Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Graham]

That's a good post, Erobitha; so good IMHO that I reckon Lord Orsam is already gnashing his teeth and penning a rebuttal. Doubtless Sir Ike O'Noclast will see it soon if he hasn't seen it already, and will equally doubtless respond. In the meantime, and quickly:

- one of the reasons why the doubters suspect a cunning plot is the finding of the Watch so soon after the Diary came to light. I must admit I also find this slightly suspicious.

- Perhaps the 'J O' on the watch refers to Jim's acquaintance John Over, who married a former Battlecrease housekeeper. As I recall, possibly erroneously, John Over ended his life by drowning, and when his rooms were searched a watch bearing the initials 'J O' was, I believe, found under his pillow. If correct, perhaps this is just simple coincidence.

- most definitely Jim was well acquainted with the East End (and doubtless with what it had to offer, nudge nudge...).

- Jim definitely was in what was almost certainly a 'common law' relationship with a Sarah Robertson, and there was, I believe, issue. Feldman's the man to read on this aspect, if you have the stamina.

- I've never been aware that Jim had syphilis, but as he was a known 'ladies man' on two continents it's not at all impossible. There was apparently no mention of syphilis in his post mortem report. Of his addiction to arsenic there has never been any doubt.

- regarding alibis for the murder nights, we don't know enough about his life in detail to know if or not he had alibis.

- any idea who the researcher is who believes that Scotland Yard are holding 'classified' information concerning the Ripper Case and Maybrick in particular?

From my own viewpoint, James Maybrick is as good a Ripper suspect as any, and rather better than some. However, I still am unable to make the connection. Wait for Ike's response on that one.

Graham

PS: I posted the above just after Sam Flynn posted his response and before I saw Sam's. Graham

[Abby Normal]

BTW just to get back to the OPs premise. all her points are dead on as far as im concerned. There certainly isn't anything wrong with her logic!

[Abby Normal]

That's a good post, Erobitha; so good IMHO that I reckon Lord Orsam is already gnashing his teeth and penning a rebuttal. Doubtless Sir Ike O'Noclast will see it soon if he hasn't seen it already, and will equally doubtless respond. In the meantime, and quickly:

- one of the reasons why the doubters suspect a cunning plot is the finding of the Watch so soon after the Diary came to light. I must admit I also find this slightly suspicious.

- Perhaps the 'J O' on the watch refers to Jim's acquaintance John Over, who married a former Battlecrease housekeeper. As I recall, possibly erroneously, John Over ended his life by drowning, and when his rooms were searched a watch bearing the initials 'J O' was, I believe, found under his pillow. If correct, perhaps this is just simple coincidence.

- most definitely Jim was well acquainted with the East End (and doubtless with what it had to offer, nudge nudge...).

- Jim definitely was in what was almost certainly a 'common law' relationship with a Sarah Robertson, and there was, I believe, issue. Feldman's the man to read on this aspect, if you have the stamina.

- I've never been aware that Jim had syphilis, but as he was a known 'ladies man' on two continents it's not at all impossible. There was apparently no mention of syphilis in his post mortem report. Of his addiction to arsenic there has never been any doubt.

- regarding alibis for the murder nights, we don't know enough about his life in detail to know if or not he had alibis.

- any idea who the researcher is who believes that Scotland Yard are holding 'classified' information concerning the Ripper Case and Maybrick in particular?

From my own viewpoint, James Maybrick is as good a Ripper suspect as any, and rather better than some. However, I still am unable to make the connection. Wait for Ike's response on that one.

Graham

PS: I posted the above just after Sam Flynn posted his response and before I saw Sam's. Graham

hes such a bad suspect a hoaxer had to fake the diary to even make anyone take notice, as there is absolutely nothing else there.

[erobitha]

Which came to light not long after the diary surfaced... fancy that!

If I owned a sovereign ring which had a strange pattern on it but didn't know what that pattern was I would most likely try and find out what that pattern was or where it came from. Luckily these days we have google and it probably wouldnt take long. So when you find something strange in 1992 (purchase date verified) after buying it from an Antiques Shop you start looking around to see if there are some answers. In 1993 a book gets published about the same strange thing you have in your possession, is it not natural to share this with the world and find out more? He openly said it was the book that prompted him to show the world what he had. If you have questions over Albert's character, I would love to see you try and get those past the peoplke who knew him. He was offered a ridiculous sum of money for the watch but never sold it.

If you use a less-than shiny engraving implement, then I'd have thought that it would leave such particles behind.

I can see your logic but I'm afraid it is flawed. The particles were embedded which means they have been there for a long period of time. The embedding in theory can be faked at an extrenmely high skill level, but then so could the moon landing but I'm pretty happy we stepped on the lunar surface.

Apart from the odd event here and there, we have no idea what James Maybrick was doing at any time before, during or after 1888. The same is true for many millions of other men who were living in Britain at the time.

Not true we have plenty of researched evidence of James Maybrick's time line, do you have this much info for millions of others? Here is a sample for you:

02/08/1837 Born in Sunderland, Sarah Ann Robertson, Maybrick’s first wife was born
25/10/1838 James Maybrick was born in Liverpool
1858 JM starts job in shipbrokers office in London Docklands (aged 20). Probably met SAR around this time
*1868 Maybrick becomes a merchant clerk (aged 30)
1868 Named as husband of Sarah Ann Robertson in her step-dads will (JM was 30, SAR was 21)
1870 James’ Father William died aged 55
1871 Census says single living with mother (JM was 33). Same census says Sarah Ann is married to him (55 Bromley street)
*1873 Formed the company Maybrick and Company cotton merchants with brother Edwin as Junior partner (JM was 35)
1874 JM travelled to Norfolk, Virginia to establish branch office (JM was 36)
1877 JM Contracted “Malaria” (JM was 39) table.
March 1880 JM met redhead 18 year old southern belle Florence Chandler on board SS Baltic on return home
Census 1881 Sarah Ann Roberton reverts back to maiden name
27/07/1881 JM & FM married in St James Church, Piccadilly, London
March 1882 James ‘Bobo’ Maybrick was born
1882-1884 Family split time between US & UK
March 1884 Returned to UK for good
22/08/1884 JM formally resigned from Norfolk cotton exchange
20/07/1886 Gladys Evelyn Maybrick was born
Late 1887 Florence engages in an affair with cotton trader Alfred Brierly
March 1888 The Maybricks move in to a new residence Battlecrease House
29/03/1889 Florence sustains a black eye after James’ temper erupts
24/04/1889 Florence purchases a dozen fly papers laced with arsenic
26/04/1889 James gets more ‘medicine’ in the post
27/04/1889 Next day James reports feeling very unwell
03/05/1889 James visits his doctors and his office for the last time
11/05/1889 James died at 8.40pm in his own bed

[Graham]

hes such a bad suspect a hoaxer had to fake the diary to even make anyone take notice, as there is absolutely nothing else there.

Before the Diary, fake or not, came to light, no-one had ever suggested James Maybrick as JtR. So it is incorrect to say that a hoaxer had to fake the Diary to make anyone take notice, as that suggests that Maybrick had been mentioned previously as a Ripper suspect.

As an aside, reference the OP's statements, if we take Druitt as a 'legitimate' Ripper suspect, he wasn't that different in circumstances to Maybrick. Educated, well-off, and had a permanent residence. Yet no-one has ever dismissed Druitt as a suspect because he didn't kill his victims in his home. And if an enterprising killer of whores did run to the luxury of renting a 'flat' in the East End so he could do the deeds in privacy and comfort, he'd only be able to use his 'flat' once, wouldn't he?

Graham

[erobitha]

- one of the reasons why the doubters suspect a cunning plot is the finding of the Watch so soon after the Diary came to light. I must admit I also find this slightly suspicious.

As I mentioned to Sam Flynn, if you had something strange in your possession in 1992 where would go to find out more? There was no Google. In 1993 a book comes out that is connected to your strange thing, surely you would be intrigued to know more? Which is eaxctly what Albert did. I think the whole "convenient timing" thing is a poor argument. For what puprose? Financial gain? He was offered large sums and never sold. As far as I am aware he wanted to know the tuth like everyine else. Motivation is much more an important question than timing.

Perhaps the 'J O' on the watch refers to Jim's acquaintance John Over, who married a former Battlecrease housekeeper. As I recall, possibly erroneously, John Over ended his life by drowning, and when his rooms were searched a watch bearing the initials 'J O' was, I believe, found under his pillow. If correct, perhaps this is just simple coincidence.

I think people just looked through anyone who Jim knew with those initials but the watch was purchased in Lancaster, not far from where I believe his first victim died. The woman in question was from a cotton milling town. Coincidence probably.

most definitely Jim was well acquainted with the East End (and doubtless with what it had to offer, nudge nudge...)

His taste for prostiutues is not news but I suspect his view on them changed somewhat after America. Mary Hogwood rememebers a very different Maybrick to the one we like to think is genial and gentlemanly.

Jim definitely was in what was almost certainly a 'common law' relationship with a Sarah Robertson, and there was, I believe, issue. Feldman's the man to read on this aspect, if you have the stamina.

The question is how many and did they all survive? We still know very little

I've never been aware that Jim had syphilis, but as he was a known 'ladies man' on two continents it's not at all impossible. There was apparently no mention of syphilis in his post mortem report. Of his addiction to arsenic there has never been any doubt.

The syphillis accusation is very hard to prove, but why would they be looking for that, in what at the time was regarded as a death by poisoning? The deep dive analsyis of the dead was somehwat still quite shallow in Victorian times.

regarding alibis for the murder nights, we don't know enough about his life in detail to know if or not he had alibis.

Logically correct to a point. We do know he was in / near London on the night Martha Tabram was murdered as he attended a horse racing event. I don't believe she was a JTR victim anyway, but my point is if we can find this, then what is to say we cant find a correlation with the other dates? We only need one of the nights to show he was not around to exonerate him.

any idea who the researcher is who believes that Scotland Yard are holding 'classified' information concerning the Ripper Case and Maybrick in particular?

I think Keith Skinner might have some knowledge on this.

From my own viewpoint, James Maybrick is as good a Ripper suspect as any, and rather better than some. However, I still am unable to make the connection. Wait for Ike's response on that one.

Well that's far than many on here would give him, so I appreciate you being open minded. It's a rarity around here. Also, Mr Osram's rebuttals are highly flawed, but I'm not here to argue with him, just to share my views with other people who have a keen interest.

[Sam Flynn]

Not true we have plenty of researched evidence of James Maybrick's time line, do you have this much info for millions of others? Here is a sample for you:

02/08/1837 Born in Sunderland, Sarah Ann Robertson, Maybrick’s first wife was born
25/10/1838 James Maybrick was born in Liverpool
1858 JM starts job in shipbrokers office in London Docklands (aged 20). Probably met SAR around this time
*1868 Maybrick becomes a merchant clerk (aged 30)
1868 Named as husband of Sarah Ann Robertson in her step-dads will (JM was 30, SAR was 21)
1870 James’ Father William died aged 55
1871 Census says single living with mother (JM was 33). Same census says Sarah Ann is married to him (55 Bromley street)
*1873 Formed the company Maybrick and Company cotton merchants with brother Edwin as Junior partner (JM was 35)
1874 JM travelled to Norfolk, Virginia to establish branch office (JM was 36)
1877 JM Contracted “Malaria” (JM was 39) table.
March 1880 JM met redhead 18 year old southern belle Florence Chandler on board SS Baltic on return home
Census 1881 Sarah Ann Roberton reverts back to maiden name
27/07/1881 JM & FM married in St James Church, Piccadilly, London
March 1882 James ‘Bobo’ Maybrick was born
1882-1884 Family split time between US & UK
March 1884 Returned to UK for good
22/08/1884 JM formally resigned from Norfolk cotton exchange
20/07/1886 Gladys Evelyn Maybrick was born
Late 1887 Florence engages in an affair with cotton trader Alfred Brierly
March 1888 The Maybricks move in to a new residence Battlecrease House
29/03/1889 Florence sustains a black eye after James’ temper erupts
24/04/1889 Florence purchases a dozen fly papers laced with arsenic
26/04/1889 James gets more ‘medicine’ in the post
27/04/1889 Next day James reports feeling very unwell
03/05/1889 James visits his doctors and his office for the last time
11/05/1889 James died at 8.40pm in his own bed

Births, marriages, deaths and census entries don't count, as we've got that info for most people. As to his day-to-day movements, as well as those of millions of his contemporaries, we know precious little.

If only he'd kept a diary, eh...

[erobitha]

Births, marriages, deaths and census entries don't count, as we've got that info for most people. As to his day-to-day movements, as well as those of millions of his contemporaries, we know precious little.

If only he'd kept a diary, eh...

Maybe you didnt see the exact dates enetred for specific events above? I'm sure you will be able to tell not eveything is purely from civil records. I have many more, this was just a sample as I said.

[Graham]

Erobitha,

As I mentioned to Sam Flynn, if you had something strange in your possession in 1992 where would go to find out more? There was no Google. In 1993 a book comes out that is connected to your strange thing, surely you would be intrigued to know more? Which is eaxctly what Albert did. I think the whole "convenient timing" thing is a poor argument. For what puprose? Financial gain? He was offered large sums and never sold. As far as I am aware he wanted to know the tuth like everyine else. Motivation is much more an important question than timing

You are very likely quite correct, but you know how it is with anything connected with The Diary.

I think people just looked through anyone who Jim knew with those initials but the watch was purchased in Lancaster, not far from where I believe his first victim died. The woman in question was from a cotton milling town. Coincidence probably.

Verity watches were actually made in Lancaster, and the watch was formerly owned by Ronald Murphy's (owner of the shop where Albert Johnson said he bought the Watch) father-in-law, who had a jeweller's shop in Lancaster. I don't know if John Over came from Lancaster.

Logically correct to a point. We do know he was in / near London on the night Martha Tabram was murdered as he attended a horse racing event. I don't believe she was a JTR victim anyway, but my point is if we can find this, then what is to say we cant find a correlation with the other dates? We only need one of the nights to show he was not around to exonerate him.

What Sam and I are saying is that, although our knowledge of James Maybrick and his life is fairly extensive, we don't have a diary-like knowledge of his day-to-day movements. But he did travel a lot, that's for sure.

I think Keith Skinner might have some knowledge on this.

I certainly haven't seen all of KS's published comments on the Diary, and would be very pleased if, should he see this, he could elaborate.

Thank you for your kind comments regarding my open-mindedness. I try. I also try to avoid the sheer vituperation that is sometimes evident here. No-one knows who the Ripper was, probably never will. All names thus far attached to the possible identity of the East End Murderer are speculative, and nothing more.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

His taste for prostitutes is not news but I suspect his view on them changed somewhat after America. Mary Hogwood remembers a very different Maybrick to the one we like to think is genial and gentlemanly.

Hi erobitha,

I think it was Old Jimbo himself who liked to see himself as genial and gentlemanly. My own suspicion is that he was a cold-blooded murdering b*****d, but that's just my view, of course.

The gentleman who went into the water was Jimbo's old drinking buddy George Davidson (in whose arms he died) not John Over. It wasn't you who said it, but I wanted to correct it anyway.

With Maybrick, we have to accept that the scrapbook and the watch are inherently linked with his candidature, and also that both have the worst possible history (as distinct from provenance). The scrapbook emerged at exactly the time when all of the key facts were finally known (that is, post-1987). The watch emerged within a month or so of the scrapbook first being referred to in the Liverpool Post. Timing - if innocent - was disastrous because the timing of both events speaks to the position that both are fake. As a statistician, I cannot argue with this. As a statistician, these two events cry out 'Fake!' and do not need The Sunday Times to do so for us. The timing is as bad for we believers as the likes of Florence's initials being on Kelly's wall are to disbelievers. In both cases, neither case is won or lost - just tarnished significantly.

It is possible that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and that he did not create the scrapbook nor the watch but that someone knowing of his crimes did so 'on his behalf' (for goodness only knows what reason). This allows both artefacts to be the fakes they appear on the surface to be and also for James to actually be Jack. As a statistician, this does not sit well with me. If someone had uncovered James Maybrick's alter ego, I am unable to then go to "so rather than simply show the evidence, I wasted a huge amount of time, effort, and money in creating two unworthy, unconvincing bits of 'evidence' to make it easier for me to prove what I had discovered was true". Although I argue in Society's Pillar that there is so much circumstantial evidence pointing at Maybrick that - were the scrapbook and watch to ever be unmasked as hoaxes - there would still be grounds upon which to build a case against Maybrick, the truth is that the scrapbook and the watch (as I have intimated above) would then make James' candidature for Jack hugely implausible indeed, despite my not entirely serious suggestions to the contrary.

Obviously, I believe that both artefacts are the real deal, but we live in a horrible, dystopian nightmare where we potentially have the answers to our questions but we can't make them stick.

The birth of tragedy, no less.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

With Maybrick, we have to accept that the scrapbook and the watch are inherently linked with his candidature, and also that both have the worst possible history (as distinct from provenance). The scrapbook emerged at exactly the time when all of the key facts were finally known (that is, post-1987). The watch emerged within a month or so of the scrapbook first being referred to in the Liverpool Post.

Hi Ike,

I suspect your assessment here is the crux of the entire issue condensed succinctly and neatly into a few sentences. Maybrick was never considered a suspect before the diary and the provenance is horrendous of both the watch and the diary, but that doesn't mean it can't be true. Ted Bundy was not considered a suspect before he was caught.

It just means we don't have a perfect gift with a nice ribbon on it and we have to work that bit harder to qualify it's authenticity.

Much of what you say with regards to many of the key diary events being available post 1987, but what if we could link or verify the references such as
...the Manchester murder (possibly more than one)
...the existence of Mrs Hammersmith / Hammerstein
...or even proof he was in London on any of the dates of canonical murders

Science has not been conclusive on either artefacts, which means we must hope technology will improve so we can be more definitive in the answers whilst we also looking to establish direct correlations with the unknown elements of the diary.

Thanks for the reply.

Regards,

James

[Abby Normal]

Before the Diary, fake or not, came to light, no-one had ever suggested James Maybrick as JtR. So it is incorrect to say that a hoaxer had to fake the Diary to make anyone take notice, as that suggests that Maybrick had been mentioned previously as a Ripper suspect.

As an aside, reference the OP's statements, if we take Druitt as a 'legitimate' Ripper suspect, he wasn't that different in circumstances to Maybrick. Educated, well-off, and had a permanent residence. Yet no-one has ever dismissed Druitt as a suspect because he didn't kill his victims in his home. And if an enterprising killer of whores did run to the luxury of renting a 'flat' in the East End so he could do the deeds in privacy and comfort, he'd only be able to use his 'flat' once, wouldn't he?

Graham

its exactly my point-nobody mentioned him as a suspect before because there is nothing that suggests him, no evidence, not even a plausible theory, zilch that even implicates him in any way. it had to take this silly obviously hoaxed diary to get him on the map.

[Trapperologist]

It just means we don't have a perfect gift with a nice ribbon on it and we have to work that bit harder to qualify it's authenticity.

Much of what you say with regards to many of the key diary events being available post 1987, but what if we could link or verify the references such as
...the Manchester murder (possibly more than one)
...the existence of Mrs Hammersmith / Hammerstein
...or even proof he was in London on any of the dates of canonical murders

Science has not been conclusive on either artefacts, which means we must hope technology will improve so we can be more definitive in the answers whilst we also looking to establish direct correlations with the unknown elements of the diary.

Thanks for the reply.

Regards,

James

Hi, erobithia. I’m glad that you’re looking deeper into the mystery instead of just rehashing the diary debates where people cherry pick the evidence and their personal opinion on the definition of logic (eg. It takes 70 years to go from “one off” to “one off instance”, only logical if someone can prove it was in the everyday world and not just the technical world for 70 years - easy to do but I guess logic doesn’t have to be proven because it’s “logical”.)

As well as the “first murder” and the other issues, I might add the “last murder” MJK which might help and some of the other mysteries that seem to be missed for some reason, like the indents on the GSG and all the letter Ms.

You’re not the James that will be blamed for nothing.

[Yabs]

It’s worth mentioning, that to the average Liverpudlian in the late 1980s, both cases would have been common knowledge.

A few months after the Michael Caine Ripper special, At St. George’s hall Liverpool, there was a play re-enacting the Maybrick trial which took place six times a day and ran for two months.
The play was well publicised and the 100 year anniversary of the Maybrick trial also attracted mentions in the local papers.
It’s not inconceivable, that a local person with an interest in crime, would want to see if it was feasible to tie the ripper and Maybrick together.

Most ripper suspects seem to be born that way.
Choose a suspect of some notoriety, then make them fit.

[rjpalmer]

Mr. Barnett -- Yes, you're right. Witt was always London based. I had assumed (wrongly) that he decamped for London after the mid-1870s bankruptcy, but I see now that he was already in Camberwell in 1871.

Melvin Harris and everyone else always figured that Maybrick worked for G. A. Witt & Company in the Liverpool office, not the London office.

How this evolved into Maybrick "living and working in Whitechapel" is a mystery I will leave for others to explain.