Evidence has been withheld

[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.

[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]

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,

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

[Steven Russell]

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

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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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