James, the Dog Killer?

[Sally]

My thoughts are that Mrs Maybrick framed James in revenge for being blamed for his death.
When I found her passport application in America 1906, it stated that she was a literary writer. She obviously intended to travel abroad but I couldn't find any mention of her journey in the ships lists....

Hi Pat,

Yes, didn't she write a book entitled 'My Fifteen Lost Years'? I believe it was fairly popular at the time. Here it is:

http://www.archive.org/stream/mrsmay...bgoog_djvu.txt

She did write - although I'd have thought with all the fuss there's been over the diary there'd have been some comparison between her prose and that of the diary before now? I concede that I don't know for sure, not being much of a Diary afficianado.

'My Fifteen Lost Years' concerns Florence's many trials from her arrest to the end of her term of imprisonment.

[Paddy]

Mrs Maybrick

Fantastic find Livia, But where did she get the name Chaney?
So it would seem she may well have visited England on her Literary tour?I wonder if she wrote a book about her experiences in prison?

Thanks
Pat.

[Livia]

My thoughts are that Mrs Maybrick framed James in revenge for being blamed for his death.
When I found her passport application in America 1906, it stated that she was a literary writer. She obviously intended to travel abroad but I couldn't find any mention of her journey in the ships lists.....

Hi Paddy,

Check the La Gascogne, August 5, 1906 to New York under the name
Florence Chaney.

From the NY Times of August 6th:

[jason_c]

Am I the only one underwhelmed by this? We have an allegation against Maybrick which was investigated and found untrue. The investigation by no means clears him entirely, but it ought to at least give pause for thought before assuming his guilt.

Assuming it is true. There does appear to be a reason behind the killings. This is not an example of a man getting his kicks from torturing and murdering animals. I also suspect there is a very different psychology behind killing dogs in 1888 and such psychology today. A poster earlier condemned this act as a notch above child killers. Well, that may be a justifiable opinion today. But it was not a wide opinion in 1888, or indeed for much of the 20th century.

Cats, dogs, kittens, and puppies were killed daily by thousands of individuals who did not give the act a second thought. And neither did society condemn them for it. I suspect the only reason this story made the newspaper at the time was the offence against private property(the dogs) not because of its callousness or horror at the act.

[MayBea]

My understanding of Old Hoax theory, circa 1889, is that the Old Hoaxer knew James or was familiar with the Maybrick household, and had access to Battlecrease if the Diary came out of there decades later.

He or she didn't start with the Ripper Diary idea and then look for a subject. The subject was there at the beginning. So I agree with John and Pat.

Mrs. Maybrick writing the Diary makes Old Hoax theory plausible. Without her or someone like her, it should just be considered Old Document theory.

[John Wheat]

To Paddy

Mrs Maybrick framing James is an interesting angle. Mrs Maybrick being the author of the diary is a plauseable idea.

Cheers John

[Paddy]

Framed

My thoughts are that Mrs Maybrick framed James in revenge for being blamed for his death.
When I found her passport application in America 1906, it stated that she was a literary writer. She obviously intended to travel abroad but I couldn't find any mention of her journey in the ships lists.....

As for the dogs, one of them? could have been trying to judge safe or lethal levels of arsenic using the dogs.

Just found the book and a video of the Diary at a charity shop so will have a good read and watch tonight....

Pat.......................................

[caz]

Isn't that only for the New Hoax Theory, Caz?

Why?

Old Hoax doesn't allow for a hoaxer looking for a candidate for the Ripper.

Why not? It wouldn't have worked if James had died before the murders, for example, or was out of the country while they were committed.

He or she was trying to frame Maybrick to begin with. James only turned out to be a good candidate by coincidence.

That makes no sense. There was absolutely no point in trying to frame someone as the ripper over 63 pages if he could have been a complete non-starter - even if, as I suspect, the hoax was more of a literary lark by some wag than a serious attempt at hoodwinking anyone.

I suspect someone who had a deep and abiding interest in both notorious 'murder' cases, one from 1888 London, the other from 1889 Liverpool, saw the potential for marrying the two together by turning the womanising, arsenic-eating, London frequenting 'Sir James' into Jack the Ripper. If he was also cruel to animals it was a bonus.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

G'day MayBea

Isn't that only for the New Hoax Theory, Caz?

Old Hoax doesn't allow for a hoaxer looking for a candidate for the Ripper. He or she was trying to frame Maybrick to begin with. James only turned out to be a good candidate by coincidence.

Sorry but I don't follow why couldn't an early hoaxer have looked for a viable suspect rather than specifically targeting Maybrick?

[MayBea]

Equally, the suspected dog-killing would have provided a hoaxer with one more reason to consider Maybrick ripe for turning into the ripper.

Isn't that only for the New Hoax Theory, Caz?

Old Hoax doesn't allow for a hoaxer looking for a candidate for the Ripper. He or she was trying to frame Maybrick to begin with. James only turned out to be a good candidate by coincidence.

As for Ripper suspicions based on any type of violence, there is a difference. Serial killing was previously known as stranger murders, hence the murders were committed on persons unrelated and outside the household. Killing a neighbour's dog fits the pattern.

[caz]

I think being a dog-killer, in and of itself no matter by what method, would help the candidacy of any suspect.

Hi MayBea,

Equally, the suspected dog-killing would have provided a hoaxer with one more reason to consider Maybrick ripe for turning into the ripper. George Chapman, for instance, was only known for poisoning his female victims, so any form of violence can encourage ripper suspicions which might otherwise be baseless.

Love,

Caz
X

[MayBea]

The verdict of presumed death by arsenic poisoning was delivered by a chemist based on examination of the dog's intestines, and questioning of the gardener who witnessed the dog's death.

So it looks pretty got for Maybrick being a dog-killer, especially if the verdict came before the Maybrick death and Trial. I'm guessing the story came out post Trial because of the arsenic connection.

[GUT]

G'day MayBea

I think being a dog-killer, in and of itself no matter by what method, would help the candidacy of any suspect.

Certainly makes him the lowest of low in my books, just a half notch above child killers.

[MayBea]

I think being a dog-killer, in and of itself no matter by what method, would help the candidacy of any suspect.

[GUT]

G'day John

I take your point. Although had the dogs been killed by a knife this would improve Maybricks candidacy.

Without a doubt.