Evidence has been withheld

[Addy]

Hi Quasar,

Indeed, it must have been something big. I've also read somewhere that it might have been something that would damage the Maybrick name, so their children as well. I doubt being convicted for murder did much for their name, though.

Greetings,

Addy

[quasar]

Greetings Addy,

I have not read the Emmas/Barrett book yet, but will soon. I wondered if this witheld evidence was something to do with criminal activity in Maybrick's business life. But the problem with that is this. By May 1889, their marrage was badly on the rocks. They were both having affiars, he was hitting her, and they had been sleeping apart.It was all but over.The only reason they had not divorced was probably for the sake of Gladdys and Bobbo.
Flo and her mum knew of this mystery evidence. There is just no way iether of them would give a bugger about revealing James's dishonest business practise, debts, racketeering or whatever criminal activity, if it meant saving Flo from the hangman.

It was obviously Flo's call not to reveal it.To her mind, she believed the ramifications of revealing it were literally worse than the death sentence. So she chose death instead. It could not possibly be anything with business or Maybrick's personal pride, but must have had wider ramifications.

What plays on my mind is the tantilising fact that they both made the judge and Queen Victoria aware of the evidence's existence , as if they were somehow waiting for divine intervention to reveal it. They had thier finger on the trigger, but didn't pull it. Why?
It surely must be seroius and of a criminal nature. If he wasn't JtR, was he a peodophile, an international spy or something - I am completely stumped?

The most interesting fact is that the Baroness claims she had the evidence " in her possession".Whatever it was, it was clearly written on paper.

Thanks, Q.

[Addy]

Hi Quasar,

It could be several things, perhaps it had something to do with building up debts, or being dishonest in business. However I cannot imagine this would be something Flo would be willing to give her life for, or her mother risking her life for.

Have you read the book JtR the last victim by Carol Emmas and Anne Barrett? It is a nice book especially concerning Flo's prison life and later life. It doesn't throw any light on this evidence either however it might interest you.

Personally, I tend to think the diary might just be the real thing. In that case it would be easy to see what they suppressed. Otherwise: it could be that they managed to suppress the evidence so well that it has now actually disappeared. Or perhaps they suspected him of something and thought they had some evidence for this.

Greetings,

Addy

[quasar]

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.