Maybrick Saga

Posted: November 22, 2009 in The Non-Rippers
Please read this article from the New York Times, and following that will be an explanation of the importance of my posting this article up first:
ST. LOUIS, Oct. 10. – It was definitely learned this evening that the appeal to the Masons of America to take action in behalf of Mrs. Florence Maybrick, the American woman now in an English prison convicted of the murder of her husband, is taking shape. John D. Vincie, Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Missouri, with whom parties in England have been in correspondence, has submitted to ex-Gov. Charles P. Johnson, the leading criminal lawyer of the State, a series of questions bearing on the legal aspects of the case.
These questions will be answered by Mr. Johnson in the form of an opinion that will, if it is what those interested expect, serve as a basis for action by the Masonic fraternity of the United States, who expect to reach the Queen through the Prince of Wales.
It has also been learned that the matter has been taken up at New Orleans and other places in the South, and that there is a strong concerted action to have the Southern Congressmen use their influence to have the United States Government ask for a reinvestigation of the case.
In the meantime, efforts are being put forth in England, and the case will be handled by the best legal talent, both there and here.
Source: The New York Times, October 11, 1891
This article is important for several reasons:
* Michael Maybrick (James Maybrick’s brother) was a high-level Freemason (evidence will follow)
* Several papers and other effects were reported to have been stolen/missing from the Maybrick’s home in Battlecrease (evidence to follow)
* In 1992, a diary was found under the floorboards at the Battlecrease house. It was purported that the diary was written by James Maybrick and detailed his ghastly crimes as "Jack The Ripper." The diary has since been proved to be a modern forgery and the handwriting in the diary isn’t even a match to James Maybrick’s handwritten signature on his last will and testament. I believe that this diary was written by either Florence Maybrick, Michael Maybrick, or the Freemasons in order to deceive the public into believing that arsenic addict James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, when there is no proof of that claim whatsoever. It hasn’t hurt them either, that James Maybrick is now the #1 suspect among the "Ripperologists", and the bogus diary has made a huge profit to those who have an invested interest in it – the Freemasons. They committed the Jack the Ripper murders, but are pinning it on James Maybrick. Timeless tale, it is!
The Missing Papers and Other Effects:
The following letter from Mrs. Maybrick’s mother has been received by a Liverpool friend: –
                                                                                                                                            Edinburgh, September 27, 1889.
Dear Sir, – I thank you for the newspapers you have kindly sent me. It is scarcely necessary to contradict many of the foolish statements which appear in the public Press. I am grieved at the unexpected conduct and the mysterious movements of the Maybrick brothers regarding my daughter’s dear little children. I have heard from the solicitors that they decline to furnish any information as to the whereabouts of the children. My unhappy daughter in her last letter from Walton stated that she desired Dr. Hopper and her solicitors to have access to them at stated intervals, and, if possible, they were to be with me. Who has a greater right to protect them than I, their grandmother? Surely the ties of maternity and of blood ought to be respected. The intentions of the Messrs. Maybrick, if honest and true, need not be shrouded in such mystery. The children have more friends than enemies and it does not follow that their whereabouts need be known to any except those interested in them. Their mother, however, felt so sure of the friendliness of the public that she entreated Tom Maybrick in her letter from Walton not to remove them from near Liverpool, where she thought their father’s friends would take an interest in them. She even made me promise that if I had the care of them I would take a house near Liverpool to carry out this "her" idea. She did not seem to doubt for a moment that her wishes about them would have all the sacredness of a solemn request. In fact, Mr. Tom Maybrick in his letter to me said the "contents of her letter would meet with respect," so that I am entirely at a loss to understand the meaning of the mystery which now enshrouds them. Do they belong to the Maybrick brothers more than to my daughter, or to me? The anxious thought and doubts about these poor darling children have caused my daughter greater pain than anything else in the dreadful ordeal she has gone through. Her heart is breaking for some scrap of information about them. I assured the Messrs. Maybrick that if I was permitted to give the children a home I would remain in England and keep a home for them in England and that from me they would never hear anything but good of both parents. Surely his latter condition cannot be their reason for sending them away among strangers. I want these darling children – they are the only consolation I can have while my unhappy daughter remains where she is. Is it not enough cruelty to take my daughter from me, the victim of intrigue and deceit, without robbing me of my darling grandchildren as well?
A statement was circulated in London recently that three volumes of my daughter’s diary had been taken from one of her boxes at Battlecrease House by a relative of the family and offered for sale; and that I had given a large price for them in order to suppress them. There is no truth whatever in this statement. My daughter did not keep a diary. It is quite true that some books are missing; it is supposed that they have been taken away by someone interested in my daughter’s downfall. We have wanted these books since my arrival in England after my daughter’s arrest. If these books had not been missing, much that is yet mysterious would have been made clear. I shall be able to tell you more about them when I see you. It is always a matter of regret that my daughter’s papers and effects, as well as the household effects, were disposed of with such undue haste before the trial.
You mentioned that it was reported that Mr. Brierly had stated that he had paid £6,500 towards the expenses of the trial. You know that this is not true.
I regret that my dear child should have failed to have gained Captain Irving’s good-will, and I regret that Captain Irving could not find it in his heart to refrain from casting additional hard words upon her. I am now in hopes of clearing up through Captain Irving the mystery of the existence of the first person who began this infamous charge against my daughter. So far I have believed that it originated with the servants, but from Captain Irving’s remarks it is quite clear that it was a "mutual friend" of the Maybricks. Was it a woman? Because no man would talk about the poisoning of a friend. He would have gone at once and endeavoured to save his life. There is much that is dark and mysterious in the proceedings of several persons before any one of them was courageous enough to make an open and definite charge before my daughter’s arrest. I would give a handsome reward to trace the originator of this report and scandal. Accept my sincere thanks. You are at liberty to mention anything that you think will benefit my daughter or her children.
Source: Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXIII, Issue 327, 28 December 1889, Page 4
Michael Maybrick, Prominent Freemason
"The late Mr. Maybrick was a prominent Freemason, having been Grand Organist of Grand Lodge in 1889."
The Bogus Diary
A diary said to be the work of Mrs. Maybrick but bearing internal indications of having been judiciously "vamped-up," has passed into the possession of a weekly journal, and will see light in its columns before long. Baroness Von Roque admits that some of her daughter’s private papers were stolen from Battlecrease House, but denies that this particular M.S. (Manuscript) is authentic. The recent photo of Mrs. Maybrick which her relatives judiciously restrained Medrington, the Liverpool photographer, from setting before the trial, has never been published. It represents her fatter and more sensuous than she looked in the dock, and couldn’t by any stretch of imagination be called the likeness of a handsome or nice woman.
Source: West Coast Times, Issue 7582, 27 December 1889, Page 4

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s