Why did Florence Maybrick not use this at her defence!

[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.

[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!

[Hatchett]

Hi,

You are spot on Maurice.

Best wishes.

[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]

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!

[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]

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]

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 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.

[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.

[ChrisGeorge]

"My dear Bunny knows all."

Of course that is the crux of the Diary. That James Maybrick was Jack. Even though he goes the absurd length of traveling 200 miles to do his murdering of prostitutes... to get revenge on his wife Florence. Well, why would he do that? Because of course, whomever wrote the diary already knew the Whitechapel murders took place in.... Whitechapel.

This explains the rather odd passage in the early going of the diary,

"Whitechapel Liverpool, Whitechapel London, ha ha. ~ No one could possibly place it together. And indeed for there is no reason for anyone to do so. The next time I travel to London I shall begin."

-- because the writer had to get our hero to the East End of London. Needless to say, the whole scenario is contrived. It is a fantasy for people who already know about the Jack the Ripper murders, not a story that happened in "real time" at the time of the murders.

Chris

[belinda]

Because he says Bunny knows all doesn't mean she knew about the diary.
Hypothetically speaking

[Inspector Abberline]

My case!

Hi

At fitst I will state that I belive that the diary is a forgery. I´m inclined to trust Philip´s Sugdens arguments in his book "The Complete History Of jack The Ripper - Robson 2002". Also John J. Eddleston in his "Jack The Ripper An Encyclopedia - Metro 2010" is very convincing in his arguments against the diary pages 225-230.

But I still maintain that if the diary is true (which I think not) then Florence would certainly have used the fact that Jack The Ripper was her husband in her defence.

The final words in the "diary" are those:

"The pain is unbearable. My dear Bunny knows all. I do not know if she has the strength to kill me. I pray to god she finds it.It would be simple, she knows of my medicine, and for an extra dose or two it would be over. No one would know. I have seen to that. george knows of my habit and I trust soon it will come to the attention of Michael. In truth I believe he is aware of the fact. Michael will know how to act, he is the most sensible amongst us all. I do not believe I will see this June, my favourite of all months. Have begged Bunny to act soon. I curse myself for the coward I am......"

I´m sure my fellow Inspectors Jack Frost and Morse or even Conan Doyle would have saved her

Inspector Abberline

[caz]

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

Hi Inspector,

There is no evidence that the diary is 'true', nor that Florie ever knew of its existence.

But Errata is (partially) right, in that Florie could not have got away with taking the law into her own hands and poisoning Jim to death, no matter who he may have claimed to be or what she believed he may have done wrong in his life.

So there is nothing to explain here, regardless of one's speculation about the diary's true origins.

Where Errata is wrong is in imagining that Florie could have 'just' left Jim 'before it got to that point' (whatever this means), let alone that the jury would have thought so too, if they'd had any reason to think Jim deserved to be turned in 'to the police' - which they didn't.

In those days it was next to impossible for a wife in Florie's position to 'just' leave her husband. Only if he deserted her, or struck her in front of witnesses, could she divorce him. Ironically, Jim did strike Florie in front of witnesses, shortly before he ended up on his death bed, thus giving her the right to a legal separation and negating the supposed motive to murder him for her freedom - something that was entirely lost on the jury and the senile ass of a judge who directed them.

Love,

Caz
X

[belinda]

If the Diary had existed at the time and she had known about it.They'd still have found her guilty.Maybricks brothers and the staff did a real job on her.The Prosecution would probably have claimed she'd had somebdy fake the Diary for her in an attempt to get her off.