Why did Florence Maybrick not use this at her defence!

[Hatchett]

Hi All,

I agree with Errata and with Bunny.

At the end of the day even if the diary existed (which I doubt) I do not believe that Florence would have known about it.

Even if she had have done the diary itself is not proof of guilt.

Even if it had been proof of guilt it would not have been vindication of murder.

It could even have not been allowed into court because it was not pertinent to the case.

If it had been allowed it would have delayed the procedings (possibly indefinately) until the diay could have been authenticated.

Not to mention the fact that would any woman in her right mind have stayed with a man who was capable of the crimes of the Jack the Ripper. They are offensive to us today. Just think about how offensive they would have appeared to a Victorian. Let alone a Victorian woman. Certainly, in Florence's case a gentle woman from the Souther states of America.

Really, this just doesnt, in my opinion, hold water.

Best wishes.

[Hatchett]

Hi All,

I agree with Errata and Bunny.

If the diary existed ( which I doubt) I do not believe that Florence would have known about it.

Even if she did know about it the diary could not be classes as vindication of murder.

If the diary had been presented, it may not have been allowed to be presented because it is not pertinent to the case.

If it had been presented then the proceedings would have been delayed (probably indefinately) until the diary could have been authenticated.

Also would a Victorian woman have stayed in the same house as Jack the Ripper. The murders appear horrendous to us today (quite rightly) Just think of how they would have appeared in Victorian times, to a Victorian lady. Particularly to a gentleman from the Southern States of America.

Surelly, this just doesnt hold water.

Best wishes.

[Graham]

Either I'm pissed, or the writer of the last post is.

Florence Maybrick was convicted purely on the basis that she was a confessed adultress (with Alfred Brierley). It didn't really much matter to the judge (a total half-wit) or the jury whether or nor she'd administered poison to her husband, or whether her husband was himself guilty of adultery (which he was). She was condemned according to the morals of her time.

If the Diary is old, then it could possibly have been written after Florence's trial in an effort to convince the powers that be that she knew her husband was the Ripper, and that this knowledge somehow justified her murdering him. However, this I hugely doubt.

Florence got shafted by her brother-in-law who despised her, and by the judicial mores of her day. She was lucky not to be hanged, and desperately unlucky to serve 20-odd years in prison.

Graham

[Hatchett]

Hi Graham,

I dont drink so I am certainly not pissed!

My machine crashed so I had to write the thing out again. The same thing happened when I had written this to you. So it if comes up again with slightly different wording you will know why.

Has technology always worked for you?

Although I agree with the morality thing that you mention I think you seriously simplify the points of law.

The judge wasnt a half wit. He went insane. you ought to be more careful with what you say.

Unless of course, like you say, you are pissed.

Best wishes!

[Graham]

My advice to you is to read up a bit more about the case!

And when you have done so, read The Ripper Diary - The Inside Story, by Liner, Morris and Skinner.

It'll be time well spent if you really want to get to the crux of the Maybrick Case.

Graham

[Hatchett]

Hello Graham,

My advice to you is to keep getting pissed. The real world is obviously too much for you.


Good luck in your dreams!

[The Grave Maurice]

It could even have not been allowed into court because it was not pertinent to the case.

Gee, I love diary threads. There is always such interesting stuff on them. But, getting back to the topic of this one, I believe Hatchett has hit the nail on the head.

The rules of evidence in the late 19th century were certainly different from ours, but not that different. Assuming that it existed at the time, if someone could explain to me how a diary of unknown origin could have been introduced as relevant evidence at Florence's trial, I'd be obliged.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

You are spot on Maurice.

Best wishes.

[belinda]

They would have have convicted her anyway because killing somebody for being a killer would not have been any defence they would have pilloried her for taking the law into her own hands.If she had had the diary it was no defence they would have said why not as a law abiding citizen didn't she take the diary to the police and turn him in to them.

In fact if the diary had existed there would have been no way she could have pleaded innocent because it would havebeen proof she did it.If anybody had a reason to destroy that diary had it existed it was Florence Maybrick as it would have been used as undeniable proof of her guilt.

She would also have been held responsible by everybody as the woman who caused the Ripper murders. Double whammy.Can you imagine the public outcry!

[Sister Hyde]

yep, unfortunately, it wouldn't have helped her much once the crime was already comitted, at best she would have just got some compassion from the public, but they wouldn't have changed her sentence for that.

[caz]

-- because the writer had to get our hero to the East End of London.

It's not quite as simple as that, Chris, because if it were, why would anyone pick a man who lived in Liverpool to be our East End 'hero' (strange choice of word there!) when they could have picked from a cast of literally thousands of genuine Eastenders?

This is why "my theeery" (spoken in my best John Cleese aka Anne Elk voice) is that the diary was always more of a satirical dig at James Maybrick and the Maybrick Trial than it was about JtR or the Whitechapel murders. If Jack had not been butchering 'whores' the previous autumn, I sense that our dear diarist would have turned Jim into some other notorious character instead. In short, I see the diarist's bete noire as Jim, not Jack, and the latter as merely a convenient vehicle by which to hang a funny little tale.

Love,

Caz
X

[Hatchett]

Hello Sister Hyde,

It is good to see you posting again. I hope you are feeling better with things.

I believe that you are right. Even if the diary had been accepted as evidence, which I very much doubt, it could have done more damage to Florence's reputation and case.

Best wishes.

[Addy]

I quite agree: even if it had been admitted, it would have accused Florrie even more. What about the sentence: Have begged Bunny to act soon. (also quoted above)? It would be enough to convict her outright.

Greetings,

Addy

[Inspector Abberline]

Gee, I love diary threads. There is always such interesting stuff on them. But, getting back to the topic of this one, I believe Hatchett has hit the nail on the head.

The rules of evidence in the late 19th century were certainly different from ours, but not that different. Assuming that it existed at the time, if someone could explain to me how a diary of unknown origin could have been introduced as relevant evidence at Florence's trial, I'd be obliged.

I fail to understand where the introduction of the diary as evidence came from. Certainly not from me. Well If as a chance in a million the diary is true. Then Florence knew who Jack The ripper was. Why woould she not say so at the trial? That could certainly not harm her defence.

[belinda]

Hi

Florence Maybrick was facing the death penalty for murder. If the diary is true why did she not use the one thing that would certanly absolve her from all blame. Simply tell the court that she killed James Maybrick because he claimed to be Jack The Ripper.
Those who belive that the diary is not a forgery have to explain that.

Inspector Abberline

That would still convict her murder is murder. Killing somebody because they are a killer is still a criminal offence.