A REVIEW OF BRUCE ROBINSON'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 Jack the Ripper 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 Isle of Wight,' 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: Florence Maybrick 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 London 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 Liverpool 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 James Maybrick’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.