more information surfaced since Paul Feldman wrote 'The Final Chapter'? I've got 'The american connection' on order.

[quasar]

Kaz,

The third quote is an almost unbelievable irony. It fits in exactly with the decision to commute her sentence from death to life. It is uncanny.

The overlooked point here is that the Baroness is not saying to the Queen that Flo didnt poisen James. She is saying " yes, my daughter did give him poisen" , " but there was a damn good reason for it , and any jury would see that." - properly translated.

The Baroness is confident that the new charge would exonerate Flo. Once again, I am left utterly stumped.The only way that someone could poisen another person, and hope to be exonerated would be assissted euthenasia.Then have a bloody good reason for doing it.I have even asked a legal expert on that point before posting.
This tallies exactly with what is happening in the climax of the diary.
I am left so very confused. Thanks, Q.

[Kaz]

Afternoon, the quote above is from Paul Feldmans book.

Maybe Flo's Mum was calling their bluff? Or maybe the evidence was seen by Queen Vic & the death sentence was commuted to life in prison?

If Flo's Mum had proof that her son-in-law was the ripper, would this have saved her daughter from the gallows? Unlikely I would have thought.

Cheers.

Why wouldn't it have done?

A letter from the Baroness to the Queen :-

".....I have other evidence in my possession and power which (on the grounds of public policy and respect for our legal system) I am anxious to suppress if my present application is successful."

HO 144/1639/A50678D/202

and therefore I humbly pray your most gracious Majesty to pardon and discharge my daughter for that offence of murder, and let her be tried on the new charge of administering and attempting to administer posion with felonious intent, that her entire innocence of that charge, as well as the other, may be made to appear.

HO144/1639 A50678D/57


If this is all kosha then it looks like the Baroness saved her daughters life.

[Addy]

Hi Everybody,

This statement is also in the book I mentioned above. From what I've read, it was her express wish that this evidence was withheld.

And no, it would not have helped Flo if Maybrick being the Ripper had been made public. On the contrary, it would have given her a very strong motive. And motive was apparantly a weak point in the prosecution.

Greetings,

Addy

[John Hacker]

Afternoon, the quote above is from Paul Feldmans book.

Maybe Flo's Mum was calling their bluff? Or maybe the evidence was seen by Queen Vic & the death sentence was commuted to life in prison?

If Flo's Mum had proof that her son-in-law was the ripper, would this have saved her daughter from the gallows? Unlikely I would have thought.

Does anyone know if an individual is profiting from the diary or was it sold to a publisher & they're making the money from sales etc?

Cheers.

I wonder what Paul's source was, because that comment was not in Florrie's statement to the court. Her (fairly brief) statement focused on why she had the arsenic and the relationship between her and James.

Unless a source can be found for Paul's assertion I think it can be safely dismissed as the general silliness his book is full of.

The diary never generated much money. Currently it's owned by the publisher, Robert Smith who purchased it from Mike Barrett.

[Hannibal Hayes]

Afternoon, the quote above is from Paul Feldmans book.

Maybe Flo's Mum was calling their bluff? Or maybe the evidence was seen by Queen Vic & the death sentence was commuted to life in prison?

If Flo's Mum had proof that her son-in-law was the ripper, would this have saved her daughter from the gallows? Unlikely I would have thought.

Does anyone know if an individual is profiting from the diary or was it sold to a publisher & they're making the money from sales etc?

Cheers.

[Steven Russell]

I don't know much about this case but "evidence has been withheld" sounds more like an allegation that someone else has withheld info. rather than an admission that Flo herself had done so. And why didn't the Judge ask her what she was on about? Any ideas?

Best wishes,

Steve.

[John Hacker]

Like the rest of us, being realistic, I agree the diary just has to be a forgery - the odds of it being genuine would be very small. But there are strange things in the case that play on my mind, so I thought I would throw one out there.

Flo was well aware before her trial started that the offence, with which she was charged, carried the death penalty in 1888. With her neck on the line, so to speak, she is asked by the judge for an all important final response to the allergations against her. She sais " Although I have given evidence, evidence has been withheld that may have changed the outcome, and I am not giulty of this crime" - or something similar to that.
In laymans's terms she is saying - " I will go to the gallows - but I will not divulge this evidence".

Flo's mum( The Baroness) also sais something strange that plays on my mind alot.In a desparate letter to the Queen to try to exonerate Flo, she sais " I have evidence in my possession that I am keen to suppress" - " evidence that would throw quite a different light on things".

This has got me stumped, and back in the pavillion.I assume the Baroness did not want to witness Flo swinging freely from a noose.But she had also made the consious decision not to divulge the evidence.As with Flo - she decided not to risk it.So they both were faced with the same dilema - they iether
1. Give the evidence and exonerate Flo, or

2. Withold the evidence and Flo dies.

They chose the latter and she got the inevitable sentence.(which was later changed to life).

I am trying to piece together what this mystery evidence was.This was known about James at the trial:
1. they knew he was addicted to arsenic and other drugs.
2. they knew he was sleezy ,had mistressess, and frequented brothels in England and the U.S.A.
3. they knew, from several sources, he quarrelled with flo and was phisically violent, on occasions, toward her.

So there is some other vice that he had that is the quandry though.Whatever this vice was, it was a taboo, and those on Flo's side , who knew of it, chose to keep it a mystery. Anyone got any ideas?

Thanks, Q.

Where did you read that Quasar?

I have a transcript of the Maybrick trial (published 1912) and the statement as printed contained nothing of the sort. It's possible of course that it was omitted for some reason, but given the level of detail it seems unlikely that such an important statement might have been missed.

[Steven Russell]

I would have sung like Tony Williams out of the Platters to avoid the noose.

Best wishes,

Steve.