A REVIEW OF 'S BOOK AND THE MAYBRICK CONNECTION By Chris Jones (author of the Maybrick A to Z)

If you haven't read Bruce Robinson's recent book on and the alleged connection to Michael Maybrick, then you must. It is long and detailed, though you maybe shocked by some of his language; for example, he refers to the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, as the 'boss c--t of his class.'1 Robinson makes a strong case that there was a Masonic link to the murders and that the Establishment were keen to cover up certain incidents; for example, the truncated manner in which the coroner's inquest into the death of Mary Kelly was conducted. Robinson also makes a strong case that many of the letters sent to the police may have come from the serial killer himself. As well as the canonical murders, he also examines some less well known events which he argues are linked to the Ripper killings; for example, the 'Whitehall Mystery' and the discovery of the human headless, limbless torso on the building site that was to become New Scotland Yard. Some of the most important sections of Robinson's book deal with the relationship between Michael Maybrick and his brother James, and with James's wife, Florence. Three of his core arguments are that Michael 'fingered' James to be Jack the Ripper and (with the help of others) had him murdered and finally, with the help of high-ranking Masonic figures, had Florence blamed for the crime as she had 'discovered the truth of a terrible secret.'2 Although many of Robinson's arguments are supported by research, some of the important assertions he makes concerning the Maybricks, lack evidence and are therefore open to question.

Assertion: Michael Maybrick was a homosexual Robinson argues that because Michael Maybrick was a member of several male clubs and organisations, such as the Masonry and the Volunteer Army, and because he had a 'lungful of bracing male air on the ,' he was probably a homosexual. He uses the phrase, 'if it walks like a duck, etc., he was probably a bit ducky.'3 In a book of assertions supported by detailed research, it is rather a tame line. If being a Mason, an army volunteer and breathing Isle of Wight air made you a homosexual, then much of England at that time must have been homosexual. Michael's brother, James, was a member of numerous male clubs. He was also (according to Robinson) a Mason, yet he was clearly a heterosexual. All-male clubs were simply the social norm of the nineteenth century. The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that Michael Maybrick was a homosexual and even Robinson himself admits that that he 'doesn't actually know' that he was one.

Assertion: had multiple affairs Robinson calls Florence the 'slut-bitch of an American wife' and asserts that she was a 'twenty-six-year-old multiple adulteress.'4 However, there is no real evidence that she was a multiple adulteress. Charles Ratcliffe wrote in a letter shortly after James's death, that when the Maybrick brothers searched Florence’s room they found ‘thirteen love letters from Edwin, seven from Brierley and five from Williams.’5 Very little is known about Williams and there is no proof that he had a sexual relationship with Florence. It is assumed that he was a solicitor. He did send money to support Florence's trial expenses and he also offered some legal advice. While it is true that some on the Cotton Exchange felt that Florence and Edwin might have had an affair, once again there is no evidence to support such a claim. Florence Maybrick did have an intimate relationship with Alfred Brierley and in March 1889 they did spend time together in a hotel in London; however, in a newspaper interview, Brierley stated that prior to November 1888, he and Florence were ‘merely distant acquaintances.’6 This view is supported by other witnesses. Edwin Maybrick told Florence’s mother, Florence had only met Brierley ‘this winter at some dances.’7 According to her mother, Florence in her early years of marriage was, ‘a delicate invalid, nursing little children, attending to the house…The December of 1888 was the first time during her married life she had been able to dance or had been out in society.’8 Therefore, it is likely that her stay with Brierley in London was the only time in her married life that she was unfaithful to James.

Assertion: Russell suppressed the 'Dear Blucher' letter at the start of Florence's trial Robinson savages Lord Russell, Florence's solicitor at her trial, calling him the 'Belfast Judas' and arguing that he displayed 'energetic courtroom wizardry' to actually get her convicted.9 He places great emphasis on an incident at the start of the trial when Russell whispers something to Addison during his opening speech for the prosecution. Robinson asserts that a 'huddle formed' at which Russell called for the suppression of the Dear Blucher letter that James had written to Michael on 29th April (though Bruce thinks it was forged by Michael).10 Addison responded to Russell by saying: "It has been suggested to me, and probably it is right, that, except the scientific witnesses, all the witnesses should be requested to leave the court."11 That is exactly what happened next, though curiously, Michael Maybrick was allowed to stay in the courtroom. There is no huddle or conspiracy; it is merely a sensible attempt by Russell to prevent the witnesses being prejudiced by

listening to the prosecution's case. Robinson tries to support his dubious claim by referring to an article that appeared in a New York newspaper, The World, which stated that the production of the letter was the 'most important thing during the day.' However, the article does not say when or how the letter appeared and the fact that it did appear clearly shows that it was not suppressed. The same article goes on to state that their correspondent had been told the 'defence will be prepared to go to any expense' to secure the expert medical testimony necessary to secure Florence's acquittal.12 Indeed, a full reading of the article paints a picture of Russell's team beginning to put together a strong case for Florence's defence. Russell probably decided not to use the Dear Blucher letter as he might have felt that it would hinder Florence’s defence because it did provide some credence to the notion that James was being slowly poisoned. Interestingly, the following day's article in The World newspaper stated that Russell had put in some 'sledge-hammer work in way of cross- examination' and this had 'caused a great rebound of popular opinion in Mrs Maybrick's favour.' The article also said that Russell had taken a much lower fee due to the sympathy he felt for Florence and that he was the 'hero' of Liverpool.13

Assertion: Russell manipulated Dr Paul's evidence to support the prosecution's case Robinson suggests that Russell 'sabotaged' the evidence of Dr Paul, one of the defence's scientific witnesses, by 'dragging back the glazed pan from which James had eaten his office lunch.' This had the effect of 'replanting the virus of arsenic in the jurors' mind.'14 This is an interpretation that just does not stand up to scrutiny. Dr Paul said that he had tested a pan identical to the one taken from ’s office and had found arsenic in the glazing of the pan. This piece of evidence was important, as it was part of the Crown’s case that this was one of the occasions in which Florence had administered arsenic to her husband. Dr Paul’s testimony meant that the arsenic found by Mr Edward Davies in his tests on the pan might have been there naturally. Christie called this a 'small gain for the defence.'15 Russell then asked Dr Paul if it was a case of arsenic poisoning, to which he replied: ‘I think it is a case of gastro-enteritis. The post-mortem appearances do not show that it was set up by arsenic.’16 Therefore, rather than sabotaging Florence's defence, Russell was actually doing the complete reverse.

Assertion: Russell did not explain that flypapers could be used for cosmetic reasons Robinson questions why Russell didn't bring in witnesses to testify that flypapers were ingredients of a widely used cosmetic and again he implies that his actions were deliberately undermining the case for the defence.17 In fact Russell did try to explain to the court that arsenic gained from flypapers was widely used for cosmetic reasons in both the evidence of Hugh Lloyd Jones and James Bioletti and in his final summing-up. Russell's questioning of Bioletti was clearly an attempt by him to counter the accusation that Florence had bought the flypapers with the intention of extracting arsenic to poison her husband. In reply to a question by Russell, Bioletti told the court that: ‘Arsenic is used a good deal in the hair for some purposes, and I have used it as a wash for the face on being asked for it by ladies. There is an impression among ladies that it is good for the complexion.’ During his re-examination of Bioletti, Russell asked him if he was sometimes asked for an arsenic-based solution for ‘the purpose of cosmetics?’ Bioletti replied ‘yes.’18

Assertion: Russell did not provide enough evidence to clearly show that James Maybrick was a habitual user of arsenic Robinson suggests that while Russell did bring some witnesses from overseas, he failed to bring witnesses from Liverpool to show that James Maybrick was a user of both legal and illegal drugs. This is simply not the case. Edwin Heaton, a Liverpool chemist, testified that James Maybrick 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 Charles Russell asked Heaton if seven drops of this pick-me-up (James’s usual amount) was taken five times a day, would it contain one-third of a grain of white arsenic? Heaton replied: ‘Pretty near it.’19 He also called Sir James Poole, a former Lord Mayor of Liverpool, who testified that he had met James and several others in April 1889 and that they had held a casual conversation in which someone had remarked that it was becoming a common practice to take poisonous medicines. He testified that in response, James Maybrick, had ‘blurted out, “I take poisonous medicines.”20

Assertion: James Maybrick was killed by his brother Michael Robinson argues that James Maybrick was murdered by Michael, with assistance from Edwin Maybrick, plus family friends and servants! Such a view, that this disparate group could all conspire together to kill someone they loved, is simply not credible. Robinson quite rightly describes James as a 'junkie' and a 'hypochondriac.'21 The fact that James Maybrick was in a state of permanent anxiety about his health was known to nearly all his family and friends and was

acknowledged by Mrs Briggs at Florence's trial. Also at the trial, Dr Hopper, James's own doctor, stated that he was irritated by the fact that James was continually dosing himself with a variety of pills and medicines, including strychnine pills. He told the court that James would sometimes double the dose of the medicine he had prescribed for him and that he had warned him that it was a ‘dangerous habit’ and that he could ‘do himself a great injury.’22 James also took a range of non-prescribed and highly dangerous drugs including arsenic and strychnine. In the summer of 1888, Florence had actually warned Dr Hopper that James was ‘taking some very strong medicine which had a bad influence on him.’23 Captain Peter Irving, a family friend, said that James’s 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. The captain asked Edwin what was wrong with James and he replied: ‘Oh he’s killing himself with that damned strychnine.’24 After James’s death the Liverpool Daily Post reported that while his death was sudden, many remembered: ‘that for some time past he had shown on his face signs of not being well and of a considerable physical deterioration.’25 According to Florence Aunspaugh, 'In 1885 my father was in England, in 1887 Mr Maybrick came to the US and the moment my father looked at him he noticed and was astonished how much he had broken and aged in those two years. In 1888 when I was with my father in England, he said it was very perceptible that Mr Maybrick had again failed very much in that one year. When my father came home he told my mother, "she would hardly know Maybrick, he had aged so much, and he did not believe he would be here very much longer."'26 Michael did not need to murder James as he was slowly, but surely, killing himself.

Assertion: Lord Russell was the 'Belfast Judas' who betrayed Florence Maybrick Robinson's assault on Russell is simply not justified. Although Russell did make mistakes in his handling of Florence's trial, the fact was that he became one of her greatest supporters and he devoted much time to try and secure her release from prison. Even after he was appointed Lord Chief Justice, he still continued to champion her cause. In November 1895 he wrote to the Home Secretary, that Florence Maybrick ‘ought never to have been convicted, and that her continued imprisonment is an injustice which ought promptly to be ended.’ He criticised Henry Matthews, the Home Secretary at the time of the trial, who had commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on the grounds that Florence was guilty of attempting to administer arsenic with intent to murder. Russell continued that this was ‘a most serious state of things. It is manifestly unjust that Florence Maybrick should suffer for a crime in regard to which she has never been called upon to answer before any lawful tribunal.’ He added that her continued imprisonment was an injustice as the ‘foundation on which the whole case rested was rotten, for in fact there was no murder; that on the contrary, the deceased had died from natural causes.’27 Florence herself wrote that Russell was ‘the noblest, truest friend that a woman ever had: the champion of the weak and oppressed.’28

Assertion: That the Establishment had Michael Maybrick effectively painted out of history The final section of Robinson's book is devoted to his view that Masonry and the Establishment tried to airbrush Michael Maybrick out of history so as to cover up any link to his crimes. On this particular issue Robinson certainly makes some interesting points. In 1892, Michael Maybrick composed the music for the song 'The Holy City' which was to become the most popular song of the nineteenth century. He was at the height of his fame, yet within a couple of years, he had become an 'anonymous recluse married to a fat woman on the Isle of Wight.'29 There can be no doubt that Michael did step away from the limelight and it is curious why he is omitted from important musical dictionaries and archives. Nevertheless, he did not disappear off the public scene as he went on to be elected Mayor of Ryde, on the Isle of Wight, on no less than five occasions. The local newspaper wrote about him after his death that ‘to the people of Ryde the loss will be irreparable, and to very many of them life cannot be exactly the same again since so true a friend, so strikingly endowed and so unique a man has gone where beyond these voices there is peace.’30 His funeral in 1913 was one of the biggest ever seen on the island. It is also not the case, as Robinson asserts, that Fred Weatherly, his musical partner, largely ignored him in his autobiography. Weatherly refers to Maybrick on several occasions, calling him 'one of my best friends.'31 Shortly before Maybrick's death in 1913, Weatherly penned the words for the song 'Friend o' Mine' which he dedicated to Stephen Adams (Maybrick's stage-name).

Conclusion If a key criteria for judging a book is that that it forces you to rethink your ideas; then Robinson should be pleased with his tome. His criticisms of respected Ripperologists and his reinterpretation of the main events, certainly challenge many widely accepted tenets of the accepted Ripper narrative. His focus on the influence of Freemasonry has managed to bring Stephen Knight in from the cold and his detailed analysis of the Ripper letters has convinced many that all the letters cannot simply be dismissed as

the product of cranks. Although the book is underpinned by a great deal of research, on too many points Robinson has blurred the line between speculation and fact. As a result, some of his key assertions relating to the Maybricks, lack credibility as they do not have the evidence to substantiate them. Indeed, on several of his key points, the evidence that exists actually undermines rather than supports his claims. Although I disagree with Robinson that Michael Maybrick killed his brother, I do agree with him that Michael and Edwin Maybrick went out of their way to get Florence found guilty of James's murder. At her trial, when Addison asked Edwin if James took any sort of arsenic, he answered ‘no.’32 Four days later he had to be recalled to the witness box after Russell presented the court with a box of pills that had been bought by James which contained arsenic. Edwin admitted finding the pills and failing to give them to Florence’s solicitor. Edwin could have saved Florence with his evidence but he decided not to. Maybe he really did think she was guilty or, perhaps, he was simply doing what he was told to do by his brother Michael, who totally dominated him. Michael had never liked Florence and he clearly blamed her for his brother's death. He met Florence's mother by chance at Liverpool railway station on her arrival in the city and told her: 'It is a case of murder.'33 Years later, he was even to prevent Florence's children sending their mother letters while she was in prison. There is no doubt that Michael Maybrick comes out of this whole saga very badly; however, it is extremely difficult to accept Robinson's assertion that he actually murdered his own brother. For me, the major disappointment about the book is not what is written in it, but was actually left out. Robinson makes it clear that he views the so-called Ripper Diary as a forgery and that he is '100 per cent certain of its provenance.'34 In another section of the book he quotes from Martin Fido who wrote that the Diary is either genuine or a very modern forgery. Robinson makes it clear that he views it as an old document but one penned by Michael and not James Maybrick.35 If it is the case that it is an old document, then Robinson must have evidence that the Diary came out of Battlecrease House. I hope that he makes this evidence public in the near future. When the mystery of the Diary is finally resolved, we will be step closer to answering so many other questions relating to James and Michael Maybrick and their alleged links to the Ripper killings.

1 Robinson, B., They all love Jack: Busting the Ripper, (Fourth Estate, London, 2015) page 624 2 ibid., page 619 3 ibid., page 328 4 Ibid., pages 592 and 569 5 Trevor Christie Collection 6 The Garston and Woolton Reporter, 17th August, 1889 7 MacDougall A. W., The Maybrick Case: A Treatise, (Bailliere Tydall and Cox, London, 1891) page 10 8 HO 144/1639/A50678D/99 9 Robinson B., op. cit., page 633 10 Robinson B., op. cit., page 692 11 Irving, H.B., The Trial of Mrs Maybrick, (William Hodge and Co., London, 1912) page 3 12 The World (New York), 1st August, 1889 13 The World (New York), 2nd August, 1889 14 Robinson B., op. cit., page 707 15 Christie T. L., Etched in Arsenic, (Harrap and Co., London, 1969) page 117 16 Irving, H.B., op. cit., pages 219-220 17 Robinson B., op. cit., page 703 18 Irving, op. cit., page 225 19 ibid., page 195 20 ibid., page 227 21 Robinson B., op. cit., page 611 22 Irving H.B., op. cit., page 34 23 ibid., page 35 24 Liverpool Daily Post, 9th September, 1889 25 Liverpool Daily Post, 18th May, 1889 26 Trevor Christie Collection 27 ibid., page 260-261 28 Maybrick F., op. cit. page 43 29 Robinson B., op. cit., page 744 30 Isle of Wight County Press, 30th August, 1913 31 Weatherly, F.E., Piano and Gown (Putnam and Sons, London, 1926) page 276 32 Irving H. B., op cit., page 47. 33 MacDougall A. W., op. cit. page 9 34 Robinson B., op. cit., page 507 35 ibid., pages 167-8