The Manchester Murders

[MayBea]

Quite subtle, our hoaxer, if this is what is being implied.

What do you think?

More nuance and subtext than Shakespeare...

A killer hampered with second thoughts, thoughts of love, expressions of dissatisfaction, changes of mind, changes of plans, and a conscience... Who would think of that?

Why imply Rose Mylett instead of another Manchester Murder when the first one supposedly didn't exist?

[MayBea]

What do you think of Betsy Dyson as the first (and only?) Manchester Murder? (Post #1)

There had to be a reason the doctor on the scene suspected arsenic poisoning - perhaps some being placed there, on or beside the body, to cover up a strangulation.

[caz]

Ah, but we know the real "Sir James" was taking arsenic in his various 'medicines' (and found a rich new source in early 1889) and also whacked his wife in front of a witness later that year. By the time he died, almost all the arsenic in his system had left it, most likely killing him in the process. A dose from Florie would need to have been a fairly hefty one to prove fatal, yet nothing of the kind showed up. The powers that be finally decided she had tried to kill him but the proof of her success was lacking.

In any case, if she had wanted to leave him for another man she knew she could have got a divorce on the grounds of being knocked about (cruelty) so she had no need to resort to murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mayerling]

Hi John,

I always thought "Sir Jim" was meant to be conflating the victim with his wayward wife Florie here (in keeping with the whole theme of the diary). The first part of the entry describes him attacking the victim (arguably Rose Mylett), but finding himself unable to 'cut' (or rip) this one, due to his previous excesses in Miller's Court, he more or less gives up and returns home deflated. There, he takes out his fury and frustration on 'the bitch' (Florie) and whacks her. Or at least, he fantasises about hitting her over and over again.

Love,

Caz
X

And if he really did whack Florie we begin to understand how all that arsenic ended up inside Jim's internal organs later that year!

[MayBea]

I always thought "Sir Jim" was meant to be conflating the victim with his wayward wife Florie here (in keeping with the whole theme of the diary). The first part of the entry describes him attacking the victim (arguably Rose Mylett), but finding himself unable to 'cut' (or rip) this one, due to his previous excesses in Miller's Court, he more or less gives up and returns home deflated. There, he takes out his fury and frustration on 'the bitch' (Florie) and whacks her...

I see what you mean, caz. London should be included. Felman was correct in changing his interpretation about the second so-called "Manchester Murder" to say there wasn't one specifically mentioned.

Since the only unsolved murder I can find that even possibly could be a match is one on the Isle of Man on December 20 (Elizabeth Crowe, struck 15 times with a rock and a stick with nails), I think you're right on the mark. The "struck and struck" refers to a beating laid on Florie, like the second of a double event where he wasn't satisfied with the first. Rose Mylett doesn't appear to have been struck at all and she is a better match to what the Diarist is referring.

[caz]

I suspect that the reason "whore" is being used to mean only "prostitute" is that the assumed Whitechapel victims are all "prostitutes", and "whore" usually means that. However, to be fair, "whore" has been ever used as a nasty perjorative against women by amgry men since forever (I am including other language synonyms for "whore"). One may as well assume it can be a general term here.

Jeff

Doesn't "Sir Jim" refer to his wife as 'the whore' throughout the text? The victims are meant to be wife (or 'whore') substitutes - easily available women he can get away with killing, while fondly imagining himself to be killing his wife - over and over again.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The press would be all over any killing where "I have showered my fury on the bitch. I struck and struck. I do not know how I stopped." could be used as a description.

So... If I were a gambling man I'd bet you won't find that one either.

But as I've always said, anything is possible.

Hi John,

I always thought "Sir Jim" was meant to be conflating the victim with his wayward wife Florie here (in keeping with the whole theme of the diary). The first part of the entry describes him attacking the victim (arguably Rose Mylett), but finding himself unable to 'cut' (or rip) this one, due to his previous excesses in Miller's Court, he more or less gives up and returns home deflated. There, he takes out his fury and frustration on 'the bitch' (Florie) and whacks her. Or at least, he fantasises about hitting her over and over again.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Like everyone else, I have yet to find the one in December. Care to wager?

I'll take the wager, MayBea. He was back in London - Manchester being too cold and wet for our "Sir Jim". Five days before Christmas to be exact, with Rose Mylett. He couldn't cut this time, visions of Mary Kelly flooded back as he attacked. He left her 'for dead' - not obviously dead - and he got no thrill out of it on this occasion.

Quite subtle, our hoaxer, if this is what is being implied.

What do you think?

Love,

Caz
X

[MayBea]

I've been looking for Maybrick descendants for possible DNA testing and Mark Maybrick, who once did an interview, was said to be the only living Maybrick relative. Then I heard of Edwin's descendant in Australia, Amanda Pruden.

Then, of course, there were all of James' kids with Sarah Robertson, five or so who haven't been traced. So they are out there and, if they are willing to come forward, I'd be interested to see if they are a familial match to other persons I believe are James' descendants.

[Mayerling]

I don't see a problem as far as accusations. For some, Maybrick accused himself and, for old hoax theorists, someone in his circle accused him. The only negative thing I've heard from the family is Edwin Maybrick's descendant in Australia saying it's a fake.

Since I did not accept the diary as real there are some points I never considered about it. Are the only Maybrick descendants left just from Edwin? I know that James and Florence had a son and daughter, and the son died from poisoning (accidental or suicidal?) around 1910 or so.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Thank you, Jeff. I only found this 'suicide' by including Greater Manchester, and by searching for "mysterious death" which I did because I assumed it would be an unsolved murder, not a death by unknown causes.

I keep hearing about how the onus is on people who believe in the Diary to prove it is real. I personally don't believe that but I'm going along and looking at controversial aspects that are available to me to try to prove things happened the way it says.

I just don't like it when the goalposts are moved. "He said whore so it has to be a prostitute!", etc.

That said, I think I need the goalposts moved on this one. I need the parameters widened to include Liverpool. Can I have that?

I don't see anything that says it was in Manchester. It was close to Christmas and it looks like he was close to home.

Hi Maybea,

You might as well double-check Liverpool - basically I don't see any harm if you do.

I suspect that the reason "whore" is being used to mean only "prostitute" is that the assumed Whitechapel victims are all "prostitutes", and "whore" usually means that. However, to be fair, "whore" has been ever used as a nasty perjorative against women by amgry men since forever (I am including other language synonyms for "whore"). One may as well assume it can be a general term here.

Jeff

[MayBea]

I'm curious as to where you think the burden of proof should lie.

The idea that the onus is "on the believer to prove the positive" belongs with the Loch Ness Monster not with a historical document. In the latter case, I can't see how it's not just as easy to prove a negative.

Diary research or suspect research is the same for everyone. The onus is on whoever wants to do the research.

For the sake of research of course. I'm quite content not even finding the answer.

I tend to think when someone is being accused of murder, even posthumously, the burden has to lie with the accuser.

I don't see a problem as far as accusations. For some, Maybrick accused himself and, for old hoax theorists, someone in his circle accused him. The only negative thing I've heard from the family is Edwin Maybrick's descendant in Australia saying it's a fake.

[John Hacker]

I'm curious as to where you think the burden of proof should lie.

I have a bookcase full of books that purport to solve the case. Pointing at well over 25 individuals. (I'm too lazy to count right now.) Needless to say, they can't ALL be Jack.

Suspect based Ripperolgy depends on the ambiguity of the past. The arguments are in general easy to tear apart, but we're 125 years after the fact now. Alleged killer was in prison? Released and records were lost. Out of the country? He could have snuck back in and out. As long as there is a way around any historical objection (And there almost always is) we can never eliminate any one of the varied and often ridiculous suspects that have been proposed.

I tend to think when someone is being accused of murder, even posthumously, the burden has to lie with the accuser.

[MayBea]

Thank you, Jeff. I only found this 'suicide' by including Greater Manchester, and by searching for "mysterious death" which I did because I assumed it would be an unsolved murder, not a death by unknown causes.

I keep hearing about how the onus is on people who believe in the Diary to prove it is real. I personally don't believe that but I'm going along and looking at controversial aspects that are available to me to try to prove things happened the way it says.

I just don't like it when the goalposts are moved. "He said whore so it has to be a prostitute!", etc.

That said, I think I need the goalposts moved on this one. I need the parameters widened to include Liverpool. Can I have that?

I don't see anything that says it was in Manchester. It was close to Christmas and it looks like he was close to home.

[Mayerling]

I don't usually give much credence to the Maybrick Diary at all, especially since it seems an obvious forgery. However, I have noticed that there is a tremendous amount of odd occurrences and deaths throughout all history, but definitely in the Victorian period, that one can stumble on. I can also point out one poisoning case involving a suspect on this thread that his own antics made the police realize it was a poisoning. Neill Cream actually got the police to reevaluate the death of one of his prostitute victims (I think it was Ellen Donworth) whom they though had died of some illness. He kept insisting it was a poisoning for whatever reasons, and the curious police looked again - and it was.

As for stumbling on something odd (if not actually homicidal) a number of years ago an article of mine appeared in "The Ripperologist" called "What Wainwright Wroth" about Henry Wainwright, who in 1875 killed his mistress in what became known as "the Whitechapel Murder". In this particular case Henry managed to get his brother Thomas involved in the creation of a fake "other man" who supposedly took the murdered woman (Harriet Lane) away with him from London and her family and friends. Thomas, as an accessory before the fact, was given a stiff prison sentence after his trial and conviction. What I barely was aware of was there was an older brother to Henry and Thomas who was not involved named William. But one day I came across, under "suicides" a lead that in 1892 William poisoned himself on a train when his wife (after an attempt to repair their marriage) moved out on him. Had nothing really to do with the events of 1875-76, but the case had cast a pall on William's home life, and affected the marriage. My stumbling on this was the first I was ever aware of anyone mentioning it.

Jeff