Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[erobitha]

Thanks, Erobitha. Out of curiosity, have you actually located Maybrick in the 1861 UK census?

There's an anomaly in the 1871 one. James Maybrick is listed at 77 Mount Pleasant, Liverpool, in the English census for the night of 2 April.

Yet he's also in the 1871 Scottish census, listed in 'vessels' in Glasgow, on the night of 2/3 April. Which might suggest the resident is not always physically in the family home when the census taker comes knocking.

I haven't looked at this in years, but I don't remember anyone finding him in 1861...

My apologies for causing any confusion with regards to the "matter of census record" comment. You are indeed correct, he mysteriously disappears from the 1861 census altogether despite his whole family being listed. My point was if we were take the link to Sarah Ann Robertson (who is listed as living as an assiatnt to to a jeweller at 172 Fenchurch Street in the 1861 census) and the subsequent "Sarah Ann Maybrick" listed in the 1871 census - we could reasonably assume James most likely resided at the Bromley Street address for at least some of the time Sarah Ann also did. So I withdraw my comment as "a matter of census record "and demote it to a "reasonable probability". Why he does not appear at all in any form on the 1861 census when it is believed he was in London at the time is a peculiar anamoly.

I believe the Scottish 1871 census shows him being listed as a passenger on a merchant ship. We don't know if he was ariving or leaving. It is assumed the ship's final destination or departure point was Cuba. He didn't go on to form his own company for a a couple of years after this, and his move to Virginia took place in 1874. Why he was on that ship, where he was going and for what purpose remains a mystery. He is listed on the records as a Passenger and Merchant. He does also appear listed as unmarried. If I was to guess, I would say someone at the Liverpool address declared on his behalf not realising he was likely to be part of the Scottish census.

[Iconoclast]

thanks ero
but do you think this would really give him the knowledge (or even the wherwithall or desire) to know the streets of WC some twenty years later?

It is perfectly plausible that a limited knowledge of the nature of Whitechapel in the 1860s allowed him to make the link with it in early 1888 (as a place where he could carry out his 'campaign' against sex workers) without his necessarily having been familiar with the streets twenty years earlier as a young man making his way in the world. Indeed, when the entry appears in the scrapbook explaining how he has taken a small room in Middlesex Street, he adds that "I have walked the streets and have become more than familiar with them". I think the use of the past tense implies recency here. I don't think it implies "I have walked the streets twenty years ago and therefore I remember them well".

The fact that he was clearly down in the heart of the east end in the 1860s is truly fascinating though not in itself evidence that he was Jack. It's fascinating and it's remarkable, but it does not explain why he chose Whitechapel for his crimes, except (as stated above) that his peripheral knowledge of the place would have logically led him to it as a site for his 'campaign' twenty-odd years later. Had he had known of a Whitechapel in some other city where he had reasonable grounds to visit and where it was easy to prey on sex workers, we could have had a very different Jack indeed. Oo-ar ma dears.

[erobitha]

or do it some twenty years later, when he wasn't working in London. nor known the streets well enough in any event, as the ripper surely did.

Firstly, his work in London didn't end when he stopped being a clerk. As others have stated he went to do work with Mr Witt and visited his brother Michael on many occasions socially. In fact, he got married to Florence in London. I suspect he felt London was a home away from home in many ways. There is is not a clean break of twenty years with no link to London at all. Also, I don't live in London myself anymore but I grew up there. I have lived away for 12 years but I still know my way around the areas I knew initimately. It does come back quite quickly.

[erobitha]

1.7 according to Google Maps.

Of course contruction has changed the landscape over the years, but not the distance. How you can dismiss the accuracy of Google Maps in one bretah with no evidence is interesting in itself.

I'm not sure it is, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks

And therein lies one of the biggest myths associated with the Whitechapel Murders. Whitechapel wasn't some kind of "Red Light District", and there were plenty of prostitutes elsewhere in London, including East End districts outside Whitechapel - especially Docklands, where there was a demand for their services, for obvious reasons. (One contemporary survey showed that there were, in fact, more prostitutes in Poplar than there were in Spitalfields.) Unless the younger, clerkly Maybrick had a penchant for walking, or for ragged looking women in their 40s, I see little reason for him to have ventured into the rookeries of Spitalfields to satisfy his urges.

I said he may have had the motivation, I didn't say he did go down there for that purpose exclusively. However, as you well know, Whitechapel and surrounding area was a very popular shopping district with many sellers and markets on hand selling all types of wares. The fact he was a mere mile away for the best part of 10 years, I would wager led him to getting a fairly intimate knowledge of the local streets. He would also have to pass through the area to get to any of the major train stations terminals in the area. The district line didn't extend as far as Whitechapel until 1884. Many potential reasons to head west.

[rjpalmer]

My apologies for causing any confusion with regards to the "matter of census record" comment. You are indeed correct, he mysteriously disappears from the 1861 census altogether despite his whole family being listed. My point was if we were take the link to Sarah Ann Robertson (who is listed as living as an assiatnt to to a jeweller at 172 Fenchurch Street in the 1861 census) and the subsequent "Sarah Ann Maybrick" listed in the 1871 census - we could reasonably assume James most likely resided at the Bromley Street address for at least some of the time Sarah Ann also did. So I withdraw my comment as "a matter of census record "and demote it to a "reasonable probability". Why he does not appear at all in any form on the 1861 census when it is believed he was in London at the time is a peculiar anamoly.

No problem. For the die-hard Maybrickians it might be interesting to trace No. 172 Fenchurch Street on a map; this must be very near where Gustave Witt had one of his early London offices. Maybe there is the connection?

The bankruptcy notice below dates to 1875, so it is some years later...

[Joshua Rogan]

For the die-hard Maybrickians it might be interesting to trace No. 172 Fenchurch Street on a map; this must be very near where Gustave Witt had one of his early London offices. Maybe there is the connection?

The bankruptcy notice below dates to 1875, so it is some years later...

Green Blob: Fen Court
Red Blob: 172 Fenchurch Street

[rjpalmer]

Green Blob: Fen Court
Red Blob: 172 Fenchurch Street

No so close, then, but within the ballpark. I have a George Dewdney, jeweler, an 'artist in hair' at 172 Fenchurch Street in 1861; off-hand, I don't see Sarah Robertson, but I suppose she's there somewhere, presumably working for the dude Dewdney.

[erobitha]

No so close, then, but within the ballpark. I have a George Dewdney, jeweler, an 'artist in hair' at 172 Fenchurch Street in 1861; off-hand, I don't see Sarah Robertson, but I suppose she's there somewhere, presumably working for the dude Dewdney.

The 172 Fenchurch Street address comes from an earlier post in 2009 by Chris Scott who found the information:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/2508-sarah-ann-robertson-the-other-mrs-maybrick

[Sam Flynn]

How you can dismiss the accuracy of Google Maps in one bretah with no evidence is interesting in itself.

I used the evidence provided by Google Maps. I didn't dismiss it, nor did I make up the 1.7 miles; it was there in front of my eyes.

However, as you well know, Whitechapel and surrounding area was a very popular shopping district with many sellers and markets on hand selling all types of wares.

I go shopping in a nearby town, and indeed frequently catch a train there, but that doesn't acquaint me with the back-streets. I'm still as unfamiliar with them now as I was twenty years ago.

Besides, your slant was that he went to Spitalfields to indulge his (purported) habit of using prostitutes; my point was that there would have been no need for him to have gone that far - and, furthermore, that many of the prostitutes who plied their trade there were of a decidedly insalubrious nature.

[erobitha]

I used the evidence provided by Google Maps. I didn't make up the 1.7 miles; it was there in front of my eyes.

We can quibble over a mere few hundred yards here and there, my point remains the same. He was very local.

I go shopping in a nearby town, and indeed frequently catch a train there, but that doesn't acquaint me with the back-streets. I'm still as unfamiliar now as I was twenty years ago.

Besides, your slant was that he went to Spitalfields to indulge his (purported) habit of using prostitutes; my point was that there would have been no need for him to have gone that far - and, furthermore that many of the prostitutes who plied their trade there were of a decidedly insalubrious nature.

My 'slant' was a suggestion. Not everything can be looked through a prism of absolutes. If I wanted to murder prostitutes twenty years later in an area I know well, perhaps I would roam the back streets in and around the area to get more familiar, and should I be asked by a polite bobby on the beat I have enough local knowledge to inform the constable of my intended destination. Also I would argue he didn't pick the best locations if 100% discretion was his main intention. Aside from Polly Ann Nichols where the street was long and poorly lit with little traffic, and Mary Kelly was killed in her bed - the others were all in high risk locations. Annie Chapman was in daylight in a back yard of a heavily populated street. Elizabeth Stride was beside a busy working mans club in an alley just off the street and Catherine Eddowes was in the middle of a park square. Hardly the perfect locations of a local genius I would argue. As long as he could get back to his dwellings in a quick and efficient manner, and if Middlesex Street was that destination, he would have returned easily from all of those said locations within 12-15 minutes walk time.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Erobitha - I was just studying the entry on Sarah Robertson in the Maybrick A-Z. I haven't looked into enough to challenge any of the information, but isn't something strange going on in the 1901 and 1911 UK census returns?

The information in the A-Z has Sarah Maybrick dying in New Cross, Deptford in 1927, and earlier connected to 265 Queen's Road, New Cross SE.

There is a Sarah Maybrick living with a William and Hannah Hartnett in 1901 in Greenwich, and again with Hannah Hartnett in 1911, at No. 125 Douglas Street, New Cross, Deptford. In the first return Sarah Maybrick's birthplace is given as "Scotland," and in the second as "Dumfries Scotland." The ages don't quite jive, and Sarah Robertson was elsewhere said to be born in Sutherland, Durham.

It would seem odd that two different Sarah Maybricks were associated with New Cross. Further, she's listed as a step mother in one, and an aunt in the other. It looks like Hannah Hartnett was Hannah Reed before her marriage. Are we certain the A-Z has the right woman dying in 1927?

Mysteries to be solved, I suppose.

[rjpalmer]

Here it is, the 1911 census entry. It is not Dumfries, but Dumfriesshire and what looks like 'Sanhur'....(Sanquhar?) Whatever it is, it isn't Sunderland, Durham. The age looks like it has been corrected from 59 to 69; married 35 years, which doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, regardless from what year we date it. She's now an Aunt; she was a mother-in-law in 1901.

[erobitha]

Here it is, the 1911 census entry. It is not Dumfries, but Dumfriesshire and what looks like 'Sanhur'....(Sanquhar?) Whatever it is, it isn't Sunderland, Durham. The age looks like it has been corrected from 59 to 69; married 35 years, which doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, regardless from what year we date it. She's now an Aunt; she was a mother-in-law in 1901.

I might be clutching at straws here but I know Ellis Island in the victorian times had issues transcribing people's names from what was pronounced verbally or badly hand written by immigrants which the clerks had difficulty understanding. Hence so many mis-spellings of names and variants of them. Could there be such an issue here? Sunderland is in Durham could the census agent have issue understanding verbal accent or hand written notes? I agree on the face of it, there is not much sense. It would appear the census agent is writing what is being exposed to them either verbally or in writing.

[Iconoclast]

Here it is, the 1911 census entry. It is not Dumfries, but Dumfriesshire and what looks like 'Sanhur'....(Sanquhar?) Whatever it is, it isn't Sunderland, Durham. The age looks like it has been corrected from 59 to 69; married 35 years, which doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, regardless from what year we date it. She's now an Aunt; she was a mother-in-law in 1901.

Hi Roger,

I'm not convinced that this debate is really getting us anywhere, but - whilst it is going on - I feel it is incumbent upon me to remind you and James and everyone else that Sarah's census records, etc., were researched by Feldman and his team (Final Chapter, hardback, pp109-111).

He was a bit of a bugger for that malarkey, I'd say. No stone would be safe until it was upside down.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

Hi Roger,

I'm not convinced that this debate is really getting us anywhere, but - whilst it is going on - I feel it is incumbent upon me to remind you and James and everyone else that Sarah's census records, etc., were researched by Feldman and his team (Final Chapter, hardback, pp109-111).

He was a bit of a bugger for that malarkey, I'd say. No stone would be safe until it was upside down.

Cheers,

Ike

I confess I haven't got to Feldman's book yet, but it is on the list. I read Shirley Harrison and i'm halway through Bruce Robinson's book, who by the way gets very little credit for the research he has done into the masonic links and police files he has trawled through.