|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 96
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:09 am: |       |
To any and all,
Has anyone started a discussion of who actually forged the diary? Assuming its forged, which I believe.
It seems to me a lot of hot air is being used to attack phrases within the diary that isn't leading anywhere concrete. Perhaps rather than nitpicking, because it isn't working we should be discussing who a possible forger might be. I have a pretty good idea.
STAN RUSSO |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
Hi Stan,
Great. Go ahead and give us your idea. I'd be interested to see your case against anyone you might think was involved.
As for all the "hot air," you must remember that we still have people coming here and pimping the possibility of authenticity (or at least of an old forgery), despite all the purely amazing coincidences necessary for such a thing even to be considered. Now I suspect that even those people know the thing is a fake, but they refuse to admit that publicly for whatever reason (and there are reasons that are not too hard to imagine, of course). So it becomes necessary to make sure that the data and the history and the evidence is continually and repeatedly represented in the face of these purely desire-filled dreams and desires, if for no other reason than to prevent newcomers from being mislead as to what it actually tells us.
But if you are up for naming a possible forger, I think that would also be very interesting.
I look forward to hearing your ideas,
--John |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 97
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
John,
What would life be without a tease? Let's see if anyone can guess who I think it was. And no helping because I think I told you.
STAN RUSSO |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 82
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Here are my opinions about who might have forged the Diary , I'll only give the initials but you might be able to guess who I mean...
A.G. - I think she had the original idea to forge a Diary of JtR and I think it was she who was fascinated by Mrs Maybrick and saw the possibilities for making her the ' last victim '.
M.B. - Helped A. with the content of the Diary , he had a talent for remembering little quotes and quips which he put in.
The late T.D. - He had a wide knowledge of the Ripper and of Liverpool and its crimes , helped A. and M. with the research side of the Diary and also with its provenance.
The late B.G. - helped create the provenance of the Diary with A.
G.K. - helped on the research side and actually wrote the text of the Diary in the old scrapbook.
Why was the Diary forged ? For money , pure and simple.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 98
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
Simon,
G. K. eludes me right at the moment. The others I know.
Kind of obvious aren't they?
Here's initials for you - M. H.
STAN RUSSO |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 83
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
GK was a friend of Tony Deveraux , a retired cabinet maker , the late Melvin Harris spotted the similarity between his signature and the writing in the Diary as far back as 1993 ! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 11:11 am: | |
Stan,
Fair enough. I won't say anything.
Here's a thought for the entire thread, though. Naming possible suspects is all well and good, but there should also be some evidence, spelled out carefully and in detail, if you are going to make a case against someone in particular.
We know there is no evidence which suggests that the diary is real.
We know there is plenty of evidence to tell us exactly what it is. We've already seen it.
Now, if someone wants to start discussing specific people as possible forgers, then surely that too would have to be accompanied by specific evidence.
At least, that would seem the proper way to go about it to me.
I look forward to reading the theories. 
--John
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 99
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 11:18 am: | |
John,
I agree. Names shouldn't just be thrown out, but rather than evidence, which no one will have, I prefer theory, because at least that can be discussed and hopefully intelligently analyzed.
STAN RUSSO |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:52 pm: | |
Here's initials for you - M. H.
And here's more - B.S.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 100
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 2:22 am: | |
RJ,
Good comeback. And solid argument on the BS. You're really turning me around.
I'm off the boards people. It's becoming way too hard, way too quick, to have intelligent discussions with open minded people. Enjoy the rest of the investigation.
STAN RUSSO |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 5:43 am: | |
Hi Simon,
‘The late T.D. - He had a wide knowledge of the Ripper and of Liverpool and its crimes , helped A. and M. with the research side of the Diary and also with its provenance.’
Well, there’s no evidence that TD had any knowledge of the Ripper, and the only way he helped provide a provenance was by dying at a time when MB could claim he had already been given the diary by him. What was MB planning to say about the provenance if TD hadn’t died? Hmmmm?
And who introduced TD’s name in the first place, only to provide you with a convenient co-conspirator? Yes, MB.
‘The late B.G. - helped create the provenance of the Diary with A.’
No evidence that he knowingly helped ‘create’ a false provenance. The most you can really say is that he helped A by accepting and supporting the one she gave.
‘G.K. - helped on the research side and actually wrote the text of the Diary in the old scrapbook.’
No evidence for any of this. The whereabouts of the original GK handwriting samples are being kept secret, so the samples remain unavailable to professional document examiners.
No evidence that GK and MB have ever met, or even knew of each other’s existence when MB brought the diary to London. GK’s name was only introduced because of his association with TD, whose name was in turn introduced by MB.
‘Why was the Diary forged ? For money , pure and simple.’
There is documentary evidence that A had ‘made it consistently clear’ throughout, to Doreen Montgomery, the holder of the purse strings, that she ‘wanted no part of the Diary or any attendant revenue’. (page 213, Ripper Diary)
MB did his best to stop his own (and all) diary revenue almost as soon as it began to flow, by claiming he forged it.
TD conveniently died before a penny piece could be made by anyone.
BG was terminally ill by the time A involved him.
No evidence that GK got anything at all before MB pulled the plug with his various forgery claims.
With no more evidence today, than when the first cries of “hoax!” were heard, back in the early 1990s, that any of these individuals was actually responsible for composing or penning the diary; and with a few ‘problem’ phrases in the diary, each needing an isolation chamber and a constant blast of hot air if it is to maintain a suitably ‘problematic’ appearance, a modern hoax conspiracy theorist’s work is never done. In short, his lot does not appear to be a happy one.
But I’m sure some of you will be here again this week, telling me how much fun you have, blasting the same hot air at those same ‘problem’ areas.
No danger of the fun drying up, of course, if you never find your forger.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on August 23, 2004) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 733
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 6:35 am: | |
So Caroline,
Are you claiming that AG never accepted any money from the Diary?
(Message edited by Ally on August 23, 2004)
 |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 654
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
First of all, a "modern hoax theorist's" work is twofold.
First, to determine if the diary is indeed a modern hoax.
It is now clear that for the diary to be anything other than a modern hoax, at least a half dozen truly amazing coincidences must be true.
Caroline's nonsense about isolation chambers and blasts of hot air not only means nothing, the picture it presents about a created "problematic appearance" is deliberately misleading, and she knows that.
Anyone who has recently read any of the other threads knows that there is no possible way whatsoever that either the real James Maybrick or an old forger saw the police list -- so either the same exact words appear in both the diary AND that list in exactly the same distinctively odd order just by a purely amazing coincidence or the diary is a modern forgery.
Also, anyone who has been reading the other threads know that there is no way the real James Maybrick or an old forger could have possibly known about the Poste House pub in Liverpool. So either those exact words spelled and written in that unique way appear in the diary purely by accident and thereby amazingly produce the name of the pub exactly, just by chance, or else the diary is a modern forgery.
Anyone who has been reading the other threads knows that the diary makes exactly the same mistakes about the murders as are made in modern books, that it contains scenes that never actually happened in the same place in its narratives as a modern source, that it uses phrases identical to those in a modern book about Maybrick, and that it has no provenance whatsoever, that there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere on the planet that even suggests to us that it existed before modern times.
Not one.
So Caroline's deliberately deceitful characterization about the "few problem phrases" is just more typical say-anything-to-keep-hope-alive desperation, and it demonstrates exactly what I was saying to Stan in my first post on this thread and why this discussion remains trapped in a pointless circle but also remains nonetheless necessary, lest the new arrivals are poisoned by the rhetorical desperation of those who won't admit publicly what they already know -- that the real James Maybrick did not write this book.
So the first part of a modern theorist's job is an easy one, simply remind people continuously of the facts and of the truly amazing and unbelievable coincidences that would HAVE to be true for the diary to be anything other tan a modern hoax.
The second part, the gathering of evidence against a particular suspect or forger, has not, so far as I can see, been undertaken here.
When evidence of some sort starts to appear, this thread will become relevant.
Just as when test results start to appear, the DiTA thread will have material to discuss.
I don't look for either thing to happen anytime soon.
And I don't really wonder why not.
It's not really a mystery, is it?
Bemused at the desperation still around.
--John
PS: Here's a question. How many books do you think there are in the whole history of publishing since the 17th century that have that one line from that one poem by that one poet isolated and excerpted in the middle of them? Just that part of that poem by that guy.
I'd be willing to bet you can count them all and still have fingers left.
In fact, it's quite possible that there might be only two.
And Mike Barrett owned both of them.
Anyone want to run the odds on that?
And we can talk another time about Mike's bank records and his anger and his decision to "confess." These things certainly do NOT allow us to conclude that the diary was not originally created for profit.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Hi everyone,
all that follows is based on a assumption/hypothesis that the diary is a forgery!!
Apart from it being dangerously near a law suit against oneself, this thread sure is interesting!
Stan,
I've heard that one before but I'm surprised to hear it from you. I don't know how likely I think it is or not. Whilst the fact that making money was the sole purpose of any forgery is not always true is worth keeping at the back of ones mind - even then any motive is hard to come by.
Simon,
what evidence do you have that T.D. had any knowledge of JTR or JM? And leaving aside this and considering some of the problem points in the diary one would wonder how much knowledge a potential forger would have.
Caz,
but examples of G.k's handwriting do exist in your book so I guess they are kicking about somewhere. And if G.K is still alive (I thought he was but am not sure) then why not obtain some more?
and incidentally I wonder if it really matters who forged it (assuming someone did) our first priority is restoring James Maybrick's name if he is innocent!
John,
evidence should always be our number one priority. Until I see any against anyone i'll be backing right out of this thread!
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 11:52 am: | |
Hi Jen,
I agree completely with your words to me.
We'll see what (if anything) ever appears here, just like we'll see what (if anything) ever appears on the DiTA results thread.
I have my doubts about both, for obvious reasons.
--John (remembering always that we are in the land of desire) |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 85
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 2:33 pm: | |
Jenni , here we go :
" The first challenge was to find a new candidate for Jack the Ripper. Maybrick , a wifebeater and ' bastard ' was a perfect candidate. B--- offers the fact that his grave was desecrated in 1962 , apparently as proof of his low standing. ' Who did that ? ' [Alan] Gray asks. ' You told me D--- did that '. B--- confirms that. D--- he says was obsessed with the Ripper. They both decided Maybrick was the ideal candidate...D--- had given B--- all his research , which B--- then checked for himself..."
On B.G.'s involvement : " The money needed to buy the journal - £50 - was donated by B--- G--- "
- " Ripper Diary the inside story " , p.153
-------------------------------------------------
Please note that when I posted above , I just said that I was stating my opinions , I was not accusing anyone of actually forging the Diary itself. So yes , I am aware that any statement which comes from MB must be treated with great caution but I am not using the statement as the basis of a case against anyone , I am merely using M's statement about TD to inform my opinion.
Obviously obtaining scientific proof that the Diary is a forgery will take further tests and comparisons of handwriting , although there are obviously very strong anomalies in the text of the thing itself. Its not going to be down to me ( thank goodness ! ) to prove WHO forged the Diary , so I don't intend to accuse anyone of doing so at this moment in time.
But I have stated my opinions clearly who I think was behind the forgery and the reason they did it ! |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 734
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 6:57 am: | |
Oooooooh Caroliiine...
Did AG ever accept any money from the Diary?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Simon and John
Ok no worries.
I guess Time Reveals All (sorry can't resist throwing that one in every now and then)
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Stan {if you're even going to read this},
I'm surprised that you would abandon the boards so easily. There are plenty here who would like to have intelligent discussion of your theories, and it just comes with the territory that you'll get some dumba** remarks sometimes. I for one would like to see you stick it out, particularly because I'd like to discuss your book with you once I'm finished!
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:43 pm: | |
Stan ---A bit touchy? To those with any insight at all into M.H.'s personality, your suggestion was a one-liner; a one-liner deserves a repartee. You and I both know there was no "intelligent discussion" to go along with it. If so... I'm all ears. "M.H." was originally invited into the diary fracas by Paul Feldman (at the suggestion of Paul Begg)-- who thought his opinion might be worthwhile. RP |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 735
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 7:37 am: | |
Stan,
I have to agree with RJ here. Your statement re MH was a tossed off one-liner, no reasoning behind it...how was that supposed to spark intellectual debate?
And on to other things...
I guess I will just have to conclude from Caroline's silence that she knows full well that AG accepted money from the diary, and therefore her statement above that AG claimed repeatedly that she wanted no money is not only meaningless but ludicrous and dishonest. It matters not what a person says but what a person does. If AG accepted money from the Diary, then the fact that she claimed not to want any really doesn't matter does it?
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 671
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:23 am: | |
Hi Ally,
Regarding AG and the whole fake diary fiasco, in addition to the point you make above, I might offer you two more words.
Book deal.
Wink's as good as a nod,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
John,
but who could have second guessed the amazing book of Feldy - I put it to you that no one could!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Hi Jen,
Indeed. 
Say no more, say no more,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 676
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Hi All,
I would just like to point out, since it has come up on another thread, that when the old boards were running I seem to recall that we learned a few interesting biographical facts. We learned that one among us has professional experience in creative writing, even creative writing of a historical nature, has a great deal of expertise in both the Ripper crimes and the Maybrick case, has first hand knowledge of Liverpool and London and has what feels like a much too-convenient alibi.
In fact, I seem to recall he might have even once toyed with the idea of writing a book about Maybrick and we all know he has written extensively about the Ripper, even in a creative context.
The only thing stopping me from naming this person here on this thread is that if he had indeed written the diary, it wouldn't have been so obviously a forgery.
Unless he was even more clever....
'Nuff said,
--John
(Just kidding, CG) |
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
I think starting to name forgers is treading on dangerous ground. Its is one thing to say that you believe that the diary and watch are forgeries but it is quite another to start naming names.
What we are dealing with here is accusing people of lying. In some cases that is easier than others, for example one person connected with the diary has definitely lied, I say definitely because they have issued legal statements claiming one thing but have said in print and on screen another.
A second person connected with the diary has also lied, first of all supporting one story and then later after a separation from the diary (and from possible income from the diary) suddenly has come out with another story which places original ownership of the diary with them.
It becomes harder with the watch, I think I know who did what but its only a feeling a suspicion based on my years experience of human nature.
However, the owner(s) of the watch have been fairly consistent with their story (let’s not even go into the almost insane conjecture and bizarre fixations of the author with the initials PHF).
I feel there is no ‘mastermind’ behind the diary, the research is too shoddy and the prose too clumsy and obvious for it to be the work of a ‘mastermind’.
Did anyone here ever find out what Nick Warren meant by a ‘smoking gun’ in the text? I couldn’t find it!
Bahhh!
|
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
Intelligent discussion? Nope havent come accross much.
Plenty of sniping, point scoring and general unpleasantness, but nothing constructive.
Take away peoples (one in particular) opinions which are repeated almost on an hourly basis and there really isnt much to keep many people interested in these boards I'm afraid.
Alan |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 736
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 7:59 pm: | |
And yet Alan, here you are interested enough to post...
Guess that takes some of the sting from any criticism you might make.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
Hi Ally,
You asked me:
‘Are you claiming that AG never accepted any money from the Diary?’
Nope, don’t think you’ll find I am. But you are welcome to read my post again if you are in any doubt about what I actually did claim.
I was simply pointing out that if AG set out to make money from the diary, she went about it in a funny way, never once asking for any diary income when it was all going to MB and SH. And there is no evidence she would ever have asked for any if DM hadn’t eventually decided to start sending her half of MB’s share after the marriage break-up, insisting it was only right and proper that their daughter C should benefit from her father’s diary income, even if AG would sooner do without it.
Now, if AG knows the diary is a modern forgery, then naturally she has done everything wrong, legally and morally, from the very start, and that would include eventually accepting some of the spoils for her daughter, that would otherwise have gone to MB to be pissed against the wall. If, on the other hand, AG doesn’t know for certain how or when the diary began life, her alleged evil-doing would be of an entirely different nature, and would very much depend on what her own suspicions are concerning the dodgy document.
Hi Jenni,
I don’t personally see why anyone should have to bother GK again, and ask him for further handwriting samples, when the two original samples obtained back in 1999 are sitting somewhere in mothballs, because no one who knows their whereabouts has had the courage of their convictions to get them analysed professionally. On that basis alone, the priority should be to restore GK’s name and presumption of innocence. Then we can begin to look at whose handwriting is really in the diary, and draw a line under this particular episode of unprofessional guesswork and assumption that led people up GK’s garden path and on the road to nowhere.
Hi Simon,
As you say, the ‘evidence’ you quoted concerning TD and BG came unsupported from the mouth of – er – MB.
It’s your choice which statements of MB’s you believe to be true, and which you don’t. But I think we can guess which are which, on the basis of your stated position – a presumption that the diary is a modern creation, followed by a willingness to judge the friends and family members - fingered by MB himself – guilty as hell.
I have no way of judging these people yet. But I’m certainly not going to be swayed by what MB has said about them at various times when he has had different axes to grind. But that’s just me.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 93
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
But you have to ask Caz , would MB point the finger at people who were truly innocent and not involved with the forging of the Diary in any way ? If not , then draw your own conclusions ! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 830
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 6:32 am: | |
Caz,
well where ever they are whatever just lets find them then!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 679
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Caroline Morris writes, about one of the people mentioned here:
"...the priority should be to restore GK’s name and presumption of innocence."
It is truly a shame that she doesn't feel that way about JM, isn't it?
Oh well, I guess a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
--John (citing someone else) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
Hi Simon,
You asked:
‘…would MB point the finger at people who were truly innocent and not involved with the forging of the Diary in any way ?’
I don’t know, but I can think of a couple of reasons why MB might not have been willing or able to point the finger at a 'guilty' party. He never pointed the finger at GK, for instance. But then, there is no evidence MB even knows, to this day, who GK is, or how significant a role some people believe he may have played in the diary’s creation.
But MB did involve TD, dead as he was, right at the beginning, when pointing fingers and naming the guilty was presumably the very last thing on his mind. You could ask yourself: would MB introduce, and volunteer the name of a guilty party, even before anyone began investigating the diary and its emergence?
John wrote:
‘It is truly a shame that she doesn't feel that way about JM, isn't it?’
Who says I don’t feel that way about JM?
Every Victorian gent, who has ever been fingered as the ripper, will continue to be presumed innocent in the absence of proof.
Did I really have to state the bleedin’ obvious, here on the Jack the Ripper Casebook of all places, in order to prevent John coming up with yet another false assumption about the way I think and feel?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Caroline suggests to Simon:
"You could ask yourself: would MB introduce, and volunteer the name of a guilty party, even before anyone began investigating the diary and its emergence?"
And of course, once again the problem should be immediately apparent to all our local residents. Asking questions that begin with "Would Mike Barrett...," as if there was some sort of logical behavior or thought process at work when thinking like Mike, is an undertaking destined not only to failure but to hopelessly misleading conclusions.
There is, remember, a single fact here.
The diary has no verifiable provenance whatsoever. All we know, of course, is that the real James did not write it and that unless more than a half-dozen separately staggering and completely odds-defying and unbelievable coincidences all took place simultaneously, it can ONLY be a modern forgery.
Asking questions like "Would Mike Barrett have done such and such..." will not help us.
As for her belief that, in the case of JM, like GK, "the priority should be to restore [his] name and presumption of innocence," all I can say is that spending one's days and weeks writing messages to an internet discussion board designed to keep hope alive, designed to pimp at least the possibility of the diary being by the real James Maybrick, with talk of his family connections to Crashaw and with all the excusing of the diary's many ahistoricisms and anachronisms with fairy-tales that ignore the words that actually appear on the page, sure is a funny way to "clear someone's name and restore the presumption of innocence," especially when that presumption is challenged only by a fake document, only by a deliberate forgery.
But I guess we have a different idea of what the right thing to do would be, for the field, for the name of the real JM, for the history, for the seriousness of the discipline, when faced with a cheap fake.
Fair enough,
--John
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 113
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
I suppose it is possible that Mike still doesn't know who wrote the Diary , it may be that TD arranged to keep the identity of the actual writer ( ie GK ) a secret for their own protection. Given Mike's further actions , it was probably a wise move.
In relation to TD , there is no physical evidence to connect TD with the Diary apart from the provenance and this was given after he had died : in fact his daughters denied that their father had ever possessed the Diary. But it was handy for MB and AG to have the Diary come from someone who had died , as that left the origins of the book a mystery and the person who claimed to have owned it could not be questioned. Very convenient... |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 114
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
John , I'd probably rate the criteria that prove the Diary a fake in this order of importance :
* Not in Maybrick's handwriting
* Poste House
* Michael Maybrick not writing verse
* Crashaw quote
* Tin Matchbox empty
* Mrs Hammersmith
* The anachronistic usage of ' one off '
* In a scrapbook rather than a Diary
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
interesting Simon,
personally I would put tin match box empty first in any discussion about such things. (then the handwriting and Crawshaw as the rest is easier to explain away in my opinion!!)
Then you all knew that already!
As for the point of this thread as long as we accept that the handwriting of JM doesn't match the document because it was not written by him (and not that it doesn't match because of some other reason - such as a MPD for eg) and as the document does exist now, we must accept that someone else wrote it at some point in time. As for who, that I wouldn't like to say
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi Simon,
Don't forget the simple fact that it's a document completely without a real provenance. There is no actual evidence anywhere that even suggests that this document existed before the 20th Century.
And don't forget the book's fake structure -- its well-made narrative, complete with an artificial en media res opening that, even though it's supposed to be in the middle of things, nonetheless conveniently gives us the setting, the story, the time, and introduces us to the major characters all right away -- just like the beginning of a novel or play; and, of course, complete with the melodramatic final scene.
And don't forget the simple historical mistakes the book makes about the actual murders -- the very same mistakes, incidentally, that appear in other modern sources.
And...
Well, this is not the right thread.
We all know it is a fake.
(all of us... really... trust me....)
We know there is no evidence whatsoever that even suggests it was written by JM or that it was written in the proper century (or even long before it appeared). All we need to do is pay attention. Watch. No one will appear here to offer us any real evidence that tells us this book is anything other than a modern forgery.
Nevertheless, just as I don't expect there to be any new test results anytime soon over on the DiTA thread, I don't expect there will be any new or solid evidence offered here about the identities of the forgers.
One doesn't have to think too hard to come up with possible reasons why.
Meanwhile, we know of only one person in the whole history of the world who, before he sold one of them, simultaneously owned what may well be the only two books in the entire history of publishing to cite that one particular line of poetry (and we are here wondering who wrote the second one).
That is, it seems to me, at least worth keeping in mind.
All the best,
--John
PS: MPD, heh heh, Jen, that's a good one. 
(Message edited by omlor on August 29, 2004) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 739
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 5:52 am: | |
Caroline,
I love your argument. Anne protests "Well of course I don't want any money from the diary" and is collecting money all along. The checks might well have been made out to her husband Mike, but seeing as how they were married and all...she gets half. Then when they split up and she starts being sent half the money she accepts it and you say "this is a funny way to go about getting the money"? What's funny about it? She got her share when she was married to Mike and she continued to get her share after she was divorced. Not to mention that she sprangboard into a bookdeal all for herself. Yeah..no financial interest in the Diary. Uh huh.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 7:17 am: | |
Blimey, Ally, what trust you have in a hubby's generosity towards his missus. 
Anyway, you may be quite wrong about Anne 'collecting money all along'. Doreen Montgomery wrote to Anne, in February 1996:
Not once during this contractual association have you ever asked me to vary the procedure by which, during the period of your marriage, I settled the majority of monies directly to Mike. There were occasions when I was asked by him to make payments to you, and this I did. I recall you told me afterwards that, in fact, you gave them back to Mike! As you know, throughout - including during that meeting...last year [ie 1995] - you made it consistently clear that you wanted no part of the Diary or any attendant revenue.
Bottom line: does Anne's final acceptance of diary money and her own book deal make her a co-forger? Does it mean she knows where Mike got the diary from, or even when it was written?
If not, it doesn't get us very far, does it?
Have a great weekend trying to figure out what evidence you have that Anne knows the diary is a modern hoax.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 7:30 am: | |
Caroline writes:
"Bottom line: does Anne's final acceptance of diary money and her own book deal make her a co-forger? Does it mean she knows where Mike got the diary from, or even when it was written?"
Answer: No but it makes the following quote, though technically correct, just a tad misleading, doesn't it?
"There is documentary evidence that A had ‘made it consistently clear’ throughout, to Doreen Montgomery, the holder of the purse strings, that she ‘wanted no part of the Diary or any attendant revenue’. (page 213, Ripper Diary)"
Now that we've seen that "documentary evidence" here, Ally seems to have been correct in at least one respect. Anne may have at one point said "she wanted no part of the Diary or any attendant revenue." But that doesn't turn out to have been true in the end, does it?
It makes us wonder, as Caroline might say, what else "A" might not be telling the truth about.
Loving that turning worm,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 9:32 am: | |
I have just one question,
Does it mean she knows where Mike got the diary from, or even when it was written?
Sorry I was under the impression AG. was saying she had the book all along. That would be a pretty clear indication she knew where Mike got it from wouldn't it? isn't the arguements of Paul Feldman (sorry) the point/ basis of her own book?
Jennifer
ps slightly puzzled here!
pps John - turning worm what's that mean?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 63
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
The diary was forged by MM with a little help from P, G and possibly DD.
BB |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
BB,
It is indeed a small world after all.
But we mustn't forget the main contributor.
Figment!
Hearing the song even now....
--John |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 122
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 5:39 am: | |
Jenni , the phrase ' the worm turns ' means that someone starts changing their attitude or opinion , don't ask me where it comes from - one of the more mysterious expressions of the English language I'm afraid ! Theres a phrase in Shakespeare ' the worm has turned ' which may be the origin.
Anne did indeed say she had the Diary and it was passed on down the Graham family , do Maybrickites now believe that Anne was lying ? If so , what else could she be lying about ?
Its all very murky... |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
THE WORM TURNS -
"Someone previously downtrodden gets his revenge; an unfavorable situation is reversed. The saying represents an evolution of the old proverb, 'Tread on a worm and it will turn.'
The meaning was that even the most humble creature tries to counteract rough treatment.
Shakespeare picked up the thought in Henry VI, Part 3, where Lord Clifford urges the king against 'lenity and harmful pity, saying:
To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
The smallest worm will turn being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.'"
"The Dictionary of Cliches" by James Rogers (Ballantine Books, New York, 1985).
Posted by ESC on what looks to be a useful discussion forum for English slang expressions.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/657.html
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 9:48 pm: | |
Heh heh,
I love this place.
--John (hunkered down amidst all this etymology) |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 10:45 pm: | |
Can somebody please identify the "Maybrickites", who presumably post on these diary threads? I can only think of one, a guy. |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 26
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 5:32 am: | |
I wondered if somebody wrote it to rekindle interest in Florence Maybrick |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 8:40 am: | |
Hi Scott,
As I say, I'm not convinced there are any. Other than, of course, the three people who have published records promoting the case for (and in at least one case the inevitability of) authenticity. Those initials would be RS, SH, and our hero PF.
But only one of those posts here every so often.
I do think lots of people come to the case by reading about the diary, but I don't believe very many are seduced by the nonsense in the end.
I know one or two people who sometimes argue the case for the diary on other boards, just for fun, but don't believe it themselves -- it's sort of an intellectual work-out routine for them.
Around here, of course, we do not have Maybrickites. We do however have plenty of silly reading and irrational excuses and desperate pleas for impossible simultaneous coincidences in place of rational, common sense thought. Because we do have at least one person apparently very interested in keeping some hope alive, despite there being no real evidence of any sort whatsoever that even suggests that the real James had anything to do with this book or these crimes.
But I don't think there are any real Maybrickites here. Or, if there are, they don't post, since they haven't any evidence (except of course the super secret kind that can't be shown to anyone -- except perhaps their invisible friends).
For the most part, it's not the committed that offer the silliness here, it's the evasive.
Watching the wind blow as Frances limps by,
--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.
|
|
|
|
