HO144/1639/A50678D/99 Question?

[Mike Covell]

I was recently scouting a bargain bookstore when I found a 2007 paper back edition of Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter by Paul Feldman. I already had the 1998 edition, but it was getting a little dog eared, so I thought I would invest the £1.99 for this version.

One thing that struck me, and I am not sure if anyone has brought this up, was the discussion in the book on the Home Office File HO144/1639/A50678D/99, which Feldman uses to show that James Maybrick was away over the festive period of 1888. The file contains a letter sent from Baroness Von Roques to Henry Matthews, the Home Office Secretary.
The letter in the file reads,

August 4th 1892
…. The December of 1888 was the first time during her married life she had been able to dance or had been put in society; and her health was then stronger. She was unattended by her husband….

Now, if this was the first time that Florence Maybrick was able to dance, as she was unattended by her husband, James, wouldn’t that mean, that during the Autumn of 1888, James was home with Florence?

[Chris G.]

One thing that struck me, and I am not sure if anyone has brought this up, was the discussion in the book on the Home Office File HO144/1639/A50678D/99, which Feldman uses to show that James Maybrick was away over the festive period of 1888. The file contains a letter sent from Baroness Von Roques to Henry Matthews, the Home Office Secretary.
The letter in the file reads,

August 4th 1892
…. The December of 1888 was the first time during her married life she had been able to dance or had been put in society; and her health was then stronger. She was unattended by her husband….

Now, if this was the first time that Florence Maybrick was able to dance, as she was unattended by her husband, James, wouldn’t that mean, that during the Autumn of 1888, James was home with Florence?

Hi Mike

I am not sure we can come to that conclusion from that written statement by Baroness Von Roques. It can be read that for much of the rest of her marriage she was poorly and unable to go out in society and dance. Her being poorly has no bearing on whether James was there or not. Potentially he could have been gone during the relevant times in August through November, doing his dirty work in Whitechapel, if the Diarists are to be believed, and she remained too ill to go out. Do you see what I mean?

All the best

Chris

[Mike Covell]

Thanks Chris. I had assumed the piece meant that Florence was able to go out as James wasn't there. I wasn't aware that Florence was ill.

[Paul Butler]

Hi Chris and Mike.

My copy of Feldman fell to bits too!

I don't believe Florrie was ill as such. Don't forget this is a letter from her mother, designed to get maximum sympathy for her daughter's plight caused at the hands of the evil James.

The diarist, ("diarists" Chris? Is there more than one now? :)), suggests that Sir Jim was a fairly regular visitor to the capital, and I think the implication is that these were short business visits during which he played his funny little games rather than the perhaps rather lengthier absence during December 1888.

I note that the Baroness only says Florrie was left alone in December of 1888. She doesn't say James was away over Christmas or the festive season.

Regards to all.

Paul

[Mike Covell]

Thanks Paul.

[Paul Butler]

Hi Mike.

Are there any differences between the first edition and the 2007 reprint? Is it worth getting? If there are any differences beyond a new cover I don't suppose they will be significant, as Feldman went to meet his maker, (and hopefully discover whether he was right or wrong), in the meantime.

Regards.

Paul

[Chris G.]

The diarist, ("diarists" Chris? Is there more than one now? :)), suggests that Sir Jim was a fairly regular visitor to the capital, and I think the implication is that these were short business visits during which he played his funny little games rather than the perhaps rather lengthier absence during December 1888.



Hi Paul

By "Diarists" I mean people such as yourself who believe in the Maybrick Diary.

All the best

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Hi Paul

By "Diarists" I mean people such as yourself who believe in the Maybrick Diary.

All the best

Chris

Hi Chris.

".....believe in the Maybrick diary?"......Moi...? How very dare you!...:nono:

Depends what you mean by "believe" really I suppose.

Regards.

Paul

[Mike Covell]

Hi Paul

There are no real differences.

Cover size has increased and appears brown instead of black, but content appears to be the same.

There are less pages in the 2007 edition, but I believe this is due to the increased page size, rather than lesser content.

[Paul Butler]

Thanks Mike.

I'll stick with my dog eared old copy then. A book that takes at least 10 read throughs to take it all in really should be designed with a more durable binding!

Regards.

Paul

[Joe Chetcuti]

For the first time ever, I will post something on a Maybrick thread.

The Charing Cross Hotel of Westminster placed an advertisement in the April 12, 1888 Times. The ad spoke of personal effects that were left behind by their hotel guests. Some of this merchandise had been kept in storage since Sept 1887. The ad was printed about a week after the death of Emma Smith.

Six months later, the Oct 11th Liverpool Daily Post reported that an advertisement had been placed in the Times by a famous West End hotel. It spoke of personal effects that belonged to a man who is under police suspicion for the Whitechapel murders.

The late Paul Feldman came out with his book Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter, and his attention was focused on a former Charing Cross Hotel guest named S. E. Mibrac. Back in 2004, a decent Mibrac thread was initiated by Chris Scott:

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/9549.html (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/9549.html)

Just to recap...the Oct 11, 1888 Liverpool Daily Post reported of a guest who had left behind some of his belongings at a famous West End hotel. Those belongings eventually came into the possession of the police. When trying to identify this hotel, Feldman's book pointed at the Charing Cross Hotel. The reason being is that 6 months earlier an ad had been placed in the Times by the Charing Cross Hotel that seemed to correspond with the article in the Liverpool Daily Post.

Other than Feldman's book, there has not been any attempt to identify the "famous West End hotel." Did I get it right so far? I'll be back on the Jtrforums on Monday.

[Mike Covell]

I have sent you the page in question Joe. I wonder if anyone traced Mibrac in any of the census lists.

[Chris G.]

For the first time ever, I will post something on a Maybrick thread. I doubt that the priest in the confessional will absolve me for this. http://mail.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/12.gif But here it comes anyway.

The Charing Cross Hotel of Westminster placed an advertisement in the April 12, 1888 Times. The ad spoke of personal effects that were left behind by their hotel guests. Some of this merchandise had been kept in storage since Sept 1887. The ad was printed about a week after the death of Emma Smith.

Six months later, the Oct 11th Liverpool Daily Post reported that an advertisement had been placed in the Times by a famous West End hotel. It spoke of personal effects that belonged to a man who is under police suspicion for the Whitechapel murders.

The late Paul Feldman came out with his book Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter, and his attention was focused on a former Charing Cross Hotel guest named S. E. Mibrac. Back in 2004, a decent Mibrac thread was initiated by Chris Scott:

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/9549.html (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/9549.html)

Just to recap...the Oct 11, 1888 Liverpool Daily Post reported of a guest who had left behind some of his belongings at a famous West End hotel. Those belongings eventually came into the possession of the police. When trying to identify this hotel, Feldman's book pointed at the Charing Cross Hotel. The reason being is that 6 months earlier an ad had been placed in the Times by the Charing Cross Hotel that seemed to correspond with the article in the Liverpool Daily Post.

Other than Feldman's book, there has not been any attempt to identify the "famous West End hotel." Did I get it right so far? I'll be back on the Jtrforums on Monday.

Thanks, Joe.

James Maybrick seems to have been comfortable and proud of being a Maybrick, and a rather pompous one at that. Why would he choose a pseudonym close to his own surname but one with different initials? It doesn't quite make sense.

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Hi Chris.

We do know that James used "Brickmay" as a cable address in 1887, presumably in the states, so he wasn't averse to playing funny games with the family name on one occasion at least.

I completely agree that there seems nothing at all to link him to S. E. Mibrac and his porn stash in Charing cross though, other than in Feldman's fevered imagination.

Regards to all.

Paul

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris.

We do know that James used "Brickmay" as a cable address in 1887, presumably in the states, so he wasn't averse to playing funny games with the family name on one occasion at least.



Hi Paul

"Brickmay" would be a logical telegraphic address though for Maybrick's firm. Such telegraphic addresses would usually be one word and the city or town, because apparently the post office charged per word for the use of the address, as shown by a Parliamentary exchange (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1901/aug/16/telegraphic-address-charges) recorded in Hansard for 1901. It therefore paid to pick an unusual or distinctive single word. Here are several examples of such addresses (emphasis mine):

"Jardine, Matheson & Co. Ltd.: Local address, Honan St. [Tsingtao, China], Telegraphic address, 'Jardines.'" Pacific Ports Manual for 1919.

"Nurses will find a comfortable Home at Ings House, Nurse Co-operation, 25, Nottingham-place, Baker-street, W. The public supplied with thoroughly trained Nurses for all cases, any time day or night.-Address Lady Superintendent, Telegraphic Address, Perspicacity, London." The Nursing Record, Nov. 4, 1893.

"Male Nurses' (TEMPERANCE) Co-operation, REMOVED TO 10, THAYER STREET, MANCHESTER SQUARE, W. Superior Trained MALE NURSES for Medical, Surgical, Mental, Dipsomania, Fever, and Travelling Cases supplied at a moment's notice, Day or Night. All Nurses supplied by this Association are TOTAL ABSTAINERS. SKILLED MASSEURS supplied. The only Temperance Association of Male Nurses in the Kingdom. Terms: 1 guinea and a half or 2 guineas and upwards per week. Nurses to receive their own fees. F. ROUSE, Secretary. Telegraphic Address: 'Assuaged, London.' Journal of Mental Science, January 1897.

Chris

[Paul Butler]

Hi Chris.

Thanks for that. He didn't need to reverse his name though did he? "Maybrick" or "Maybrick's" would have done just as well.

It is one solitary example of the real James playing about with his name.

It certainly doesn't make him and Mr Mibrac one and the same, and my money is still on "Mibrac" being a misreading of something else completely.

If the 1881 census is to be believed I had a great great aunt Hephyaba!

Regards to all.

Paul

[Joe Chetcuti]

Are there any other 1888 London Times ads that could possibly relate to the report in the Liverpool Daily Post?? I hope the "Charing Cross Hotel / S. E. Mibrac" ad in the April 1888 Times is not the one and only ad that is available to us for consideration.

It may be worth recalling that the police were looking for a man who left a black bag at (the Charing Cross Hotel) and who went by the name of 'Mibrac'. - Page 103 of Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter.

That quote was an exaggeration. I have not seen anything that shows that the police were looking for a man named Mibrac. Regardless, we should not be willing to just toss away the Oct 11th Liverpool Daily Post story.

I would not mind taking a look at the 1887-1888 guest registration books for certain West End hotels. The Charing Cross Hotel and Golden Cross Hotel would be my first selections.

The current ownership of the Charing Cross Hotel does not have the old time registration books for their hotel. If these books have survived, then I suppose it might be in the possession of a previous owner. A researcher needs to go through the Land Registry in England to trace the ownership history of the Charing Cross Hotel.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Let's extend a thanks to Francesco Ieri, who is the Director of Sales at the Charing Cross Hotel in The Strand. Francesco provided me with a history of that hotel. I'll now post a brief passage from it:


Overlooking the Strand and Trafalgar Square the 239-bedroom Thistle Charing Cross is London’s most central hotel, located at the heart of the capital City’s greatest sights, such as London Eye, Trafalgar and Leicester Squares, Piccadilly, the Houses of Parliament, 10 Downing Street, Covent Garden, a number of theatres, museums, restaurants, art galleries and busy shops of the Oxford and Regent streets are within easy walking distance of the hotel.

The Charing Cross hotel was built in 1864 by the eminent Victorian architect E.M. Barrie, whose father designed the Houses of Parliament. It is a Grade II protected historic building that combines its original elegance of the past with high tech modern conveniences.

Jack


It is rumoured that Jack the Ripper stayed in our hotel in 1887. The mention of the Charing Cross Hotel stems from the finding of a bag containing incriminating items left there by a gentleman guest who then disappeared. The report appears in “The Times” in April 1888, and refers to a bag left in the hotel in 1887. There is quite a long list of people who had left property behind including one named MIBRAC, which is believed to be sufficiently close to James MAYBRICK.



Thanks again, Francesco. And if you find the 1887-88 guest registration book please let us know!

[How Brown]

Joltin' Joe:

Thanks loads for this information on Frisco & Francis T. !

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Joe,

If you take the letters in S.E.MIBRAC away from the letters in JAMES MAYBRICK, you are left with A K Y J and M.

We can only be grateful that it wasn't S.E.MIBRYC instead, which would have left a thoroughly overexcited Paul Feldman with AKA JM... :faint:

Love,

Caz
X