|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ryan P
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 10:41 am: | 
|
This is my second message today. I've read all this stuff about ink tests.
The tests do not say that the diary was genuin, but neither do they say the diary was fake.
The problem with the ripperoligists and the scientists or whatever, is that they are reliying to much on tests to give them answers. They should all have a bit more faith in the discoveries that they make. The entries and events in the diary described by Maybrick, fit perfectly well with the whitechappel murders.
Maybrick left clues and hints throughout the diary to say he was the ripper, and everything about the diary is honest and formal.
For example, he continuesly talks about his wife, and how she commits adultery, and insists that she is why he commited the murders. He mentions his socalled "Medicine", and he was a rich and intelligent man. He had the knolege to kill without getting caught, he had the time, and he certainly had the money.
The ripperoligists have this knolege, and much more to support the almost, (in my opinion),certain possibility that James Maybrick was Jack the ripper.
I think, maybe people would preffer it if the rippers identity remain hidden, in paticular the ripperoligists. Maybe they are afraid of the truth.
I will always stick to my strong opinion, and absolute faith that James Maybrick was Jack the ripper. |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 52
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 9:29 am: |
|
Hi Ryan
What a refreshing posting to read.
You say that Maybrick could well have been JTR. Of course he could. The trouble is that if you mention that fact around here then dollies come flying out of prams big time. Just keep watching!
Whilst other suspects have almost cast iron alibis, including being out of the country at the time, detained elsewhere at her Majesty’s pleasure or even exonerated by the Police, they still get a hearing. Alas not so for poor old Sir Jim.
Maybrick has no alibi for any of the murder dates. He had motive and the means. He fits JTR as well as anyone else does.
As for testing, well I think we’re stuck with testing now. Both the watch and Diary have been tested and, on balance, the results don’t fit with the idea that either is a recent hoax. The watch tests, which will soon be made public for the first time, strongly suggest that the Maybrick scratches are old. The Ion migration tests on the ink suggest the same of course.
As to why some people find the Diary so scary. Your guess is as good as mine. I haven’t a clue. It’s a fascinating thing. There’s much more chance of solving the authorship of the Diary than ever unmasking JTR, (unless doing the one achieves the other of course), but I think I’ve blasphemed enough for the one day.
Stick around and see what develops. It’s getting quite interesting.
Regards
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Paul,
I agree. I think Ryan's post above states the case perfectly. It is an excellent illustration of precisely where this debate is at the moment and upon what the case for the diary's authenticity rests. I'm glad it's here.
As for the tests, you keep telling us what they say, but these very boards themselves make it quite clear that your interpretation of them is just that and that there are several others out there of the same results and that the tests still offer no real reason to think this book is anything other than a hoax, for reasons already listed, and one constructed post 1950s, 1977, and 1980s, as a recent expert has demonstrated here with three separate and unchallenged arguments.
But we're just dancing in circles, of course.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 2:14 pm: |
|
I don't think we prefer it if the Ripper remains unknown. The most amount of books are based on (the often wrong!!) premise that there is proof a certain person is JTR.
However i agree with much of the rest of ryan's sentiments.
I would add i do beleive that proving the diary is fake (likely but not nec. so in my opinion) does not clear James as for the diary to be believable it has been established he was a bit weird and has no alibi etc.
Saying that I do not however put him top of my list
post 1950s is an interesting one I don't recall knowing about
all the best
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Jennifer,
By your own logic, then, everyone alive in 1888 who "was a bit weird" and for whom we can't find an alibi must therefore be considered a suspect.
Or maybe just everyone in England?
Fair enough.
But that's gonna' make for some fun research.
Ryan of course has not demonstrated that he knows anything about the real James, only that he knows some stuff about the James in the diary.
Of course the character of James in the diary makes a good suspect; that's why he was created, after all.
As for the real James -- well, there's that whole annoying lack of evidence thing to contend with.
But who knows, right?
--John (who wishes he could cut and paste Ryan's whole post here again, just for demonstration purposes)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:41 am: |
|
Hi John
I love your reaction. However, Yeah any one without a known albib alive and able bodied in 1888 is a suspect as long as they were in england espeically if they were in London, isn't that the point the case is unsolved you know!!!!!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 7:55 am: |
|
Hi Jennifer,
Well, we'd better expand the poll here on the Casebook, then.
This is gonna' take a while,
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 526
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Well not everyone alive. I think we can rule out under 14 and over 80. So really it's not as broad a category as one would think, should take just two ticks to go through them all.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Ally,
In that case I will leave the task (which John O. is apparently so keen on!!!!!!)
to you.
I was just trying to make a point
John
I was merely expressing dispair that you should ridicule my post in such a way !!!!. Of course the real James can be a suspect. Is he JTR I would not say so, as I previously mentioned. However, I let those who believe it do so freely, but say to them (hi!!) this can be the case even if the diary is fake (which I find probable) in order to enable a more civilised dicscussion on the diary which does not have to rule out James if fake.
I can see now that you are probably (sitting on the fence) diary, like myself!!!!!! I am glad to have cleared this up as it has been bugging me for weeks!! 
Perhaps you would like to expand on your 1950s point which I felt was interesting.
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Jennifer,
Actually, we seem to agree on this. The real James Maybrick is, as a suspect, on exactly the same level of likelihood as every other person in or around London in the year of 1888 (between, say, 8 and 80, thanks Ally).
There is no more real evidence against him than against any other such person, so his candidacy is just as legitimate.
Of course, since there's no actual evidence against him at all (or against almost all of these other people), none of that helps us very much on a website like this one.
Still, it's good to remember it every now and then.
Glad I could "clear things up."
--John
(For the reason our expert says the diary could not have been written before the 50s, see the thread in which I quote his still unchallenged arguments concerning the Tabram and Smith murders and their absence from the diary. I don't remember where that discussion took place, but do a search of my posts and you'll be able to find it, I'm sure.)
(Message edited by omlor on April 20, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 2:05 pm: |
|
John,
Glad we cleared that up. Arguing with you is a full time job. !!!!!!!!!!!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Hi Jennifer,
Yeah, that's true.
But there remains no evidence that the real James had anything at all to do with this book (and lots of evidence that he didn't and couldn't have), and so I think it's worthwhile to keep the record straight.
Besides, it keeps me off the streets.
Have an excellent evening,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Damn it John!!!
We agree (that means that in the main you and I have the same opinion).
Whats true!! ahh!!!
anyway, I AGREE with you that there is little (to be nice) or no (not ever being certain of anything bcos of a reliance in this instance on my part on secondary sources)evidence against James maybrick having written the book.
HOWEVER (perhaps we diasgree here but i thought you agreed, James MAybrick did not have to have written that to be JTR, however if he did not the probability of him being so is significantly reduced, however we may speculate (nb as earlier) that he is just as probable as an unnamed person who wsa in London and able bodied (aged 8-80, probably* male).
You think the fact that we have absolutly no proof against anyone is unhelpful there i definately DISAGREE with you, but here i am so I guess that this is not strongly¬!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Howver that is for anpther place. I remain open minded that the diary could have been forged at any time. Is this YOUR opinion too!!!
I hope this is really cleared up now.
I will have a great evening, I wish you the same
I'm sure this must be cleared up (I am not trying to hide what I think from you or put words in your mouth I swear!! It is just that I have not seen enopugh evidence either way to make up my mind)
Im sure that we agree!!!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hi Jennifer,
OK. Let's see if can "clear things up" even further for us.
Sure, James Maybrick is precisely as likely to have been Jack the Ripper as any other able bodied person who might have been in or around London in 1888.
Since we have no real evidence against almost all of these people, including the real James, simply saying this tells us nothing about who the Ripper was (except perhaps that they were able bodied and were in London at some point in 1888, and we already knew this).
So far, so good.
Now then, is there anything else you'd like to assert? If not, then we are indeed in agreement and can stop.
As to the diary, I'm still waiting for someone to challenge any of the three arguments made by our expert that indicate that it could not have been written prior to 1950s, the 1970s, and the 1980s respectively. And since the police report with the line from the diary in it did not in fact go missing at any point, and was unavailable to the public until it was published in modern books, I'm also waiting for a plausible story about that.
So, as I signed a recent post on another thread, I guess you can describe me as...
Ready and waiting,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 267
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Good well have fun waiting won't you!!!!
I would not like to assert anything
Hurrrayyy!!!!!!
we do actually agree i agree wholeheartedly with everything in your above post
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Thanks, Jennifer
And you have fun, too, as summer approaches.
All the best,
--John |
Ryan P
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:40 am: |
|
Let's not forget hear, that James Maybrick was on arsnic and alot of it. Any drug going can cause really bad depression or even insanity.
James describes his wife as a whore in the diary, this can't just be a freekish coinsidence that he went around killing prostitutes himself.
At the time of JTR, he really hated his wife because she was having an affair.
The reason he killed prostitutes, was out of the frustration and anger he had for his wife. There was a point in his life where he hated her.
what with him being on drugs, and prefibly with some bad mental problems, he would loved imaging that it was his wife he was ripping.
James was a cotten murchant wasn't he?
What an ideal situation concidering the fact he would have to take regular "Buisness" trips to london. Even if they weren't to do with his job, he could easily just make up some story to his wife, that he had to go to London for buisness.
Servants and people he knew even stated that Maybrick beat his wife quite regularly, and people noticed bruises on Florence all the time.
If you ever look at a picture of James just before the time of JTR, you can see the frustration,anger and glistening of sinister evil in his eyes. As for other suspects, they had very little reasons to go on a murder campaign.
James though, despite how obserd it seems, had quite good reason to be JTR. |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 39
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:00 am: |
|
Glistening sinister evil in the eye? Cornwell said Sickert had that too. Must spread like pinkeye. Wonder if Maybrick gave it to Sickert or if it were the other way around. Didn't they have eyedrops to treat that back then?
Whoops, what am I doing in the Diary Controversy area again?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Ryan,
You can't start out your argument by saying,
"James describes his wife as a whore in the diary, this can't just be a freekish coinsidence that he went around killing prostitutes himself."
Once you've done this, you have assumed as a premise the very thing you are trying to establish as a conclusion. That makes your argument logically invalid.
Also, your post ends by suggesting that because James's wife cheated on him, he "had quite good reason to be JTR."
Do you see the leap here? I'm going to start being very careful around my friends, I'll tell you that.
Evidence, Ryan. You need evidence, and there is none against the real James. So as a suspect he remains on a par with Lewis Carroll and Oscar Wilde and GB Shaw and Joe Schmoe and every other dude who might have lived somewhere near London at the time.
Except of course for that photo with the evil eye. Which makes him, perhaps, more likely to be a character in a Poe story than the Ripper, but is a cool detail nonetheless.
How does the song go? All together, Alan Parson fans...
"You should have seen him. Lying alone in helpless silence in the night. You should have seen him. You would have seen his eye reflecting in the light..."
Thump, thump,
--John
|
Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 1:48 pm: |
|
I aint that good at providing strong arguments for my opinions and beliefs. All i can say is that i'm confident James was JTR. Everyone who hasn't done so, should maybe look up the diary of Jack the ripper. Then maybe read books about James himself. It may get a phew people to change their opinion...Hopefully.
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 8:21 pm: |
|
"So for the old man, ashes to ashes earth to earth and dust to dust, No one will see me, no one with guilt to share, no secret soul to trust.....thump thump." |
peacfull1945
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
I have been fascinated by the ripper murders ever since I was a boy, some 50 years ago. I have read everything I could get hold of and watched every film, fictional and documentary that I ever heard of. After all this I am inclined to beleive that Montague Druitt was the ripper. Two facts which weigh heavily in his favour ( if that is quite the right way to put it) are a, he could very easily have had access to a hiding place within the Minories, and b, he drowned himself in the Thames shortly after the last murder.
Some sort of hiding place would have been vital, especially after the second murder when the police and just about everybody else in the east end realised that they had a serial killer on their hands. Just about everybody, at least every man who was seen carrying anything that could conceivably conceal knives,was stopped and searched. He would have needed to be able to drop out of sight pretty quickly and Druitts brother who happened to be a doctor, had a surgery in the minories. It is not impossible to beleive that Druitt could, with or without his brothers knowledge, have obtained a key to these premises.
The fact that he killed himself shortly after the last murder may also be significant as it is generally recognised that the ripper must have died or been taken out of circulation some other way. The killings were becoming more and more frenzied and such people do not simply decide to stop, just look at the history of any other serial killer, they either get caught or they die, they dont just pack it in.
As for reliance on tests etc, there is no test which can give us the identity of the ripper after all these years. Even if the Maybrick diaries could be proved to have originated at the apropriate time no test could prove that the writer was in fact Jack the ripper.
These diaries have, I beleive, been ruled out by forensic tests, but even if you can not accept that the tests were accurate there is still a stumbling block. The writing does not match that in the ripper letters. These letters are generally accepted as genuine, mainly because of their content, I am sure that anyone interested in the ripper is well aware of these letters so I wont waste time going into them in detail but the fact that they were usually posted before a murder but gave details makes them chillingly likely to have been from the ripper himself. |
chasblack02
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
I would just like to add a bit to the message posted by Peacfull1945.
As he points out the hanwriting in the Maybrick diaries does not match the letters and postcards which are beleived to have been sent by the ripper. Just to elaborate on that point, the police were inundated with 'ripper letters' many of which were quite patently the work of cranks but there were a few which contained details known only to the police, and presumably the killer. One in particular was sent to George Lusk who was head of the Whitechappel Vigilance Committee, this was enclosed in a small parcel containing part of a kidney. All the tests that were possible in the 1880's were carried out on this kidney and appear to confirm that it was in fact that of Catherine Eddowes the fifth ripper victim.
The examination was carried out by Dr Openshaw the Pathological Curator of the London Hospital Museum and Mr Sutton one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital. Both of these men were at the top of their profession and were the very best available at that time.
The evidence to support this is as follows. Firstly, one of Eddowes kidneys was in fact missing. The length of renal artery left in the body added to the lengh of it on the piece sent to Mr Lusk came to about three inches which is about right.It was described as 'ginny'of the sort found in an alchoholic and in an advanced state of Brights disease. All of this corresponded exactly with the kidney which had been left in Eddowes body. It was also the opinion of the pathologist that the kiney had been removed from the body not more than three weeks before his examination and that it had been put in spirits within hours of removal. While none of this evidence would be considered absolutely conclusive in the twentyfirst century it is all we have. It must be said that all the tests carried out indicated that the kidney did belong to Eddowes and nothing was found which might in any way suggest that it was not. If the kidney was genuine so was the letter that acompanied it and the writing does not match that in the Maybrick diaries.
As to whether or not we are placing too much relliance on test as one of the postings suggests, well what else do we have after all these years. Everybody who had any first hand knowledge of these crimes is long dead, there will be no new witnesses coming forward and any new 'evidence' which comes to light must be tested to the best of our ability. This was the case with the Maybrick diaries and they have failed on several counts.
One last thought, I and thousands of other 'Ripperphiles', have pondered and researched for countless hours, trying to identify the Whitechappel killer, but what a shame it will be if one of us ever succeeds in positively identifying him. The whole fascination with Jack the Ripper is the fact that he was never caught, you only have to look at the case of Peter Suttcliffe the Yorkshire ripper, to understand what I mean. His tally of victims far exceeds that of 'Jack' and his crimes were much more recent, but long after he is forgotten people will continue to be fascinated by 'Jack the Ripper, the Whitechappel murderer. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 837
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Hi Chas,
Unfortunately it sounds like your information on the Lusk kidney came from a book that based what the author wrote on some newspaper reports at the time of the murders that turned out to have their facts quite substantially incorrect. For example the renal artery did not match, it had been trimmed so there was no way to match it, and, most importantly, the doctor report concluded that the Lusk kidney appeared to be too fresh to have been taken from Eddowes' corpse.
For more on this, see "Another Look at the Lusk Kidney" by Christopher-Michael DiGrazia reprinted on this site from Ripper Notes a few years back.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Diary - just the one, we don't need any more!
Why do people still say Diaries - plural?
Love,
Caz
X |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 697
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Caz,
Why do people still say Diaries - plural
Hope springs eternal I suppose. 
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 713
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
I know there is a truce and all, but please won't someone else post something so that my name isn't possibly the last to appear on the Maybrick threads for all eternity. I am, it seems, paying a price for my terminal flippancy, but I'll try to reform. Please, someone else post here.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 67
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
haha
I am not having MY good name appearing here.
See you in the Poste House - I mean the Muck Midden!
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 68
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Should have signed it lol.
James Maybrick
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Don,
I'll help you out. It's obvious James Maybrick was the ripper because his diary says so. Okay? Also, it is a little known fact that there were no prostitutes in Liverpool. When the urge came upon him, it was either a train ride to London or a steamer to Dublin. Since he was spending so much money on ink and scrapbooks, he could save a few bob by going to London. I hope this proves everything. Let's close down this site and move onto the Legend of Robin Hood.
Cheers,
Mike |
Travis Bickle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
I'm not a Scientist
Nor a Foreign Skipper
But I Am A REALIST
And I know for sure
Sir Jim is Jack the Ripper
The Old Scratches in the Watch, The Facts in the Diary, etc etc etc etc etc. But when Barrett said he just sat down and wrote it up, That's Real Proof this thing is real. Ther is Noone out there that could get all these facts straight with so many timelines. Everything fits with James Maybrick.
Best
Trav the Taxi Driver |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2077
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Hi Mike,
It's known for a fact that James Maybrick frequented brothels while in America, so I imagine he would have done the same when in Liverpool and during his frequent trips to London.
The diarist had to make Scouser Jim shi* on someone else's doorstep, to transform him into the ripper. But equally, it would actually have made more sense not to kill near home, in an area where he may well have been recognisable by sight as a regular visitor.
Hi Martin,
You ought to go poste haste to the Old Post Office - at least three of your fellow Liverpudlians seem to think that was the original Post House.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
I believe Martin was being funny.
But just in case, everyone go here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=89368#POST89368
And read until you are exhausted.
In the name of efficiency,
--John |
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 71
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Thanks John,
Nice to see you back. I was indeed *trying* to be funny in a rather ironic kind of way.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2079
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 4:39 am: |
|
Yes, Martin, ha ha ha ha - I nearly wet meself. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Now Now you were all doing so well with the truce.
I've been off working on Guy Fawkes for Living TV. Due for broadcast, surprise surprise on November the 5th.
I've also been working on Robinhood and you really dont wont to go there.
re the Diary, I'm afraid i got turned down by channel 5. However still talking to another BBC channel.
John- hope youre opperation was a success and that your feeling better.
If anybodies interested my programme on the Stripper murders goes out next Tuesday 10.30 on Living TV.
Catch you all later Diary test land.
Jeff |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 6:03 am: |
|
Better to be half-soaked than wet. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Hi ADD
The world of TV does of course work in strange and mysterious ways.
But if you think sleeping with the right people may help in any way I will of coarse consider donating your bottom.
Anything is worth a try. Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2095
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Nope, I don't think I can top that dry response to ADA, Jeff.
Love,
Dripping Caz (better than wet)
X |
Landroval
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Seems to me that even if tests were to prove that the diary was written pre 1900, that would not rule out the possibility that the Diary was a forgery. Goodness, there were forgers and con artists a plenty around in those days, and the murders were pretty big news.
Anyway, I was under the impression that the Diary itself proved it to be a forgery. It's not just that the handwriting didn't match the real JM's, or that the diary writer claimed to have sent the Dear Boss letters, which seems highly unlikely, but it's actually wrong on important detail, such as stating that farthings were placed at Annie Chapman's feet, when in fact we know from police evidence that this was not so.
Mind you it's a while since I was last up on this, so maybe popular opinion has changed and appropriate excuses have been made? Or maybe the most bathetic theories are just too entertaining to discard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:57 am: |
|
Hi Landroval,
You are dead right there - if tests showed that the diary was written pre 1900 it wouldn't prove the thing the genuine work of James Maybrick, nor would it prove that James Maybrick was Jack.
The murders were pretty big news, and so was the alleged murder of Maybrick himself, and subsequent trial of his wife, in 1889. The two have been mentioned side by side in more than one publication, as significant events of the age in England.
But even if it could be shown that the diary was written pre 1987, it would cause many people to rethink their entrenched modern hoax conspiracy theories.
I believe Martin Fido may have argued in the past for the existence of the farthings, even though he has always believed the diary to be a modern fake, concocted by the Barretts.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1786
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Landroval,
No, nothing has changed. All the textual problems in the book demonstrate not only that it is an obvious fake -- but a modern date of composition explains each and every one of them neatly using only simple common sense, and not a single one of them has so far been explained by any other theory or account without the prayer that somewhere, somehow, there might be something we have never seen.
The text itself clearly indicates a modern date of composition as far and away the most likely explanation.
No one's ever offered a complete and coherent account of any other scenario. Would you like to guess why? 
--John |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 31
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
From the original post:
The entries and events in the diary described by Maybrick, fit perfectly well with the whitechappel murders.
NOT true. Seeing as the mistakes have been re-hashed in many other threads I do not see the point of listing them again here, however.....
To reliant on tests?
I could'nt when I read it, and cant now, see why tests of any kind are needed to show this document is a fake. What does it tell us? It contains NO information that is relative to the Whitechapel murders that is not available from reading official documents and newspaper reports.
This whole thing rests on the premise the James Maybrick did not kill prostitutes in Liverpool because it was on his own doorstep,well I'm sorry but this is EXACTLY what a large majority of serial killers actually do,even so,Liverpool is a big place and there are many many areas he could have gone to both in and around the city of Liverpool that would not have been on his own doorstep.
If you read the diary you get the feeling that the WRITER, not Maybrick,the actual forger, presents the reason for killing in London as opposed to Liverpool as being because he would have been KNOWN....by who exactly? The mindset here is of a forger writing as James Maybrick famous murder victim 1987 and NOT James Maybrick annonymous cotton merchant 1888.
To anyone with knowledge of these crimes the diary reads as a fake - to Joe Public its proof that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and as I've stated before,the thing has been published so it is too late.This argument would go on forever even IF it were proved by scientific means that it was forged because if ONE person believes it....then it is true.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
