|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:56 am: |       |
Dear John H
I am neither a believer nor a non believer in the diary. The pro and anti arguments that have been going on for years seem to me to have been getting absolutely nowhere, with nobody prepared to budge an inch either way.
I don’t understand the staunch pro diary point of view, as there are clearly several things that are as yet unexplained and get in the way of that view. The handwriting being the biggest obstacle. I similarly don’t understand why those who firmly believe it’s a modern hoax, are still spending so much time in trying to constantly re-affirm their beliefs.
I am therefore doing my best to try and understand things from both points of view, and to reach my own conclusions. I have no intention of trying to convince anyone else of anything.
My present position is that I tend to lean towards believing that the diary is not modern. A fair reading of the forensic evidence, (such as it is), points me in that direction. I don’t think Barrett or anyone of his circle had anything to do with it. That is also based on my present understanding of the evidence.
I have read the diary in its entirety many times over, from the point of view of it being written by James, and also as if it were a modern hoax. It works much better as James every time.
There is little in the supposed textual problems with the diary that bothers me very much, and I do not hold to the view that cumulatively this adds up to very much at all. There is no point in starting from a standpoint that you have a hoax, and then trying to find little errors to fit in with that view. The reverse is also true.
If it’s a hoax, and that is eventually proven, then so be it. It’s a very, very good one, and the author has done a brilliant job.
I want to know “Whodunnit”, and not “Whodidntdunnit”, and I’m clearly not alone.
If I ever decide to come down off the fence I’ll let you know.
Regards
Paul
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi, Tiddley
Before John Omlor points it out to you, I am singling out your statement that Maybrick "Being an educated gentleman . . . would be well read and have a library which is every bit as likely to contain the Sphere Guide as not."
Well no he wouldn't, since the Sphere Guide was not published until 100 years after Maybrick's death. It is a guide to English poetry which happens to single out for quotation some lines from a long poem by Richard Crashaw including the expression "O costly intercourse of death" which happens to appear in the Diary. Previous to the appearance of the Sphere book anyone looking for those words have had to have waded through the long poem of Crashaw's to find it.
John Omlor's point is that the man who brought forward the Diary happened to have a book in his possession that contained those very words, the Sphere book, which the late Melvin Harris claimed fell open at that page because of a binding error.
Best regards
Chris George |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
Cheers Chris G, nice one. Knowing nothing of the Sphere Guide aside from its name, I should have been more exact in referring to the Crashaw poem itself and being in existence in, I would assume, a number of publications in Maybricks day, and the every chance of it being in his library. |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
Anthony Dee wrote: "And what are the odds that a hoaxer could pick up on this and fit it into the diary so well."
Unless he didn't and it's just the truth!
I suppose like much of the information it is available for a hoaxer.
Aside from the brilliance of the work if it is a hoax, you would have to admire the hoaxers persistence at including so much irrelevant information. In my opinion this journal was never written initially for anyone but the writer to see, an opinion only changed in a final moment of remorse.
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Dear Chaps
At risk of going a bit off subject here......How do we know Maybrick was an educated gentleman...? I've always imagined him as a bit of an uncultured bore!
Regards
Paul |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
Re: the tale he told me.
To A. Brierley, Esq.
"I cannot answer your letter fully today, my darling, but relieve your mind of all fear of discovery now and in the future. M has been delirious since Sunday, and I know now that he is perfectly ignorant of everything, even to the name of the street, and also that he has not been making any inquiries whatever! The tale he told me is pure fabrication, and only intended to frighten the truth out of me. In fact, he believes my statement, although he will not admit it. You need not therefore go abroad on my account, dearest..."
--Florie Maybrick (italics are her emphasis)
No quite as impressive, in context, is it? Obviously the "tale" is about Maybrick "making inquiries" about Florie's secret liason with Brierley. |
D L Lewis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 8:28 pm: | |
I think the diary is written by James Maybrick. I think the diary is a genuine document. I do not think it was written by JTR - rather, a deluded sick man who thought he was JTR. I think the much maligned work of Feldman is much better than the review given on another page suggests. Maybrick thought he was the Ripper, or wanted to be the Ripper. wished he was the ripper, if you like.
Just my thoughts. |
Steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
I think it's genuine. If it was a modern hoax then why would the hoaxer/hoaxers go to all that trouble just for it to get in the hands of mike barrett of all people with a story where he was given it by a friend in a pub who died shortly afterwards? (Sounds like a hoax already)
And if it was an old hoax why didn't it come out years ago after it was first written?
Someone said how does a 52 year old man suddenly turn into a murderer? Harold Shipman was an old man, intelligent and he had wife and kids and everybody thought he was a nice man. And yet at some point he turned into a murderer too. |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 39
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 8:20 am: | |
Hi Steve
Nice to see you're still around. Brave man too for saying what you think in here!
You stick to your guns mate, although to be fair a concensus of all the available circumstancial and scientific evidence, such as it is at the moment, would lead you towards an early 20th century hoax, if hoax it be. That's supposed to be historically impossible though!
Fortunately there are still plenty of people for whom the diary and watch holds no irrational sense of fear and dread, and they are still trying to get the real answers. I bet you we'll get them in the end.
Stick around and find out. Better still feel free to join in the discussion. Sticks and stones etc....!
Regards
Paul
|
Steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
Hiya Paul, yep i'll stick to my guns for now and I'll respect other peoples opinions on it. I'd like to see some iron clad proof somewhere that it wasn't him. A lot of it against it being him seems to be just nitpicking.
If it was an hoax i'd like to know what the significance of the M's, the markings were? I'd like to see proof of where Maybrick was on the nights of the murders? What the significance of his family crest "time reveals all" was if the watch isn't genuine? The ripper letter that ends with Diego Laurenz? Diego = James, Laurenz = florence? (if that's true) The pun in the Punch "turn around three times and catch whom you MAY"? I also can't understand why a hoaxer would blame a cotton merchant when the most popular belief is more dramatic, such as the Queens doctor/royalty? Did Maybrick have any enemies? There's many other things but i can't remember them right now.
As i said before i'm new to this, i've just found out about it all. I never gave it much thought in the past when it came out as i was always led to believe it was a joke so i never bothered with it until i saw the michael winner programme and read up on it more. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 902
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 4:31 am: | |
Hi Steve,
I'd be interested to know what research a hoaxer would have needed to do to find that James - or at least Florie - did indeed use the nickname 'May'. Perhaps it could have just been an educated or lucky guess.
Like you, when I first heard about the diary, I assumed it must have been conclusively exposed as a modern hoax early on, along with the hoaxer(s).
The big black hole we have, where all the planners, co-conspirators and actual creators of the diary and the watch should be standing in the clear light of day, doesn't even give some people the slightest pause. For me, seeing is believing. And I don't appreciate being told by anyone to rely on blind faith.
Hang in there. Your observations and opinions are as worthy as the next person's.
Love,
Caz |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 7:30 am: | |
Yes! Caz is absolutely right.
Steve, your second paragraph spells it out perfectly. It's just those sorts of impossible coincidences that make it clear that the real James Maybrick must have written this book. Clearly, there's no other explanation for any of them. I mean "Diego Laurenz" on a Ripper letter? What more do people need? Yes, it could only be one of James's clever little games. (Uh, what was the date on that letter, again? I've forgotten.)
But it's the word "MAY" that finally convinced me. I mean here's a cartoon about the Ripper from the very time of the murder that actually uses the word "MAY" -- the very same three letters that begin MAYbrick's name. What are the odds, huh?
It even makes me wonder if those editors over at Punch might not have known themselves that Maybrick was our man. I mean, that's certainly what the history seems to suggest here, doesn't it? Or, and here's a frightening thought, what if Maybrick himself was the one who drew and sent Punch the cartoon? That would have been just like him, after all. And then the cartoon itself would be proof that Maybrick was playing funny little games with the media after his murders.
Also, did you know that there is another Ripper letter, dated October 15th, from Bristol, signed "A.R.M."?
You see? James again is having fun with his name, leaving such an obvious clue for the police (A.R.M. = "A Real Maybrick" and the diary says many times that James has pain, probably in his "arm."). And James could most certainly have been in Bristol that day, too. I've checked and I can't find any reason to think he wasn't.
And that's not all. On November 9th there's another letter from our Ripper, this time cleverly signed "J.F.W."
This one's a stroke of brilliance! James practically gives the police his first name, but then inverts his last initial, leaving it for the police to figure out that they have to turn the paper upside down to see it! There's no other way to read this amazing coincidence.
What does the "F" stand for, you ask? Well, I'd rather not say. (James could be coarse, you know, what with all the drug eating and killing and everything). Let's just say, my friends in Boston can think "Bucky Dent."
In any case, I'm certainly glad that Paul Feldman discovered that prescient family motto, because it's so specific and clear and obvious and it seems now to confirm everything we have long suspected. Time does indeed reveal all. It has in this case. The only conclusion reachable is that James is our man.
Caz is correct. Everyone's observations are "as worthy as the next person's." Consequently, these observations of mine about these other Ripper letters must be just as worthy as the testimony of the police at the murder scene and the other historical documents.
With a position like that, there's no way the diary can be assailed by those whose minds are closed, since whatever it says and however it's written, the diary can always trump the actual evidence we have already on the record.
Our position is secure and time is still revealing all (that takes a lot of time, you see).
Happy to be here,
--John
|
Steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Hi Caroline, John, No i didn't know that about the A.R.M. letter. Or the J.F.W. It's interesting, I'm finding out more things all the time.
The watch and family crest did it for me, but yeah the word MAY like you both mentioned and the Diego Laurenz letter went a long way in convincing me aswell. Not only that but a powder found in the diary called "bone black" which was used to weaken the side effects of strychnine was also used by Maybrick.
Another thing is the FM on poor Mary Kelly's wall. If it's there or not, in the diary the ripper claims they will never find it. Yet an observer at the scene noted that he saw the letter M was visable. Although the observer didn't see the F it still suggests that it still might have been there considering what was put in the diary "An initial here and an initial there will tell the whoring mother. I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see"
Going back to the "time reveals all" Maybrick went to the trouble of finding out the latin meaning to this, so it must have some significance? If not the watch/diary or both then what? |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 8:21 pm: | |
Steve,
"Then what?" indeed.
Excellent question. I mean it's one thing to have a family motto. But to actually make it be in Latin! Surely such an odd choice is significant, or means something significant. Doesn't it?
--John (who's glad Florie's first name wasn't Jessica, or we wouldn't know whether it was her initials or his on the wall) |
Steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
John,
Yep something you can't doubt really, take away the watch and your left with a meaningless phrase? I'm certain your right more things will eventually turn up. The latin meaning also means "time reveals all things" and 2 of those things, the diary and the watch have turned up. So what could be next? Maybe the murder weapon? I doubt someone as sick as the ripper would throw it in the river mersey or the thames, he would have kept it as a trophy. Someone might have it as an antique. An old lady who hasn't seen carved on it "I am Jack" or something like that, who knows? |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:01 pm: | |
Hi Steve,
Yup. Absolutely. I bet that will indeed be the next thing to turn up. And the first tests on it will be inconclusive and contradictory, too. And there won't be any more tests after that, so those who don't believe will say it's a fake. But you and I will know better. Because this is just the sort of thing that Maybrick would have left hidden somewhere for someone to find eventually, right? The diary tells us that. And that's compelling material evidence to support the authenticity of the knife, isn't it (you know, since we know the diary is real)?
I just hope it doesn't turn up on e-bay first.
Now just waiting for the knife,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 917
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Hi John,
Crossing my fingers and hoping for a sensible answer from you, on this thread specially designed by Stephen Ryder for serious discussion, and not for wasting space on funny little games that avoid addressing serious questions, could you please tell me exactly where you think a hoaxer working in the late 1980s/early 1990s would have found references, during his/her research into the real James Maybrick, to the use of the nickname 'May'.
Your faker obviously knew this detail, and it is apparently contained somewhere in the historical record, therefore I am interested in knowing where he/she was looking when he/she came across it.
Thanks for your time and patience.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Caz,
If you ask me (and you have), there's no way a forger could have possibly taken the first three letters of Maybrick's name and realized it formed the word "MAY" and then played with it in a fake diary. That would clearly have been impossible. And then we'd have to assume that they'd also seen the cartoon somewhere (and they couldn't have, could they -- I mean it's not like it was on the cover of any books or inside them or anything) and that they would have realized that the cartoon used the same three letters as Maybrick's name started with. No, that could never have happened. It defies credibility.
So of course, the only scenario available is that James Maybrick is the only one who could have come up with the fact that the first three letters of his last name formed a word, and not just any word, but a word that also appears, all three letters mind you) in a cartoon about the Ripper. Yup, only Maybrick could have thought of referring to himself as "MAY" and only he could have linked that to a cartoon that had the word "MAY" in it. And no forger could have imagined he would do that. It would make no sense at all in a book where James MAYbrick was claiming to be the Ripper.
So I agree, clearly the presence of a character playing with his name and linking it to the case is obvious evidence that diarist must have, could only have known secret stuff no one else could have known (except maybe James's friends). Yup, that's the only explanation. Once again this document proves to be smarter than history and clearly unless some forger spent all of his life researching Maybrick, they never would have stumbled on the fact that "Maybrick" begins with those letters and those letters make a word in English and that word appears once in a well-documented Ripper related moment in the press. I mean imagine if someone forged the diary of someone named Maureen and had them call themselves MO and use the MO syllable to play games with their name and then, amazing as it sounds, it turns out that the real Maureen actually called herself MO (as a nickname -- odd because nicknames are almost never the first part of full names). The only conclusion available would be that the forger spent years researching and discovered this little known fact and that's how it got in the forgery. Either that or thing thing would have to be real.
So I guess this thing's real.
Yup. It seems pretty convincing to me.
Glad to be of help,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Crossing my fingers and hoping for a sensible answer from you, on this thread specially designed by Stephen Ryder for serious discussion, and not for wasting space on funny little games that avoid addressing serious questions, could you please tell me exactly where you think a hoaxer working before 1988 would have found references, during his/her research into the real Jack the Ripper, to a tin match box among the possessions of Catherine Eddowes.
Thanks for your time and patience.
Love,
Chris
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Chris,
Something you might be interested in. I found these words this evening. I had forgotten them.
"The references to the match box and Mary Kelly's heart are in themselves enough to invalidate McNeil's test and Rendell's report. It was impossible for anyone to have this information prior to the mid-1980's."
So, that leaves only two possibilities, Chris. Either the diary was forged after the mid-1980's or the diary is authentic and was written by the real killer. The clear and singular conclusion these two sentences are offering is that those are the only two alternatives.
Of course, I know the diary was written by the real killer. But it's good to know that the "tin match box empty" line is considered by an expert in all of this to allow for only two possibilities -- authenticity or a modern hoax.
I thought you might be interested in that.
All the best,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
And while I'm on the subject, Chris,
The same expert offers two other compelling and logically unassailable reasons why an old forgery is certainly impossible.
"For instance, from the murders up to the 1950's, the police, the press and all other observers on the Ripper Case included Emma Smith and Martha Tabram in the list of Ripper victims. There is now universal acceptance that these two women were unconnected with Jack the Ripper. If the diary had been written by a forger in 1888 or 1921, he would certainly have included in the diary these two wrongly attributed murders."
So you see, the fact that Smith and Tabram aren't killed in the book is "certain" proof that the book could not have been forged before the 1950s -- it must be the real thing. Only the killer would have known in 1888 (or "up to the 1950s") that he didn't kill Emma and Martha. And James doesn't kill them in the diary. So James must have been the real killer (or the forgery must have been written after 1950, but we know that didn't happen).
And the same expert offers even more proof that this cannot be an old forgery -- The initials "FM" on Mary Kelly's wall.
"The diary makes explicit reference to those initials when describing the murder. The photograph was first published in 1975 and the presence of the initials has never been remarked on in print prior to this book. Who else, apart from the Ripper, could have known about the initials and have included them in the diary."
That last question ends with a period, not a question mark, in my edition and I'm damn glad it does. Because it's a simple statement of fact. Who else, indeed.
I'll tell you who -- only someone who knew the initials were there (or who thought they saw them in the photo, but that could have only taken place after 1975, and we know that didn't happen). It must have been the real killer.
So there are only two choices, Chris, as our expert makes very plain. Either this thing was written after the 1950s, after 1975, after the mid-80s, or it was written by the real killer, who knew all of these things only he could know -- things it was clearly "impossible" for anyone else to know before then.
His own quoted words make that very clear.
I'm certainly convinced. This guy has had more exposure to the diary than anyone else, I suspect, and he certainly knows what he is talking about. An old forgery is certainly an "impossibility." It must certainly be real (or modern, but we know it's not that).
Certainly feeling certain,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 24, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
I'll do a deal, since you obviously appreciate funny little time and space-wasting games as much as the next grown man. If you can get John to address my simple enough question of how a modern hoaxer knew Maybrick had the nickname May (and not apparently Brick, as yours could be Phil but probably not Lips, do you see?), I might address yours. I'll need a good reason why I should waste my time though, particularly as I am not claiming a hoaxer was working on the diary before 1988, and I've seen no evidence that would currently lead me towards such a scenario.
Love,
Patient Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 8:38 am: | |
Caz
More silly games.
You have always claimed to have an "open mind" about the diary. That's nonsense unless you have at least some sort of explanation for this question.
In the time it took to write that message, you could have given me your answer - if you only had one!
I find it absolutely amazing that someone who spends so long writing so many messages on these boards, and going on and on and on about relatively peripheral stuff like whether Maybrick's brother was an amateur poet, can just keep evading such a crucial question. You've written a full-length book about the diary, for heaven's sake!
I can only conclude that you aren't really at all interested in knowing the truth about the diary.
Chris
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
Caz,
Asked and answered above. Read my post carefully and you'll see that I've never said a hoaxer did or didn't have to know whether James did or didn't use the name MAY to write what's in the diary (just as it might or might not have been necessary to know whether someone named MacDonald sometimes called himself Mac to put such an odd idea in a diary supposedly written by that guy).
But, frankly, I agree with you. I see no other way to read the appearance of the letters M-A-Y in both Maybrick's diary and the Punch cartoon than as evidence that the real Maybrick wrote the book. And I see no other way any forger could have possibly had MAYbrick call himself MAY and play games with the fact that his last name started with those three letters. Clearly, the only possibility is that whoever wrote this text knew that MAYbrick sometimes used MAY as a nickname. The idea that a forger came up with the idea of having the game-playing hero of his book use the first three letters of his last name (which happen to make an English word) as a source of game playing without knowing this hard to find fact about the real James is simply beyond the realm of possibility. It couldn't have happened that way. It would make no sense, right?
I mean, for instance, there's no way some average forger sees the Punch cartoon in one of the many Ripper book and thinks, "hey, look at that, this old Ripper cartoon ends with the word MAY! This guy I'm writing about is named "MAYbrick. I wonder if I can use that?" Nope. That couldn't have happened. And even if it did (which it didn't) the fact that Maybrick also used these same letters as a nickname proves that the only way it could have happened is if the forger already knew that fact (which he couldn't have). Yes, Caz. I agree, that's the only conclusion. That makes perfect sense.
Now then, since the expert I cite above has definitively proven that the diary can only have been written either by the real killer or written after the mid-1980s; and since that expert has assured us that it was "impossible" for anyone to have the necessary information to write the diary before the mid-80's unless they were the real killer (the "tin match box" and "no heart" references prove that, he says), surely you must agree that an old forgery is an impossibility. And since we know there's no way this thing can be a modern hoax (how would a modern forger have known, as he must have to have written the diary, that the real James used MAY as a nickname), the only available conclusion, logically, is that the diary must have been written by the real killer.
Is there any other possiblity? Seriously? I can't see any, unless our expert is wrong (or unless this thing is a modern hoax and we know it's not that).
If there is any other possibility, Caz, I wish you (or someone out there) would tell me what it is. I can't see it at this point.
Always getting closer to the truth,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
Hello folks,
I'd like to stop for a moment and applaud Mr. Chris Phillips. He seems to have done something I did not think was possible around here -- ask a question that no one is willing to answer.
It's a simple thing, really.
How is it possible for a forger working before the 1980s to have known about the tin match box?
The expert who wrote the passages I quoted above is no help to us here, because he argues quite persuasively that it's not, that such a thing would be impossible, that only the real killer could have written those lines before 1980.
I can't see where he's wrong.
And no one seems willing to answer Chris's very simple question. And that's a milestone around here.
Good job, Chris.
In admiration,
--John |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
