Why did Florence Maybrick not use this at her defence!

[Hatchett]

Hi Mayerling,

And Joseph Barnett in his new room with his new partner, crumples up his old newspapers, and throwing them into the fire, says "well I have no more use for them!"

Across the other side of Whitechapel some unknown man takes his astrakhan coat out of the wardobe where it has been carefully concealed for many years, brushes off the moth balls, and thinks to himself, "I can start wearing this again."

Best wishes.

[Mayerling]

I am trying to imagine the situation if Florence (who did make a statement in court had done something like this.

Justice Stephen listening to her says to himself, "Why that dirty adulterous poisoner has done my son James Kenneth a favor - now nobody witll think he was the Ripper, it was Mr. Maybrick!"

Her amazed barrister, Sir Charle Russell (who would have tried to stop her from saying this) says to himself - "Well, that's that. She'll be found guilty for sure now. Anyway I can start thinking of how to help Parnell and the Home Rule cause, and get that scoundrel Pigott!"

In Hull gaol, when a guard lets him read a news account, an amazed and bitter Frederick Deeming thinks, "But what about my possibly knowing two or three of the Victims. This does muddy up the waters regarding my own guilt."

[Perhaps in Joliet Prison in Illinois a similar set of thoughts like Deeming's in the mind of Dr. Thomas Neill Cream.]

At Windsor reading the paper languidly the next day, H.R.H. the Duke of Clarence thinking, "Well thiank God I don't have a diary."

On Harley Steet, the distinguished physician and surgeon, Sir James Paget reads of the incident and thinks, "Almost as good as the conumdrum in that Bartlett case three years back. Too bad Maybrick died - they might have asked him why he did it!"

Jeff

[Kaz]

But would the jury and judge have looked differently at her case! She could have claimed selfdefence! I think that she not saying anything about him being Jack The Ripper. Proves only what a ridiculous thing the diary is.

Inspector Abberline

What physical proof did she have, did she have the diary in her possession?

Wasn't it just the ramblings of a jealous, arsenic eating, madman?

She went into the court room pleading complete "innocence", where would pleading "manslaughter" (because my husband deserved it) have gotten her?

[Bridewell]

I think the provenance of the Maybrick Diary is highly questionable and, if it's a fraud, it could have no relevance to Florence's trial.

[belinda]

I don't know whether the Jury would have thought differently but the Judge was hostile from the start.

Unless she could prove he had threatened to kill her I don't think self defence would have worked.

Florence Maybrick always maintained her innocence.

[Inspector Abberline]

Quite true!

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

But would the jury and judge have looked differently at her case! She could have claimed selfdefence! I think that she not saying anything about him being Jack The Ripper. Proves only what a ridiculous thing the diary is.

Inspector Abberline

[Kaz]

How many answers does the OP need?

[The Grave Maurice]

Sorry, Graham, not true. There was no appeal from criminal convictions until the Court of Criminal Appeal was established in 1907. In any event, even now, new evidence is virtually never admissible on appeal. Appeals are decided on errors of law, not fact.

[Graham]

Even if it existed at the time of trial, there is no way that it, or its contents, could have become part of Florence's defence

However, it conceivably and legally could have been produced as mitigating evidence at an appeal - and not a few good folk believe that it was created for just such an eventuality.

Graham

[The Grave Maurice]

I fail to understand where the introduction of the diary as evidence came from. Certainly not from me.

You may not realise it, IA, but it did. You said she could "[s]imply tell the court that she killed James Maybrick because he claimed to be Jack The Ripper".

In 1889, an accused person was not allowed to testify. To get that message to the jury, the diary would have to be introduced into evidence by her barrister. The barrister would say: "M'lud, I have here an unsigned document, apparently not in the victim's handwriting, that claims he was JtR, and I would now like to enter it as evidence in order to clear my client." Any judge, even one as batty as J.F Stephen, would say: "Nice try, counsel, but come back when you have something that is actually admissible."

Even if it existed at the time of trial, there is no way that it, or its contents, could have become part of Florence's 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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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