JAMESMAYBRICK.COM
The Maybrick story has everything: sex, adultery, prostitution, drugs, an American beauty, a dramatic murder trial, interventions by Queen Victoria and three US Presidents, and of course, Jack the Ripper (allegedly). The backdrop to the story is great political, economic and social changes of Victorian England. A time when Britain became the economic powerhouse of Europe and the British Empire straddled the globe. It was in this period that a rapidly expanding Liverpool became the greatest port in the world. The cotton trade was at the heart of Liverpool’s growth and James Maybrick, as a Liverpool cotton merchant, was both a witness of, and a participant in, the phenomenal development of the city and its port. The story of Liverpool and the story of the Maybricks go hand-in-hand.
The aim of this website is to tell the two interlocking stories of Liverpool and the Maybricks in a balanced and impartial manner. There are still many details in both stories to be unearthed. However, as the words of the Maybrick family motto state: Tempus Omnia Revelat (Time Will Reveal All).
As this website is still under construction some features are not yet fully operable. The resource section is one of those sections. I have over 500 documents and 100 pictures to place in that section, but they won't appear until late-December. Apologies for the delay. However, you will be able to view my first podcast and purchase copies of my books.
MAYBRICK LATEST NEWS
Welcome to my new Maybrick website. Some of you will know I did have a previous Maybrick website (www.jamesmaybrick.org) which I ran for around ten years. For a variety of different reasons, I decided to close it, but I am now ready to launch this new website.
One of the reasons for the new website is to make it easier for people to purchase my books. The printers of my original book, The Maybrick A to Z, went bankrupt and, as a result, it became quite difficult to buy an edition. Some book sellers were charging a crazy price for second-hand editions of the book. I do have a small supply of the book and they will be available to buy until I run out of copies. However, I should be able to order additional copies. I also have signed copies of my latest book, co-written with Dr Dan Dolgin, available to buy. Attached is a picture of me with Dan in Baltimore when we both attended the Ripperologist conference in the city. Also, a new Kindle edition of the book will soon be available to buy. If you are interested in one or both books please go to the appropriate section on this website.
Another reason for the website is to make available a vast quantity of information and material on both the lives of James and Florence Maybrick and the so-called Diary of Jack the Ripper and the Maybrick Watch. Attached is a picture of me with Albert Johnson who is holding the Watch. For both the Diary and the Watch, I intend to provide articles that are in favour of the items being genuine and also articles that are based on the premise that the Diary and the Watch are modern forgeries. If anyone has an item or an article they wish to donate to the archive section, please feel free to send it to me.
There is no doubt the Maybrick case continues to fascinate people. The most watched programme on daytime television in the U.K. is Murder, Mystery and My Family. In this series two top criminal barristers review the evidence of an old murder trial with a family member from one of the families who were caught up in the case. At the end of the programme the barristers present their findings to an eminent judge who has to determine whether the conviction was safe or not. The series looked at the Florence Maybrick case on two occasions. I was in the second one along with David Maybrick. The picture shows me with David and the programme producer in Mitre Square, London. On both occasions the programme reviewed the evidence in the Florence Maybrick trial, the barristers considered Florence’s guilty verdict to be a miscarriage of justice. That was a verdict the judge on the programme also agreed with.
I was also recently involved in the filming of a new television series with Susan Calman for Channel 5. In her new series to be shown some time next year, she visits 6 British cities. In the programme based in Liverpool one of the places Susan visited was St George’s Hall. She did a feature on the famous Minton tiles and another one on the Florence Maybrick trial held in the old criminal court in the building. I filmed for about 2 hours with the wonderfully bubbly Susan, though I expect I will be on screen for less than 2 minutes! Susan is a lawyer by background and she was particularly interested in Florence’s case. Susan said she rarely gets angry but when she saw how Florence was treated by the legal system and especially by Justice Stephen, she was furious.
Another reason for having a new website is so we can produce our own podcasts on the Maybrick and Jack the Ripper cases. If you go to our Podcast section you will be able to view a podcast I did on the history of Battlecrease and one created by Dr Dan Dolgin in which he is interviewed by the actor, Jeremy London. There is also a link to myself being interviewed by Ripper expert and tour guide, Richard Jones.
Chris Jones (November 2023)
.jpg)
.jpg)
JAMES AND FLORENCE MAYBRICK
James Maybrick was born on 24th October 1838, the son of William, an engraver, and his wife, Susananah. Although James’ parents were not poor, they did not employ any servants until after James left home in the 1860s when they took on a maid. James was one of seven brothers, though two of them did not survive into adulthood. James, who was his namesake, died in 1837 at the age of four months. Alfred Maybrick died at the age of four in 1848. Of the four remaining brothers, William Maybrick, born in 1835, was the eldest. He became a carpenter and gilder's apprentice. Thomas Maybrick, born in 1846, and Edwin Maybrick, born in 1851, went into commerce and participated in the cotton business. Michael Maybrick, born in 1841 was the most well-known and talented of the Maybrick brothers. He carved out a very successful career in the world of opera and music. Under his stage name of Stephen Adams, he was a prominent member of the National Opera Company and toured both in this country and abroad.
James was christened on November 12th 1838, in St Peter’s Church, where the family were regular worshippers and where both his grandfather and his father were to serve as the parish clerk. At that time the family lived in 8 Church Alley, a narrow street that ran into Church Street, one of the main busy streets in the centre of the town. The 1861 Census tells us the family had moved to 77 Mount Pleasant. It describes the father’s occupation as ‘parish clerk’; it lists the two youngest brothers, Thomas and Edwin, as ‘scholars’ and Michael as a ‘Professor of Music’. James is not listed as living with the family as he had moved to London in 1858 to work as a clerk in a shipbroker’s office. While in London, James appears to have lived with a woman named Sarah Ann Robertson. They had an on-and-off relationship for 20 years and some of Robertson’s relatives thought they were married and had five children together. When Sarah died on 17th January 1927, the records refer to ‘Sarah Ann Maybrick, otherwise Robertson, spinster of independent.’ Although Sarah had adopted the surname Maybrick, no marriage certificate has ever been found and because James’ marriage to Florence was well-publicised, it is extremely unlikely that James did marry Sarah.
According to the 1871 Census, James Maybrick was back in Liverpool and was living again with his mother in 77 Mount Pleasant. The Census describes him as ‘single’ and his occupation as a ‘commercial clerk’. Thomas and Edwin were also living at home (the father had died the previous year). Thomas is described as a ‘cotton merchant’ and Edwin is described as a ‘cotton merchant/dealer.’ Two years later, James established Maybrick and Company, Cotton Merchants with his younger brother Edwin as a junior partner. In 1874 James left Liverpool and travelled to the bustling cotton port of Norfolk, Virginia, to establish a branch office. His move proved successful and in November 1881 he became a director of the Norfolk Cotton Exchange. It was while he was in America that James caught malaria and was prescribed arsenic to help him cope with the fever. It was the start of his long-term use of the drug that was undoubtedly to have a great effect on both his health and his demeanour. Arsenic, despite its obvious dangers, was at that time surprisingly common amongst professional men as they believed that it increased their virility.
It was on the return voyage from America to Liverpool on the SS Baltic in 1880 that James met Florence Chandler. Florrie, as she was affectionately known, was a five-foot three strawberry blonde with blue eyes. She had been born in Mobile, Alabama, in 1861 (possibly 1862) and was only 17 or 18 years old (James was then 41). Florence was travelling with her mother, Baroness von Roques. Her mother’s title came from her third marriage to her then estranged husband who was a Prussian cavalry officer. Her first husband, William G. Chandler, who was Florence’s father, had died soon after Florence was born, leaving her and her elder brother, Holbrook St. John Chandler, fatherless. Florence’s mother came from a well-connected family and James may have been as much attracted by the prospect of inheriting Florence’s wealth (which he probably over-estimated) as he was by her good looks. It was a whirlwind romance and, according to some accounts, James had proposed and was accepted by Florence before the end of the voyage.
The wedding took place in St. James’s Church, Piccadilly, London, on July 21st 1881. Florence was given away by her brother who had come from Paris for the event. James’ brother, Michael, was the Best Man despite his reservations about the age difference between the couple. After his marriage to Florence, James and his new wife spent half the year in America and half in Liverpool. It was during a stay in Liverpool that Florence gave birth to their first child, James Chandler Maybrick, known as “Bobo”. He was born prematurely at 5 Livingston Avenue, Liverpool, eight months after the wedding on March 24th 1882. Soon after the birth, the Maybricks returned to America. They rented a house in Freemason Street, an affluent part of Norfolk. However, in August 1884, James resigned from the Norfolk Cotton Exchange and the couple moved to live in Liverpool on a permanent basis. During his time in Norfolk, James came to be seen as an active and valuable member of the Exchange. John Aunspaugh, an American business associate and friend of James, is reputed to have said of him that he was: ‘one of the straightest, most upright and honourable man in a business transaction I have ever known.’
In May 1884 James and Florence moved into a new detached house called Beechville in the affluent suburb of Grassendale in Liverpool. It was here two years later, on 20th July 1886, that Florence gave birth to a daughter who was named Gladys Evelyn Maybrick. Despite the birth of their second child, strains were beginning to appear in the Maybrick marriage. There were several contributing factors, including the age difference and James’ use of various drugs including strychnine and arsenic. It is also believed that sometime in 1887, Florence found out James was keeping another woman, probably, Sarah Ann Robertson. After James’ death, Thomas and Michael Maybrick visited a woman who did possess some of Florence’s clothes and jewellery and who claimed that they had been given to her by James as part-payment for money lent. If it was Sarah Ann, maybe James gave her the jewellery as part of the financial allowance he had allegedly promised her when he married Florence. At Florence’s trial, Michael Maybrick was asked by Sir Charles Russell, Florence’s counsel, if he was aware that there ‘complaints on both sides,’ or, in other words, both James and Florence had committed adultery. Michael answered ‘Yes.’
In January 1888 the Maybricks moved from Beechville to a larger house less than half a mile away, called Battlecrease. It was a very grand house located in Aigburth, directly opposite Liverpool Cricket Club where James and Florence were both members. Florence Aunspaugh, who stayed in Battlecrease in the summer of 1888, recalled that it was ‘a palatial home.’ Sometime after the Maybricks moved into Battlecrease, Florence met Alfred Brierley. Brierley, like James, was a cotton broker. A tall and handsome bachelor, he caught Florence’s eye and a mutual attraction soon developed. Florence may have seen Brierley as her salvation from an increasingly unhappy marriage. In March 1889 she stayed two nights with Brierley in Flatman’s Hotel in London.
To the horse-loving Maybricks, the Aintree Grand National was one of the highlights of both the racing and social calendar. The race held on 29th March 1889, was special as it was the 50th anniversary race and the Prince of Wales attended. On the day of the race, the Maybricks’ party headed off to Aintree on an omnibus from James’ offices in the Knowsley Buildings. The party included James, Florence, a family friend Christina Samuelson and Alfred Brierley! During the day James caught his wife walking hand-in-hand with Brierley. He was furious and a fierce row broke out between him and Florence when they returned to Battlecrease. At one point a cab was called and Florence put on her coat and nearly left the house. When Florence woke in the morning she was sporting a black eye.
At the end of April 1889, James became ill. The first sign of his illness appeared on the day that he attended the Wirral races on Saturday 27th April. He told Mary Cadwallader, the waitress at Battlecrease, that he blamed his illness on an overdose of the medicine, almost certainly a strychnine-based compound, he had received in the post from London the day before the races. Despite feeling unwell, James attended the races on horseback and got wet in the process. One of his friends, William Thomson, who saw that he was having problems riding, asked him what was wrong. James blamed his condition on a double dose of his London medicine. At the race meeting he also met Morden Rigg, another old friend. He told Rigg’s wife he had taken an overdose of strychnine that morning. That evening James dined with some friends on the Wirral. He was feeling so out of sorts that he embarrassed himself by spilling his wine. The next morning James was feeling even worse and Dr Humphreys was called out to visit him. Humphreys concluded that James was a chronic dyspeptic and prescribed a special diet. Dr Humphreys was called back to Battlecrease in the evening as James was complaining of stiffness of the legs and his right hand.
Over the next few days James appeared to gradually recover from this illness and he did return to work. However, at midnight on Friday 3rd May, Dr Humphreys was called back to Battlecrease as James had become very ill. He found James in bed and in great pain. James blamed his illness on some ‘inferior sherry’ that had been put in his lunch he had brought to work from home. Over the next few days Dr Humphreys made repeated visits to Battlecrease and tried a few different
remedies but nothing seemed to improve the condition of the patient and his condition gradually deteriorated. On the 7th May, a second doctor, Dr Carter, was called in by Edwin Maybrick to examine James. After checking James and consulting Dr Humphreys, Dr Carter concluded that James was suffering from ‘acute dyspepsia, resulting from indiscretion of food, or drink, or both.’
It was during James’ illness that the servants at Battlecrease found some flypapers soaking in a bowl in Florence’s room. After seeing the flypapers, Nurse Yapp, the children’s nanny, told Mrs Briggs and Mrs Hughes, the Janion sisters and old friends of James, that ‘the mistress is poisoning the master.’ Later Mrs Briggs telegraphed Michael Maybrick urging him to come to Liverpool. The flypapers were to become a key piece of evidence at Florence’s trial. To understand the importance of the issue to contemporaries, one must know that five years earlier in 1884, two Liverpool women, Mrs Flanagan and Mrs Higgins, had been convicted of the murder of three people using arsenic extracted from flypapers. Florence explained the purchase of the flypapers at her trial. She told the court: ‘the flypapers were bought with the intention of using as a cosmetic.’
The role of Nurse Yapp and Mrs Briggs is crucial, Charles Ratcliffe, a friend of both James and Florence, referred to them as the ‘female serpents.’ The most controversial incident involving Nurse Yapp came when Florence asked her to post a love letter she had written to Alfred Brierley two days before James’ death. Instead of posting it, Yapp opened it and read its contents. According to Morland, ‘the case against Florence really began when…Alice Yapp opened a letter she should not have touched.’ She claimed she had only opened it as Gladys, the Maybricks’ daughter, had dropped it in the wet. Shocked by its contents, Nurse Yapp gave it to Edwin Maybrick. He read it and sent a telegraph to his brother Michael asking him to come to Liverpool. Florence’s letter to Brierley was to be a key piece of evidence at her trial. The prosecution claimed it provided the motive for why Florence might have wanted to kill her husband.
Michael Maybrick arrived at Battlecrease at 9:30pm on 8th May and immediately took charge of the household. He gave instructions that only Nurse Gore, a professional nurse, could administer food and medicine to James. Michael’s role in the course of events at this time has been much criticised, but he must have been influenced by the opinions of old and trusted family members and friends who told him stories of Florence’s adultery and her purchase of flypapers. Michael’s suspicions increased after Nurse Gore told him that she had seen Florence suspiciously tamper with a bottle of meat juice by James’ bedside.
James died at 8:30pm on 11th May. After his death the doctors refused to issue a death certificate and instead referred the case to the coroner. James’ funeral took place in Anfield Cemetery on Thursday 16th May 1889. Florence was only informed of the funeral on the day of the event. In the days just before and after her husband’s death, she had spent much of her time in the spare bedroom, depressed, ill and only semi-conscious. After James’ death, a large amount of incriminating evidence was found at Battlecrease that reinforced the opinion of James’ brothers and friends that Florence might have poisoned him. Nurse Yapp made the first big discovery on the night of James’ death when she was packing the children’s clothing as they were being sent to stay with their godmother, Mrs Janion. When Yapp lifted the lid of a truck that bore the initials F.E.M. and removed a rolled-up cot sheet, she discovered a packet of insect powder and a chocolate box. Inside the box, under one of Florence’s handkerchiefs, were five items including a small packet of black powder consisting of a mix of charcoal and arsenic, labelled on one side ‘Poison’ and on the other ‘Arsenic – Poison for Cats.’ This packet was found to contain 65.2 grains of arsenic mixed with charcoal. The next day a search revealed further items with arsenic in them, some of which were in hat boxes with more of Florence’s handkerchiefs. In total, approximately 142.7 grains of arsenic were found in the house. Also found were love letters to Florence from Brierley, Williams, a solicitor, and Edwin Maybrick.
On the 14th May, Superintendent Bryning, who was in charge of the investigation into James’ death, cautioned Florence. By Saturday 18th May, he charged her with murder and she was taken to Walton Prison. James’ inquest opened on 28th May, 1889. Florence missed the opening days of the inquest as she was considered too ill to attend. Witnesses mentioned the flypapers, the meat juice that Florence allegedly tampered with, and her letter to Brierley. All of this prompted the Coroner, Mr Samuel Brighouse, to insist that the inquest be adjourned so that James’ body could be exhumed and the content of his stomach tested. At the end of the inquest the jury decided that James Maybrick died ‘from the effects of an irritant poison administered to him by Florence Elizabeth Maybrick and that the said Florence Elizabeth Maybrick did wilfully feloniously and with malice aforethought kill and murder the said James Maybrick.’
Florence’s trial opened on Wednesday 31st July, 1889 and lasted for one week. It took place in St. George’s Hall, Liverpool. The trial judge was Mr Justice Stephen. In 1889 he was reaching the end of a distinguished career; however, his conduct in the trial has been much criticised. In particular, it is alleged he imposed his own strict moral views on the case. The prosecution brought 32 witnesses to testify in court, including James’ brothers Michael and Edwin and servants from Battlecrease, the Maybricks’ home. The prosecution’s case was that Florence had poisoned her husband by giving him a series of relatively small doses of arsenic over a period of time, commencing around 27th April when he had first become ill. Both Drs Humphreys and Carter testified that James had died from arsenical poisoning. The last witness was Dr Thomas Stevenson, a Home Office analyst, who stated death had been caused by arsenic poisoning.
On Saturday afternoon Florence’s barrister, Sir Charles Russell, opened the case for the defence. His line of defence was that James Maybrick died of gastro-enteritis and not arsenical poisoning, and that any arsenic found in his body, had been put there by the man himself. Russell called witnesses who could testify to the fact that James was a user of arsenic. On Monday afternoon Florence, with the judge’s permission, gave a tearful statement in court. Crucially, she admitted to adding some white powder to the meat juice, but she said she had only done so because her husband had implored her to do so and also that he had assured her that the powder was perfectly harmless. Florence’s statement was an error of judgement, but the real thing that sealed her fate was the final summing-up by the judge. The latter lasted twelve hours and was spread over two days. He emphasised the evidence against her, told the jury she had lied to her husband and condemned her affair with Brierley. It took the jury only 35 minutes to find Florence guilty. Stephen then sentenced her to be hanged. Anger at the verdict and the conduct of the case led to a public outcry and forced the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, to commute the sentence to one of life in prison.
On Thursday 29th August, 1889, Florence was transferred from Walton to Woking Prison. When she arrived, she had a medical inspection and was passed fit for work. Her weight was recorded as 8 stone and her height as 5 feet 3 inches. Her hair was cut to the nape of the neck and she was made to wear the brown prison dress. The first 9 months of her sentence was a period of solitary confinement in a very basic cell measuring no more than 7 feet by 4. She was not allowed to speak to any other inmate. She was given the task of making at least 5 shirts a week. Years later, Florence was to write that ‘no one can realise the horror of solitary confinement who has not experienced it.’ In 1895, Florence was transferred from Woking to Aylesbury Prison. The prison regime was more relaxed than Woking. Florence had a small mat in her cell, she was allowed to wear a nightdress and she was given a toothbrush for the first time in seven years! However, the cell was still very spartan by modern standards; it had no heating and no gas lighting. After a spell in the prison hospital, suffering from depression, Florence was given duties in the prison library. Florence remained in Aylesbury until the 20th January 1904, when she travelled down to Cornwall to spend the last 6 months of her sentence in the Convent of the Sisters of the Epiphany. She then went to France to visit her mother before finally sailing home to America.
When Florence first arrived in America she had something of a celebrity status. Florence capitalised on the public interest in her by writing a book about her trial and her life in prison. As a result of the publication of her book, Florence was invited to visit American prisons. This in turn led Charles Wagner to sign her up to tour the country giving lectures about penal reform. For about five years between 1910 and 1915, Florence lived in the Moraine Hotel in Highland Park, just north of Chicago. However, not long after moving into the hotel, she stopped the tours and gradually got into financial difficulties. The owner of the hotel, Frederick Cushing, allowed her stay there free of charge while he pursued her long-standing claim to land in Virginia. Unfortunately for Florence, despite all Cushing’s efforts on her behalf, she was to receive no money from these claims. Between 1915 and 1917, Florence was often homeless and she drifted further and further into poverty. In 1917, she moved to Connecticut and gained employment as a housekeeper. The following year she bought some land in Gaylordsville in South Kent. She had a very basic three-room house built where she lived a very simple life. Her home had no electricity or running water and was located in a very isolated spot on a rough track named Old Stone Road. The track ran through the woods and very few people travelled along it. Florence reverted to using her maiden name of Chandler as she wanted to try and protect her anonymity and privacy. She had few friends though she did become quite attached to a Miss Clara Dulon, a housemother at the nearby South Kent School. In 1927, Florence possibly made one last trip to Europe. She told a reporter from the Liverpool Daily Post, that the main object of the trip had been to try and ‘effect a reconciliation with members of my family.’ She said this had not proved possible and she was left with a feeling of ‘bitterness’ that was ‘worse than death.’ The person that Florence would have most liked to have been reconciled with was her daughter, Gladys, whom she had not seen since she had been taken from Battlecrease in May 1889. Her son, Bobo, was already dead. He had died in a tragic accident in 1911.
On her return to South Kent, Florence’s existence became even more reclusive and her behaviour even more erratic. She earned the nickname of ‘cat woman’ due to her habit of feeding and looking after a large number of stray cats. Her appearance became more and more unkempt. That she lived as long as she did after her return, was testament to the strength of her character that had been forged in those years of harsh and bitter imprisonment, and to the support of a few good neighbours. The boys of South Kent School ensured that she had an adequate supply of wood in the winter months when heavy snows meant that it was almost impossible for her to leave her home. On the 23rd October 1941, her neighbour, Howard Conkrite, found her lying dead on her sofa. She was surrounded by cats and the mattress on her bed was crawling with bugs. It was a sad and lonely end for a once beautiful woman who had been born into a life of wealth and privilege. She was buried in the small cemetery in South Kent School. Florence was aged 79 when she died; she had outlived her husband, James, by more than 50 years.
PROFILE OF FLORENCE MAYBRICK (1861-1941)
Born: In Mobile, Alabama, on 3rd September 1861 (according to her passport application) or 1862 (according to her autobiography).
Parents: Father was William Gaines Chandler (1829-1862) a wealthy businessman and banker who lived in Mobile. Mother was Caroline Holbrook (1839-1910) known as Carrie. She was born in New York. Carrie’s father was Darius Blake Holbrook (1798-1858) a well known and successful businessman. Carrie and William married in 1857 in New York, but lived all their married life in Mobile. William died in July 1862. Carrie was to marry again on three occasions. To Captain Du Barry in 1863. He died from consumption in 1864. To the mysterious Charles Rebello in October 1865. Carrie divorced him in 1868. To Baron von Roques a Prussian soldier in 1872. Carrie separated from the Baron in 1878 but they did not got divorced.
Siblings: Florence had one brother, Holbrook St John Campbell Chandler (1859-1885). He died from consumption in Paris, France, whilst training to become a doctor. James Maybrick but not Florence attended his funeral in Paris.
Education: Educated at home by a governess. Considered too poorly to attend school.
Marriage: To James Maybrick in St James’s Church, Piccadilly, London, on 21st July 1881.
Children: James Chandler Maybrick (1882-1911) known as Bobo and later Sonny. Died in a tragic accident in Canada after accidentally swallowing cyanide. Gladys Evelyn Maybrick (1885-1971). After her arrest in May 1889, Florence never saw her children again. The children lived for a while with Dr Fuller and his wife in London though they were never formally adopted. They then lived with Michael Maybrick on the Isle of Wight.
Affair: In March 1889, Florence spent two nights in a Flatman's Hotel in London with Alfred Brierley. He was a Liverpool cotton merchant who was a friend of her husband. In 1887, Florence found out James was paying money to another woman, presumably Sarah Ann Robertson. She was upset and angry and considered divorcing James. In November 1888, Florence and Brierley developed a mutual attraction after a social event at Battlecrease. At her trial, the prosecution argued Florence's relationship with Brierley gave her a motive for murder.
Trial: In August 1889 Florence was convicted of the murder of her husband. She was sentenced to be hanged but received a reprieve from the Home Secretary and the sentenced was commuted to life in prison.
Prison years: Florence spent 15 years in prison before being released but never pardoned. She was in Woking prison from 1889 to 1895. She was in Aylesbury prison from 1895-1904. Florence's time in prison was marked by both hope and despair. When she first entered prison she had to face the horror of solitary confinement and the silent system. Later, there were moments when she believed she might be released and her spirits soared; however, when all her pleas for a pardon were rejected she became very depressed and ill. At one point in Woking she was close to death.
Post-prison years: Florence returned to America where she spent the rest of her life though she did make one, possibly two, trips to Europe. At first she was something of a celebrity and embarked on a speaking tour of the country. She spent the last 25 years of her life in obscurity and relative poverty, living in a shack in South Kent, Connecticut. Florence spent much of the money that she received on an ever-increasing number of cats who came to share her house and who gradually became the focal point in her life.
Likes: Florence had a great love of horses and horseracing. In her autobiography she wrote of her teenage years: ‘My special pastime, however, was riding and this I could indulge in to my heart's content while residing with my step-father, Baron Adolph von Roques.’ Florence loved cats. During her time at Battlecrease she had three cats and there was usually one of them at her side in the sitting room at all times. The gardener at Battlecrease complained that they damaged the plants. His wife, Alice, a former servant in the house, disliked Florence and referred to her as an ‘old cat, always sticking indoors.’ Florence was also loved painting, fine clothes and entertaining.
Physical appearance: When Florence arrived at Woking Prison on Thursday 29th August 1889, she had a medical inspection and was passed fit for work. Her weight was recorded as 8 stone and her height as 5 feet 3 inches. According to Florence Aunspaugh, Florence had a ‘rounded figure, well developed bust and hips, slender waist tapering arms and legs, small wrists and ankles, small feet and hands with rather long tapering fingers…The crowning glory of her person was her hair. It was a blonde, but not the dead faded out type of yellow, had just enough tinge of red in it to make a glossy rich deep golden. It was inclined to be curly and always arranged in a becoming style. Straight nose, rather high forehead, small mouth, thin lips… Mrs Maybrick's eyes were the most beautiful blue I have ever seen. They were large round eyes and such a deep blue that at times they were violet, but the expression was most peculiar…They would appear to be entirely without life, or expression, as if you were gazing into the eyes of a corpse.’
Intelligence: According to Florence Aunspaugh, Florence ‘fell far below her husband in intellect and had nothing like the intelligent mind her mother, the Baroness de Roques had, my father had often remarked: Mrs Maybrick, could hardly reach the standard of mediocrity.’ Her mother wrote: ‘My daughter is not a woman of very much penetration. If you could see her you would not wonder at the ease with which she has been deceived.’ Despite these criticisms, in her later years Florence wrote her autobiography and conducted a successful speaking tour of America.
Contradictory traits in her personality: Much of her life, Florence was a quiet and frail woman; nevertheless, she demonstrated great strength during her prison years. She left much of the upkeep of her children to servants while she engaged in more frivolous past-times, yet when her son was seriously ill with scarlet fever, she nursed him back to good health. She played the role of dutiful wife but had an affair with Alfred Brierley.
PROFILE OF JAMES MAYBRICK (1838-1889)
Born: Liverpool in 1838. Lived in Church Alley opposite St Peter’s Church.
Parents: His father William (1815-1870) was an engraver who later became the parish clerk at St Peter’s Church. It was a role his father had also held. At first the role of parish clerk was just part-time, but later it was made a full-time occupation. The job of parish clerk meant that William would have become an influental figure in the community. He was made a Freeman of the town of Liverpool. Three of his sons: James, Edwin and Thomas; also became Freemen of the town in July 1876. Little is known about James’ mother, Suzanne (1817-1880).
Siblings: James was one of seven brothers though two of them died in infancy. They were: William (1835-1915); James (1837-1837); James (1838-1889); Alfred (1844-1848); Michael (1841-1913); Thomas (1846-1923); and Edwin (1851-1928).
Education: Unknown. Educated at home or possibly in the Liverpool Collegiate School in Shaw Street, Liverpool.
Work: In 1858, travelled to London to work in a shipbroker’s office. At some point became employed by Gustave Witt (1840-1905) who was engaged in the ‘American produce trade.’ James is listed as travelling to America in 1869 and spending some time in New Orleans. In 1874, he established Maybrick and Company, Cotton Merchants with his brother Edwin as his junior partner. Spent half the year living and working in Norfolk, Virginia, and the other half in Liverpool. At the time of his death, his offices were in the Knowsley Buildings on Tithebarn Street, Liverpool.
Clubs: Freemason; Palatine Club in Liverpool; Liverpool Cricket Club. Virginia Club in Norfolk, Virginia, USA.
Marriage: To Florence Elizabeth Chandler in St James’s Church, Piccadilly, London, on 21st July 1881.
Mistress: Had a long-term ‘on-off’ relationship with Sarah Ann Robertson (1837-1927). Possibly had five children with Sarah before his marriage to Florence, though it appears they all died at birth or in infancy.
Children: James Chandler Maybrick (1882-1911) known as Bobo and later Sonny. Died in a tragic accident in Canada after accidentally swallowing cyncide. Gladys Evelyn Maybrick (1885-1971). In 1912, Gladys married Frederick Corbyn in a quiet wedding in Hampstead. They had no children.
Physical appearance: James was physically a strong and well-built man. According to Florence Aunspaugh: ‘Mr Maybrick was a man somewhat above medium height. While you would not term him a handsome man as to features, yet he had a fine forehead, a very pleasant intellectual face and an open and honest countenance. Was well educated, well informed and a very interesting conversationalist. Light sandy coloured hair, grey eyes and the florid English expression. He had none of that blunt abrupt manner, so characteristic of the English, but was exceedingly cultured, polished and refined in his manners; and was a superb host. …Mr Maybrick was always immaculate in his person and well groomed.’ (Trevor Christie papers.) Dr Carter who examined James at Battlecrease on 7th May 1889, described him as a ‘somewhat fair-complexioned man of about fifty years of age, of slight but muscular build.’ Mr McGuffie, the chemist in Liverpool who had been making up James’ prescriptions for fifteen years, described him as a ‘strong, broad-shouldered, healthy man.’
Health: James was generally in good health, but was a hypochondriac. James Maybrick was a healthy man but he was also a hypochondriac and he paid numerous visits to various members of the medical profession. In his evidence at Florence’s trial, Dr Hopper described James Maybrick as ‘a very healthy man, but he complained from time to time of symptoms which in my mind were not very serious - slight dyspepsia and nervousness, which I thought to be exaggerated. After June, 1888, he complained more than formerly. I usually prescribed nerve tonics.’ Between June and September 1888, James visited Dr Hopper about twenty times. He complained of terrible headaches as well as numbness in his hands, legs and feet.
James was a regular user of dangerous drugs. At Florence’s trial, Edwin Heaton testified that Maybrick visited his chemist shop between ‘two and five times a day’ to drink a preparation that contained arsenic. Dr Hopper, Maybrick’s doctor, testified that between June and September 1888, he saw him ‘perhaps twenty’ times. Sir Charles Russell stated that Maybrick ‘had been ordered to Harrogate for his health’ in 1888. It was around this time, Florence told Dr Hopper that James was ‘taking some very strong medicine which had a bad influence on him.’ Captain Peter Irving of the Royal Mail Steamship, Germanic, who knew both James and Florence said that James’ office was ‘more like a chemist’s shop that anything else. You saw almost nothing else but medicine bottles.’ On 1st May 1889, James and Edwin Maybrick and Captain Irving ate a meal at Battlecrease with Florence. A short time after the meal, the captain met Edwin and asked him what was wrong with James. Edwin replied: ‘Oh he’s killing himself with that damned strychnine.’ Captain Irving said that it was well known that James had been in the habit of taking strychnine for years.
Likes: Women, wine, cigars, sports, music and entertaining. According to Florence Aunspaugh: ‘Mr Maybrick was exceedingly fond of wine. He liked horses in any capacity in which they were assigned, riding, driving, racing etc., he bet on the races and played stud-poker.’
Relationship with Sarah Ann Robertson: James probably met Sarah around 1858 when he moved to London to work in a shipbroker’s office. Details of James’ exact relationship with Sarah Ann Robertson remain sketchy. According to one report, the two of them lived together on and off for almost twenty years and many of Sarah Ann Robertson’s relatives thought the two of them were married. Although no actual marriage certificate has been found, evidence has been discovered that reveals a close relationship between James and Sarah. It must have been a major shock to Sarah when James informed her of his marriage to Florence. According to Christie, ‘amid tears and recriminations he promised to give her an allowance of £100 to support her children, but this was never paid regularly.’ What happened next is not entirely clear. We know that sometime in 1887 Florence found out that James was paying money to another woman and from that time on, the two often slept in separate bedrooms. It is likely the woman in question was Sarah. We do know that following James’ death, Thomas and Michael Maybrick visited a woman who did possess some of Florence’s clothes and jewellery and who claimed that they had been given to her by James as part-payment for money lent. If it was Sarah, maybe James gave her the jewellery as part of the financial allowance he had promised her.
Strengths: Athletic as a young man. Sociable. Generous. Adept at making contacts both in his personal and business life. According to John Aunspaugh: ‘Maybrick was one of the straightest, most upright, honourable man in a business transaction I have ever known.’
Weaknesses: Hypochondriac. User of dangerous drugs including strychnine and arsenic. Frequented brothels prior to his marriage; possibly had a sexually-transmitted disease. According to Florence Aunspaugh: 'There were two unfortunate features in Mr. Maybrick’s "make-up." That was his morose, gloomy disposition and his extremely high temper.’ After his public row with Florence on the day of the Grand National in March 1889, he hit Florence and gave her a black eye. He appears to have had a controlling nature and was known to read his wife’s letters.
James had contradictory traits in his personality: Generally a healthy man yet believed himself to suffer from a range of illnesses. He could be kind and generous yet also had an angry and potentially violent side to his personality. Ran a successful business but always felt it was about to fail. He fell in love and married Florence, yet maintained a relationship with another woman (Sarah Ann Robertson).
TRIAL OF FLORENCE MAYBRICK
The trial of Florence Maybrick opened in St George’s Hall, Liverpool, on Wednesday 31st July 1889 and lasted for one week. It proved to be one of the most sensational legal dramas of the late-Victorian period and attracted a great deal of attention both in this country and abroad. Florence, a young American woman, was accused of murdering her much older husband, James, a respected Liverpudlian cotton trader, whom she allegedly killed through arsenic poisoning. In many ways, the prosecution’s case against Florence rested more upon moral indignation than it did on criminal guilt.
Right from the very start of the investigation it was clear the police believed a murder had been committed and Florence was the only suspect. In their eyes, she had the motive, the opportunity and the means to kill her husband. The motive was supplied by her affair with Brierley. The opportunity was the fact that she, alone at first, provided James with food and medicine when he was ill. The means was she had access to a large amount of arsenic. Influenced by the circumstantial evidence, gossip and pressure from James’ family and friends, they pursued Florence with a single-mindedness that left her isolated and extremely vulnerable. For example, while Florence’s clothes were sent for testing, none of James’ clothes were tested. In a letter written just prior to her trial, Florence wrote to a friend, ‘I hear the police are untiring and getting up the case against me regardless of expense.’ Despite this blinkered approach by the police, it was clear even before the case came to court that there were serious flaws in the prosecution’s arguments. Stories began to circulate in the Liverpool press about James’ personal life including the fact he appeared to have a long-term mistress and was in the habit of taking arsenic.
One of Florence's biggest pre-trial concerns was whether she would get a fair trial in Liverpool. That was understandable as the inquest jury had comprised several of James’ friends and colleagues. As it turned out, none of the jury selected for the trial came from Liverpool or had a background in the cotton industry. They were mainly skilled artisans drawn from Lancashire towns outside Liverpool. The foreman of the jury, Thomas Wainwright, was typical of the social background of most of the jury being a plumber from Southport. One of the main criticisms of the jury was not that they were biased but that due to their social background, they were intellectually incapable of being able to fully digest and understand the complexities of the case, especially the medical evidence. Florence Maybrick later wrote: ‘The jury belonged to a class of men who were not competent to weigh technical evidence, and no doubt attached great weight to the opinions of the local physicians, one of whom was somewhat of a celebrity.’ Christie has written the members of the jury ‘were of average schooling and intelligence, but without the technical training to cope with the complex medical and legal testimony to come.’ MacDougall wrote that one of the jurymen had, not long before the trial started, so ‘brutally mistreated his own wife’ that he had been ordered by the magistrates to pay her money every week to ‘enable her to live separately.’
At 8:35am on Wednesday 31st July, Florence Maybrick left Walton Gaol in a horse-drawn prison van and was taken to the Liverpool Assizes in St George’s Hall. Her arrival went largely unnoticed on the first day of the trial; however, when she was spotted, she was greeted with some abuse from the crowds camped outside the court. It was noticeable that as the trial progressed the mood of the on-lookers gradually changed and by the end most people cheered her arrival as they had started to believe in her innocence. The trial judge was Mr Justice Stephen. This once formidable judge was no longer at the peak of his powers and during the trial made several mistakes over exact dates, names and events. A more serious charge levelled at him is that he imposed his own rather strict moral views on the case. On the 26th July 1889, when he charged the grand jury at the opening of the Liverpool Assizes, he seemed to lay great stress on Florence’s relationship with Brierley. He described James Maybrick as a man ‘unhappy enough to have had an unfaithful wife.’ He also said that her ‘adulterous intrigue’ provided a ‘very strong motive why she should wish to get rid of her husband.’ After the jury was sworn in, Florence was called up from the holding cell below the court. She later wrote that when she entered the dock her manner was ‘calm and collected.’ She said this calmness was due to the fact she knew she was innocent and because she had a ‘strong faith in Divine support.’ The murder charge was read out and she pleaded ‘not guilty.’ The prosecution’s case, led by Mr Addison, was based around the notion that James Maybrick, although a hypochondriac, was basically a ‘strong and healthy man’ who was gradually poisoned by his wife who had a clear motive for the crime.
The first prosecution witness was James’ brother, Michael. He told the court that when he arrived at Battlecrease and saw James, he was ‘very much shocked to see the state he was in, he being only semi-conscious.’[ix] He was also shocked when he was told about Florence’s purchase of flypapers and her letter to Brierley. He said he had given a meat juice bottle, which Florence had ‘tampered with’, to Dr Carter who tested it and found it to contain half an ounce of arsenic. He said after his brother’s death he had helped in the search of Battlecrease that revealed large amounts of arsenic. Under cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell, Florence’s lead counsel, he denied that James was someone given to ‘dosing himself’ with drugs and medicines. He did admit that James had a mistress, but neither the prosecution nor the defence were to make any use of this information. He also admitted that Florence had telegraphed for a nurse and had urged James to call an additional doctor. Michael was followed into the witness box by Dr Hopper who had been James’ physician for seven years. He was called as the prosecution wanted to demonstrate James was essentially a healthy man and that he had not been prescribed arsenic. Hopper’s evidence did not have the impact the Crown had hoped for because under cross-examination he admitted James frequently took both prescribed and non-prescribed drugs in large quantities and that this was a ‘dangerous habit’ which might do his patient ‘great injury.’[x] Another witness on the first day was Edwin Maybrick, who told the court that James ‘on the whole enjoyed very good health’ and that he did not take arsenic. However, four days later he was recalled to the witness box after Sir Charles Russell, presented the court with a box of pills that had been bought by James in America, which contained arsenic. Edwin admitted finding the pills in Battlecrease and failing to give them to Florence’s solicitor. Other witnesses to give evidence on the first day of the trial included two local chemists, both of whom testified Florence had bought flypapers from them. One of them said he later tested the flypapers and found they contained between one and two grains of arsenic. The final three witnesses on Wednesday were all employees of James. They were called to give evidence to prove that James had heated up food in his office that had been brought in from his home. The pan had been tested and was found to contain traces of arsenic.
The second day of the trial saw the servants from Battlecrease give their evidence. The first to give evidence was Nurse Yapp. She told the court of the quarrel between James and Florence after the Grand National and that she had seen some flypapers soaking in a basin in Mrs Maybrick’s bedroom. She said James had first become ill on Saturday 27th April, the day of the Wirral races and she thought it ‘strange’ he had remained ill for such a long time. Yapp stated that on Tuesday 8th May, she had seen Florence pouring medicine from one bottle to another. She said her suspicions had also been aroused because other servants in Battlecrease had told her some of the food in the house had started to taste differently. The last person to give evidence on the second day was Dr Humphreys. He told the court about his repeated visits to Battlecrease and the numerous remedies he had prescribed though nothing seemed to improve the condition of the patient. He said that late on the evening of Wednesday 7th May, Michael Maybrick told him he had serious grounds for thinking everything was not right. The next day he carried out a test for arsenic on James’ faeces and urine. The results were negative. On the afternoon of Friday 10th May, Humphreys believed James’ condition had deteriorated and he was now in a ‘serious condition.’ The same day Dr Carter took away the bottle of meat juice that Nurse Gore had seen Florence move for analysis. He found half a grain of arsenic in it. Dr Humphreys was asked what killed James; he replied, ‘Arsenic. Arsenical poisoning.’[xii] Despite this strong assertion, Russell managed to get Dr Humphreys to admit that prior to James Maybrick, he had never assisted at a post-mortem examination of any person supposed to have died from arsenical poison. He also agreed that the amount of arsenic found in James’ body was extremely small. The failure to detect any arsenic in James’ faeces and urine was also important, as on the previous day Mr Addison had argued that arsenic that killed passed quickly out of the victim’s system. If this were the case, then one would have expected James’ urine and faeces to have contained arsenic.
An important witness on the third day was Dr Carter who had tested the meat juice that Nurse Gore had seen Florence move. He told the court that in his opinion James had died after being given a series of relatively small doses of arsenic spread over a period of time, commencing on the 27th April, when he first became ill. He said that James had suffered from two illnesses. The first one dated from the time of the Wirral races on the 27th April, from which he partially recovered and then he had a second illness after being given a fatal dose of poison sometime around the 3rd May. Under cross-examination by Russell, Dr Carter admitted that prior to James Maybrick, he had not assisted at a post-mortem of a person who had allegedly died from arsenical poisoning. Russell then tackled Dr Carter over James’ symptoms and managed to get him to agree that redness of the eyes and an inching sensation in the eyelids, both commonly found in cases of arsenic poisoning, were nor present in James’ case. Another key witness that day was Mr Edward Davies, the county analytical chemist. He had carried out the tests to try to ascertain whether arsenic could be found in James’ body or in the numerous other items that were removed from Battlecrease and James’ office. Under cross-examination, Davies admitted that no traces of arsenic had been found in James’ stomach, spleen, heart or lungs and that the amount of arsenic found in his liver was less than half of what he had found in any other case that had ended fatally.
The fourth day of the trial saw the professional nurses, Gore, Callery and Wilson, who had been at Battlecrease during the final stage of James’ illness, give their evidence. Nurse Gore told the court how she had witnessed Florence taking an opened bottle of meat juice into the inner-dressing room which was off the main bedroom. She returned about two minutes later and placed the bottle on a round table standing near the window of the bedroom. Nurse Gore said she had become suspicious because of the manner in which Florence had moved the bottle. This was the bottle later found to contain arsenic. The next witness was Alfred Schweisso, the headwaiter at Flatman’s Hotel. He had been called to prove that Florence and Brierley had stayed together at the hotel. His evidence sent shock waves across the court. The mutterings became even louder when Russell declined the opportunity to cross-examine him thereby admitting the adulterous affair. The final witness for the prosecution was Dr Thomas Stevenson, a leading Home Office toxicologist whom the prosecution hoped would be their ‘star witness’ and help deliver a guilty verdict.[xiii] He told the court he had analysed jars containing parts of James’ internal organs and found small traces of arsenic in the liver. He told the court with an air of authority, ‘I have no doubts that this man died from the effects of arsenic.’[xiv] Although Russell could not get Stevenson to move from his belief that James had been poisoned by arsenic, he did get him to admit that he had only found an amount that was less than one-twentieth of what was considered to be a fatal dose.
On Saturday afternoon, Russell, opened the case for the defence. His line of argument was that James had died from gastro-enteritis and that any arsenic found in his body had been put there by the man himself. He told the jurors than none of the doctors had any suspicion that James’ death had been caused by arsenic poisoning until others had planted the thought in their mind. The first witnesses for the defence were all called to show that James had been a regular user of arsenic. Nicholas Bateson, a friend of James who had shared lodgings with him in America, told the court that James had first taken arsenic and strychnine to deal with the effects of malarial fever.[xv] Thomas Stansell, a servant of James and Bateson, told the court James had sent him to the local drugstore in order to buy arsenic. He said James would mix it into some beef tea and drink it. Edwin Garnett Heaton, who had run a chemist shop in Liverpool very close to James’ office, testified that James visited his shop between ‘two and five times a day’ for eighteen months prior to April 1888 to drink a ‘pick-me-up’. The latter was a preparation that contained a small amount of arsenic. Sir James Poole, a former Lord Mayor of Liverpool, told the court that he and James were both members of an exclusive Liverpool gentlemen’s club and during the course of a casual conversation, James had told him he took ‘poisonous medicines.’[xvi]
Russell, having established that James had been a long-term user of arsenic, now called a series of scientific experts to counteract the prosecution’s argument that James’ death had been caused by arsenical poisoning. Dr Charles Tidy, an official analyst for the Home Office, told the court that there were four key symptoms of arsenical poisoning: ‘vomiting, excessive and persistent purging, pain in the stomach, the eyes swollen’ and that these symptoms were either absent or were not typical in the case of James Maybrick. Russell asked Dr Tidy if he felt James’ symptoms pointed to arsenical poisoning and he replied: ‘Certainly not.’[xvii] On Monday, 5th August, the fifth day of the trial, Dr Macnamara, an expert on arsenic poisoning, said James had died from gastro-enteritis. Dr Frank Paul, a pathologist and Professor at University College, Liverpool, told the court he had tested a pan identical to the one taken from James’ office and had found arsenic in its glazing. His testimony meant that the arsenic found by Mr Edward Davies in his tests on the pan, might have been there naturally. Russell then asked him if it was a case of arsenic poisoning. Dr Paul replied: ‘I think it is a case of gastro-enteritis. The post-mortem appearances do not show that it was set up by arsenic.’[xviii]
Another person who made a small but significant statement for the defence was James Bioletti, a hairdresser and perfumer of Dale Street, Liverpool. He told the court that women commonly used arsenic-based solutions as a cosmetic. This was important as it supported Florence’s claim she only purchased the flypapers so she could extract the arsenic to make a cosmetic solution for her face. The case for the defence was now almost complete, but there was to be a dramatic twist. On Monday afternoon, Florence, with the judge’s permission, read out a tearful statement in court. Florence’s statement was perhaps the defining moment of the trial. It was an attempt to convince the jury that some of the prosecution’s charges against her were untrue; however, crucially, she admitted to adding some white powder to the meat juice. Florence said she had only done so because her husband had implored her to do it and that he had assured her the powder was perfectly harmless. The latter admission was undoubtedly a great mistake. The fact that Russell allowed Florence to make her statement is the biggest criticism levelled at him over his handling of Florence’s defence. H.B. Irving described it a ‘mistake’ and one for ‘which her counsel were responsible.’[xix]
In his closing speech, Russell admitted that Florence and Brierley had had an affair, but he pointed out that there was a ‘wide chasm’ between ‘moral guilt’ and ‘criminal guilt.’[xx] Russell agreed that James’ illness dated from the Wirral races on the 27th April, but said the cause of the illness was a double dose of medicine James had taken that morning, coupled with the fact that he had been caught in heavy rain. Russell recalled the evidence of Drs Tidy, Paul and Macnamara who all said there was an absence of the usual symptoms normally associated with arsenical poisoning. He said that James’ symptoms were all more consistent with a severe case of gastro-enteritis. Russell also pointed out that only very tiny traces of arsenic were found in James’ body and then only in two organs. He reminded the jurors that James was a regular user of arsenic both in America and more recently in Liverpool.
Mr Addison in his final address seized on Florence's admission that she had put a powder in her husband’s meat juice. He dealt in some detail with Florence’s affair with Brierley, the flypapers and all the arsenic in Battlecrease. He finished by telling the jurors that if they were satisfied that Florence Maybrick was guilty of murder, then she had carried out the crime with ‘hypocrisy and a cunning which have been rarely equalled in the annals of crime.’[xxi] Judge Stephen's summing up took two days and was undoubtedly biased against Florence. He emphasised the evidence against her, told the jury she had lied to her husband and her friends and condemned at length her affair with Brierley. He drew attention to the marked differences of opinion between Dr Stevenson and Drs Tidy and Macnamara over the question of whether James Maybrick died from arsenical poison. He said that it was an issue of ‘great importance’ and then told the jury that: ‘I fear that we are there getting amongst questions which I have already warned you are really, speaking quite plainly, too difficult for us. At all events, they are too difficult for me.’[xxii] In other words, the judge was virtually telling the jury that they could almost ignore the medical experts. It is therefore perhaps not too hard to understand why it took the jury only 35 minutes to reach a guilty verdict. After the verdict, Stephen sentenced Florence to be hanged. The guilty verdict and sentence were greeted with anger outside St George’s Hall. One newspaper stated: ‘a great angry howl (for nothing else could describe it) went up from the crowd.’[xxiii] Anger at the verdict and the conduct of the case, led to a public outcry and forced the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, to advise Queen Victoria to commute the sentence to one of life in prison.
It is very easy to dismiss minimise the strength of the prosecution’s case and see the verdict as an obvious miscarriage of justice. This is a mistake. Moiseiwitsch has called the case against Florence ‘very formidable.’[xxiv] James Maybrick, an apparently healthy man, unexpectedly becomes ill and dies quickly. A post-mortem reveals the presence of arsenic in his body. Shortly before his illness he has a very bitter and public row with his wife. At the time when his illness commences, Florence is found to have bought two sets of flypapers and servants witness them soaking in her bedroom to extract arsenic. The servants also comment that some of the food in the house does not taste the way it should. When James became seriously ill on Friday 3rd May, he blames his sickness on food he had eaten for lunch. That food had been brought from home and had been packaged by Florence. When scrapings of the food are taken from the pan, traces of arsenic are found. Florence is caught adding some white powder to a bottle of meat juice. When the meat juice was tested it was found to contain arsenic. To make matters even worse for Florence, her letter to Brierley supplied a possible motive for James’ murder. Her phrase in the letter ‘sick unto death,’ also appeared to be very damning and Addison was to make much of it in her trial. He asked how Florence knew James was dying at a time when his doctors still believed he would recover. The implication was clear; Florence was slowly poisoning her husband. The packet labelled Arsenic – Poison for cats found in Florence’s trunk, suggested she had access to poison. The discovery of arsenic on Florence’s dressing gown and on her handkerchief proved she had handled the poison.
Apart from the circumstantial evidence there were two other key elements that helped produce a guilty verdict. One was Florence’s statement in court when she admitted to adding white powder to the meat juice. Moiseiwitsch has written: ‘In a few seconds the whole of the admirable and wellnigh irrefutable part of the defence dealing with the medical evidence and Maybrick’s private history of addiction to arsenic, suggesting that, had he died from it, he had poisoned himself, was cast into doubt.’[xxv] Thomas Wainwright, the foreman of the jury, later told a journalist that at the start of the trial some members of the jury believed Florence to be innocent, but her personal statement to the court turned them against her.[xxvi] The second factor was the summing-up of the judge. The Liverpool Review felt ‘the judge’s summing-up was the real cause of the verdict.’[xxvii] While his analysis of the medical evidence was long and confusing, his criticism of Florence’s affair was clear, concise and brutal. He told the jury that when Florence went to London to stay with Brierley, she not only lied to her husband, she also told a ‘mass of falsehoods’ to her friends and relatives who lived there.[xxviii] The implication was clear, a woman who was prepared to lie to her own family and commit adultery, was a woman who was capable of committing murder. In her autobiography, Florence would ridicule this motive pointing out that there ‘was surely no incentive to murder in as much if I wanted to be free there was sufficient evidence in my possession (in the nature of infidelity and cruelty) to secure a divorce.’[xxix]
Was Florence guilty of poisoning James? To answer that question, we must examine two questions that Russell asked the jury. The first was: could it be proved that James Maybrick died from arsenical poisoning? The answer to that is no. The amount of arsenic found in his body was insufficient to kill a normal person, let alone someone who was a regular arsenic user. It was the case that there was a large amount of arsenic in Battlecrease and it was unfortunate for Florence that the packet labelled Arsenic – Poison for cats was found apparently hidden in her trunk. It was even more unfortunate for Florence that Valentine Blake was not called as a witness at the trial as his testimony would have almost certainly explained its presence. In an affidavit he provided after the trial, he stated that in January 1889 he had provided James with 150 grains of arsenic, one packet of ‘white’ and two packets of ‘black.’ Significantly, the ‘black’ packet contained arsenic that had been mixed with charcoal, which was exactly the type that was found in Battlecrease. As to the flypapers, they counted against Florence, but they had been bought by her for cosmetic purposes and not as a source of poison. The second of Russell’s questions was: if it was a case of arsenical poisoning, then was the poison administered by Florence? The answer to that question is again no. James was a regular user of arsenic and other dangerous drugs. He was also in the habit of taking many legal medications as well. To make matters even worse, he sometimes doubled the recommended dose of his medicines. One of James’ friends said of him that he had a ‘dozen drug stores in his stomach.’[xxx]
If James was not poisoned by Florence through the administration of arsenic, then how did he die?
His first illness occurred directly after he took a double-dose of his strychnine-based London medicine on Saturday 27th April. All his symptoms were entirely consistent with that occurrence. He himself openly admitted taking strychnine at that time to both his friends and to the servants at Battlecrease. One would have assumed the powerful side-effects from his consumption of the medicine on Saturday morning would have warned James of its toxic nature and harmful side-effects; however, such was his craving for strychnine that when he woke on Sunday morning, he decided to take another big hit of the medicine. Alexander McDougall believes James’ reaction to the medicine was even worse on the Sunday morning than it had been on the Saturday morning. Perhaps this was because he was still weak from the previous day, or quite possibly because he had taken an even bigger dose of the medicine. Whatever the reason, the effects were again the same and he immediately became seriously ill. James second illness occurred after he took another double dose of the London medicine on Saturday 4th May. If the dangers of taking it were not apparent to him, then they were obvious to Florence. She described it to Elizabeth Humphreys, the cook, as that ‘horrid’ medicine and told her, after James had taken it on the 4th May, that if he had taken that much more (pointing to her finger) he ‘would have been a dead man.’ Florence then threw what remained of it down the sink.[xxxi] Florence’s actions in relation to the London medicine are highly informative. If she was a woman with murder on her mind, then she would have allowed, even encouraged, her husband to continue taking the medicine. That is not what she did. On the 28th April, she tried to make her husband vomit in a clear effort to rid him of the poisonous drug and then the following week she destroyed what remained of it. These are the actions of a concerned wife and not a murderer. If James’ final illness did begin on the weekend of the Wirral races, then it was James who caused it through his reckless double-dosing of a powerful strychnine-based medicine and it was Florence who tried to prevent it getting worse. On Wednesday 1st May, one of James’ friends, Captain Irving, dined at Battlecrease with James and Florence and with James’ brother, Edwin. A short time after the meal, Captain Irving met Edwin and asked him what was wrong with James. Edwin replied that James was ‘killing himself with that damned strychnine.’[xxxii] Those six words could have been sufficient to have secured a not guilty verdict at Florence’s trial. Sadly, for Florence, Captain Irving was not to testify at the trial and Edwin was to paint a different picture of his brother’s drug use when he gave his evidence. The simple truth was that James’ medicines were little more than poisons and he was in the habit of taking them in dangerous and excessive doses. James’ illness and death were the product of his own drug-crazed behaviours.
Florence served fifteen years in prison before being released (but never pardoned). She returned to America and after some years of fame and public speaking, she retired to a life of anonymity, living in relative poverty in a simple wooden house in an isolated wood in Connecticut. On the 23rd October 1941, a neighbour found her lying dead on her sofa. She was surrounded by cats and the mattress on her bed was crawling with bugs. It was a sad and lonely end for a once beautiful woman who had been born into a life of wealth and privilege. The report of her death made front-page news one last time around the world. Florence was aged 79 when she died; she had outlived her husband, James, by more than 50 years. While the trial had a devastating personal impact upon Florence, it also led to fundamental changes within the British legal system. In 1898 an Act was passed that allowed for the first time, a person accused of murder, to give evidence under oath at their trial. It was also one of the landmark cases that led to establishment of the Criminal Court of Appeal in Britain in 1908. As for Florence, her understandable anger at her treatment by the Maybricks, the doctors, the police and the courts, is expressed in a poignant passage in her autobiography that dealt with the personal cost of her imprisonment. She wrote: ‘Who shall give back the years I have spent within the prison walls; the friends by whom I am forgotten; the children to whom I am dead; the sunshine; the winds of heaven; my woman’s life, and all I have lost by this terrible injustice?’
MAYBRICK TIMELINE
1834 - William Maybrick (1815-1870) and Susannah Wainwright (1817-1880) get married. They were to have 7 children, all boys, but two died when very young.
24th October 1838 - James Maybrick is born in Liverpool.
12th November 1838 - James Maybrick is christened at St Peter’s Church in Liverpool
4th February 1839 - Caroline Holbrook, Florence’s mother, is born, in Dorchester, Massachusetts, USA.
April 1841 (Census) - James Maybrick is living at 8 Church Alley, Liverpool. Also living in the house are: his father, mother and elder brother, William.
1848 - Alfred Maybrick, one of James’ younger brothers, dies aged 4 from scarlet fever.
April 1851 (Census) - James Maybrick is living at 8 Church Alley, Liverpool. Also living in the house are: his father (parish clerk), mother and brothers. William, aged 15 is listed as a carpenter and gilder’s apprentice. The three other boys are: James, Michael and Thomas, who are listed as scholars.
12th October 1857 - Caroline Holbrook marries William Chandler of Mobile in Trinity Episcopal Church, New York.
1858/59 - According to the Russell document prepared for Florence’s trial; James left Liverpool when he was twenty and went to work in a ‘Shipbroker’s office in London and met Sarah Robertson., 18, [she was actually older than that] an assistant in a jewellers shop, she lived with him on and off for 20 years as his wife. Her relatives thought she was married and she passed as Mrs M with them, They have five children all now dead.’
4th November 1859 - Holbrook St John Campbell Chandler, Florence’s brother, was born in Mobile, Alabama.
April 1861 (Census) - Sara Robertson listed as living and working at a hair jewellery shop at 172 Fenchurch Street, London, run by Ellen Dewdney. James Maybrick is not listed in the census.
3rd September 1861 (possibly 1862) - Florence Elizabeth Chandler is born in Mobile Alabama. The year is given as 1861 on her U.S. passport application, but 1862 in her autobiography.
3rd July 1862 - William Chandler, Florence’s father, dies in Mobile.
14th July 1863 - Caroline Chandler, Florence’s mother, marries for a second time to Captain Du Barry in Macon Georgia.
28th May 1864 - Captain Du Barry dies on board the Fannie and is buried at sea.
August 1865 - The researcher, Keith Skinner, found what is believed to be Sarah Robertson’s Bible and it contained the inscription, ‘To my darling Piggy. From her affectionate husband JM. On her birthday August 2nd 1865.’
16th October 1865 - Caroline Du Barry, Florence’s mother, marries for a third time. She marries the mysterious Charles Rebello in New Jersey. Marriage was very short-lived and the couple divorce in 1868.
17th February 1866 - James Maybrick, 46 Lime Street, gentleman listed as being in the English Joint Stock-Bank Limited.
24th August, 1866 - James Maybrick (London) at a fashionable wedding in Sunderland
1868 - Thomas Conconi adds a codicil to his will: ‘In case my said wife shall die during my life then I give and bequeath all my household goods, furniture, plate linen and china to my dear friend Sarah Ann Maybrick, the wife of James Maybrick of Old Hall Street, Liverpool, now residing at No 55 Bromley Street, Commercial Road, London.’
January 1869 - James listed as being on board the SS China as it docks in New York
June 1869 - Florence Chandler, her mother and brother are living in The Vineyard, Kempsey, Worcestershire.
October 1869 - Liverpool commercial journal stated that as a consequence of the death Gustavus C. Schutz, the firm of G C Schutz and Co, ‘has ceased to exist, except for the purposes of liquidation, which will be conducted by Mr G A Witt and Mr James Maybrick, who will in future carry on the business’ under the name of G A Witt and Co.’
April 1870 - ‘Maybrick’ is listed as part of a winning crew at an event staged by the Royal Chester Rowing Club.
28th June 1870 - William Maybrick, James’ father, dies in New Brighton on the Wirral.
July 1870 - ‘J. Maybrick’ is on the list of subscribers for the Chester Regatta organised by the Royal Chester Rowing Club.
September 1870 - James Maybrick is initiated into Freemasonry when he is admitted to Lodge 32 in Liverpool.
1870/71 - Caroline (Rebello) Du Barry living in Paris, France, around the time of the Franco-Prussian War. It is likely she was not actually in Paris during the war itself or when it surrendered to the Prussians in January 1871.
1871 - Gore’s Liverpool Directory lists G. A. Witt and Co. as being ‘general merchants’ and based at 28 Knowsley Buildings, Tithebarn Street, Liverpool. James Maybrick’s name is also in the Directory but the information against his name directs the reader towards the listing for Witt’s company.
April 1871 (Census) - The census lists six people living at 77 Mount Pleasant, Liverpool. Living with Susannah are three of her children: James, aged 31 and a ‘commercial clerk;’ Thomas, aged 24 and a ‘cotton salesman;’ and Edwin, aged 20 and a ‘cotton dealer/merchant.’ Also in the house was Susan Maybrick, aged 13, who was the daughter of William, the oldest brother, and Mary Webster, aged 23 who listed as a servant.
April 1871 - James Maybrick travelling on steamship Cuba to New York
1st August 1871 - James Maybrick’s name appears on a list of passengers arriving back in Liverpool on the Cunard Steamer, Abyssinia.
2nd August 1871 - Matilda Janion marries Captain Briggs in Halewood.
4th April 1872 - Caroline Du Barry, Florence’s mother, marries for the fourth time. She marries Baron Henrich Louis Adolph von Roques in Wiesbaden. Couple separate sometime around 1878.
10th August 1872 - James Maybrick and George Scott playing golf at Royal Liverpool Golf Club in Hoylake
1873/74 - According to Freemason records provided for Bruce Robinson, James Maybrick was living at Normanston, Christchurch Road, Claughton, near Chester, Cheshire.
November 1873 - James Maybrick listed as travelling on steamship Java to New York.
December 1873 - James Maybrick and George Davidson staying in the St Charles Hotel in New Orleans
April 1874 - James Maybrick arrives back from New York on the Royal Mail steamer, Cuba. Julia Devens Valentine and her maid are also on the ship.
July 1874 - James Maybrick gives evidence in a legal action against Witt in St George’s Hall, Liverpool.
September 1874 - James listed as travelling on steamship City of Chester to New York.
17th November 1874 - ‘J. Maybrick’ is on a list of the saloon passengers who arrived in Liverpool on the Royal Mail steamship, City of Brooklyn. Sailed from New York on 7th November.
December 1874 - Witt and James Maybrick official dissolve their partnership. Around the same time James establishes James Maybrick and Co., Cotton Merchants with his brother Edwin Maybrick as his junior partner.
July 1876 - James, Thomas and Edwin Maybrick become Freemen of Liverpool.
January 1877 - James becomes the Secretary of Freemason Lodge 32 for the ensuing year.
Autumn 1877 - According to Bateson, James developed malaria around this time and on the advice of Dr Wood started to take arsenic and strychnine.
17th July 1878 - Baroness von Roques picks up an arsenical-based cosmetic solution from a Parisian chemist. Her address was 58 Avenue Malakoff, Paris.
August 1878 - James is listed as travelling on the SS Baltic to New York. General Hazard travelling on same ship.
Baroness von Roques and Florence also travel to New York but on the steamship, SS Celtic. The Baroness is fighting a court case in New York against Isaac Rosenthal, a banker from Wiesbaden.
25th August 1878 - ‘James Maybrick, Liverpool, Eng.,’ was among the arrivals at hotels in Baltimore. He was staying in the Carroliton.
1878 - James becomes a member of the Virginia Club in Norfolk
February 1879 - James Maybrick was on one of the committees appointed to help organise a ‘Hop’ at the Atlantic Hotel in honour of the officers of the Navy Yard and United States vessels in the harbour.
March 1879 - James collected $39 dollars from members of the Norfolk and Portsmouth cotton Exchange to pay for rations for ‘289 white and 287 coloured applicants’ at the soup-house.
March 1979 - James Maybrick is listed as a cabin passenger on the steamship, City of Berlin, from New York to Liverpool.
September 1879 - James Maybrick is listed as travelling to New York on the steamship Germanic To New York. In the same month, James is listed as a hotel arrival at the Atlantic hotel, Norfolk, Virginia.
22nd March 1880 - SS Baltic berths in Liverpool. Passenger list included: James Maybrick, Florence Chandler, her mother and brother. Also on board is General Hazard and his new wife.
1st May 1880 - Susannah Maybrick, James’ mother dies. Death certificate states she died of ‘bronchitis hepatic.’
7th September 1880 - James Maybrick Esq., and Mr R. Leigh ‘well known cotton English buyers’ arrived in Norfolk.
8th February 1881 - James arrives in Liverpool on White Star steamer, Adriatic.
April 1881 (Census) - James staying in the Adelphi Hotel in Liverpool.
June 1881 - General Hazard signs-in James as a guest at Liverpool Cricket Club.
4th July 1881 - James granted a Maybrick family coat of arms. Paid £76-10s for it.
27th July 1881 - James and Florence marry at St James’s Church, Piccadilly, London.
3rd September 1881 - James and Florence listed as travelling on steamship Adriatic to New York. First trip as a married couple. Florence’s birthday occurs during the voyage.
December 1881 - 131 bales of cotton purchased by Maybrick and Co., Norfolk, Virginia.
15th March 1881 - James and Florence, saloon passengers on SS Baltic, arrive back in Liverpool.
24th March 1882 - James Chandler Maybrick born at 5 Livingston Avenue, Liverpool
15th August 1881 - James Maybrick attends the funeral of Robert Cheshyre Janion.
29th May 1882 - James (Bobo) is christened in St Nicholas’ Church, Halewood.
October 1882 - James appointed to the committee on membership of the Norfolk and Portsmouth Cotton Exchange.
September 1883 - James and Florence travelling on the SS Baltic to New York with Bobo.
September 1883 - James attends a joint meeting of the Norfolk and Portsmouth Cotton Exchange and Merchants and Manufacturers Exchange in the Atlantic Hotel.
October 1883 - James elected on to the board of directors for the Norfolk and Portsmouth Cotton Exchange.
January 1884 - 97 bales of cotton purchased by Maybrick and Co., Norfolk, Virginia.
February 1884 - James and Florence Maybrick leave Norfolk, Virginia, for the last time. Settle on a permanent basis in Liverpool. Move into Beechville, Grassendale Park, Liverpool.
30th June 1884 - Directors of Liverpool Cotton Association approve James’ application for membership
August 1884 - James resigns as a member of the Norfolk and Portsmouth Cotton Exchange
15th April 1885 - James attends funeral of Holbrook St John Chandler in Paris
16th April 1885 - James is elected (agreed by the committee) as a member of Liverpool Cricket Club
March 1886 - Directors of Liverpool Cotton Association discuss a dispute between James and another Liverpool cotton dealer. Decide the matter should go to arbitration
3rd April 1886 - James, Florence, Bobo and nursemaid stay in the Hand Hotel, Llangollen
20th July 1886 - Gladys Evelyn Maybrick is born at Beechville
14th September 1886 - Gladys is christened at St Nicholas’ Church Halewood
Sept/Oct 1886 - James (Bobo) becomes ill with scarlet fever
October 1886 - James attends a meeting of Lodge 32 in Liverpool. Listed as a ‘visitor’
1887 - According to Florence Aunspaugh, James travels to America at some point during 1887; however, no records exist of him travelling the Atlantic during this period so it is unlikely to have occurred. Also, according to a note from Roe and Macklin, Florence’s solicitors, written in 1889; Florence found out James was paying money to another woman. Florence seems to have considered divorcing James as a result of discovering this information.
31st August 1887 - James attends a banquet at Liverpool Town Hall for the officers of the Fleet.
3rd September 1887 - James and Florence attend The Mayor’s Garden Party for the officers of the Fleet in the Botanic Gardens.
September 1887 - Nurse Yapp becomes the children’s nanny.
October 1887 - James attends a meeting of Lodge 32 in Liverpool. Listed as a ‘visitor.’
31st October 1887 - Florence writes to her mother about the perilous state of her debts and the poor state of James’ finances. She also criticises the children’s nanny.
2nd December 1887 - Maybricks receive a letter from Mr Potter asking Florence to renounce all claims to any of the money raised if Armstrong could sell land owned by her grandfather. James replied on 6th and 12 December.
January 1888 - The Maybricks move into Battlecrease House.
30th April 1888 - James Maybrick forms a new company called The Carnarvonshire Freehold Copper Mining Company Limited.
June 1888 - James and Florence visit the London home of Gustavus Witt who feels their marriage was in an unsatisfactory state of affairs. James and possibly Florence attend the Ascot races (12th to 15th June) after which his health took a turn for the worse. This may be the occasion when they also visit Witt. At Florence’s trial, Dr Hopper said James ‘complained more than formerly’ about his health after June 1888.
1st-3rd August 1888 - Maybricks attend Goodwood race meeting. Dine out with John Baillie Knight at the Italian Exhibition.
Summer 1888 - Florence Aunspaugh stays with the Maybricks at Battlecrease House.
June to September 1888 - James visits Dr Hopper on at least 20 occasions. In July 1888, James went to Harrogate for his health. Stayed in the Queen’s Hotel.
September 1888 - Florence tells Dr Hopper that James was in the habit of taking some strong medicine which was having a detrimental effect on his health.
19th, 22nd and 26th November 1888 - James consults Dr Drysdale.
November 1888 - Ball at Battlecrease. Mutual attraction develops between Florence and Alfred Brierley.
5th and 10th December 1888 - James consults Dr Drysdale.
3rd to 7th December 1888 - James serves on the Grand Jury in Liverpool.
Christmas 1888 - Michael Maybrick stays with James and Florence at Battlecrease.
31st December 1888 - James and Florence have a serious row. James rips up his will.
January 1889 - James meets Valentine Blake. A month later (February 1889) Blake supplies James with 150 grains of arsenic.
February 1889 - James stayed in Llangollen, North Wales whilst on a walking holiday with friends including George Davidson.
Spring 1889 - Florence suffers a miscarriage (exact date is unknown).
7th March 1889 - James consults Dr Drysdale.
March 1889 - Dr Humphreys treats the Maybrick children. Florence tells him James is taking some white powder, which she thought was strychnine, that is making him ill. Florence writes to Michael Maybrick and informs him of James’ use of some white powder.
9th/10th March 1889 - James and Florence stay in the Palace Hotel in Birkdale. Also staying in the hotel are Mr and Mrs Samuelson and Alfred Brierley.
16th/17th March 1889 - James stays in London with his brother, Michael, who questions him about his use of a white powder. On 16th March, Florence sends the first of several telegrams to Arthur Flatman.
21st March 1889 - Florence takes the morning train to London. Travels to Flatman’s Hotel, arriving about 1:30pm. John Baillie Knight takes her out to dinner in the evening.
22nd March 1889 - Alfred Brierley takes the afternoon train to London and proceeds to Flatman’s Hotel.
22nd/23rd March 1889 - Florence and Brierley stay two nights together in Flatman’s Hotel.
24th March 1889 - Just after noon, Florence and Brierley check out of the hotel. Florence travels to Margaret Baillie’s house where she spends the rest of the week. During the week she is taken out to the Café Royal by Michael Maybrick. John Baillie Knight takes her out for a second time, they go to the theatre and to dinner. Florence also visits Knight’s solicitors about arranging a divorce from her husband. James remains in Liverpool all week.
28th March 1889 - Florence returns to Liverpool.
29th March 1889 - Grand National in Liverpool. Florence and James have a major row after she walks off with Alfred Brierley. The row continues after they return to Battlecrease and James gives Florence a black eye.
30th March 1889 - Florence calls on Mrs Briggs who accompanies as she visits Dr Hopper, Mrs Briggs’ solicitors and the General Post Office in Liverpool.
31st March 1889 - Around 3:00pm Dr Hopper visits Battlecrease to try and reconcile the differences between James and Florence. In the evening Mrs Briggs visits Battlecrease and stays overnight. At 6:00pm Florence is found by Mary Cadwallader ‘in a faint.’ She remains ill in bed for the next few days.
6th April 1889 - Florence visits Brierley in his home at 60 Huskisson Street, Liverpool.
13th/14th April 1889 - James visits London to pay Florence’s debts. Stays with his brother, Michael. On 14th April James consults Dr Fuller about his health. Also on 14th April, Florence sends a very apologetic letter to her husband.
20th - 22nd April 1889 - James again visits London and on Saturday 20th he consults Dr Fuller for a second time. One of Fuller’s prescription medicines for James is nux vomica which contains strychnine.
Wednesday 24th April 1889 - Florence purchases two sets of flypapers off Wokes’ chemist shop which are delivered to Battlecrease.
Thursday 25th April 1889 - Edwin Maybrick returns from America. James makes a new will which is witnessed by George Davidson and George Smith his book-keeper.
Friday 26th April 1889 - At 8:30am the London medicine arrives in the post. Mary Cadwallader accepts the package off the postman and gives it to James.
Saturday 27th April 1889 - In the morning, James takes a double-dose of his London medicine. Spent one hour in the toilet being sick. James goes to his office and then travels to the Wirral races. In the evening he dines at Richard Hobson’s house on the Wirral.
Sunday 28th April 1889 - In the morning, James takes another double dose of his London medicine. James becomes very ill. Dr Humphreys is called to treat him. Edwin arrives at the house. Humphreys returns to the house again in the evening as James is again unwell.
Monday 29th April 1889 - James still unwell. Dr Humphreys visits him in the morning. James pens his infamous ‘Dear Blucher’ letter to his brother, Michael. In the afternoon he goes into his office.
Florence purchases flypapers off Hanson’s chemists.
Tuesday 30th April 1889 - James goes into his office around 1:00pm but only stays around 30minutes. In the evening, Edwin accompanies Florence to the Domino Ball in Wavertree. James remains in Battlecrease.
Wednesday 1st May 1889 - James arrives at his office around 11:00am. Edwin arrives a bit later bringing food prepared by Elizabeth Humphreys, the cook at Battlecrease, but packaged by Florence. James heats up food in office and eats it.
Captain Irving meets James and Edwin and they travel by train to Battlecrease where they eat an evening meal.
Thursday 2nd May 1889 - James goes to his office; takes in food prepared by the cook. Heats it up and eats it in the office.
Friday 3rd May 1889 - Dr Humphreys visits James at Battlecrease. James goes into his office and later has a Turkish bath. He comes home feeling very unwell and retires to his bed. Dr Humphreys is called to Battlecrease around midnight.
This is last day James goes to his office. Dr Carter later claimed that this was the day in which the fatal dose of arsenic was given to James by Florence. It is also the day on which the final entry in the Ripper Diary is made according to the signature at the end of the document.
Saturday 4th May 1889 - Dr Humphreys visits James twice in the morning and sometime later in the day. James takes another large dose of the London medicine and becomes ill again. Florence throws remains of medicine down the sink.
Sunday 5th May 1889 - Dr Humphreys alters James’ medication as he is not making the progress he expected. Edwin stays the night at Battlecrease. Edwin testified at Florence’s trial that after this day James never left his bed.
Monday 6th May 1889 - Dr Humphreys visits James twice. He prescribes Fowler’s Solution for James which includes small amount of arsenic. In the evening he recommended the application of a blister to James’ stomach to end the vomiting.
On Monday afternoon, Florence received a letter from Brierley saying he is about to leave for the continent.
Tuesday 7th May 1889 - Dr Humphreys visits James in the morning and finds him improved and able to retain his food that day. At 5:30pm, Drs Carter and Humphreys examine James. This is the first occasion that Dr Carter examines James.
Wednesday 8th May 1889 - In the morning Mrs Briggs and Mrs Hughes visit Battlecrease. On their arrival, Nurse Yapp tells them she thinks Florence is poisoning James. At 2:15pm Nurse Gore arrives. Later in the afternoon Florence’s letter to Brierley is intercepted by Nurse Yapp. In the evening, Michael Maybrick arrives from London. He visits Dr Humphreys that night. And tells him of his concerns about Florence’s behaviour.
Thursday 9th May 1889 - Drs Carter and Humphreys both examine James and are concerned at the state of his health. They carry out tests on James’ urine and faeces but nothing untoward is found. At around 11:00pm, Florence moves an opened bottle of Valentine’s meat extract into the inner-dressing room. Returns to bedroom with the bottle. No extract from the bottle is given to James after Florence moved it.
Friday 10th May 1889 - Michael Maybrick removes the half bottle of Valentine’s meat juice that Nurse Gore had seen Florence move and gives it to Dr Carter for testing. He also tells Florence off for moving some medicine from one bottle to another. At 10:30pm, Humphreys examines James and believes his condition to be very serious.
Saturday 11th May 1889 - At 3:00am, Florence tells Michael his brother’s condition is critical. At 4:30am, Mrs Briggs is summoned to Battlecrease. At 5:00am, James’ children are taken to him. At 8:30pm, James dies. Later that night Nurse Yapp discovers the parcel labelled Arsenic – Poison for cats.
Sunday 12th May 1889 - Michael and Edwin Maybrick, Mrs Briggs and Mrs Hughes search Battlecrease. Maybrick children are taken to the home of Mrs Janion.
Monday 13th May 1889 - At 5:00pm James’ post-mortem is held in his bedroom. Drs Humphreys, Carter and Barron attend. Superintendent Bryning is also present.
Tuesday 14th May 1889 - James’ inquest formally opened at the Aigburth Hotel by Coroner Brighouse. Bryning formally cautions Florence. Florence writes a short note to Brierley to ask for money. Mrs Briggs gives the note to a policeman outside the bedroom door. Dr Humphreys leaves a message with the legal firm of Cleaver, Holden, Garnett and Cleaver to contact Florence. Arnold Cleaver travels to Battlecrease but is denied entry.
Wednesday 15th May 1889 - In the afternoon, Arnold Cleaver returns to Battlecrease and speaks to Florence for the first time. Florence sends two telegrams to her mother with money leant by Dr Humphreys. Michael Maybrick also sends the Baroness a telegram.
Thursday 16th May 1889 - James’ funeral. He is buried in Anfield Cemetery in a grave with his parents.
Friday 17th May 1889 - Baroness arrives in Liverpool. She sees Michael Maybrick at the railway station. She then travels to Battlecrease.
Saturday 18th May 1889 - Baroness goes to Cleavers’ offices in Liverpool. At noon Richard Cleaver is informed that the magistrates are going to be at Battlecrease at 2:00pm. Bryning formally charges Florence with the murder of her husband and is taken to Walton Gaol.
Tuesday 28th May 1889 - James’ inquest resumes in the Reading Rooms, Wellington Street, Garston. At the end of the day, Coroner Brighouse suspends the inquest so James’ body could be exhumed.
Thursday 30th May 1889 - James’ body is exhumed, Inspector Baxendale takes some of James’ body parts to London in order for Dr Stevenson, the Home Office pathologist, to test them for the presence of arsenic.
5th/6th June 1889 - Inquest resumes and last two days. Guilty verdict is returned by the jury. Florence has been taken from Walton Gaol to Lark Lane Police Station where she stays until after the magisterial hearing.
12th/13th June 1889 - Magisterial hearing takes place over two days in the Courthouse in Islington, Liverpool. Florence stays overnight in the building. After the hearing is finished, Florence is taken back to Walton Gaol to await her trial.
26th July 1889 - Mr Justice Stephen charges the Grand Jury at the Liverpool Assizes.
31st July to 7th August 1889 - Trial of Florence Maybrick takes place at St George’s Hall in Liverpool. She is found guilty of murder and sentenced to be hanged.
22nd August 1889 - Home Secretary commutes Florence’s sentence to one of life imprisonment.
29th August 1889 - Florence is taken to Woking Prison to begin her sentence.
1891 - Home Office rejects appeal from President Harrison to release Florence. Mr Justice Stephen resigns from the bench.
1892 - Change of government; Asquith replaces Matthews at the Home Office. Legal brief produced by Lumley and Lumley, solicitors, making the case for a retrial. Asquith rejects the brief from Florence’s solicitors.
1893 - Home Office rejects an appeal from President Cleveland’s Government for leniency for Florence.
1894 - Mr Justice Stephen dies in a private asylum. Fresh evidence submitted to Asquith in the form of a series of affidavits, including one from Valentine Blake. Sir Charles Russell is elevated to the House of Lords and becomes Lord Chief Justice. He takes the title, Lord Russell of Killowen.
November 1895 - Florence is moved from Woking Prison to Aylesbury Prison.
1897 - Home Office rejects an appeal from President McKinley for a pardon for Florence.
1900 - Lord Russell of Killowen dies.
1901 - Queen Victoria dies, she is succeeded by Edward VII. Home Office promises Florence’s release in 3 years.
1904 - On the 20th January, Florence is released from Aylesbury Prison and travels to the Convent of the Sisters of the Epiphany in Turo, Cornwell. On 20th July, Florence leaves the convent a free woman. On 23rd August, Florence disembarks off the S.S. Vaderland in New York.
1905 - Home Office refuses a pardon for Florence.
2nd May 1906 - Florence is issued with a U.S. Passport. She travels to Europe arriving back in New York on 5th August. It is not known which countries she visited on her trip.
1907 - Florence commences lectures tours organised by Charles Wagner.
9th December 1908 - Florence gives a lecture on prison reform in the Battle Hotel in Mobile, Alabama.
January 1909 - A rumour circulates that Florence is engaged to Charles Wagner. Florence quickly denies the rumour and ends her business association with Wagner.
23rd June 1909 - Florence stays in the Moraine Hotel in Highland Park for the first time.
10th April 1910 - Baroness von Roques dies and is buried in Paris. Florence is staying in the Moraine Hotel at the time.
10th April 1911 - James Chandler (Bobo) Maybrick dies in tragic accident in Canada.
October 1911 - Florence stops her lecture tours.
1913 - Michael Maybrick dies.
1915 - Florence leaves the Moraine Hotel.
1917 - Florence settles in South Kent, Connecticut.
1919 - Florence builds a small house on Old Stone Road where she lives for the rest of her life.
1926 - Nott-Bower, former Chief Constable of the Liverpool Police Force, publishes his memoirs in which he states he has proof of Florence’s guilt. Florence’s lawyers completely deny the allegation.
1927 - Florence possibly makes one last trip to Europe. Supposedly visits Liverpool and attends the Grand National. This trip may not have occurred or may have taken place at an earlier date.
1928 - Edwin Maybrick dies.
23rd October 1941 - Florence dies in relative poverty surrounded by her cats.
1971 - Gladys Maybrick dies.
1991 - Michael Barrett alleges he was given Jack the Ripper’s Diary by Tony Devereux.
1992 - 9th March (afternoon) – Michael Barrett (giving his name as Williams) rings London and claims he has the Diary of Jack the Ripper. 13th April - Michael Barrett takes the Diary to the Rupert Crew Literacy Agency in London. In July, Barrett and Shirley Harrison sign a contract with publishers, Smith Gryphon, to produce a book based on the Diary and its revelations.
1993 - Albert Johnson contacts the London publisher, Robert Smith, and tells him he may have James Maybrick’s watch. In March, Robert Smith bought the ownership of the Diary from Michael and Anne Barrett for the nominal sum of £1.
1994 - Michael Barrett claims he faked the Diary; he later withdraws this claim. Barrett’s estranged wife, Anne (Barrett) Graham claims her father had given the Diary to her.
May 2007 - The Trial of James Maybrick for the Whitechapel murders of 1888 takes place in Liverpool Cricket Club in the shadow of Battlecrease. A very small majority finds James guilty.
October 2008 - Albert Johnson dies.
January 2016 - Michael Barrett dies.
Years of Experience
Expert Contributors
Library Items
Interactive Tours
DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER
The Diary of Jack the Ripper is the most controversial book in Ripperology. It measures approximately 11 by 8½ inches. It is hardbound in black cloth with black leather quarter binding, with seven bands of gold foil across the two-inch spine. It was originally a scrapbook or a photograph album. The latter possibility is suggested by the presence of some glue stains and the shape of the impressions on the flyleaf. The paper is largely of a good quality and is well preserved. The first 48 pages have been cut and torn out; there are 63 pages with handwriting on and then there are 17 blank pages at the end. Tests on the paper suggest that the Diary does date from the Victorian era. However, tests on the ink have proved to be contradictory and conflicting and are a source of great controversy. Technically, the document is not really a diary at all. There is only one date and there are only a few references to family details. It is really a confessional document in which the alleged murderer tries to rationalise and justify his terrible killing spree. It ends rather dramatically with the infamous signature: ‘Yours truly Jack the Ripper.’ Michael Barrett sold the Diary to Robert Smith for one pound in March 1993.
Michael Barrett (1952-2016) was the man who brought the Diary to the world’s attention. Born in Liverpool in 1952, he held a variety of occupations, including serving as a merchant sailor, working on the oil rigs, a barman and finally, a scrap metal dealer. In 1976 he met and married Anne Graham. In 1981, they had a daughter named Caroline. Following an accident, Barrett became a house husband looking after Caroline while Anne went to work as a secretary. In the early 1990s, the Barretts lived in Goldie Street, Kirkdale, Liverpool. Barrett would pick up his daughter from her primary school in nearby Fountains Road. On the way, he would stop off in the Saddle pub and have a drink with one of his friends, Tony Devereux, who had worked as a compositor on the Liverpool Echo. Barrett claimed that in May 1991, while he was visiting Devereaux in his house, he gave him a brown paper parcel and told him to ‘Do something with it.’ Barrett opened the parcel at home and found that it contained the Diary. Although he repeatedly quizzed Devereux about where he got the Diary from, he would not answer his questions. In August 1991, Devereux died from a heart attack so was unable to substantiate the story. One of his three daughters, Nancy Steele, speaking in May 2007, said that the family denied all knowledge of the Diary. She said that nobody in the family had ever seen her father with it and they would have certainly known if he had kept it for any length of time. Although the Diary, if genuine, had the potential to earn the Barretts a considerable amount of money, it proved to be a destructive force, turning Michael Barrett into an alcoholic and leading to the break-up of their marriage. Over the next few years, Barrett would change his account of how he came by the Diary several times, including producing an affidavit in 1995 on how he forged the document. In his later years, Barrett managed to break free of his alcohol addiction and lived a settled life.
In December 2007, Barrett gave a lengthy interview in his home to the author, Christopher Jones. He was remarkably open about the mistakes he said he had made in his life, especially with regard to his family. He returned to his original account of how he obtained the Diary and that he believed it to be a genuine document. He blamed his changing story on the immense pressures he had faced due to incessant media intrusion and personal issues. He viewed the Diary as both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand it had provided him with a degree of fame and notoriety, which he had enjoyed; but on the other hand, it had been a negative force that thrown his life into chaos. He showed Jones some pages of a book he had written based on the Ripper murders. It was clear from the numerous spelling and grammatical errors contained in the text that Barrett did not have the necessary literary skills to have personally written the Diary. Nevertheless, his obvious intelligence and vivid imagination, did suggest the possibility that while he may not have personally penned the document, he could have worked with another person(s) to have collectively produced it.
THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER by James Johnston
Either one of the most sensational finds of the twentieth century or one of its most inventive forgeries, the ‘Diary of Jack the Ripper’ has created its own tangled and tortured history. The story of the Diary is a uniquely human tale, laced with intrigue, police investigations, broken marriages, personal vendettas, and conspiracies. On one side, those convinced that the Diary is a modern forgery, on the other, those who believe it to be authentic – but who is right? For those unfamiliar with the story, our tale begins on Monday 9th March 1992, when a retired scrap-metal merchant, Michael Barrett, telephoned London based literary agency, Rupert Crew Ltd. Adopting the alias of ‘Mr Williams’, Barrett announced that he had ‘Jack the Ripper’s Diary’, and asked whether then managing-director, Doreen Montgomery, would be interested in seeing the document. Asked where he had obtained the Diary from, Barrett’s answer was unequivocal; he had been given the Diary by a “drinking friend”, who, providentially, had died the previous year. After a five-week interlude, Barrett travelled to Kings Mews, London and unveiled what was to become the most hotly contested document in the history of ‘Ripperology’.
The public debate surrounding the document’s contents and, by extension, James Maybrick’s candidature as the Whitechapel Murderer, is well recorded, but little is known about the private tale lurking beneath the headlines. More often than not, those at the centre of the mystery have been rendered in caricature; their personalities and complexities stretched or diminished, ad nauseam, to accommodate pre-established beliefs concerning the Diary’s authenticity – however, when objective answers have been hard to come by, how might the ‘human story’ factor into our assessment of the document and crucially, its origins? This author contends that only by contextualising the human aspects of the story against the known history of the Diary, answers may, at last, be found.
Drawing upon an extensive documentary archive, the author’s purpose is to provide an in-depth assessment of the human narrative underpinning the Diary saga, casting fresh light on the personalities and circumstances which have driven three decades of investigation. Central to this reassessment will be the long-disputed question of provenance – the document’s place of origin or earliest known history. For the benefit of those in attendance, or those unfamiliar with the story, the available theories explaining the Diary’s provenance have been outlined below;
-
A Modern Forgery
When news of the Diary leaked into the circles of ‘Ripperology’, several well-regarded authors and researchers asserted that the document was the product of an inventive forger. Uncertainty surrounding the journal’s provenance and composition appeared, initially, to support this position. The claim that the Diary was a modern creation was bolstered when, in June 1994, ‘Diary-finder’, Michael Barrett, announced to the that the document was a hoax and that he was the forger, “the greatest in history”. Barrett signed a series of affidavits detailing the techniques he employed to construct the Diary, which according to Barrett, took approximately 11 days. Curiously, the affidavits contained conflicting information as to the timing and mechanisms of the alleged forgery. Those holding to ‘modern forgery’ position argue that the disparate information contained within the journal would not have been known to any one person in 1888 and must have been collated from modern source material, for which reason it can be dismissed as a hoax. Linguistic solecisms and disputes over the historical accuracy of the Diary’s narrative have also been cited as pointing towards a modern forgery. It should be noted that in sharp contrast to other modern fakes, such as the Hitler Diaries, the identities and techniques of the would-be hoaxers have never been established.
-
The (Graham) Family Heirloom
One month after his confession, Barrett’s estranged wife (they would later divorce and she would revert to her maiden name of Anne Graham) told video producer, Paul Feldman, that she had first seen the Diary in 1968, though she was not more than mildly curious, being only a teenager. According to Anne, she had taken possession of the document in the 1980s. Her father, Billy Graham (now deceased), confirmed her story, intimating that the Diary had been left to him by his grandmother shortly before World War II and that he had first seen it when he returned on leave in 1943, finally receiving it when his father died in 1950. To explain the document’s journey into the hands of her ex-husband, Anne alleged that she had given the document to one of Barrett’s drinking pals, a man named Tony Devereux, in an attempt to revitalise his aspirations to be a writer. Unfortunately, no evidential support for Anne’s story has been found, despite an exhaustive investigation helmed by Paul Feldman.
-
Beneath the Floorboards
The final theory explaining the Diary’s emergence proposes that the document was discovered and removed from Maybrick’s former residence, Battlecrease House. Rumours that the journal had been uncovered at the house, in the course of an electrical installation on the first floor, surfaced in April 1993, following inquiries by video producer, Paul Feldman. The firm responsible, Portus & Rhodes Electrical, supplied Feldman with the names and addresses of several electricians involved and, according to Feldman, he was reliably informed that the Diary had been removed from the house, but his contact was unwilling to provide an ‘on-camera’ confession without first being paid. Cautious that he may be the target of a conspiracy, Feldman turned his attention to other areas of investigation. There the allegations rested until publisher Robert Smith received a tip-off that the Diary had been offered to a Liverpool businessman and antique collector by an electrician working for Portus & Rhodes. Smith’s investigation resulted in a series of interviews with the electricians, attesting that the Diary had been uncovered during the electrical renovation and later “sold in a pub in Anfield.” The most significant contribution to this theory arrived in 2004 when researcher Keith Skinner recovered the weekly timesheets for the work conducted at Battlecrease House. Among the workers was a regular at The Saddle Inn, where Michael Barrett was a well-known character. According to the firm’s timesheets, the electricians worked at Battlecrease on the morning of Monday 9th March 1992, the very day that Barrett, using the alias ‘Mr Williams’, contacted a London literary agent claiming to possess the “Diary of Jack the Ripper”. For proponents of this theory, the testimony of the electricians, timeline of events and supporting timesheet evidence, provide a direct link between the Maybrick household and the Ripper Diary.
Special thanks must be given to my colleagues and friends, Keith Skinner, Caroline Brown, Tom Mitchell, Chris Jones, Robert Smith, and Seth Linder, amongst others. Without their continued support, honesty and commitment, the story of the Maybricks and Diary would, undoubtedly, have been forgotten.
THE DIARY: A PRACTICAL JOKE? by Roger Wilkes
If you dislike practical jokes, read no further. The Ripper diary, “unearthed” in 1991 in Liverpool, is a practical joke. Or a hoax. What it simply cannot be is genuine. Sorry, but while the Ripper could have been one a thousand men, one man he wasn’t was James Maybrick. The clue is hidden in the very first page of the ‘surviving text’ when the writer describes taking ‘refreshment at the Poste House’ in Liverpool. But in the year 1888, when this entry is supposed to have been written, there was no Poste House in Liverpool. There’s one there now, it’s true, tucked up Cumberland Street, a ginnel linking Dale Street and Victoria Street in the city centre. But it’s only been known as the Poste House for the last thirty years or so. Back in 1888, when Jim Maybrick was supposed to be writing up his ripping intentions, the Poste House was known the length and breadth of Liverpool as The Old MM - the Muck Midden.
It seems an unprepossessing name for a pub. According to legend, at some point in the tavern’s distant past some exceedingly fine ale was found buried in barrels in a cellar that had once served as the landlord’s midden - or muck heap. Certainly, the place was known as The Muck Midden in December 1887 when the pub was the subject of a lengthy article in the weekly magazine Liverpool Citizen. So why, just a few months later, when Maybrick notes in his ‘journal’ that his glamorous American wife Florence had arranged a ‘rondaveau’ with Alfred Brierley, does he write of taking refreshment in the Poste House?
At some stage in the pub’s history, the rather unsavoury Muck Midden tag was dropped. Certainly, since the early 1960s, the place has been known as the Poste House. At least, that was the name over the door. But I was a regular there myself in the early 1970s, and remember meeting old timers in the bar who still used its earlier Victorian soubriquet. The Poste House as a name was still comparatively new. But how new? Perhaps the change had been made by the time our ripping diarist made his entry in 1888. Sadly not. A clue lies in the name itself, a reference not to any coaching links (the pub stands in a very narrow street, unsuitable as a staging post) but to the now-disused main post office nearby. It is the nearest pub to the post office front door, and at one time was popular with postal workers who drank there at the end of their shift. (It should really have been named the Post House, but someone at the brewery seems to have tagged on an Olde Englishe ‘e’.) The fact is that in 1888, there would have been no reason to name the pub either the Poste House or Post House for the simple reason that the post office wasn’t built until 1899. In 1888, the site was occupied by a foundry.
The first tentative allusion to post matters in the pub’s name is only found in the early 1900s. In 1906, seven years after the opening of the post office, the pub is listed in the Liverpool telephone directory as the New Post Office Hotel. In 1932, an illustration in the Liverpolitan magazine shows clearly that the age of the Poste House was still in the future; above the front window of the pub is a large sign proclaiming New Post Office Restaurant, while above the door the letters MM denoting Muck Midden are wrought in iron. Shortly after the Ripper diary came to light, I made a discovery that, to my mind, nails the matter once and for all. I chanced on a fragile book of sketches of Liverpool streets drawn by the artist Hugh Magenis between 1886 and 1888. Sketch 55 is of Cumberland Street, clearly depicting some half-dozen buildings clustered around the pub at which Jim Maybrick is supposed to have taken refreshment while deciding that ‘…London it shall be.’ No Poste House in sight. Just a simple sign welcoming thirsty Victorians to… The Old MM. Poste House? Still seventy years away, I’m afraid, awaiting immortality from the pen of a thirsty joker. As noted crime historian Jonathan Goodman observed (of a different case in a different city): ‘There’s no more brutal murder than the killing of a fine theory with a hard fact.’
Reprinted from Who Was Jack the Ripper? (Grey House Books, 1995) C Roger Wilkes 1994 and 2022
JAMES MAYBRICK by Donald Rumbelow
The extract is an edited version taken from Donald Rumbelow’s book: The Complete Jack the Ripper (2004 edition, Penguin Books).
Everything about Shirley Harrison’s book The Dairy of Jack the Ripper has proved controversial. Its origins have been muddied from the beginning. It was said to have been found under the floorboards of Battlecrease House, Maybrick’s home when repairs were being carried out. Barrett would say that he had been given it by a drinking friend, Tony Devereux, later that he had forged it and later still that it had been forged by his wife, Anne. Two years later Anne Barrett would say that the diary had been a hand-down from her father, and that to preserve her anonymity, she had given it to Devereaux to give to her husband whom she hoped would use it for the basis of a novel. Her father would say that he had seen the diary in 1943 and was given it by his stepmother in 1950.
The book is genuinely old but whether late Victorian, or even Edwardian, is open to question. The major problem that has to be faced is: when did the ink go on the paper? Was the ink itself genuine? According to one specialist, although the diary has passed a range of tests, a modern forgery could not be ruled out as ‘someone just might have been able to synthesise a convincing ink or located a bottle of ink of sufficient age that was still usable.’ A qualification that was made throughout these and subsequent tests on the diary was that further testing was essential to establish authenticity. Financial restraints, so its backers claimed, were a hindrance to the full testing needed. Given that the estimated value of the diary if genuine was reckoned to be £4,000,000 it is astonishing that what might have been clinching tests on it were never carried out.
One of the biggest problems facing the investigators was that the handwriting of the diary did not match the writing and signature in Maybrick’s will or on his marriage certificate. Nor does it match a lengthy inscription, in a bible given by Maybrick to his mistress and published in Anne (Barrett) Graham’s book. Handwriting comparisons were made by Sue Ironmonger, a member of the World Association of Document Examiners. She believed that an individual’s handwriting is as revealing as fingerprints. She could not link the diary with the Maybrick will, the Dear Boss letter and other Ripper letters in the National Archives. She is in no doubt that the diary was not written by James Maybrick.
Further evidence of Maybrick’s supposed guilt was said to have been found in the Mary Kelly photograph. Bloodstains on the wall beside the bed supposedly show the letters FM (Florence Maybrick). This frankly is wishful thinking. Such letters, had they been visible, must have been equally visible not only to the police but to the inquest jury who visited the room. The fact that nobody mentions such letters is clear evidence that they did not exist. Reading letters into bloodstains is like reading faces into the clouds; we are fooled, as Hamlet would say, to the top of our bent.
The diary is not a diary in the conventional sense with days and dates. It is a series of entries to which the reader must give his or her own chronology. This, I have always thought, was the cleverest part of the forger’s skill as any ‘wrong’ interpretation or misattribution could always be explained away as reader error. There is no hard evidence to link the persona of Maybrick, the Ripper and the writer of the diary. They remain separate entities despite the arguments of the diary’s supporters to meld them together into one recognisable identity.
THE RIPPER’S FINGERPRINTS by Tom Mitchell
It is almost ten years since I posted an article titled The Diary’s Fingerprints on the internet site Jack the Ripper Forums. The article was designed to illustrate how many features of the James Maybrick story and his much-contested diary could potentially point us towards its author, as if they were fingerprints on a bloodied table or on a glass of wine. As a Maybrickian at heart, my intention was to direct the reader’s attention to the often-extraordinary series of coincidences and details which seemed to point rather inexorably to the diary being the actual record of James Maybrick’s terrible crimes of 1888. Whether I generally succeeded or generally failed remains a matter of conjecture, though I suspect there is no doubt within the court of popular opinion that my efforts were in vain. I have attempted to make the argument in favour of Maybrick many times and in many ways, but it is to my ‘fingerprints’ article I often find myself returning for clues pointing to the author of the Maybrick diary.
I’ve often wondered why Jack provokes such speculative opinion and often fiery debate – so many what-ifs, buts, and maybes – though I guess we all know the reason for it: it is the very lack of evidence rather than the surfeit of it which makes the hunt for Jack the Ripper as nebulous today as it was when the crimes were open cases back in the late Victorian period. It truly is the millstone around the neck of every student of the Whitechapel Ripper. Not so for proponents (though few they may be) of James Maybrick. Those fortunate souls are replete with arguments in favour of his having been the Whitechapel purger. Most are described in The Diary’s Fingerprints and require no repeating here.
Yes, his candidature is instinctively irrational. He was an apparently well-balanced man, competent in business, and a dedicated husband and father (albeit by the rather lax and hypercritical standards of the day). He lived almost two hundred miles away from London (by train), and his business lay primarily in Liverpool and over in the US. His only obvious link to London lay to the west and the Regent’s Park home of his brother Michael. Finally, he was himself the supposed victim in a murder trial which rocked Victorian society and reverberated around the world. Given all of this, why would a potential hoaxer not think of James Maybrick when deciding on a suitable foil for his or her idea of fun? It’s a wonder one didn’t think of Maybrick earlier, the man just positively reeked of Jack the Ripper. Not.
The truth is, of course, that James Maybrick was a truly surreal choice for Jack if Jack he was not. Projecting oneself back to the hoaxer’s den in 1991 or early 1992, you just want to shout “Don’t waste your time – no-one’s going to fall for this one!”; and yet this does not appear to have occurred to our erstwhile joker who committed himself to sixty-odd pages of rank ‘nonsense’ (if critics are to be believed). He pushed the boundaries of credulity with his choice of vehicle – the Victorian scrapbook with its initial pages suspiciously cut away (as if they had contained post-1888 material which needed to be removed before the hoax began). It’s not even as though the history of such hoaxes was littered with profitable successes - the Hitler Diaries still very fresh and raw in the memories of those who were fooled. The case against James Maybrick would be quite ridiculous in principle and the vehicle the case was presented in could hardly have been more suspicious; and yet still our hoaxer ploughed on.
I’m not convinced our hoaxer ever existed at all, though. There are a few critical aspects to this ‘hoax’ which defy simple analysis and which otherwise speak of James Maybrick’s fingerprints throughout the story. In his scrapbook, James Maybrick reminded himself of something he did in Mary Kelly’s room: “An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother”. The ‘whoring mother’ was his wife Florence, therefore he was referring to the letters ‘F’ and ‘M’ which he implied he had left in Kelly’s room – not necessarily as a clue (he had very good reason to not want to be caught) but rather as a mark of the errant wife who he believed was the ultimate author of the terrible crimes that autumn. He wanted to sign his work in the early hours of that morning and – on this occasion – he did so with his wife’s initials because – he believed - she was the reason for the carnage on the bed before him. Is there any evidence to support Maybrick’s implication? Any student of the case knows that the famous photograph of Mary Kelly’s death scene has two shapes on the back wall which resemble a vague ‘F’ and a stronger ‘M’ – in that order. Maybrick had also implied that her initials would be found placed around the room, and on her arm a very clear series of deliberate cuts appear to form an ‘F’. Her legs, one might suggest, were meant to represent an albeit rather inarticulate ‘M’. Who knows what irrational and opaque ‘clues’ Maybrick thought he was leaving around her room as he butchered Kelly’s corpse?
This is powerful stuff as far as the study of who Jack was. At last, we have his ‘confession’ (his diary) and in it he makes a verifiable prediction regarding his wife’s initials in Kelly’s room. This is the sort of evidence – Maybrick’s ‘fingerprints’ if you like – which one could put before a jury. How would the defence tackle it? Well, they might say that the letters simply aren’t there – that it is wishful thinking on the part of the prosecution. They would have to acknowledge that there were marks on Kelly’s wall though (too many commentators accept this for denial to be credible), but these could be explained away as sanguineous splatters when Kelly’s heart was still beating and her throat cut open - blood which sprayed in such a way that an ‘F’ and an ‘M’ would miraculously form without human intervention. Alternatively, the defence might argue that the hoaxer himself could have been the very first to identify the marks on Kelly’s wall which looked so much like Florence Maybrick’s initials and that he had backward-engineered his story from Florence to James and then to Jack – an extraordinary feat, of course, when it then transpired that James actually ended-up fitting the bill so well despite his apparent distance from all aspects of the crimes. What would the jury conclude? It’s hard to know for certain, but perhaps other ‘fingerprints’ would convince them?
The obvious one is the Maybrick watch. In the back of it, he had scratched “I am Jack”, the initials of the canonical five victims, and his highly-idiosyncratic signature – unmistakably mirroring that which he signed on his marriage licence in 1881. How would the defence deal with this one? Well, they would have to argue that whoever scratched Maybrick’s known signature into that watch had first sourced a copy of his marriage licence – no trivial task but at least certainly possible. What would be harder for the defence to explain would be why the hoaxer had sourced Maybrick’s marriage licence but had stopped short of sourcing his will in order to mirror his presumed handwriting in the scrapbook. Perhaps this wouldn’t occur to the jury, the defence might disingenuously hope?
The truth is that the prosecution would have far more evidence of Maybrick’s guilt than simply these clues. The diary’s fingerprints point inexorably to the conclusion that its author had been a close member of Maybrick’s inner circle and were simultaneously a member of the criminal investigation at the time (or had indiscreet contacts within it), that they knew how to capture over sixty-five pages the flexing psychopathology of the criminal mind frequently high on arsenic abuse, and that they carried the most astonishing good fortune with both the contemporary and recently-uncovered evidence. Unless, of course, the author was actually Jack the Ripper who obviously required none of these things.
It is the bane of the Ripperologist’s obsession that their candidates do not enjoy the same luxury Maybrickians do in their investigations, and this is unlikely to change unless other ‘fingerprints’ can be uncovered. That requires more evidence to come to light, of course, and this is why Chris Jones’ new book (amongst others) is so important to the study of Jack the Ripper: eventually, we may uncover a ‘fingerprint’ we hadn’t previously realised was there and it may be that which finally reveals the Maybrick artefacts to be hoaxes, or even reveals to us incontrovertibly, unequivocally, undeniably the actual name of the man ‘all England was talking about’ during the autumn of 1888.
The Diary – a Modern Construct? by Chris Jones
(Adapted from an article that originally featured in The Journal of the Whitechapel Society)
The Diary focuses on two separate storylines: the Ripper murders of 1888 and the actions of James Maybrick the alleged author of the document. In relation to the first of these, the diarist claims to have killed 7 women, 2 in Manchester and the 5 prostitutes who are identified as being the canonical victims of the Whitechapel serial killer. So, does the Diary provide any new material suggesting its author had personal knowledge of these events? Robert Smith suggests that the author does provide such an insight by writing ‘Kelly, no heart no heart.’ He argues that the no one knew until 1989 that the Ripper had removed Mary Kelly’s heart from her body and therefore the reference implies that the author must have had first-hand knowledge of the killing. However, this is not the case; Stephen Knight in his book on the Ripper murders published in 1976, wrote: ‘Kelly’s heart was also cut out.’ Indeed, what is striking about the Diary is how little detail is provided on any of the murders. The supposed two murders in Manchester are described in the briefest of details making it impossible for any person reading the accounts to try and identify whom the victims might have been and when the murders may have occurred. This lack of detail is suggestive, it implies that the main concern of the author was to be as vague as possible so to avoid writing something that could later be shown to be inaccurate. The diarist is also very vague about the Ripper murders themselves. For example, the killing of Polly Nichols is covered in just one short paragraph that provides only the most basic of facts all of which are very easily accessible from modern books. The diarist wrote about the killing: ‘There was no scream when I cut. I was more than vexed when the head would not come off. I believe I will need more strength next time. I struck deep into her.’ Does this statement show any personal knowledge and experience? Absolutely not. Martin Fido in his 1987 book on the murders wrote of the Nichols’ killing: ‘Dr Llewellyn pronounced her dead. Not a difficult diagnosis as the murderer had slashed her jugular veins, windpipe and half her spinal column; in truth, he had almost cut her head off.’ Later in the book he wrote about the Ripper, ‘He also seems to have attempted decapitation at first, but abandoned it as too difficult.’
The same pattern can be seen in the diarist’s accounts of the other Ripper murders – basic facts easily obtainable from modern books. To divert attention away from the paucity of information, these details are sometimes placed into a rhyme. When one recognises this trick for what it is, a diversion, and makes an analysis of the content, it is easy to identify that the narrative contains no new information. This is illustrated in the case of the fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes who was killed on the night of 30th September 1888. She had been strangled and then mutilated. Her left kidney and her womb had been removed. If one compares what the diarist wrote with the account of the murder in the Fido (1987) book, one can identify from where the material may have been sourced. One sentence is highly suggestive, the reference to the ‘tin match box empty.’ The empty tin match box was not known to the public until 1987 when a police list of Eddowes’ possessions was first published. The wording in the diary is almost identical to the wording on the police list, suggesting that the author of the Diary was either really the Ripper, or, far more likely, copied from the list. Also, would the killer really have had the inclination or the time to have sorted through Eddowes’ possessions in the dark in a public place, and then have put them all back in her pockets? An analysis of the Diary’s text shows the author knew little about the murders. The accounts of the killings are short on details and provide no new information. The facts that are referred to are all easily obtained from modern books.
What about the Maybrick references in the Diary? People who argue that the Diary is an old document and that it was written by James Maybrick, support their proposition by stating that the author of the document had an intimate knowledge of Maybrick family life. For example, the diarist at one point wrote, ‘My dearest Gladys [Maybrick’s daughter] is unwell yet again.’ Shirley Harrison argues that the word ‘again’ is of ‘crucial’ significance. She suggests that this particular phrase supports the view that the author had ‘intimate personal knowledge of the family’ as none of the various books written about the Maybricks suggested that Gladys was often unwell. There are several things wrong with these assertions. Firstly, the idea that a young child might be unwell yet again, is hardly a great surprise. In fact, it would be more of a surprise if the child hadn't been ill on more than one occasion. Maybe if the diarist had mentioned some specific illnesses, such as whooping cough, it would have added some credibility to the statement. Secondly, references to Gladys’ health can be found in both contemporary and modern books. Ryan, in his 1977 book on Florence Maybrick, wrote that in March 1888, Dr Humphreys was summoned to Battlecrease to treat James. It was a house that he knew as ‘he had often attended the Maybrick children.’ If, as Ryan states, Dr Humphreys had often attended the Maybrick children, then it is easy to conclude that they must have been frequently ill. No first-hand intimate knowledge is required, only the ability to lift a line and place it in the narrative of the Diary.
The diarist misses a clear opportunity to demonstrate personal knowledge of the Maybrick family when he refers to James Chandler Maybrick, James and Florence's son, as Bobo. Although it is the case that James was given this nickname when he was very young and it was a name that endured for the whole of his life; as a young boy he was also given the second family nickname of Sonny. In 1888, the year of the Ripper murders, Florence Aunspaugh stayed with the Maybricks and spent much of her time playing with young James. In her correspondence with Trevor Christie, she writes about James and uses the nickname Sonny on nine separate occasions. If the Diary was written over the period 1888/89, why does only the nickname of Bobo appear whilst the nickname of Sonny never appears? Perhaps it is because the nickname Bobo is referenced in all the modern books, yet the nickname of Sonny does not appear until after 1992 when the Diary surfaced. The Bobo reference is not a mistake, but it shows no personal insight into the Maybricks; however, a reference to the nickname Sonny would have shown insight, but that did not happen.
The diarist mentions James’ brothers on numerous occasions; however, not only does the diarist not produce any material other than information that can easily be sourced from modern books, he also makes some mistakes that actually demonstrate a lack of knowledge about family relationships. The diarist refers to Thomas, one of James’ brothers, on a number of occasions. When he does so, he always calls him ‘Thomas,’ when in fact his family and close friends always (other than in official documents) called him ‘Tom.’ This is made clear in a number of contemporary sources. In the letter from Charles Ratcliffe to John Aunspaugh, Ratcliffe wrote that just after James’ death, Michael Maybrick forced Florence to ‘get up and go with Tom to Liverpool.’ Florence Aunspaugh recalls that while she was staying with the Maybricks in Liverpool, James took her, his two children and Nurse Yapp to Manchester to ‘spend the day with Tom.’ She also refers to the brother's wife as ‘Mrs Tom Maybrick.' Amy Main, Edwin’s daughter, met Tom on several occasions. In her correspondence with a family friend she repeatedly calls him Tom and not Thomas. The fact that the diarist on every occasion calls him Thomas, reveals that he was not privy to first-hand family knowledge.
The diarist makes another mistake when he refers to Thomas Maybrick and James in terms of their business ventures. The diarist writes that: ‘Thomas has invited me to visit him. I know him well.' He also states that 'Business is flourishing.’ A little later in the Diary he writes: ‘Thomas has requested that we meet as soon as possible. Business is flourishing.’ Those who suggest that the Diary is genuine point to these extracts and argue they show an intimate knowledge of family life. But is this the case? Once again strikingly similar lines can be found in the Ryan (1977) book. Ryan writes that, ‘Thomas Maybrick, who dined frequently with James and Florence when his business brought him the twenty miles from Manchester to Liverpool, was cordial enough.’ Ryan also wrote that ‘Maybrick's cotton brokerage flourished.’ If the diarist did use the Ryan book to help source some of his material, then there is a problem; for although the Ryan book is excellent in many ways, it does contain mistakes. For example, it is unlikely that the two brothers did frequently dine with one another. They did meet occasionally, but MacDougall, who examined the relationship between the two brothers soon after James’ death, wrote that, as far as he could ascertain, Thomas ‘had not visited his brother for some years and there was very little communication with him.’ More significant than this, is the use of the word ‘flourishing’ in terms of the state of James’ business at that time. This is significant because all the evidence suggests that rather than flourishing, Maybrick’s business in this period was actually struggling. We know that due to money shortages, James had reduced Florence's allowance to £7 a week and that had to cover all the food for the family and staff, plus the servants' wages and other household costs. We also know from a letter written by Florence in late 1887 to her mother, that James' financial assets had been greatly reduced and that he had only made £125 profit in the past five years. By stating James's business was flourishing when it wasn't, indicates that the diary is a forgery and its author copied some of its content from modern books on the Maybricks.
One passage in the diary that did seemingly provide some support for the notion that the diary might be authentic is the diarist referral to himself as ‘Sir Jim’ on no fewer than thirty-three occasions. This is important because in June 1993 (after the diary had been brought to the public's attention) Keith Skinner accessed the Christie archive and found a piece of correspondence from Florence Aunspaugh in which she wrote, ‘She [Nurse Yapp] did not see why Sir James [James Maybrick] ever brought me there anyway.’ Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison and Robert Smith all believe this reference to be extremely important. Robert Smith argues as the name 'Sir James' can only be found in the Christie archives and not in any modern books; that can only mean that the diarist had ‘first-hand knowledge of James Maybrick's unusual affectation within the family.’ The problem with this assertion is that if James Maybrick did have an affectation to be called Sir James, then why did he not actually write that particular name in the diary if he was in fact the author of the document? The diarist uses the name Sir Jim and not Sir James.
If one employs a parallel comparison technique, comparing references from the diary with extracts from modern books on the Ripper murders and on James and Florence Maybrick, one can easily identify where all the factual refences in the diary may have been sourced. I have done such an exercise and have managed to construct the diary using just three modern books. In the table below, I have provided just some of the examples of my analysis to show how a clever forger might have written the diary cherry-picking phrases and then incorporating them into the diary’s text. I have over one hundred examples of passages in the diary that can be traced directly back to modern books.
DIARY REFERENCES
EXTRACTS FROM THE BERNARD RYAN (1977) BOOK
Business is flourishing.
Maybrick’s cotton brokerage flourished.
My medicine will give me strength.
I take this arsenic once in a while because I find it strengthens me.
I am in the habit of taking strong medicine.
For some time he had had a habit of taking a strong medicine.
I feel a numbness in my body.
James complained to his brother [Michael] of his persistent symptoms: pains in the head and numbness of the limbs.
Fuller believes there is very little the matter with me.
[Fuller said] that he could find very little the matter with him.
It is absolutely clear that the author of the diary provides no new material or personal insight into either the Ripper murders or the personal life of the Maybricks. Indeed, if anything, the complete opposite is the case; there is a complete lack of detail about the Ripper murders and a detailed analysis of the diary makes it clear that its author did not have an intimate knowledge of the Maybricks and the lives that they led. The Ryan book (1977), in particular, has sentences that seem to directly correspond with some of the passages contained within the text of the diary. In fact, not only does the diary show no intimate knowledge, it is also contains mistakes in its references to the life of James and Florence and their family. Some of these are relatively minor, some are of much greater significance; however, cumulatively, they all add up and the point directly at the diary be a modern hoax constructed lar
MAYBRICK WATCH
The Maybrick Watch is a small elaborately engraved gentleman’s pocket watch. It has small scratches on the inside cover of the case. Around the edge are scratched the five initials of the canonical Ripper victims; in the middle are the words, ‘I am Jack’; and at the bottom is a signature, ‘J. Maybrick.’ On the back of the case the letters ‘J.O’ have been professionally engraved. The watch belonged to Albert Johnson. He bought it in July 1992 for £225 from Stewart’s Jewellery Shop in Wallasey, Merseyside, as an investment for his granddaughter. He said he only noticed the scratches at a later date. In 1993 he contacted the London publisher, Robert Smith, and told him of the watch’s existence.
When people first heard about the watch, they were almost universally sceptical of its origins. Coming as it did, just after the appearance of the Ripper Diary, most suspected that it was an obvious forgery. To try and pacify the doubters, Albert Johnson agreed to allow the watch to be tested. The first test was conducted by Dr Stephen Turgoose of the Corrosion Protection Centre at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) in July 1993 using an electron microscope. Albert Johnson himself paid for the tests to be carried out, an action that a forger would have been very unlikely to have done. Turgoose’s Report concluded that the scratches were decades old and that it would have been extremely difficult for anyone to have forged them to have made them look old. The report stated that: ‘The wear apparent on many of the engravings, experienced by the rounded edges of the markings and ‘polishing out’ in places, would indicate a substantial age for the engravings. The actual age would depend on the cleaning and polishing regime employed, and any definition of the number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and, to some extent, must remain speculation. Given these qualifications, I would be of the opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years and possibly much longer.’
In January 1994, Albert Johnson agreed to have the watch tested a second time. This test, again with an electron microscope, was conducted by Dr Robert Wild at the Interface Analysis Centre at Bristol University. His findings were very similar to those of Dr Turgoose. One of the final paragraphs of his report stated: ‘Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least of several tens of years age. This would agree with the findings of Dr Turgoose and in my opinion it is unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings.’
Not everybody was convinced by the reports, those who believed that the Diary was a modern forgery saw the watch as another forgery, suggesting that the idea for the watch was probably inspired by the appearance of the Diary. One person, who was convinced by the reports and in turn by the watch, was the author and Ripperologist, Paul Feldman. He came to believe that Albert Johnson had a Maybrick family connection and that the watch had been in his family’s possession for many years. However, Albert, right up to his death, always stuck firmly to his original story of how he obtained the watch. He is said to have even turned down a large offer of money for the watch.
The Watch is yet another mystery at the heart of the Maybrick saga. To some, its existence is proof that the Diary is a genuine document; but to others, it is conclusive proof that there is clever conspiracy at work and both Watch and Diary are modern forgeries.
Although Albert Johnson is dead, it is believed that the Watch remains in the possession of his family, presumably it is in the hands of his granddaughter.
The following is the full text of the statement given by Ronald Murphy on 20Th October, 1993:
‘I RONALD GEORGE MURPHY am the Proprietor of STEWARTS, Jewellers of Liscard, Wallasey, Wirral. (Private address and telephone number have been withheld.) I sold the MAYBRICK watch to ALBERT JOHNSON on or about the 14th July 1992 for a sum in the region of £250.00. There is nothing unusual that I can recall about the watch, other than the fact that it was hallmarked 1846. I had owned the watch for a couple of years prior to selling it. It had been given to me by my father-in-law, who had a Jewellers Shop himself in Lancaster. At first it did not work, so I kept it in a draw [sic] and then eventually some time after selling it, I sent it through to MR DUNDAS, a Watch Repairer at The Clock Workshop, 4 Grange Road, West Kirby, Wirral. Mr Dundas fixed the watch and sent it back to me. The watch case was then cleaned and the watch put in the window – and Mr Johnson purchased it. Having now seen the watch for the first time since selling it, I am almost certain that the markings were present when the watch was sold but they were not markings that I would have taken notice of. I have been given the impression by certain people in the Press that there were engravings in it, which I had not noticed – but this is not the case.’
Abberline, Inspector Frederick George (1843-1929) He was the Metropolitan Police Inspector in charge of the detectives on the ground in the Whitechapel ‘Ripper’ murders case. The author of the Ripper Diary is very critical of the London Police and Abberline. On several occasions he pens the following rhyme: ‘Oh, Mr Abberline he is a clever little man, he keeps back all that he can. For do I not know better Indeed I do, did I not leave him a very good clue Nothing is mentioned of this I know sure, ask clever Abberline, could tell you more.’
Addison, QC, MP, John Edmund Wentworth (1838-1907) He was the counsel for the Crown who led the prosecuting team at Florence Maybrick’s trial. Addison’s case was based around the notion that James Maybrick, although a hypochondriac, was basically a ‘strong and healthy man’ who was gradually poisoned by his wife who had a clear motive for the crime. In his closing speech Addison seized on her admission that she had put a powder in her husband’s meat juice. It was widely reported after the trial that Addison felt that the defence lawyers had quite effectively undermined the prosecution’s case.
Aigburth This was the wealthy residential suburb of Liverpool in which James and Florence Maybrick lived, in various houses, in the 1880s. Aigburth’s location made it popular with the rich and several grand homes were built in the area.
Aigburth Hotel This was where the inquest into the death of James Maybrick opened on Tuesday 14th May. The inquest was necessary as Doctors Humphreys and Carter had declined to give the usual death certificate following James’ death. After the closing of the inquest in the Aigburth Hotel, James’ body was released for burial. The inquest was reconvened two weeks later in the Reading Room in Garston. The Aigburth Hotel was located close to Battlecrease, on Aigburth Road, opposite Liverpool Cricket Club and Wokes’ Chemist. Today, a modern pub and travel lodge stand on the site of the old hotel.
Anderson, John Mills (1828-1891) He was the Governor of Walton Gaol during the time that Florence Maybrick was detained there. He sat next to Florence in the dock at the start of her trial. Early in the morning on 23rd August 1889, he informed Florence the Home Secretary had decided to advise the Queen to commute the sentence to one of life in prison.
Anfield Cemetery This is a large sprawling cemetery where James Maybrick is buried. He is buried in a grave along with his parents and his brother Edwin. James’ funeral took place on Thursday 16th May 1889. James’ body did not lie undisturbed: on the insistence of the coroner at his inquest, his body was exhumed on the night of the 30th May. Today, James’ headstone has been damaged, probably accidentally as there are numerous other damaged headstones in the cemetery.
Arsenic Compounds of arsenic are extremely poisonous and can kill a person within 24 hours. It was the prosecution’s case at her trial, that Florence murdered her husband by giving him several small doses of arsenic spread over a few weeks. The key weakness in this view was that James Maybrick was an arsenic user. He first took the drug, along with strychnine, after he contracted malaria in Norfolk, Virginia, in the late 1870s. On his return to Liverpool, James continued with his habit of taking arsenic. Those who support the view that the Diary was written by James Maybrick place heavy emphasis on James’ use of arsenic, suggesting that it could have led to great mood swings and bouts of madness and depression, which in turn could have led him to have committed the appalling acts of mutilating women in Whitechapel.
Asquith, Herbert H. (1852-1928) He was Home Secretary in the Liberal Government of 1892-1895 during the premierships of first Gladstone and then Lord Rosebery. Asquith replaced Henry Matthews at the Home Office. This change sparked a determined attempt by Florence Maybrick’s supporters to get her released from prison. A series of affidavits, e.g. from Valentine Blake, were presented to Asquith bringing forward new evidence. Asquith remained unmoved.
Auction On 8th and 9th July 1889, at the Gallery of Mr Leete and Mr Branch of Hanover Street, Liverpool, the furnishings and effects of Battlecrease House were auctioned to the public. The decision to auction all of the Maybricks’ furniture, plus many of their personal items, was taken by Thomas and Michael Maybrick, the trustees of James’ estate. A great range of items went on auction over the two days. When the bills and commission had been paid, Michael Maybrick paid £300, half of the total amount of money raised by the sale, to Florence’s defence fund.
Aunspaugh, Florence (1873-1949) She was the bubbly daughter of one of James Maybrick’s friends and business colleagues, John Aunspaugh. She stayed with the Maybricks at Battlecrease during the summer of 1888 when she was 15 years old (she mistakenly says she was aged 8 in a letter to Trevor Christie). Many years later she was to recall some of the things that were to happen during her stay at Battlecrease. A point of interest is she referred to James Maybrick at one point as Sir James. This is important as the diarist called himself Sir Jim on numerous occasions.
Aunspaugh, John He was an American businessman and friend of James Maybrick. He was the head of Inman Swann and Co. of Atlantic Georgia. It was his daughter, Florence, who stayed with the Maybricks in the summer of 1888. Aunspaugh was to visit Florence in Aylesbury Prison.
Aylesbury Prison Florence Maybrick was transferred in chains to Aylesbury Prison from Woking Prison in November 1895 (not 1896 as she wrote in her autobiography). The prison regime at Aylesbury was more relaxed than Woking. Florence had a small mat in her cell; she was allowed to wear a nightdress, and was she given a toothbrush for the first time in seven years. However, the cell was still very basic, it had no heating and no gas lighting. After a spell in the prison hospital, suffering from depression, Florence was given duties in the prison library. She remained in Aylesbury until 20th January 1904 when she left the prison and travelled down to Cornwall to spend the last 6 months of her sentence in the Convent of the Sisters of the Epiphany.
Baillie Margaret (1825-1890) She was an old family friend of Florence’s mother, Baroness von Roques, and an aunt of John Baillie Knight. Florence stayed with her in her house in London in March 1889 after she had spent the night with Alfred Brierley in Flatman’s hotel.
Baltic, SS This was the ship on which James Maybrick met Florence in March 1880. The Baltic was one of four sister ships launched by the White Star Line in the early 1870s.
Bancroft, Franklin George He was a close friend of James Maybrick who provided an affidavit after Florence Maybrick’s trial that confirmed James regularly used drugs between the years of 1874 and 1876, when James had lived in Norfolk, Virginia.
Barker, Rev. Frederick (1840-1908) He was the rector of St Mary’s Church in Grassendale. He was one of the two ministers at James Maybrick’s funeral.
Barrett, Michael He is the former Liverpool scrap merchant who brought the Jack the Ripper Diary to the attention of the world. Barrett claimed Tony Devereux, a drinking friend from the Saddle Inn, Kirkdale in Liverpool, had given him it in the summer of 1991. On 13th April 1992, Barrett took the Diary to the Rupert Crew Literary Agency and in July 1992, Barrett and a professional writer named Shirley Harrison signed a contract with publishers, Smith Gryphon, to produce a book based on the Diary and its revelations. Unfortunately, Barrett and his family were not prepared for the media frenzy that followed and it had a dramatic and adverse affect on them.
Barron, Dr Alexander He attended James Maybrick’s post mortem and exhumation and also gave evidence for the prosecution at Florence’s trial. After the trial, Dr Barron put his signature on a letter to the Home Secretary which called for Florence’s sentence to be commuted.
Bateson, Nicholas A cotton broker and friend of James Maybrick. The two had shared lodgings together in Norfolk, Virginia between 1877 and 1881. He was a witness for the defence during Florence Maybrick's trial and testified to James’ use of arsenic.
Battlecrease House This was the rented home in Aigburth, Liverpool that the Maybricks moved to in January 1888. It was the house in which James Maybrick died in May 1889. Battlecrease was a very grand house with extensive grounds. The Maybricks had taken out a five-year lease on Battlecrease, but after James’ death and the selling of the furniture; the house was soon back on the rental market. Mr Fletcher Rogers, the foreman of the jury at James’ inquest, moved into the house.
Baxendale, Inspector (1838-1918) He was responsible for much of the routine investigation into James’ death. He visited Battlecrease on three separate occasions.
Beechville In 1884, when the Maybricks returned from America they rented a house named Beechville in Grassendale Park. The area was a wealthy suburb of Liverpool. It was in this house that the couple’s second child, Gladys Evelyn Maybrick, was born in 1886.
Berry, James (1852-1913) He was the public executioner who would have carried out the death penalty on Florence Maybrick if her sentence had not been commuted. As Florence’s sentence was commuted, the gallows were dismantled. Berry received a £5 fee for the cancellation.
Bioletti, James A. He was a hairdresser and perfumer of Dale Street, Liverpool, who was a defence witness at the trial of Florence Maybrick. He testified that arsenic-based solutions were commonly used by women as a cosmetic.
Blaine, James Gillespie (1830-1893) He was the Secretary of State in the Cabinet of President Benjamin Harrison from 1889-1892 and became involved in the Administration’s attempts to get the British Government to release Florence Maybrick from prison. His interest in the case had been spurred on by Mary Dodge, who was a cousin of his wife.
Blake, Valentine He was the man who, according to an affidavit he signed, provided James Maybrick with a large quantity of arsenic early in January 1889. He met James when he was involved in the campaign to launch Ramie Grass as a substitute for cotton on the British market. James was delighted to hear that arsenic was used in the manufacture of the product. James offered to help Blake in promoting the product, in return, Blake provided James with 150 grains of arsenic in three separate packets.
Bliss, Henry He was the former proprietor of Sefton Club and Chambers in Liverpool, of which James Maybrick had been a member for a while. Bliss later stated James Maybrick had lived in the chambers on and off for several months and was in the ‘habit of dosing himself.’
Bold Street, Liverpool This was Liverpool’s premier shopping street in the 1880s. Florence Maybrick spent a great deal of time and money there buying luxurious furniture and furnishings. Her lavish spending on such items was often a cause of friction between her and James.
Brierley, Alfred He was the man with whom Florence Maybrick had an adulterous affair. Brierley, like James Maybrick, was a cotton dealer. In March 1889 Florence was to stay 2 nights with Brierley in Flatman’s Hotel in London. It was knowledge of this affair that was to turn the judge and the jury against Florence at her trial for the alleged murder of James. After the trial, Brierley left England for America. He was never to see Florence again.
Brierley, Elizabeth (Bessie) She was a housemaid at Battlecrease. She tried to mediate between James and Florence on the night of the Grand National in March 1889. The following day it was Bessie Brierley who found the flypapers and reported the matter to Nurse Yapp.
Briggs, Mrs Matilda (1851-1915) She was one of the Janion sisters and was a friend of James Maybrick long before his marriage to Florence. Baroness von Roques even suggested that she had at one point been engaged to James. She was in Battlecrease when James died and helped search the house after his death. Her role in the Maybrick case is a controversial one. Charles Ratcliffe described as her as one of the female serpents who was out to get Florence. Mrs Briggs always maintained that she was on friendly relations with both James and Florence and did not interfere in the running of their home.
Brighouse, Sir Samuel (1849-1940) He was the coroner at the inquest of James Maybrick. He became involved in the case in May 1889 after the police reported that James appeared to have died in suspicious circumstances. Brighouse ordered a post-mortem to be carried out.
Bryning, Superintendent Isaac (1835-1896) He was the superintendent of the county police for the West Derby District of Lancashire who was in overall charge of the investigation into James Maybrick’s death.
Busher, Mrs Eliza F. She was the cleaner at James Maybrick’s offices in the Knowsley Buildings. She testified for the prosecution at Florence’s Trial.
Cadwallader, Mary Elizabeth (1866-1948) She was the waitress at Battlecrease. She accepted the London medicine off the postman on the morning of Friday 26th April 1889 and gave it to James Maybrick. She was questioned quite extensively at Florence’s trial, especially over the question of the flypapers. Cadwallader was seen as being sympathetic to Florence and in 1891 is listed as working for Mrs Louisa Rigg who was one of Florence’s supporters.
Carter, Dr William (1836-1913) He was one of the doctors who treated James during his final illness. He first visited Battlecrease on the 7th May 1889. On 9th May, Michael Maybrick told Dr Carter his suspicions about Florence. The same day he took away the bottle of meat juice that Nurse Gore had seen Florence move, for analysis. He found half a grain of arsenic in it. Dr Carter gave evidence at Florence’s trial; he supported the view of Dr Humphreys that James died of arsenic poisoning.
Chandler, Holbrook St. John He was Florence Maybrick’s elder brother. William Chandler. He had the honour of giving Florence away at her wedding. He travelled to the wedding from Paris where he was training to be a doctor. He died of consumption in April 1885.
Chapman, Annie (1841-1888) She was the second Ripper victim. Her body was found at approximately 6-00am on Saturday 8th September 1888 in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street.
Childwall, Liverpool The Childwall Abbey Hotel is the place where James and Florence continued their courtship in Liverpool after their first meeting on the SS Baltic in March 1880. General Hazard and his wife invited Florence to stay with them at the hotel.
Church Alley At the time of James’ birth in 1838, his family lived in 8 Church Alley. It was a small narrow road that ran into Church Street, one of the Liverpool’s main city-centre streets.
Church Street This is one of Liverpool’s main streets. The street was so named, as St. Peter’s Church was the first building to be erected on the street.
Cleaver Brothers Florence’s solicitors during and after her trial were the brothers Arnold and Richard Cleaver of the firm Cleaver, Holden, Garnett and Cleaver.
Clemmy, William Henry He was a surveyor from Bootle, north of Liverpool, who produced the plans of Battlecrease House that were presented at Florence Maybrick’s trial.
Cleveland, President Stephen Grover (1837-1908) He was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States and became involved in the campaign to get Florence released from prison.
Coat of Arms On the 4th July 1881, just two weeks before his wedding, James Maybrick was granted a coat of arms by the ancient College of Arms in London. It cost James the sum of £76 10s. It carried the legend: ‘Tempus Omnia Revelat’ or ‘Time Reveals All.’
Cotton Exchange The Exchange was the place where the cotton merchants and brokers of Liverpool conducted their business. In the early 1870s, James Maybrick founded Maybrick and Company, Cotton Merchants. His younger brother, Edwin, later joined him as a junior partner.
Cranstoun, Pauline She claimed that James Maybrick wrote to her and said he was in the habit of taking large amounts of arsenic.
Crashaw, Richard (1612-1649) He was a little known early seventeenth century poet whom the diarist quotes in the phrase: ‘Oh costly intercourse of death.’
Davenport, Sergeant James He was a police officer stationed at Garston, who was involved in the investigation into James Maybrick’s death and gave evidence at Florence’s trial.
Davidson, George Ramsay (1836-1893) He was James Maybrick’s closest friend. George Davidson was one of the two witnesses to James’ Will of 25th April 1889, written just before his death. It was in George’s arms that James died in May 1889. George himself died in suspicious circumstances; being found drowned off the Cumbrian coast, near Whitehaven, in March 1893. Evidence suggests that he committed suicide after getting into financial difficulties.
Davies, Mr Edward (1833-1916) He was the county analytical chemist who carried out the tests to try and ascertain whether arsenic could be found in James Maybrick’s body or in the numerous other items that were removed from Battlecrease House and James’ office.
Densmore, Dr Helen (1833-1904) She was one of the American women who campaigned on behalf of Florence Maybrick. She contributed a large sum of money to Florence’s campaign and helped organise the Women’s International Maybrick Association. In 1892, she published a lengthy pamphlet entitled: The Maybrick Case: English Criminal Law. After Florence’s release from prison and her return to the United States, she stayed for a while with Helen Densmore and her husband.
Devereux, Tony He was the man whom Mike Barrett claimed had given him the Diary of Jack the Ripper in the summer of 1991. Devereux was never able to substantiate Barrett’s story as he unfortunately died not long after Barrett claimed he had given him the Diary.
Diary The alleged Diary of Jack the Ripper measures approximately 11 by 8½ inches. It is hardbound in black cloth with black leather quarter binding, with seven bands of gold foil across the two-inch spine. It was originally a scrapbook or a photograph album. The paper is largely of a good quality and is well preserved. The first 48 pages have been cut and torn out; there are 63 pages with handwriting on and then there are 17 blank pages at the end. Tests on the paper suggest that the Diary dates from the Victorian era. However, tests on the ink have proved to be contradictory and conflicting and are a source of great controversy. Michael Barrett sold the Diary to Robert Smith for one pound in March 1993.
Dodd, Paul He is the current owner of the whole of Battlecrease House in Riversdale Road, Aigburth, Liverpool. He has lived in the house for most of his life. Mr Paul Dodd and his wife live in one half of the house (number 6) and he has converted the other half (number 7) into flats.
Dodge, Mary Abigail (pen-name Gail Hamilton) (1838-1896) She was an American writer who campaigned for the release of Florence Maybrick. She had the advantage of being the cousin of Mrs James Blaine, the wife of the Secretary of State in the Benjamin Harrison Presidency. Mary Dodge, with Helen Densmore’s help, organised the Women’s International Maybrick Association.
Drysdale, Dr John James (1816-1890) He was one of the defence witnesses at Florence Maybrick’s trial. He said James consulted him six times for medical advice: on November 19th, 22nd and 26th; December 5th and 10th 1888; and 7th March 1889. Dr Drysdale told the court James seemed to be suffering from ‘nervous dyspepsia’ and was a hypochondriac.
Eddowes, Catherine (1842-1888) She was the fourth Ripper victim and the second one to be killed on the night of 30th September 1888. As the murderer fled the scene he dropped a blood-stained portion of the victim’s apron in Goulston Street. On the wall by the apron was written in white chalk the words, ‘The Juews are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing.’
Edgecome, Mr J, Treeve He was a lawyer and friend of Baroness von Roques, Florence Maybrick’s mother, who provided her with advice and who issued press releases giving the Baroness’ viewpoint on matters as they developed during and just after Florence’s trial. He also had a ‘watching brief’ for the baroness at the magisterial hearing.
Feldman, Paul (1953-2005) He was the executive producer and director of research for The Diary of Jack the Ripper video. Paul Feldman became convinced of the authenticity of the Ripper Diary and came to believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
Flatman’s Hotel, London The hotel in London where Florence Maybrick and Alfred Brierley stayed together in March 1889. Mr Flatman, the owner of the hotel and Alfred Schweisso, the headwaiter at the hotel, both were to appear as witnesses at James Maybrick’s inquest in June 1889. Flatman did not appear as a witness at Florence’s trial.
Fletcher Rogers (1823-1891) He was foreman of the jury at James Maybrick’s inquest. Like James Maybrick, he was a cotton merchant. A few months later, he moved into Battlecrease House with his family.
Flypapers Florence Maybrick’s purchase of two sets of flypapers was a key piece of evidence at her trial. In 1884, two Liverpool women, Mrs Flanagan and Mrs Higgins, had been convicted of the murder of three people using arsenic extracted from flypapers. Florence purchased two sets of flypapers: from Mr Wokes, a chemist in Aigburth; and from Mr Hanson, a chemist in Cressington. In her trial Florence told the court, ‘the flypapers were bought with the intention of using as a cosmetic.’
Fleming, John He was a master mariner from Halifax, Ontario, who sent an affidavit to Asquith after Florence’s trial stating James Maybrick had taken arsenic in his food.
Friedkin, William (1935-2023) He was the famous Hollywood director who had hoped to make a film about James and Florence Maybrick. A script for a film, given the working title of Battlecrease, was written but it was never made due to contractual difficulties.
Fuller, Dr Charles (1831-1902) He was Michael Maybrick’s doctor and he testified for the prosecution at Florence Maybrick’s trial. He said he had examined James Maybrick twice in April 1889 whilst he was visiting his brother in London. Dr Fuller could not find anything the matter with him apart from indigestion. He then gave James various prescriptions, none of which contained arsenic.
Gateacre, Liverpool This is the area of Liverpool in which the Janion family lived in the 1880s and 1890s. Today it is a built-up suburb of the city, but in the nineteenth century it was a rural village outside the city boundaries.
Gore, Nurse Ellen Ann She was a professional nurse who helped look after James Maybrick in the final days of his life. She arrived at the house at about 2:15pm on Wednesday 8th May. Soon after her arrival at Battlecrease, Edwin Maybrick instructed her that she had been placed in sole charge of James. On the 9th May, Nurse Gore witnessed Florence taking an opened bottle of meat juice into the inner-dressing room. She returned a few minutes later and, in Nurse Gore’s words, ‘surreptitiously’ placed the bottle on the bedside table. The next day the bottle was removed by Michael Maybrick and given to Dr Carter who found half a grain of arsenic in it.
Graham, Anne She was the wife of Mike Barrett, the man who brought the Diary of Jack the Ripper to the attention of the world in 1992. Following her divorce in 1994, she reverted to her maiden name of Graham. In the same year she told a story about the provenance of the diary that was different to the one that had been told by her former husband. She said that she had been given the diary in the 1980s by her father, Billy Graham and that she had given it to her husband via Tony Devereux to try and protect her own father, who was seriously ill, from press intrusion into his life. Billy Graham (now dead) confirmed her story and said that the Diary had been given to him in turn by his step grandmother. He said that he had first seen the document in 1943 and had received full ownership of it in 1950 when his own father had died.
Grand National Race The Grand National, held annually at Aintree Race Course in Liverpool, is the world’s greatest steeplechase. To the horse-loving Maybricks, the event was one of the highlights of both the racing and social calendar. The race held on 29th March, 1889 was very special as it was the 50th anniversary race and the Prince of Wales attended the event to mark the occasion. On the day of the race the Maybricks’ party headed off to Aintree on an omnibus from James’ offices in the Knowsley Buildings. Among others on the omnibus, were James, Florence, a family friend, Christina Samuelson, and Alfred Brierley. During the day James caught his wife walking hand-in-hand with Brierley. He was furious and a fierce row broke out between him and Florence when they returned to Battlecrease that night. The next day Florence was sporting a black eye. The diarist refers to the race quite specifically in one passage. He wrote, ‘Did not the whore see her whore master in front of all, true the race was the fastest I have seen, but the thrill of seeing the whore with the bastard thrilled me more so than knowing his Royal Highness was but few feet away.’ What makes this passage interesting is that the race had been extremely fast. One can see either the hand of a clever fraudster at work, or maybe somebody who was actually at the race.
Grant, James He was the gardener at Battlecrease. He married a former housemaid at the house, Alice Jones.
Grassendale, Liverpool This is the area in Liverpool between Aigburth and Garston, where the Maybricks lived for a time in the 1880s. In 1884, when the Maybricks returned from America to live permanently in Liverpool, they rented a house named Beechville in Grassendale Park. The Park was an area within the Grassendale area where Liverpool’s more affluent middle classes could purchase land and build new properties away from the hustle and bustle of the town (later city) centre. Battlecrease House is situated in the area that borders Aigburth and Grassendale.
Hammersmith, Mrs The diarist wrote, ‘Strolled by the drive, encountered Mrs Hamersmith.’ It is assumed by most commentators that the ‘drive’ referred to in the passage is Aigburth Drive, the road that circles Sefton Park in South Liverpool. Shirley Harrison has spent a great deal of effort trying to track her down, but so far no credible candidate has emerged.
Handwriting For those who believe that James Maybrick wrote the Diary, the issue of the handwriting is a major stumbling block. Donald Rumbelow has written, ‘the handwriting of the diary did not match the writing and signature on Maybrick’s will or on his marriage certificate. Nor does it match a lengthy inscription, in a bible given by Maybrick to his mistress.’
Hanson, Mr C. He owned the chemist in Cressington, Liverpool, where Florence bought some flypapers.
Harrison, President Benjamin (1833-1901) and Harrison, Caroline Lavina Scott (1831-1892) Benjamin Harrison, the Twenty-Third President of the United States (1889-1993), was the President at the time of Florence Maybrick’s trial. His wife, Caroline Harrison, the First Lady, was active in the campaign to get Florence released from prison.
Harrison, Shirley She is the author of the best selling book, The Diary of Jack the Ripper. Her book bitterly divided the world of Ripperology and she herself came in for a great deal of criticism. Perhaps what Shirley Harrison has not been given sufficient credit for is the amount of scientific and historical research she has carried out in writing her books. This research and her books have acted as a great stimulus to promote a wider interest in this area of historical debate.
Hazard, General John Gardiner General J.G. Hazard was an American Civil War hero who had become a cotton merchant after the war and as a result had become acquainted with James Maybrick. It was Hazard who introduced James to Florence in 1880 on board the SS Baltic
Heaton, Mr. Edwin Garnet A Liverpool chemist who kept a shop in Exchange Street East for 17 years. He testified for the defence at Florence’s trial that James Maybrick had visited his shop several times a day for eighteen months prior to April 1888 to drink a ‘pick-me-up’. The latter was a preparation that contained a small amount of arsenic.
High Rip Gang This was the Liverpool gang that achieved notoriety between 1884-86 after a series of reports that blamed it for committing robbery, violence and even murder. It has been suggested that the name, Jack the Ripper, may be linked to the gang’s title.
Hobson, Richard (1836-1909) He was a wealthy and successful cotton broker who was a great friend of James Maybrick. James dined with Hobson on the night of the Wirral races, 27th April 1889.
Hogwood (Howard), Mrs Mary A brothel-keeper in Norfolk, Virginia, who provided an affidavit that stated James Maybrick frequented her brothel when he was in America and also that he kept his arsenic in a cigarette case.
Hopper, Dr Arthur Richard He was the physician and surgeon based in Rodney Street, Liverpool, who cared for the Maybricks after their marriage. He was in attendance when Florence gave birth to Gladys in July 1886. In his evidence at Florence’s trial, Dr Hopper said that James Maybrick was ‘a very healthy man, but he complained from time to time of symptoms which in my mind were not very serious -- slight dyspepsia and nervousness, which I thought to be exaggerated. At Florence’s trial he testified that Florence had come to see him on the 30th March, the day after the Grand National. The next day he visited Battlecrease to try to resolve the problems between the Maybricks. He felt he had managed to reconcile their differences.
Hughes, Mrs Martha Louisa (Martha) (1859-1889) She was one of the Janion sisters. She was in Battlecrease when James died and helped search the house after his death.
Humphreys, Elizabeth She was the cook at Battlecrease House. She gave evidence at James Maybrick’s inquest and at Florence Maybrick’s trial. Her evidence is important, as she was one of the few people who witnessed events at Battlecrease who was sympathetic to Florence. She said that the last time she prepared food for James Maybrick was on the Saturday, the week before he died. After that she made nothing for him apart from one glass of lemonade. She said that Florence blamed her husband’s illness on an overdose of his London medicine. Florence had later thrown that medicine down the sink.
Humphreys, Dr Richard (1860-1932) He was one of the doctors who treated James Maybrick just prior to his death. Before his final illness, Dr Humphreys had only seen James once. The next time Dr Humphreys saw James was Sunday 28th April, the day after the Wirral races when James had become ill. Over the next couple of weeks, he visited James on numerous occasions. When James died on the 11th May he refused to sign a death certificate. Dr Humphreys helped conduct the post-mortem in James’ bedroom. The post mortem proved inconclusive, revealing only faint traces of arsenic in some of the organs. At Florence’s Trial, Dr Humphreys, told the court that James died from: ‘Arsenic. Arsenical poisoning.’
Ink The ink of the Diary has been subjected to numerous tests to try to establish whether its chemical composition is modern in character or compatible with inks found in late Victorian England. The results of these tests have been contradictory and as a result no definitive scientific view on the age of the ink exists.
Inquest The inquest into James Maybrick’s death opened on Tuesday 14th May at the Aigburth Hotel. It was then adjourned for two weeks. The old police court in Wellington Road, Garston, known locally as the ‘Reading Room,’ was the scene of the reconvened inquest. The reconvened inquest opened on 28th May 1889. Florence missed the opening day of the inquest, as she considered too ill to attend. The witnesses mentioned the flypapers, the meat juice, and the poison for cats and, of course, Florence’s letter to Brierley. All of this evidence prompted the coroner to insist that the inquest be adjourned for a second time so that James Maybrick’s body could be exhumed and the content of his stomach tested. The inquest resumed again on Wednesday 5th June and was to last for two days. This time Florence Maybrick attended and she was moved from Walton Gaol to Lark Lane Police Station. At the end of the inquest, the jury found that James had been killed by a poison given to him by his wife.
Irving, Captain Peter J. He was the captain of the Germanic, who knew both James and Florence Maybrick. Irving dined with James and Florence and Edwin Maybrick at Battlecrease shortly before James’ death. The captain mentioned to Edwin that he thought James looked unwell. Edwin replied that this was due to the strychnine he was taking.
Jack the Ripper The serial killer who murdered at least five women in Whitechapel, London in 1888. The five victims generally accepted as the work of the Ripper are: Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols, murdered Friday, August 31, 1888; Annie Chapman, murdered Saturday, September 8, 1888; Elizabeth Stride, murdered Sunday, September 30, 1888; Catharine Eddowes, also murdered that same date; and Mary Kelly, murdered Friday, November 9, 1888.
Jack the Ripper (Letters) Two of these letters have attracted a great deal of interest and discussion. The first of these is known as the Dear Boss letter. It had a London East Central postmark dated 27th September. It was written in red ink and was signed ‘Jack the Ripper.’ The letter contained the threat to ‘clip the lady’s ears off’ the victim in the next murder. This passage is significant as both Stride and Eddowes, who were killed on 30th September, the night of the double murders, had cuts to the ear. A few days later, a second message was sent to the Central News Agency. It was in the same handwriting but this time it was written on a postcard. The police put the two documents together and thought that they may have come from the actual murderer. The second letter of note is known as the ‘From Hell’ letter. It was sent to George Lusk on 16th October 1888. It consisted of a small brown parcel wrapped in brown paper. Inside the parcel was part of a kidney and a note addressed ‘From Hell.’ As the state of the kidney was felt to be very similar to the one that had been left in Eddowes’ body, it was believed that the letter might have actually come from Eddowes’ killer. The diarist clearly implies in some passages that he wrote the letter.
Janion Family Robert Janion was a great friend to James Maybrick. His wife, Domitila, was the godmother to the Maybrick children. Three of their daughters: Mrs Matilda Briggs, Mrs Martha Louise Hughes and Miss Gertrude Janion; were to be involved in the Maybrick drama. Mrs Briggs, who was separated from her husband, was a frequent visitor to the Maybrick household. Mrs Briggs was to play a very important role at the time of James’ final illness. After Nurse Yapp told her about the flypapers she became suspicious of Florence. These suspicions intensified when Yapp showed her the letter Florence had written to Brierley and she sent a telegram to James’ brother Michael who came to Liverpool immediately. Michael then put Mrs Briggs in full charge of the household. After James’ death, Mrs Briggs, Mrs Hughes, Michael and Edwin Maybrick, searched through all of Florence’s things for items that could possibly incriminate her.
Jennings, Mr He was the Keeper of St. George’s Hall at the time of the Florence Maybrick Trial. He guessed that the total number of people who got into the court during the seven days of the trial was about seven thousand.
Johnson, Albert (1836-2008) He was the owner of the Maybrick watch. He bought it for £225 from Stewart’s jewellery shop in Wallasey, Merseyside, as an investment for his granddaughter. He says that he only noticed the scratches at a later date. In 1993 he contacted the London publisher, Robert Smith, and told him of the watch’s existence.
Jury The jury at Florence’s trial comprised almost entirely of skilled craftsmen from Lancashire towns outside Liverpool. None of the jury members were from Liverpool. It has been suggested that the jury would have been incapable of being able to fully digest and understand the complexities of the case, especially the medical evidence.
Kelly Mary (1863-1888) She was the last Ripper victim and the one to be mutilated the most. She was murdered on the night of Friday 9th November 1888 in Miller’s Court. She was the only Ripper victim to be killed indoors, which is probably the reason why she was so savagely mutilated.
Kempsey In the late 1860s, Florence Maybrick and her mother and brother lived for a while in Kempsey, a small village in Worcestershire, England.
Kirkdale Gaol This was the oldest prison in Liverpool. The main building consisted of four wings projecting at right angles from a great central hall, each wing having accommodation for 120 prisoners in separate cells, as well as having workrooms and toilets on the basement level.
Knight, John Baillie (1858-1942) He was a family friend of Florence Maybrick. He met her on the evening of 21st March in Flatman’s Hotel. They had a meal together during which Florence informed him that she wanted to separate from James.
Knowsley Buildings This was the building in Tithebarn Street, Liverpool, where James Maybrick had his offices. After James’ death, his brother, Edwin Maybrick, took Inspector Baxendale to the offices in the Knowsley Buildings. Baxendale removed all the pills and a jug in which James had brought some food from home prepared by Florence, and a saucepan, which had been used to heat it. These were given to Edward Davies, the analytical chemist, for analysis.
Lark Lane Lark Lane would have been well known to both James and Florence Maybrick. The first house in Liverpool where they lived together was 5 Livingston Avenue, which was accessed off Lark Lane. Later, Florence was temporarily imprisoned in the Old Police Station in Lark Lane.
Liverpool The town of Liverpool was created by a royal charter issued by King John in 1207. A street plan of seven streets emerged that was to remain basically the same for most of the medieval period. It was in the Victorian era that Liverpool grew dramatically. Between 1801 and 1901, Liverpool grew from a town of 77,000 into a bustling city of 685,000 an increase of almost 800%.
Liverpool Collegiate School Given the Maybrick’s family’s wealth, social standing and religious background, plus the location of the family home, it is possible the boys attended the Collegiate School in Shaw Street, which opened in 1843.
Liverpool Cricket Club James and Florence Maybrick were both members of Liverpool Cricket Club in the late 1880s. Their membership details are still to be seen in the club’s archives.
Livingston Avenue James and Florence lived for a while a house in Livingston Avenue, which is a street off Lark Lane. Their eldest child, James Chandler Maybrick, known as Bobo, was born prematurely in the house in March 1882.
Lloyd Jones, Mr Hugh He was a chemist and a witness for the defence at Florence Maybrick’s trial. He testified that some women used arsenic as a cosmetic.
Lowry, Thomas He was the 19-year-old clerk, who in 1889 had worked for Maybrick and Co. for nearly five years. He appeared as a witness for the prosecution at Florence’s trial.
Lumley and Lumley This was the British firm of solicitors who were paid by Florence’s supporters to produce a legal brief that would make the case for a retrial.
McConnell, William Robert (1837-1906) He was the junior counsel for the Crown at Florence Maybrick’s trial. In Florence’s trial, although Addison led the prosecution, McConnell did lead the examinations of some of the most important witnesses, including: Michael Maybrick, Mrs Briggs, Dr Humphreys and Alfred Schweisso.
McKinley, President William (1843-1901) He was the twenty-fifth President of the United States and became involved in the campaign to try to get Florence Maybrick released from prison. In 1898, McKinley decided to use the occasion of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, to ask for a pardon for Florence. His request was rejected.
MacDougall, Alexander William He was one of the leaders of the Maybrick Committee that was formed initially to try and get a reprieve in Florence’s sentence, and later campaigned to get the sentence quashed. In 1891, he published a book he had written in defence of Mrs Maybrick, in which he castigated those who prosecuted her and the evidence produced to try to prove her guilt.
Macnamara, Dr Rawden He was a witness for the defence at Florence Maybrick’s trial. He said James Maybrick’s death might have been brought about by the patient’s exposure to wet or a mistake in diet. (James had got very wet when he attended the Wirral races on the 27th April.) He was asked if James’ death was a case of arsenical poisoning, to which he replied, ‘certainly not.’ In 1890, he and Dr Tidy published a pamphlet in which they listed twenty principles of arsenical poisoning and said that only one or two were present in James’ final illness.
Magisterial Hearing This took place after the inquest into James Maybrick’s death and before Florence’s trial. It commenced on Wednesday 12th June 1889 and ended the following day. It took place in the County Sessions Court at the bottom of Islington, Liverpool, opposite St George’s Hall.
Matthews, Henry QC MP (1826-1913) He was the Home Secretary who decided to commute Florence Maybrick’s sentence to life imprisonment. The decision was well received by the British public.
Maybrick, Edwin (1851-1928) He was the youngest of the Maybrick brothers and the one to whom James was the closest. In 1870, when James established Maybrick and Co., Cotton Merchants, it was Edwin who joined him as the junior partner. Edwin was a frequent visitor at James and Florence’s homes, both Beechville and Battlecrease. As well as being close to James, Edwin was also close to Florence and she later felt betrayed by him. The diarist mentions Edwin on several occasions.
Maybrick, Gladys Evelyn (1886-1971) She was the daughter of James and Florence Maybrick. She was born on 20th July 1886 when the Maybricks lived in Beechville. It was Gladys who accidentally drops the letter from Florence to Brierley that is read and intercepted by Nurse Yapp. This letter was to feature prominently in Florence’s trial. Shortly before their mother’s arrest, Michael Maybrick arranged for Gladys and her brother to be taken away from Battlecrease. They never saw their mother again. The two children went to live with Dr Fuller and his wife who were paid £100 a year to look after them. In 1912, Gladys married Frederick James Corbyn in Hampstead. They later retired to a quiet spot in South Wales, where Gladys died in 1971.
Maybrick, James Chandler (Bobo/Sonny) (1882-1911) He was the eldest of the Maybricks’ two children. He was born on 24th March 1882 in Livingston Avenue, Liverpool. When James was old enough to be told about his father’s murder he decided to have no further contact with his mother. In 1911, when working as a mining engineer in the Le Roi Gold Mine in British Columbia, Canada, he accidentally drank a glass of cyanide, apparently mistaking it for a glass of water, and died.
Maybrick, John He was James Maybrick’s first cousin, his father being the twin brother of James’ father. He was one of the mourners at James’ funeral in 1889.
Maybrick, Michael (1841-1913) He was the most successful of the Maybrick brothers. Michael was a very talented singer and musician and performed, under his stage name Stephen Adams, in some of the most famous concert halls all around the world. Michael’s success and personality resulted in him coming to dominate his other brothers. Michael arrived at Battlecrease on 8th May 1889 and immediately took charge of the household; Florence from then on had absolutely no influence in the house. Michael voiced his suspicions of Florence to Dr Carter, one of James’ doctors. These suspicions increased even further after Nurse Gore told him that she saw Florence replace a bottle of meat juice by James’ bedside. The bottle was removed and when tested was found to contain half an ounce of arsenic. The day after James’ death, Michael, Edwin and Mrs Briggs searched Battlecrease. A week later, Michael was instrumental in the sale of all the possessions of Battlecrease in a public auction. After the trial and the public outcry at the verdict, Michael was forced to publicly justify himself. In his later years he left behind his musical career and became the Mayor of Ryde on the Isle of Wight.
Maybrick, Thomas (1846-1923) He was one of James Maybrick’s younger brothers. He lived in Manchester and was a successful merchant. In James’ final Will he was made one of the trustees. When Florence was in prison it was Thomas who wrote to her about the progress of her children and sent her pictures of them. These letters and photographs were later stopped on Michael’s orders.
Maybrick, Ursula Grace (Sister Mary Joachim) Grand-daughter of John Maybrick and therefore a distant cousin of James Maybrick.
Maybrick, William (1835-1915) He was James Maybrick’s elder brother, born three years before him. We know little about William apart from the fact he worked as a commission agent at Seacombe near Liverpool. He seems to have had little contact with the rest of the family.
Middlesex Street The author of the Diary wrote, 'I have taken a small room in Middlesex Street.' Although there is no supporting evidence to prove that James Maybrick did actually rent a room in Middlesex Street, the address provided is very suggestive. The fact that the five murders all took place in a relatively small area, coupled with the fact that they all occurred in the early hours of the morning, suggests very strongly that the murderer had a base somewhere in a circle marked out by the five crime scenes. Professor Canter has suggested that the Whitechapel murderer lived somewhere between Mitre Square and Miller's Court in the vicinity of Middlesex Street.
Mount Pleasant In the 1850s, the Maybrick family moved from Church Alley a distance of about half a mile to their new home: 77 Mount Pleasant. The 1861 Census, listed William and Susanna Maybrick living at 77 Mount Pleasant along with three of their children, Michael, Thomas and Edwin, as well as a servant named Mary Smith. James at this time was living in London. The 1871 Census, lists James as back living in the family home. His father had died the previous year and his brother, Michael, had moved out; but Thomas and Edwin were still living in the house.
Nichols, Mary Ann (Polly) (1845-1888) She was the first Ripper victim. Her body was found at approximately 3-30am on Friday 31st August 1888 in Buck’s Row, Whitechapel.
Norfolk, Virginia The American seaport that James Maybrick moved to in 1874 to start up a branch office for his cotton trading company. It was in Norfolk in 1877 that James contracted malaria and started his use of arsenic. While he was in Norfolk, James was a fairly frequent visitor to a brothel run by Mary Hogwood. After his marriage to Florence, James and his new wife continued to spend half the year in America and half in Liverpool. In August 1884, James resigned from the Norfolk Cotton Exchange and the couple moved to live in Liverpool on a permanent basis.
Parker, Emma (later Mrs John Over) Emma Parker was the Maybrick’s nanny before Nurse Yapp. She worked for the family for five years, looked after both children and accompanied the Maybricks twice on their travels to America
Paul, Dr Frank Thomas He was a witness for the defence at Florence Maybrick’s trial. He told the court he had tested a pan identical to the one taken from James Maybrick’s office in which Florence had prepared her husband’s lunch, and had found arsenic in the glazing of the pan.
Pickford, William He was a key member of Florence’s defence team. He acted as her counsel at both James Maybrick’s inquest and at the magisterial hearing into her case; he also acted as the junior counsel to Sir Charles Russell at Florence’s trial.
Poison for cats A packet labelled ‘Arsenic - Poison for cats’ discovered in Battlecrease after James Maybrick’s death, was one of the key bits of evidence at Florence’s trial. This packet was found to contain 65.2 grains of arsenic mixed with charcoal. In total, approximately 142.7 grains of arsenic were found in the house. Some have argued that this was the remains of the 150 grains of arsenic that Valentine Blake had given James Maybrick.
Poole, Sir James A former Lord Mayor of Liverpool who gave evidence for the defence at Florence’s trial. He testified James had told him that he took: “poisonous medicines.”
Poste House Inn The diarist wrote: ‘I took refreshment at the Poste House.’ The problem is that there is no record of any public house in Liverpool having such a name in the 1880s. The pub that is most usually identified as the most likely candidate is the Poste House in Cumberland Street, Liverpool. However, records show that it was known as ‘The Wrexham House’ in 1882 and ‘The Muck Midden’ in 1888, and was officially named ‘The New Post Office Hotel’ by 1894. It was not until the 1960s that it was given the name ‘Poste House’.
Ratcliffe, Charles A business associate of James Maybrick who was a good friend to both James and Florence. The correspondence of Charles Ratcliffe has been a valuable source of information about events at Battlecrease. After Florence’s imprisonment, Ratcliffe and his wife visited her in prison. They took her small gifts and tried to raise her spirits.
Rigg, Morden He was a cotton merchant friend of James Maybrick. He and his wife met James Maybrick at the Wirral races on 27th April 1889. According to Rigg, James ‘turned around to my wife’s carriage and told her he had taken an overdose of strychnine that morning and that his limbs were quite rigid. She is prepared to testify to this if necessary.’
Robertson, Sarah Ann She had a long-term relationship with James Maybrick. James probably had five children with Sarah before his marriage to Florence though they all seemed to have died at birth or in infancy. Details of James’ exact relationship with Sarah Ann Robertson remain sketchy. The two probably met around 1858 when James moved to London to work in a shipbroker’s office. According to one report, the two of them lived together on and off for almost twenty years and many of Sarah Ann Robertson’s relatives actually thought that the two of them were married. Sarah Ann died a single woman in London in 1927.
Robinson, Bernard Christopher He was a chemist’s assistant, 21 Haverley Street, Liverpool, who was a witness for the prosecution at the magisterial hearing into James Maybrick’s death and at Florence Maybrick’s trial. At the trial he said he checked two bottles of medicine which had been made up for James Maybrick. He tested them in the usual manner. He said at the trial: ‘There was no arsenic in the medicine; and if Fowler’s solution had been present, I should have detected it by the smell.’
Russell, Sir Charles He was Florence Maybrick’s counsel at her trial. Although Russell was undoubtedly a brilliant lawyer, he had, prior to Florence’s trial, a poor recent record of defending people at murder trials. Also, he arrived at the trial exhausted after successfully defending the Irish Nationalist, Charles Stewart Parnell, from the charge of sedition. His case at the trial was that James Maybrick did not die from arsenical poisoning; and even if he had, it had been administered by himself and not his wife. One major criticism that has been levelled at Russell over his handling of Florence’s defence is that he allowed her to make a tearful statement in court. Crucially, she admitted to adding some white powder to the meat juice, but said she had only done so because her husband had implored her to do so and also that he had assured her that the powder was perfectly harmless. The latter admission was undoubtedly a great mistake. Russell agreed with Mr Addison that James’ illness dated from the Wirral races of the 27th April, but said that the cause of the illness was a double dose of medicine that James had taken that morning, coupled with the fact that he had been caught in heavy rain. After Florence’s conviction, Russell devoted much time and effort in trying to secure her release from prison. Even after he was elevated to the House of Lords and appointed Lord Chief Justice, he still continued to champion her cause. In 1900, Russell visited Florence in prison; it was the last time he was to see her as he died a few months later.
St. George’s Hall, Liverpool This is the building in which the trial of Florence Maybrick took place in 1889. It was designed by Harvey Lonsdale Elmes and opened in 1854.
St. James’s Church, Piccadilly, London This is the church in which James and Florence were married, on July 27th 1881. The service was conducted by the Revd. J. Dyer Tovey. The wedding was attended by family members and friends.
St. Peter’s Church, Liverpool This was one of Liverpool’s oldest and most important churches. It was also a church that had very strong connections with the Maybrick family. James Maybrick’s father and grandfather both served as parish clerks at the church.
Samuelson, Charles and Christina They had become good friends of the Maybricks sometime in 1888. In March 1889 the two couples stayed at the Palace Hotel, Birkdale, near Southport. Alfred Brierley was also there. The Samuelsons accompanied the Maybricks on the trip to the Grand National in April 1889. Christina gave evidence at James Maybrick’s inquest saying Florence had told her she hated her husband.
Schweisso, Alfred He was the headwaiter at Flatman’s Hotel in London, who was a witness for the prosecution at both James Maybrick’s inquest and at Florence’s trial. His role, though relatively minor, was important as the prosecution wanted to prove that Florence and Brierley were having an adulterous affair and therefore Florence had a motive for killing her husband.
Sefton, John He gave evidence for the prosecution at Florence Maybrick’s trial. He had been called to testify that he had delivered some flypapers to Battlecrease House.
Sefton Park, Liverpool The road around this park is named Aigburth Drive. It is this road that is identified as being the ‘drive’ in which the diarist allegedly met Hammersmith.
Sisters of the Epiphany In 1904, Florence spent the last six months of her sentence under the care and supervision of the Sisters of the Epiphany in their convent in Truro in Cornwall. On 20th July 1904, Florence left the convent a free woman.
Smith, George He was James Maybrick’s bookkeeper. He was one of the two witnesses to James Maybrick’s last Will written in April 1889. George is mentioned directly in the Ripper Diary.
Smith, Robert He is the man who currently owns the Ripper Diary. In July 1992, as Managing Director of Smith Gryphon Publishers, he had bought the publishing rights to the Diary owned by Michael Barrett, and to the book to be written by Shirley Harrison, based on the Diary’s account of the Ripper murders and the alleged Maybrick connections. His company bought the ownership of the Diary from Michael and Anne Barrett on 24th March 1993 for the nominal sum of £1.
South Kent, Connecticut This was the small farming community in the United States where Florence Maybrick lived for the last twenty-four years of her life. She lived there under her maiden name, Florence Chandler, and she tried to hide her past life from her neighbours. She earned the nickname of ‘cat woman’ due to her habit of feeding and looking after a large number of stray cats. Her appearance becomes more and more unkempt. On the 23rd October 1941, her neighbour found her lying dead on her sofa.
Spring-Heeled Jack He is a paranormal character from English folklore that supposedly existed during the Victorian period and was capable of extraordinary leaps. The character has been linked to Jack the Ripper in certain respects, such as his name, his tendency to sexually assault young women and the fact that some of the alleged incidents involving him took place in the East End of London.
Stansell, Thomas He was the black servant of James Maybrick and Nicholas Bateson between 1878 and 1880 when they lived together in shared lodgings in Norfolk, Virginia. Stansell was brought over from America, by Florence’s defence team to testify that James was a user of arsenic.
Stead, William Thomas (1849-1912) Stead was one of the most colourful journalists of the late Victorian period who, some years after her trial, took a real interest in the Florence Maybrick case and wrote a stinging article in his newspaper to try to get her released from prison.
Stephen, Justice James Fitzjames (1829-1894) He was the judge at the trial of Florence Maybrick. In 1889 he was reaching the end of a long and distinguished career. There is evidence to suggest that at the time of Florence’s trial, this once formidable judge was no longer at the peak of his powers. Justice Stephen’s conduct and role in the Florence Maybrick trial have been much debated and criticised. For example, in his final summing up he made mistakes over exact dates, names and events. The latter included the incorrect suggestion that John Baillie Knight and Florence were having an affair at the same time as Florence was seeing Brierley. He also mistakenly said that Florence had slept with Brierley in London after her reconciliation with her husband. This error was so great that Mr Addison, the counsel for the prosecution, actually intervened to correct the judge. A more serious charge levelled at the judge is that he imposed his own rather strict moral views on the case. This is clear in many of the remarks that he made throughout the trial. His moral stance was especially obvious in his final summing up which lasted twelve hours and was spread over two days. The outcry at the verdict caused it to be Mr Justice Stephen’s last trial. Within two years he was in an asylum for the insane, where he died in 1894.
Stevenson, Dr Thomas (1838-1908) He was a leading Home Office toxicologist whom the prosecution at Florence’s trial hoped would be their ‘star witness’ and help deliver a guilty verdict. His testimony at the trial was highly technical and many found it hard to follow. He testified that he had found small traces of arsenic in James Maybrick’s liver. As a result, he told the court with an air of complete confidence and authority, that as far as James Maybrick’s death was concerned, he had ‘no doubts it was due to arsenical poisoning.’
Stride, Elizabeth (nicknamed Long Liz) (1843-1888) She was the third canonical Ripper victim and the first victim of the night of the ‘double event’ when two women were murdered.
Swift, Thomas He was a young and clever barrister who served as a junior counsel for the Crown at Florence Maybrick’s trial. One of the reasons he was part of the prosecution team was that it was his father’s firm of solicitors that were conducting the prosecution on the behalf of the Treasury.
Swift, William He was one of the clerks to the justices at the Magistrates Court in Islington, Liverpool. He was present at Battlecrease on Saturday 18th May, when Superintendent Bryning charged Florence Maybrick with murder.
Tidy, Dr Charles Meymott He was one of the defence witnesses at the trial of Florence Maybrick. Sir Charles Russell asked Dr Tidy he felt James’ symptoms pointed to arsenical poisoning and he replied: ‘Certainly not.’ The guilty verdict at the end of the trial shocked Dr Tidy. In 1890, he and Dr Macnamara, another defence witness at the trial, produced at their own expense, a pamphlet entitled: ‘The Maybrick Trial: A Toxicology Study’. In the pamphlet they listed twenty principles of arsenical poisoning and said that only one or two were present in James’ final illness and those only in the closing stages.
‘Tin match box empty’ These words written in the Diary and relating to the murder of Catherine Eddowes, have proved to be one of the most controversial of all the passages in the whole document. To some this is clear proof that the document is genuine, to others it is definitive proof that the Diary is a modern fake. The reason for the controversy is that the empty tin matchbox was not known to the general public until 1987 when a police list of Catherine Eddowes’ possessions was first published. One is left with the conflicting possibilities that the Diary must be genuine, as otherwise the author would not have known about this particular item; or alternatively, the Diary is a modern forgery that must have been written after 1987.
Tinne, Ernest He was the man who lived in Mersey Road, Aigburth, Liverpool, who allegedly had two of his dogs poisoned by James Maybrick because their barking annoyed him. The local newspaper did investigate the story and concluded that it was untrue.
Tithebarn Street, Liverpool This is the street in which the Knowsley Buildings was situated where James Maybrick had his office. The street is one of the city’s oldest streets being one of the original seven streets of the old medieval town. In the 1880s, Tithebarn Street was one of Liverpool’s busiest streets.
Tozer, Frederick Early He was a chemist and a druggist who was a witness for the prosecution at the magisterial hearing into James Maybrick’s death and at Florence Maybrick’s trial. At Florence’s trial he recollected making up some medicine for James Maybrick and stated that ‘there was no arsenic in the ingredients.’
Thompson, John He was a wholesale druggist, who appeared as a witness for the defence at Florence’ trial. Thompson said that he had employed James Maybrick’s cousin, William, as his assistant between 1884 and 1886. After sacking William, James had visited him to try and get his relative reinstated. Thompson told the court that: ‘As my assistant he had access to all the drugs. I believe Mr Maybrick was at my place three or four times.’
Thompson, Captain Richard He was a master mariner who was a defence witness at Florence’s trial and testified that James Maybrick was a user of arsenic.
Thomson, William J. He was a witness for the defence at Florence’s trial. He said that he was a friend of James Maybrick and had seen him on the day of the Wirral races on 27th April 1889, when he had noticed that James was having problems riding his horse. James had told him that he had taken a double dose of his medicine that morning.
Victoria, Queen (1819-1901) She succeeded to the throne in 1837 and went on to become one of Britain’s longest reigning monarch. James Maybrick was to live his entire life during her reign; he was to know no other British monarch. Queen Victoria would have a crucial influence over Florence’s time in prison. The Queen, influenced by Florence’s admission of adultery in court, believed her to be guilty of the murder of her husband. However, following the intervention of the Home Secretary, she did reluctantly agree to commute the sentence to one of life in prison.
Voller, Alec He was the Head Chemist of Diamine Limited. It was ink made by this company that Michael Barrett claimed at one point to have bought from the Bluecoat Chambers in Liverpool and used to forge the Diary. In 1995, Alec Voller, examined the ink in Robert Smith’s office in London and stated categorically that the ink used to write the Diary was not Diamine.
Von Roques, Caroline, Baroness (1839-1910) She was Florence Maybrick’s mother. Her family was well connected and she was a distant relative of the President John Quincy Adams. In 1855, she met and fell in love with William G. Chandler, a wealthy merchant. They married three years later in 1858. They had two children, Holbrook St. John Chandler and Florence. Chandler died suddenly in 1863 aged only 33. Rumours circulated in Mobile that the death might not have been completely ‘natural’. Soon after his death, Florence’s mother moved to Macon, Georgia. Six months later, Caroline married again, this time to a Confederate Army officer named Captain Du Barry. In 1864 Du Barry became ill and died. In 1872, Caroline married again, this time to a Prussian cavalry officer, Baron Adolph von Roques. The marriage proved a failure and the couple split up in 1878, though they never actually got divorced. The Baroness arrived in Liverpool six days after the death of James Maybrick. She was informed by Edwin Maybrick that Florence was under suspicion of poisoning her husband. The very next day Florence was arrested and taken to Walton Prison. After the guilty verdict, Florence’s mother devoted her life to crusading on behalf of her daughter. The Baroness died in 1910 and was buried next to her son in a Paris graveyard. Florence paid a glowing tribute to her mother in an interview that she gave to the Liverpool Daily Post whilst visiting Europe in 1927. She told the reporter that: ‘In all my troubles I have had one loyal friend only – my mother.’
Wainwright, Thomas He was a plumber from Southport who served as the foreman of the jury in Florence’s trial.
Walton Gaol This was the prison in which Florence Maybrick was detained just before and during her trial. It is also the place in which she would have been executed if the sentence had been carried out. On the 29th August 1889, Florence was transferred to the female prison in Woking.
Watch This is a small gentleman’s pocket watch. It has small scratches on the inside cover of the case. Around the edge are scratched the five initials of the canonical Ripper victims; in the middle are the words, ‘I am Jack’; and at the bottom is a signature, ‘J. Maybrick.’ The watch belonged to Albert Johnson. He bought it for £225 from Stewart’s jewellery shop in Wallasey, Merseyside. The watch has been tested twice by experts, both agreed that the scratches were decades old and that it would have been extremely difficult for anyone to have forged them to have made them look old.
Whitechapel (Liverpool) This is the name of the east London district of London where the Ripper murders took place in 1888; it is also the name of an area in the city centre of Liverpool.
White-Ridley, Sir Matthew (1842-1904) He was the Conservative Home Secretary from 1895 to 1900 in Lord Salisbury’s Third Government. Pressure was put on him to release Florence but he stood by the belief of his predecessors at the Home Office that Florence was guilty.
Will James Maybrick’s last will and testament was dated the 25th April 1889, less than three weeks before his death and was witnessed by his good friend, George Davidson, and his book-keeper, George Smith. Some, such as Paul Feldman, have questioned the validity of the will.
Williams (?) He was a lawyer who wrote love letters to Florence Maybrick. Very little is known about him and there is no proof that they had a sexual relationship.
Wirral races James Maybrick attended the Wirral races on Saturday 27th April, 1889. The event coincided with the start of his final illness.
Witnesses Ripperologists have tried to produce a picture of the killer from the thirteen or so people who possibly saw him. Philip Sugden wrote that a study of the best of these witnesses suggests he was ‘a white male of average or below average height in his twenties or thirties.’
Witt, Gustavus Andreas (1840-1905) He was a business associate of James Maybrick. His offices in Cullum Street were just a short distance away from the Minories, which is near Whitechapel.
Wokes, Thomas Symington He owned the chemist shop in Aigburth where Florence bought some flypapers. His shop was also the local post office and it was at this letterbox that Nurse Yapp intercepted the infamous letter from Florence to Brierley.
Woking Prison This was the first of the two prisons in which Florence Maybrick was imprisoned. She was transferred there from Walton Gaol on Thursday 29th August, 1889. In November 1895 Florence was transferred from Woking Prison to Aylesbury Prison.
Yapp, Alice (Nurse) Alice Yapp joined the Maybrick household as the children’s nanny in September 1887 when she replaced Nurse Parker. Nurse Yapp’s time at Batlecrease is full of controversy. When James Maybrick became ill in May 1889, Yapp told Mrs Briggs and Mrs Hughes: “the mistress is poisoning the master.” Later that day the sisters telegraphed Michael Maybrick urging him to come to Liverpool. The most controversial incident involving Yapp came when Florence asked her to post a letter she had written to Alfred Brierley. Instead of posting it, Yapp opened it and read its contents. She later claimed she had only opened it as Gladys, the Maybricks’ daughter, had accidentally dropped it in the wet by the post box at Wokes’ Chemist. Shocked by the contents of the letter, she returned to Battlecrease and gave it to Edwin Maybrick. He read it and then sent a telegraph to Michael asking him to come to Liverpool. Yapp was questioned quite extensively at Florence’s Trial by Sir Charles Russell, especially over her behaviour in opening and reading the letter. She stuck to her story, but the experience clearly upset her and many observers at the Trial felt that Yapp, through her actions, had betrayed her mistress.
Zodiac Killer He was a serial killer who operated in Northern California, USA, for ten months in the late 1960s. His identity remains unknown. The Zodiac coined his name in a series of taunting letters he sent to the press until 1974. There are some striking parallels between the Zodiac and Ripper killings. In both cases there were five known victims and the murderer was never caught. In both cases taunting letters were sent to the police, but in the case of the Whitechapel murders, it is not known for sure if any of the letters the police received did come from the murderer himself. The author of the Ripper Diary does seem to take great delight in taunting the police who he describes as headless chickens. There is also the clear suggestion in the Diary that the taunting ‘Dear Boss’ letter was sent to the police by the diarist.
OUR HAPPY MEMBERS
CONTACT US
Get in Touch
Have a question or comment? Want to learn more about our services? Fill out the form below and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.