|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 3:11 pm: |       |
Hi All,
I thought it might be interesting to start a thread where people could outline their views on the diary outside of the running debate.
If you think it's a hoax, what evidence convinces you? What factual or circumstantial evidence sways you towards this conclusion.
On the other hand, if you think it's not a hoax, what convinces you that it is genuine? What evidence, factual or circumstantial leads you toward towards that conclusion?
And for those who are sitting on the fence, what keeps you there? What evidence pro AND con seems the strongest/weakest to you?
I would humbly suggest that this thread be used only so that we can all state our positions as a means of better understanding where everyone is coming from. Rather than simply putting yourself into a camp, let's all outline our positions as individuals.
I would also ask that rather than replying directly to other posters on this thread, that any comments on specific evidentiary points be moved to an appropriate thread to keep the conversations focused.
Warm Regards,
John Hacker
P.S. I'll be putting my own thoughts up over the next day or so. Never fear.  |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 610
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
John,
Good idea. Personally I am not too sure but I am leaning towards it being a hoax. This is only purely because there are a few errors, e.g. the position of the breasts and I'm sure Jack would have known where he had put things.
Although, the writer of the diary hasn't made it seem really obvious that he was Jack until the end which I suppose could have been deliberately done this way to make people think it was genuine. Also there is the mention of the two girls in Liverpool that he supposedly killed which hasn't been linked to Jack the Ripper before (at least not that I'm aware of).
Anyway, I'm not sure.
Oooooo it's so hard to tell. 
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Hi John, All,
I don’t mean this to sound facetious, but would it also be a good idea for anyone outlining their views here to give us some idea of when they last actually read the diary, and how many times they have read it?
For example, I have read the diary through many times, and from different perspectives ie from the perspective of any one of the modern hoax suspects, or an unknown person, or persons, writing in modern times; an unknown person writing at any time before the late 1980s, or a relative or associate of James Maybrick; James Maybrick himself, pretending to be the ripper; the ripper himself, either James Maybrick or someone yet to be identified pretending to be James.
It would also be useful to know what other diary literature a poster has read, beyond what is available on the Casebook.
Sarah, you mention ‘two girls in Liverpool that [JM] supposedly killed which hasn’t been linked to Jack the Ripper before’. In fact, the diarist claims to have attacked two unidentifiable victims, one either side of the canonicals, the first while he was in Manchester, the last planned for Manchester again. But we get no actual confirmation of the last location, and more an assumption than certain knowledge that either attack proved fatal. The last was apparently ‘struck’ but not ‘cut’ (like Kelly), and only left ‘for dead’, while the first was apparently only strangled, with the diarist assuming she was ‘now with her maker’.
We all have a responsibility to faithfully represent the precise language used by the diarist before we start trying to put our own, sometimes very different interpretations on it. If we have to alter the diarist’s own words in any way, or read in something that isn't actually there, in order to strengthen a personal interpretation or argument, or weaken someone else’s, the risk of getting it wrong will increase accordingly.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Hi John,
I would also ask that rather than replying directly to other posters on this thread, that any comments on specific evidentiary points be moved to an appropriate thread to keep the conversations focused.
I think this is an excellent idea. I would emphasize it. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Thanks for the board, John. I'm happy to wait and read for now.
All the best,
--John |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 614
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Caz,
I read the diary a few months ago. I probably got Manchester mixed up with Liverpool as that's where James Maybrick lived. Apart from getting the place wrong I didn't get anything else wrong by saying what I did though.
Sarah
(Message edited by Sarah on February 10, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
That’s fine, Sarah. I suppose my main point should have been that if this thread, concentrating on posters’ personal opinions, is to be of any real value, the posters themselves must take as much care as possible over ‘facts’ they themselves supply to other readers, in the process of expressing those opinions.
Obviously, accidental mistakes are inevitable (sorry to use your post as the very first example to demonstrate the point!), and some will get through without question, which is why I suggested each poster give the readers some idea of what they’ve read and how recently before launching off.
The subject is, in some ways, more complex than the ripper case itself, and provides even more room for mix-ups.
Anyway, I’ve given my introductory piece of advice, for what it’s worth, and will now sit back and see what people have to say, if anything. 
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
Hi, John:
Here are a few thoughts about the Diary that I have been sharing with a correspondent in private e-mails but which I think are relevant to the discussion.
On a general basis, I think the Diary has received more than enough attention and is certainly a side issue and a distraction from the study of the Whitechapel murders as the late Melvin Harris stated.
I do though find the matter interesting personally given the Diary's evident Liverpool origins since I come from Liverpool and wish to know if possible how and why the Diary was written, i.e., hoaxed.
It would seem to me that in any other field, a document as dubious as the Diary would have been declared dead and buried long ago but for some reason it has not been.
As for why the Diary has hung around, definitely part of that surely is publisher-driven, isn't it? Even though Time-Warner shied away from publishing it, others were willing to go ahead with getting it into print but I truly believe the Diary is more of an "entertainment" like any other fictional treatment of the story rather than a true artifact of the case.
There are some who doubt that Ann Graham and her former husband Mike Barrett could have been involved in hoaxing the Diary, among them apparently being Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, and Keith Skinner, the authors of the recent Ripper Diary: The Inside Story. Yet perhaps the true story might be not that Ann Graham gave the diary to Mike's friend Tony Devereaux to give to Mike "to do something with it" as a writing project but that the "do something with it" project was to concoct a Diary as if James Maybrick had written a journal as Jack the Ripper.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by ChrisG on February 10, 2004) |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 279
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
Because I can read and follow directions without going off on irrelevant tangents, my views on the diary:
I think it is a fake.
I think the forger/s is/are among the known suspects because I believe the handwriting matches one of the known suspects.
I think there are too many errors and inconsistencies to be real.
And I think there is no way in Hades, Mike Barrett pulled that quote out of a library book.
The end. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
Hi, Ally:
Not quite the end.
You wrote: "And I think there is no way in Hades, Mike Barrett pulled that quote out of a library book."
I think you mean that he did pull it out of the library book or pulled it out of the Sphere Guide (whether a library copy or not) because he already knew it was in there, don't you?
All the best
Chris |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 280
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
No, I wrote what I meant. Mike Barret claimed he found the quote in a library book. I don't believe for a moment that he did and that is what I wrote.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
Hi All,
Like many others, including David Canter, I began with a deeply sceptical, “Diary written by Jack the Ripper found in Scallywag Land? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on!”
(I still understand this view perfectly, whether it comes from someone who hasn’t read another word about it, or someone who has digested the lot and whose view remains unaltered.)
I don’t recognise the handwriting in the diary.
I don’t know when the diary was written.
Right then, in my (current) opinion: the diary is not in the natural handwriting of any of the named contenders or suspects; Mike and Anne had nothing to do with its creation; neither did Tony Devereux, who may have died knowing nothing about it; Gerard Kane knows nothing and has only been dragged into it because of the ‘dead friend’ story of two self-confessed fibbers; and I don’t think Mike knows who Gerard Kane is, or appreciates what he is suspected of doing.
Love,
Caz
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Hi
This thread is really interesting and a good idea.
i debated whether to post first and then read what others had put or not and settled on the later.
My view is the following jumble of thoughts.
I think that the diary debate does not satisfactorily discount the idea that the diary was written in 1888 by another or between the years either side of 1921? that was outlined by testing other than by simply the fact that it does not fit either opinion.
I wonder, if anne grahams family had the diary and knew it would clear Florence maybrick they did not produce it earlier, ie when she was still alive!
I do not think that James Maybrick wrote a diary and was JTR because i find the diary does not match with my preconceptions of how a serial killers mind would operate.
I do not think that if the diary is a fake then it exonerates James. (other then of being stupid and writing a diary of his crimes!).
I think the nature of the debate is circular and unhelpful. I think some of the key points need thrashing out once and for all.
This way we can move on from still debating whatthe Poste House was called.
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 4:43 am: | |
I believe it to be a fake.
I believe it to be the concoction of a group of individuals,of whom Mike Barrett was a minor player.
There is no evidence that it was ever in his possession except perhaps for about five minutes before he handed it over in London.
There is no physical evidence to connect the diary with Maybrick or the Ripper.There is no continuity in the existence of the diary extending beyond Mike Barrett.There is absolutely no evidence of it being handed over in a pub or found in a trunk.
There are only statements and beliefs,there is no evidence.
On the question of the ink,I believe in the expertise of those who speak against it,and on the litery side,John Omlor does an unrivalled job of demolishing any arguements that Maybrick was the composer of the words contained in the said diary.
That is my opinion.
H.Mann. |
I. Sawyer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 2:51 am: | |
Outside, in the real world, no one is interested in the stupid diary. It's only here that you will read about it. I guess certain 'interested' parties want to keep the 'debate' alive, even if it means analysing all sorts of irrelevant side-issues. If ignored it should go away, just as it has in the non-cyber world. |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
I have looked closely at the ‘diary’ for over a year now. I have a problem with the term ‘diary’, and would call it more of a journal, though admittedly it can be dated quite accurately at various points throughout. I do not believe that anyone could fabricate such a personal, intricate and revealing document. Admittedly the ‘diary’ has personally now become a secondary influence, but my gut feeling on first reading the diary, and one that I will stand by today is that the document is 100% genuine, written by Maybrick a.k.a Jack the Ripper.
"The mind is more subtle than a hard fact" - Mike Rhodes, 2003
|
gary adams
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 5:54 pm: | |
Hi,
i beleive the diary to be genuine.I have read most of the Jack the Ripper books, before reading the Diary of Jack the Ripper.The fact that it still has not been proved to be a fogery after all this time. Makes me think that a forger would have to be very skilled in the following; to write in a stlye of someone that is accustomed to be on arsnic and have a good knowledge of Maybrick.To know that James could of been in London and worked nearby.to be able to put the scratches in the watch, which seems to have quite a few tests on it.After all the books that have been written , why wouldn't a forger just write a book and say its his theory like everybody else?
As a theory its just as good as Melvyn Harris, ivor,Patricia Cornwell or Stewart Evans.
gary. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Ok, here's my story. I believe the diary to be a hoax. I've arrived at this conclusion after a great deal of study which includes:
Reading the diary text dozens of times, while comparing it to Maybrick's life and the official JtR documents. Reading dozens of books on JtR. Reading many scholarly works on serial killers in general (Ann Rule doesn't count). Reading most of the available historical JtR documents and 100s of period newspaper articles. Reading every issue of Shirley's book (With the exception of the newest), Paul Feldman's book, the Inside Story, and the Rendell report as well as several books on forgery. Reading Bernard Ryan's book on Florence Maybrick, as well as transcripts of her trial. Following the diary boards for umpteen million posts. Reading all of the available dissertations on the Casebook in regards to the diary. Additionally, I've studied the scientific basis for all of the tests run so far, as well as researched ink and metallurgy. (Is that enough of a bibliography? I probably forgot something in there.)
I came to my current position after years of looking at the problem, and I think I've been fairly even handed in my approach. (Some may not agree. That's cool with me.) At this point I will not even begin to speculate as to WHEN the document came into being. I am only looking at the authenticity angle at this point. While some of these points are refutable, I believe that when taken in total, that they are certainly sufficient to convince me that this document was not written by Jack the Ripper, or James Maybrick. I certainly respect that others may not come to the same conclusion, however I did not come to my own lightly.
I am ONLY going to be addressing the diary itself, not the people involved, the state of the debate, suspects for it's creation, or the anyone's suspected motives.
I've broken down my points into several broad categories to better organize my thoughts. So here goes.
Physical:
1) The diary is written in a USED Scrapbook, not a diary. With pictures of in it, possibly of a non-period size. While I can possibly see James reusing a diary by tearing out the initial pages, I cannot see him using a scrap book in such a way. People tend to LOOK in photo albums, and to tear out 30 or so pages from a photo album he had lying around would be to risk questions and discovery that could be avoided by simply buying a new diary which he could easily afford.
2) The Handwriting. It's not James Maybrick's, nor does it match the Dear Boss letter which the diarist lays claim to. This is probably the strongest single argument against the diary, and it is one that has never been countered convincingly.
3) The ion migration test places the date of the ink hitting the paper at a median date of 1921, plus or minus 12 years. Which means it could not have been writte earlier than 1909. While the date could be much later (And almost certainly is due to the absorbency of the paper), it could not be earlier.
4) The letter formations in the diary are not consistent with those of the time of Maybrick's education. (Or as Joe Nickell would have it, "The Jack the Ripper Diaries [sic] were filled with all sorts of curlicues and things to try and make it look sort of 'Ye Olde-ish,' to coin a phrase")
Apparent factual problems with Content:
5) The non-existent Manchester murder. The diarist takes credit for a murder in Manchester that there has never been any historical support for. It does not appear to have happened.
6) The breasts on the table error. Could Maybrick, were he the Ripper, have forgotten? Possible, yet unlikely in my opinion. He dwells on the breasts for 4 lines out of 15 in his original description of MJKs murder, and gives an erroneous description of their placement straight out of the papers. However the actual placement of the breasts is much more elaborate, and has an internal logic of a sort that I find it difficult to believe that the actual Ripper would forget, and yet STILL dwell on them to the degree that the diarist does. Particularly given the other extensive mutilations that she received.
7) "if Michael can succeed in rhyming verse then I can do better..." I think a literal reading of the diary indicates that the writer had misconceptions about Michael's career. Although an argument can be made that Michael had some sort of secret rhyming hobby, there is no historical support for such a suggestion and I find it unconvincing.
8) "two farthings..." The diarist alludes to 2 farthings at Annie Chapman's murder that were not there. Although they are commonly cited in secondary sources, there is no historical support for their existence at the crime scene.
9) "With the Key I did flee" The diarist claims to have taken the key to MJK's room, yet we know from the inquest testimony that the key had been lost for some time prior to her death. This is a big problem for the diary in my opinion.
10) There are no new independently verifiable facts in the diary. Were it a genuine document, it would seem likely that at least some new verifiable information about the crimes or Maybrick would have come to light. None has.
11) The diarist claims authorship of Dear Boss letter. Ripperologists, experts on serial killers, and the police of the time are pretty much united in regarding the Dear Boss letter as a fake. (The police at the time believed it to be the work of an enterprising journalist.)
12) The diarist claims to have a lair in Middlesex St. If this is the case then after Eddowes murder, why run from Mitre Square, past Middlesex to drop the piece of apron in Ghoulston St?
13) Virtually all errors the diary contained, can be found in secondary sources. This suggests that the diary was researched as opposed to being a genuine document.
Literary Issues:
14) The diary tells a STORY. The diary has a clear beginning, middle, and end. This is not the free flowing thoughts of a killer, it's a narrative.
15) The "tragic ending" seems unduly contrived. The asking for forgiveness, the reveal of the name "Jack the Ripper", the suggestion that Florrie might have killed him at his request all feel very much like it was meant to make an emotionally powerful ending. Especially considering Florrie's murder conviction and death sentence. Oh the pathos!
16) The diaries focus in retelling of the crimes isn't in sync with actual focus of the mutilations. The diary seems to focus on rather banal and relatively tasteful (All things considered) descriptions of the mutilations and killings. The real Jack focussed strongly on the abdominal mutilation and "exploration". He obviously spent considerable (under the circumstances) time rooting around inside these women and we get trivial descriptions like "the bitch ripped open like a ripe peach". And although there may have been an attempt to remove the head of one or more of the victims, it's given disproportionate weight in the diary in my opinion.
17) "Oh Costly Intercourse of Death" Whether it came from the Sphere Guide or not, this is an EXTREMELY obscure quote, and one unlikely to appear in James Maybrick's experience. Possible? Yes. But incredibly unlikely.
18) The Diary focuses on Abberline as the diarists "nemesis". This is not something that the real Jack would likely have thought of from the newspaper reports of the time. The "Abberline as nemesis" idea is one that has come into being more through Ripper fiction. And as the diary is a narrative, it seems to require a "good guy".
19) "Bastard almost caught me" The diarist alludes to Abberline almost catching him, presumably in some sort of trap. There is no historical evidence for such an event, although I believe such a scene appeared in the Michael Caine JtR film.
20) Padding. Padding. Padding. Half of the book is padding. The same phrases over and over, used in rhymes, crossed out, reused in other rhymes, etc. This is a good way to add length without content, or detail to trip the hoaxer up.
Serial Killer issues:
21) This is simply not how serial killers behave. They do not pick a such a small localized area to kill in that is that far from their actual home, regardless of a business office in the area. There has never been anything like this that I have been able to find in any recorded cases. Killers kill in their comfort zone, and they're not going to develop a comfort zone in a single small area of a large city that they visit on business trips.
22) Maybrick is simply too old to simply blossom into a serial killer of this type. Jack was a disorganized killer, or at best a mixed offender. As John Douglas's says "How does a fifty-year-old man with a family, children, and no sociopathology suddenly blossom into a disorganized serial killer? He can't, and doesn't."
23) The crimes themselves show some seriously disorganized characteristics, and yet what Maybrick is suggested to have done would make him an extraordinarily organized offender which is inconsistent with the crime scene evidence. Again, to quote John Douglas, "Anyone who thinks his situation through enough to decide that he wants to kill prostitutes to get back at his wife but must do so in another city, where he'll hide out, stalk women of the night, rip them up, and then return to his own world and home, would not exactly be disorganized. In fact, I've never seen one that organized. No one plans that carefully, then goes into such a frenzy of sexual pathology." I'm not John Douglas's greatest fan, but he hit the nail right on the head here in my opinion.
24) The diary doesn't actually shed any light on the WHYs of Jack. It's an elaborate "breast beating" excuse for some heinous deeds, but if this were an actual document there would be more insight into the nature of the crimes themselves. Particularly in regards to the mutilations, which although the author "delights" in, there is no actual exploration as to the WHYs. Many killers have written diaries, but they are full of specific details which are lacking in this document.
Other:
25) The diary has no provenance to speak of. We've had shifting stories from those who brought it forward, and even IF the current story is to be accepted at face value, there is no established chain of possession before it turned up in Billy Graham's possession. Nor has any family link between Florrie and the Grahams ever been established.
I am sure I have missed some points in there, but those are certainly representative of the issues I have with the document. I'll be happy to address any questions or concerns people have on any points raised above, but I won't be responding to posts on this thread. (See my initial post.) If there isn't an existing thread that seems to fit, please feel free to start a new one. I would prefer to address each point in it's own thread to keep the discussion from going free-for-all. Sorry for the long post, and thanks for your time. :-)
Regards,
John Hacker |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Hi, John:
You have given a good rundown of the problems with the Diary. Well done.
John, I actually think that your no. 1 is one of the weaker points you bring up since as has been noted, the document is not a diary although that is the way it is customarily referred to, and possibly that designation came from the title to Shirley Harrison's book.
Rather, it is a journal or narrative, so the writer would not have needed a "diary" in which to write which often would be the smaller type book as the Barretts found when they ordered that little red 1891 diary. The fact that the writer wrote in what was to hand is not especially suspicious, I think. The possible indication recently discussed on these boards that the book could have contained, on the missing pages, photographs of a date later than 1889 though is suspicious.
Equally suspicious I think are in itself the missing pages at the beginning of the book, as if the writer was trying to hide something, possibly post-1889 material, as just noted. There are also the matters of whether Maybrick actually carried the book around with him as the narrative seems to infer at one point and of where it could have been hidden for all those years, if it was hidden after Maybrick's death as the "Diary" appears to tell us. Of course you do address this in pointing out, most validly, that the document lacks a proper provenance.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on February 11, 2004) |
Carl Burrows
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 6:46 am: | |
Hello John,
I think this is an interesting post! You have made some very good points in your second posting,which I agree with.
I read the Shirley Harrison book a few months ago from the library and Bought and recieved 9 JTR books for christmas,I've read 7, and I'm half way through Paul Feldmans "The Final Chapter' and to be honest I'm beginning to flag a bit now.
I think the problem is I don't really believe in the diary ,so its making it hard work to finish
( the last book in my collection is Ivor Edward JTR's Black magic rituals,thats looking a more attractive proposition at the moment) .
Im on the the chapter where the Maybrick and Graham family trees are unfolding and its not exactly making me stay up late, turning the pages in anticipation.
A lot ( and more ) of the reasons for my feelings you have covered very well in your assessment above, but I will briefly add some of mine if I may..
About the diary
The diary surfaced around 1992. This would have been not long after the centenary of the Whitechapel murders when intetrest would have been rekindled, in other words why did it surface then? and not say 1940?
The so called Maybrick pocket watch surfacing almost around the same time,bit too much of a coincidence. Again why not sooner?
The diary was supposed to have been given to Ann barrets father on christmas day 1950 he apparently never did anything with it,Ann said the diary was in a case since 1969,in a spare room or something.
So was their lives so exciting they never once ventured to read and digest the information in what must appeared a very intriguing old book in all those years........mmm
If this was indeed an authentic diary account of the true JTR, surely it would have been chock full of more details, insights and new "never been known before facts' !e.g near misses, murders that never came off, similar to Peter Sutcliffes account after being caught,in other words.... FILLING IN THE BLANKS.
Regarding serial Killers
I'm certainly no expert in this area,so I might be on dodgy ground.
But it struck me whilst reading, that Maybrick as a suspect does'nt quite add up
The catalyst for the crimes according to diary is James revenge on whores due to his wife having a bit on the side with Albert Brierley ,However there is no accurate date for when this affair either commenced or was discovered by James,
Feldmans book states Nov 1888,but when in the month ? and when was it discovered? if it was after November it kind of blows the whole theory out of the water!.
The idea of him taking his revenge out on poor
unfortunates 200 plus miles away is also a bit hard to believe in my view,surely his gripe was with Florence and Albert, any aggressive behaviour would have been better directed in thier path. I know he was alleged to have struck Florence on occasion,but if he went all the way to London in a fit of rage surely he would have calmed down a bit by the time he got there. ( old steam train .unspoilt countryside anyone)
Lastly theres James so called severe drug habit. Arsnic and strychnine,
My mental picture of JTR is one of extreme cunning and alertness.Strong, agile and the ability to blend into the shadows,not wanting to get caught.The evasiveness shown in the Mitre squire killing is conlusive proof of these skills,where 2 policeman were in close proximity,but Jack still managed a brutal methodical slaying.
Now picture a drug induced James Maybrick wandering around, the effects of his drugs numbing his limbs and mind,
do the 2 match..I think not.
To conclude.. I think the diary is a fake, the same as the fake Hitler diary,I dont know who did it, I think Mike Barratt had something to do with it,he had the financial needs,the time on his hands etc and whats more he' already owned up to it being fake.. |
Edgar Hadley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 9:01 am: | |
Hi John,Chris,
Regarding the missing pages.
Does anyone know whether they where torn cleanly from the binding or cut/torn away leaving a stump of paper behind?
I ask this as I wonder whether it is possible to tell how old the tear/cut is.
Mabey something like the extent of oxidisation or degradation of fibres in the exposed edges could be tested for.
Best regards,
Edgar |
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Hello Everyone
Glad to be back. I was catching up on many things I missed because of going to therapy for a broken bone in my back.
Mr. Hacker
Thanks for starting a new thread. This was a great idea. As for which side of the fence I,m on right now, I would say I,m still sitting on top, but leaning more to the Hoax side. The Poste House being capitalized makes me think the diarist is writing the name of the place he took refreshment. And The Watch and the Diary popping up around the same time seems too much of a coincidence.
As Mr. Hacker said earlier, I agree with him that the diarist was copying certain facts about the murders and almost quoting them word for word. For Example "Tin Match Box, Empty" and "frequented my club," which sounds like he found this idea from an earlier book about James Maybrick. But I'm still not convinced because it seems Maybrick did have reason for loosing his sanity and comitting the crimes. Good Point about the rings reminding JM of Florie. But another copy there as he said he "wrenched them off". The news report said about the rings being "Wrenched Off". Another coincidence ? Is it possible that a distant relative of JM finally gave his identity away by forging a Diary ? Was this a hidden family secret that lasted over 100 years ? I'll keep sitting on the fence for awhile.
Regards,
Anthony |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
Thanks to everyone who's replied so far! It's certainly fascinating to see how everyone is struck by different aspects of the diary, both pros and cons.
I look forward to seeing more in the future!
Warm regards,
John Hacker
P.S. Edgar, I responded to your question regarding the removed pages on the "Maybrick as the Ripper" thread.
(Message edited by jhacker on February 13, 2004) |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 146
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
I am sure I will not shine any additional light on the subject, but since this thread simply solicits opinion about the Diary I am glad to oblige. And for the record, I most recently read the contents about a week ago in response to the flare-up of interest in the controversy on the Boards.
Quite simply, I believe the Diary is a hoax and my reasons are largely subjective. I have no expertise in any of the arcane fields of forensic or psychological science so I shan't enter those mine fields.
I have, however, in the course of historical research had occasion to study nine or 10 (I'm unsure now) diaries and journals of varying length and the purported Maybrick diary looks and reads like none I have encountered. As I said, totally subjective, but all the other diaries I have studied -- whether generally devoted to terse daily comments or brimming with long, introspectice passages -- seemed to breathe with a vitality completely lacking in the Maybrick diary. Even those passages that seem to indicate passion read, for me, like a poor pastiche of LVP melodrama. Nor, in my cataloging of collections, have I ever encountered a lyricist, poet or poetaster who indited anything creative in the manner of the doggerel in the diary.
Moreover, the entire work seems to me to have been written much too carefully. It beggars the imagination that the real Ripper would write about his activities and that nothing not already known would emerge. If we read a real journal by anyone, no matter how well know, we will learn some new things about the individual, but not with the Maybrick diary. Such a result is possible, but highly improbable.
Finally, there are many seeming anachronisms of fact or word usage. Each, by itself, has been explained on the boards by one or another Diary proponent and in isolation would not be a reason to reject the Diary out of hand. However, there are many of these little problems and as they accumulate they cast doubt not arithmetically but geometrically.
Indeed, each new explanation that papers over another hole makes the Diary's defense look more and more like the efforts of the Ptolemaic cosmologists who kept inventing epicycles to explain each newly noted planetary pertubation in order to maintain the "truth" that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Each new epicycle "worked" but the mechanism grew so unwieldly that the theory eventually collapsed. So, too, does each new Diary problem "explanation."
As I wrote at the beginning, all my arguments are subjective, but they satisfy me the Maybrick diary is a hoax . . . and that's enough for me.
Don. |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
The 'diary' by any account would appear too good to be true, but having not yet conclusively been disproved is always worth further serious
consideration.
Reference Johns earlier entry and the points raised: Apologies they are not on separate threads, no reply expected.
Personally I feel that there is little relevance in the medium for the 'journal'. It is likely to have simply been 'at hand' when the author
initially felt in need of committing his thoughts to paper. The journal, as pointed out, has a number of pages missing. It is possible that they
contained something too incriminating or risky for the author. There is an interesting entry along the lines of "..Curse the bastard Lowry for making me rip..". This could easily be referring to the author 'ripping' out the
pages now missing, as possibly Lowry laid eyes on them but did not grasp the implications. A further entry then states something like ".. should I replace the missing items.. no it would be too risky..". The items could of course be something else as he has not referred to them as pages.
The handwriting is something of a bugbear throughout the Maybrick case. We are all capable of producing variants of our own handwriting with very little effort. I would imagine that the journal was always written when the author was in a particular 'mind set', state of mind or mood, call it what you will. It is interesting that in a couple of sections of the diary the writing is in fact quite different from the main text we see. The writing becomes smaller and neater towards the end in a couple of areas where the
author becomes surprisingly reflective upon his thoughts and deeds. The writing of the Dear Boss letter of 25th September (I personally would not
discount the earlier Dear Boss letter of 17th September) certainly does not match that of the journal or indeed the relatively few examples of
Maybricks. The writing of the Dear Boss letter, in my opinion, would appear to be heavily disguised/contrived, though this is to be expected. Were we to be or pretending to be JTR, and were we to be sending letters to the Police
or Newspapers we would certainly not write them in a style recognisable to friends or acquaintances when we are liable to hang for it.
With respect to the testing of ink/paper etc. there is still no concrete evidence discounting the journal, as if this were the case it would have died a death. It is unfortunate also the way in which the journal has been mauled by one and all since its appearance allowing for contamination by allsorts. No doubt it could be forensically proven that the author has at
one point of writing been in the process of consuming a Big Mac burger from McDonalds.
As regards the handwriting style, I am personally fortunate to have a colleague with a fairly extensive collection of documents dating to 1630.
Documents of the late 1800's in many cases are not dissimilar in their letter formations. We also are fortunate to have sight of alleged 'ripper letters' of the period, all quite variable in their styles and again many not unlike the writing of the journal.
The journal lays claim to two murders in Manchester, one being prior to the Whitechapel murders and one after, again of prostitutes. The murders of prostitutes at the time was not, I expect, an uncommon occurrence, and if, as the diary claims, they were not killed in an horrific fashion as the usual JTR victims (strangulation) they would receive little attention.
It is true to say that were we able to substantiate the Manchester murder/s claims of the journal, that we would be caught up in the regular circular argument scenario, whereby, (and rightly so from their viewpoint) those
opposed to the authenticity of the journal would put forward that the hoaxer had also sourced the information, hence we have nothing more than a 'Catch 22' situation.
The murder of Mary Kelly, undoubtedly the most brutal of all and carried out at the murderers relative leisure. It must have been particularly harrowing for those attending the scene, with the amounts of carnage laid before them.
May be the author of the journal simply did get confused over the placing of body parts or may be he didn't. Could those at the scene, in the moving of the pieces, have wrongly recorded them? I don't profess to know, but as we have the information to hand as we know it today, surely the hoaxer would have also. I am always tending to the opinion that possibly the diarist
knows best. The diary was of course playing at his rhymimg game as pointed out in another posting and his reference could be anything but factual.
In the journal regarding his brother and his rhyming reference, we are aware of Michaels bent towards the musical composition as opposed to lyricism. It is however in the vast majority of musical partnerships a combination of input from both the musician and lyricist that achieve the resultant compilation. Both parties must be competent to a degree in both fields, therefore it is likely that Michael was able to compose lyrics. (Ironic also that he later had a piece entitled "Everyone loves Jack", obviously relating to Jack Tars, a field in which he was obviously no expert as he has a ship setting "track", instead of "course".
Whether or not the two farthings were apparent or not at a murder scene, the journal cannot be discounted for its reference to them, as the reference may have been a play on their report in the press at the time and as such there is provenance albeit a secondary source.
In reference to the missing key at Kellys lodgings, it was some three hours before the Police entered the property by means of prising the door with a pick. This would not have been necessary had the door been unlocked or had
the police been able to unlatch it via the broken window. We can always surmise that the killer was an earlier customer of Kellys in the weeks prior
to the murder and had procured the key on that visit for a future visit with murderous intent.
Any new verifiable facts concerning the journal or Maybrick will be subject to the catch 22 situation unless they come to light after the appearance of the journal.
My impression regarding the authenticity of the "Dear Boss" letter (25th September) is that it was in fact taken seriously at the time, hence its distribution and publication at the time, by the police to numerous newspapers in the hope of the writing being recognised. There would be
little hope anyway as it appears heavily disguised.
Following the murder of Eddowes in Mitre Square there was a delay of considerable time before the discovery of the Apron on Goulston Street. The
idea of lodgings on Middlesex Rd would be ideal for the culprit to go to ground there, clean up and later emerge to leave his clue, (most officers
being now in the murder vicinity of Mitre Square) en route to possibly his girlfriends.
If the 'errors' found in the diary can be found in secondary sources it is very remiss of a hoaxer to have slipped up so obviously and quite unlikely given the depth of personal and emotional content within the journal.
Following the murder of Eddowes, we have an entry stating "... had a go at her eyes left my mark..". Those specifics were not public knowledge at the time, did not appear in details in the papers at the time and in fact were a
relatively recent find in records of the London Hospital. Obviously it could be that the diary is, as many believe, a modern hoax.
I personally see little of a story as such within the journal, it is just an outpouring of emotions and feelings with references, sometimes vague, to
events that can in fact date the entries to specific times, all of which incidentally tally with known events at the time. A reference for example states, following Maybricks return from America, "...received a number of
letters from Michael..". These had obviously accumulated during Maybricks absence, and there were no murders for the period in which he was away. I also feel that it is far from being a narrative. I don't see it as an emotionally powerful ending, just a rather sad, remorseful and pathetic one.
As, in my opinion, the journal is a putting to paper of internal feelings, it is not necessary for the author to detail to any detail what he has done,there is no need to put that as he is well aware of it. That side of the author is locked firmly in his head and he doesn't need to address it.
Being an educated gentleman with obviously plenty of leisure time (at least before his killing spree), he like many in his sphere would be well read and have a library which is every bit as likely to contain the Sphere Guide as
not. Interesting that he misquoted it as "Oh costly intercourse of deaths".
There can obviously be no historical evidence to nearly being caught as no-one but he himself could possibly have been aware of it. It might be that the journal does in fact carry the only historical reference to the incident.
I couldn't really class the apparent ramblings in the journal as 'padding', far from it. He is only putting to paper his inner thoughts and turmoil and working out his funny little games, and rhymes to leave possible clues. We can see how he went about composing the "One rings..." doggerel. There is, I believe an underlying intention and thought behind these ramblings.
Serial killers have many common denominators not least being intellectual. They are adept at reasoning, modus operandi, planning and are often
compelled to leave clues. They crave the notoriety and can only do so safely by the leaving of clues. They are almost always well educated, clever and cunning as well as being extremely well organised, they have to be to evade
capture as their lives depend upon it.
Maybrick has his purpose or motive and planned everything well. He made a decision that it would be Whitechapel, London and after all very few would carry out such crimes on their own doorstep. The Yorkshire ripper for instance took advantage of his travelling. Maybrick was certainly a schizophrenic, a split personality, such that his family and friends, who spoke of him as kind and gentle, would never have believed the atrocities of which he was capable. In parts of the diary he switches suddenly from
ranting to quite calm comments. I don't see that the age matter has any relevance once he has his mind made up and he was never disorganised always
planning ahead, even to the point of leaving his clues, some of which unfortunately he never got to leave as he didn't have the time or "forgot my
chalk". Most unfortunate, had he left his "One ring..." clue he would have been nailed today. (See the possible interpretation on another thread). One suspect proposed in recent years was in his 70's and suffered from arthritis.
And also whilst passing on suspects, the immensely popular suspect Tumblety was a homosexual paedophile, and should rate pretty low on a killer of women scale.
Regarding the provenance of the journal, I believe it to have been around at the time possibly deposited with solicitors even at one time or hidden away by persons unknown. Reading between the lines and from both entries in the
diary and a comment made by Florrie to her lover, Brierley, I believe it was known by a few including his brothers that Maybrick was responsible. Her knowledge if made public at the trial would have been a stigma for her
children and would of course been a rod for her own back giving her a possible motive.
In the conspiracy theories put forward, I reckon the only one was between Maybricks brothers.
|
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 8:28 am: | |
Tiddley
The point you made about Florie's letter to Brierly is one reason, (and I forgot to mention that in my earlier post) I am still sitting on the fence about hoax or no hoax. "The Tale He Told Me' is the point I'm referring to. Did he confess to Florie that he was the Ripper? He did claim in the Diary that 'Florie knows all". And what are the odds that a hoaxer could pick up on this and fit it into the diary so well.
Regards,
Anthony
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
