Tweet
'The administration of justice.'
I spent a couple of hours today in the local section of Liverpool Library doing some research on the intriguing nugget of information unearthed by Chris Scott. Couple of points:
1. The report on the meeting of the Liverpool City Sessions in December 1888 is referred to in a few local papers. They all actually spell James' surname incorrectly as Meybrick. Nevertheless the reference to his place of work in Silkhouse Lane does imply that it should have been written as Maybrick.
2. Although most of the reports are substantially the same in content, there are some variations. The Liverpool Courier and the Evening Post both have an additional line after the list of members of the jury. The line states: 'The Recorder, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said they were assembled again to contribute their part in the administration of justice.'
I have also had an open mind on James Maybrick, about his character in general and whether he was JtR. However, as a historian (of sorts) rather than a Ripperologist, I believe that assertions should be supported by facts and evidence and the lack of provenance for the diary does tend to undermine its credibility as a source of evidence.
I also find the above quote to be quite illuminating. If James was JtR and he had committed the most horiffic murders in recent memory, he would found it absolutely ironic that he was then called to serve on a jury and participate in the 'administration of justice.' The author of the diary continually criticises and ridicules the police and the other agents of social control for their failure to catch him. If he had kept some form of diary or journal then surely he would have mentioned his time on the jury? One can almost read the narrative, the mocking tone savaging the legal establishment....but the diary does not mention the incident at all. Why? Maybe because the diary was not written by James? Back to the library for some more research.
Chris Jones
I spent a couple of hours today in the local section of Liverpool Library doing some research on the intriguing nugget of information unearthed by Chris Scott. Couple of points:
1. The report on the meeting of the Liverpool City Sessions in December 1888 is referred to in a few local papers. They all actually spell James' surname incorrectly as Meybrick. Nevertheless the reference to his place of work in Silkhouse Lane does imply that it should have been written as Maybrick.
2. Although most of the reports are substantially the same in content, there are some variations. The Liverpool Courier and the Evening Post both have an additional line after the list of members of the jury. The line states: 'The Recorder, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said they were assembled again to contribute their part in the administration of justice.'
I have also had an open mind on James Maybrick, about his character in general and whether he was JtR. However, as a historian (of sorts) rather than a Ripperologist, I believe that assertions should be supported by facts and evidence and the lack of provenance for the diary does tend to undermine its credibility as a source of evidence.
I also find the above quote to be quite illuminating. If James was JtR and he had committed the most horiffic murders in recent memory, he would found it absolutely ironic that he was then called to serve on a jury and participate in the 'administration of justice.' The author of the diary continually criticises and ridicules the police and the other agents of social control for their failure to catch him. If he had kept some form of diary or journal then surely he would have mentioned his time on the jury? One can almost read the narrative, the mocking tone savaging the legal establishment....but the diary does not mention the incident at all. Why? Maybe because the diary was not written by James? Back to the library for some more research.
Chris Jones
Comment