Why did Florence Maybrick not use this at her defence!

[Inspector Abberline]

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

[Jason]

Well she was eventually freed so who is to say she didnt ? "dont kick up a fuss and you will go free ...."............just a thought but who knows ?

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think the essence of this is that Florence, and no one else, knew about the diary. It was kept in Maybrick's place of work. If it existed. I personally don't believe so. But if it did exist then I dont believe that Florence knew about it.

I also believe that Florence was innocent of murder, and that Maybrick wasnt murdered at all.

I believe that at the time of Maybrick's death and the subsequebt trial, Flornce was kept in a state of isolation by Maybrick's family and a number of disloyal servants, and that she was in a state of utter confusion about something aweful she had been charged with that she was absolutely innocent of.

Best wishes.

[Addy]

Hi All,

As I understand it, Florence pleaded not guilty. If she would have told about the diary, who was going to believe her not being guilty? Who would want to be married to JtR? She was also trying to protect her children as much as possible.

And indeed, even at the time at first no one thought James had been murdered. There were so many people who knew about his habitual arsenic intake. Only when his brother Michael started to push the doctors, did murder enter the scene.

Greetings,

Addy

[Inspector Abberline]

Why!

In Feldman´s Jack The Ripper : The Final Chapter page : 331 - 333 . Both the author Feldman and Donald Rumbelow are of the opinion that Florence was aware of her husband´s activities - according to the diary.
"My dear bunny knows all".
Even if she claimed to be innocent - a revelation that her husband was Jack The Ripper would have killed any case against her!

PS

Just so I´m not misunderstood Donald Rumbelow does not believe in the diary!

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I'm glad you added that.

Best wishes.

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Inspector Abberline;172786]In Feldman´s Jack The Ripper : The Final Chapter page : 331 - 333 . Both the author Feldman and Donald Rumbelow are of the opinion that Florence was aware of her husband´s activities - according to the diary.
"My dear bunny knows all".
Even if she claimed to be innocent - a revelation that her husband was Jack The Ripper would have killed any case against her!

I'm not sure about that. I see horrible cases all the time with incredibly violent spousal abuse, child abuse, etc. And these women kill their husbands to protect themselves or their kids. And they still get convicted and serve quite a bit of time. Because the jury thought that she wouldn't have had to kill him if she just left him before it got to that point. Which is exactly what they would have told Florence Maybrick. "You didn't turn him in to the police, therefore you deserve everything thats coming to you."

[Bob Hinton]

No defence

I'm sorry but you cannot kill someone because you think they may be a killer. If that was the case spouses would be piling up ten high all clutching their own personal copy of "Diary of a Serial Killer by Me"

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I agree with you Eratta.

The odds were already stacked against Florence. Maybrick's family were against her, her once trusted servant was against her, her reputation had been indelibly destroyed. The Judge's summing up to the jury pin points the doomed position she was in.

Even Perry Mason jumping up in court brandishing a copy of the alleged diary at the eleventh hour would not have saved her.

Best wishes.

[ChrisGeorge]

James Maybrick's alleged spousal abuse of Florence is of course one of the major planks in the case for the Diary being the real thing. On the other hand, there is no clue in Florence's autobiography My Lost Fifteen Years that she thought that her husband was a serial killer. Of course, she is trying to show herself in the best possible light in that memoir. To me personally, coming as I do from Liverpool, when I first heard about the Diary in 1993, it was the linking of two major Victorian murder cases that made me suspicious of the document. In short, it is too good to be true.

Chris

[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.

[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

[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

[belinda]

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

[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