|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 8:29 pm: | 
|
John--Yes it does ring a bell, but I have a different fellow in mind. There was a Proff associated with some University in the U.S. doing the same sort thing in the 1980s---I forget his name now. His method had to do with feeding two texts into a computer (one with the authorship known, the other unknown) and then there was some sort of analysis based largely on word length, but also syntax, percentages of adjective used compared to nouns, over-all vocabulary, etc. which was supposed to give an accurate assessment of whether the two texts were created by the same author. (If I remember correctly) he was able to prove that his system had some merit. |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 119
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Thanks R J Palmer,
The Reverend Morton mentioned above received prominence in a court case in Australia "The Whiskey-Au-Go-Go Fire", which occurred on the Gold Coast pleasure strip in Queensland in the early ' Seventies.
An alleged extortion attempt by gang-land people
resulted in a drum of petrol being rolled into the foyer of the night-club.
The subsequent fire ball; panic;the fact the fire exits were chained up with padlocks..all combined to cause carnage, Fifteen patrons suffocated.
Police arrested two men, and their statements were later used to convict them.
One defendant, sought the expertise of the Reverend Morton's "Stylometry".
Morton claimed there was an eighty percent chance the defendant had NOT dictated the statement.
Years later police whistle-blowers confirmed the statement was composed by a clutch of detectives.
The defendants were goaled for long periods.
The issue of their guilt or otherwise was later dealt with separately from whether or not police concocted the confession. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 4:28 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
I find it a little ironic that the diary not being in Sir Jim's known handwriting is 'inconclusive' to many...while, at the same, time, the diary not being in the known handwriting of MB or AG is somehow startling evidence that they had nought to do with it.
I find it more than a little ironic that you have to come up with mythical positions adopted by imaginary theorists, if your own theorising is so watertight. Whose position are you describing here?
No one could possibly argue that the diary handwriting is recognisable as Maybrick’s, and if anyone did so you would rightly howl in protest. But people do still theorise here that Mike or Anne physically wrote the thing, when it is clearly not recognisable as their writing either. And what happens? You keep quiet and let them think they are probably right. And my reward for speaking up is to be treated to yet another bout of ‘little ironies’ associated with some non-existent position you have dreamed up for anyone who dares to challenge theories that don’t hold a single drop of water.
No amount of irony, real or manufactured out of thin air, can alter the fact that the evidence for Mike or Anne physically writing the diary is sadly lacking. Nor has any evidence been produced to show that Mike could have composed some or all of the 63 pages at any time.
You don’t need to convince anyone else, of course, and obviously not those who already find the inclusion of the two Crashaw lines such overpowering evidence against Mike that they can afford to ignore everything else, including the Mr. Nobody syndrome – the fact that not one of the known suspects can be held responsible for the scratches in the watch or writing a single original word in the diary.
But for those of us who just can’t see it, your theorising is not enough. We might start paying more attention if it ever attracts the support of someone – anyone - who knows Mike, and has read his mid-to-late 1980s attempts to write, the interviews with celebrities and the children’s word games etc, perhaps a fellow member of the "Writer's Circle" in Liverpool. Otherwise, you are pretty much stuck with modern hoaxitis - preaching to the converted while misrepresenting the positions held by anyone who doesn't fall meekly into line.
Hi Goryboy,
‘So. It was Billy Graham with Tony Devereaux's waverly nib in Kane's study. J'accuse!’
Ah, if only there was the tiniest scrap of evidence that these three all knew one another, or had the basic skills between them to create this money-spinning hoax. Unaccountably, if true, they saw in Mike a co-conspirator they could trust, not only with the marketing side of the operation, but also with all those lovely beer tokens they were presumably hoping would come their way and keep on coming.
The three forgers were no seasoned gamblers or they would have appreciated the dead cert of Mike spending their pennies like there was no tomorrow. Mind you, they could probably be excused for not anticipating that Mike would try to claim their handiwork as his own, thereby single-handedly guaranteeing fewer pennies tomorrow for anyone to spend, regardless of who had been enjoying the profits thus far. Don’t you just love this yarn?
Incidentally, on page 229 of Ripper Diary, you will find details of a linguistic comparison study that was made between the diary and one suspected forger. It may help you decide whether this person is likely to have composed the diary text.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 9:27 am: |
|
Caz--You seem to have taken my comments personally, which is unfortunate.
The journal proports to be Maybrick's secret diary. If it is not Maybrick's handwriting, then it is a forgery. It's a very simple equation.
Unfortunately, the same equation doesn't work so well when talking about a deliberate hoax. If the diary's writing doesn't visibly match Barrett's, we can't come to a conclusion that he didn't write it, because: 1) He could have had a penman; 2) he could have succesfully disguised his handwriting to appear 'Victorian.'
This is not a double-standard, it is a distinction that naturally arises when dealing with a questioned document.
I still find your opinion of Barrett's literary abilities an awkward fit with Anne Graham's provenance story; ie., that she gave him an old family heirloom in order that he might write a story about it. People were buying him word-processors, acting the part of a secret muse, crying to the office secretary about him 'writing a book', but, no, no, I shouldn't actually believe he was capable of putting pen to paper...
Hmm.
Cheers, RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Well, I can hardly take your comments personally if they appear to me to be describing a position taken by someone else, and certainly no one posting here or anyone I recognise. Only you know whose position you were aiming to describe as ironic. 
I do get your very simple equation, RJ, that if Maybrick didn't write the diary, someone else must have done it.
Why don't you get my very simple point: if you believe Mike Barrett helped create it, fine, go on believing it. But if you want to make me, or others believe as you do, you will have to 1) find evidence of this penfriend of his or 2) find evidence of Mike's ability to make his handwriting appear even vaguely unlike his own.
You can dress it up however you like, RJ. But your faith may be blinding you to the same mistake pro-diarists make: if their theory is that Maybrick wrote the diary, they will have to prove it in order to convince you, me and a whole host of others; if your theory is that Mike helped create it, you will have to prove it in order to convince me, and those who know Mike and, like me, sincerely doubt he even knows today how and when the thing came into being.
Barrett's true literary abilities can't be altered to fit anyone's theory about the diary's origins, of course. But I am not pushing a theory, I'm simply questioning your opinion of Mike's abilities as it obviously differs radically from my own. The delicious irony is that you are actually using Anne's provenance story as your only visible means of support for your argument that Mike could have produced something like the Maybrick Diary.
And I thought you didn't believe a word of Anne's 'family heirloom' yarn!
You'll have to do better than that.
Love,
Caz
|
John R. Fogarty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Dear CAZ,
You mentioned a linguistic comparison study on pg. 229 of the diary, but I cannot find it. I've got the Shirley Harrison book version, The Diary of Jack the Ripper -- The Discovery, The Investigation, The Debate, as published by Hyperion Press, 1993.
However, I do find prominent mention elsewhere of Maybrick's friend George Davidson, who apparently drowned himself in 1893. Is this the alleged forger to whom you refer?
I've finally come around, as you know, to the belief that poor Michael Barrett had nothing to do with the actual writing of the supposed "diary." But without samples of Anne's, Kane's, Davidson's or the handwriting of other interested parties, then and now, I can't even guess as to the thing's author. Its provenance is attractive, though also highly questionable -- if for no other reason than the constantly shifting, changing details of same, like a wounded serpent lashing itself to and fro to fit into a plausible pigeon hole.
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy)
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Caz, I'm afraid the irony is all yours this time round.
No, I don't believe Anne's 'thirteenth hour confession' (as Ivor Edwards once dubbed it) but, then, I don't have to. The only element that is important is that she viewed the story as being credible to those she needed to convince. So is she, or is she not credible? Looks like a bit of a paradox, no?
I agree to disagree. Cheers, RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:43 am: |
|
Hi Goryboy,
I meant page 229 of Ripper Diary, The Inside Story – the book Keith Skinner, Seth Linder and I have just had published. Apologies for the confusion.
The linguistic comparison study was between the diary and someone suspected of forging it in modern times. There are also various handwriting samples in our book for people to compare with the diary.
I don’t know about plausible pigeon holes, attractive provenances and constant shifting. All I do know is that those who believe in the modern hoax conspiracy theory have not even begun to explain how this conspiracy actually worked and how it all makes sense. And it’s not for want of trying. We’ve had years of idle speculation about the identities and precise roles of all those assumed to be involved; much agonising and chewing over of the minutest details of the story, some even spending weeks analysing the 63 pages of the diary practically word by word; investigators busting a gut to bust the hoax wide open and expose the conspirators.
Yet, when it comes to the crunch, and people are asked questions they can’t or won’t answer about their alleged conspiracy theories and the suspected conspirators, some of the excuses are as laughable as they are lame: “The diary’s not worth wasting my time over” (I love that one!!!  ); “There is no point in exposing the forgers”; “It’s very simple - since Maybrick didn’t write it, someone else must have”; and “the fact that Mike owned a book containing the two Crashaw lines is all anyone needs to be told.” So why have these same people written millions of words between them, and spent thousands upon thousands of man-hours dwelling on the subject, if it’s as simple as telling one or two rather dopey individuals that the sun really will rise again tomorrow morning?
I could make my life a whole lot easier by pretending to see what most of you can apparently see with your eyes shut, and if I could make myself believe in your conspiracy theories. It’s not much fun to find myself constantly outnumbered by people who are certain they are right and therefore I must be either mad or bad for not agreeing with their reasoning and conclusions.
Hi RJ,
We were discussing whether Mike had the necessary literary skills to write the diary. You appeared to be arguing that Anne must have believed him capable otherwise she would not have given him (via Tony) the family heirloom for the purpose of encouraging him to write more.
You believe Anne’s whole account to be nonsense, yet you now claim that part of it - her stated reason for giving the diary to Mike – was based on fact, ie the ‘fact’ that she apparently thought Mike really could have written a fictional story about the diary.
I just find it amazing that you can use Anne’s own account to conclude anything about Mike’s ability to produce a readable story and, by extension, the diary itself.
But yes, let’s agree to disagree. After all, it’s only your opinion against mine.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Caz--Hi. This seems more a matter of exchanging rhetorical barbs than in coming to any rational conclusion about the details. I don't wish you to be "amazed" so let me rephrase things.
I don't rely on Anne's account to conclude anything. All I was attempting to say is that your belief that Barrett was incapable of writing seems to me to be a contradiction if you also believe Anne's story.
Of course, you know as well as I do that Barrett was pursuing a writing career in 1986-1991---perhaps earlier. We also both know he had published an interview with Kenneth Williams (among others), and word-games. He also belonged to a "Writer's Circle" in Liverpool (Source: Shirley Harrison).
But of course you wrote a book on the subject and know all this.
"The tale told by the Diary camp in 1993 ran thus: Mike knew nothing of the murders or the Maybricks. He then "...bought a word processor and launched himself into extensive research. He spent hours sifting through microfilm newspaper reports... (Harrison p7).....but.....Mike had, in fact, owned a word processor since April 3rd 1986; it was an 'Amstrad', No 8256." (Melvin Harris, A Guide through the Labyrinth)
1986. Hmm. No, the fact that Barrett kept his writing-ambitions a secret doesn't prove that he wrote the diary, nor that he was even particularly a good writer; but it does tell me that he knew he was up to no-good when he brought the diary to London. I don't buy the guileless scrap-metal dealer tale for one moment.
Whether or not one believes that Mike was capable of writing all or part of the diary, probably has a lot to do with one's opinions about the complexity of the text.
Then we have pesky little details like Mike buying that genuine blank Victorian diary; Mr. Chittenden's statement that Barrett had been attempting to peddle the diary for several months; and Anne's strange (and still unexplained) statement to her co-worker at Rensburgh that Mike was "writing a book, but couldn't talk about it."
As you say, it's a dead-end. Maybe. I don't pretend to convince anyone. It just seems odd to me that Barrett --so allegedly incapable---is also mucking around with microfilm, probate records (in his research notes), and has this strange knack for finding excerpts from obscure 17th Century poetry. All that strange secrecy. It doesn't bodewell, nor does it quite add up. IMHO.
RP
|
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Yet, when it comes to the crunch, and people are asked questions they can’t or won’t answer about their alleged conspiracy theories and the suspected conspirators, some of the excuses are as laughable as they are lame: “The diary’s not worth wasting my time over” (I love that one!!! );
But I think it's fair to say that most people don't think the diary is worth spending time on, once it's agreed that it wasn't written by Jack the Ripper. (That's not to say that the problem of who forged it isn't an interesting one, just that it's a minority interest.)
I suspect I'm not alone in being a bit surprised at the amount of bitterness this debate generates, granted that the internal evidence is conclusive against its having been written by the murderer.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Chris,
Well said.
RJ writes, concerning his debate with Caz,
"This seems more a matter of exchanging rhetorical barbs than in coming to any rational conclusion about the details."
And thus is summed up the entire diary discussion above and the state of the issue at the moment (and for quite some time now). I am convinced this is because of those who are or have been most deeply and professionally involved in the question. The history of this discussion, since the beginning, has been and continues to be a rhetorically unfortunate one. That, Chris, is one of the main reasons why many serious, professional scholars and historians are not likely to consider the questions that remain worth their time or energies.
--John |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 123
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 11:31 pm: |
|
I agree with Chris Phillips.
This thread-bare thread is beginning to look like a FAWLTY TOWERS sketch wherein Basil Fawlty entreats his wife: "Don't mention the war!!"
(This thread is titled "Evidence against Maybrick excluding the diary").
The subject seems to generate so much emotion I
can almost see a new cult religion emerging.
I'm off to start a message board thread entitled:
"Why Shakespeare didn't compose the Maybe Diary or The Chronicles of Crime". |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 10:05 am: |
|
I find it quite annoying that so many people just dismiss the diary with little more than a dismissive wave of the hand. This negative attitude and blanket pooh-poohing of not only this but other theories put forward is not conducive to resolving anything of this mystery, we are all entitled to our theories and I find it worrying that many people with possible good theories are put off from putting them on the table by the bombastic negative attitudes of some well regarded "Ripperologists" bothe amateur and professional.
At the end of the day only the Ripper knows who he was, simple as that, end of story! I am 99% certain that Maybrick was the Ripper but despite the evidence I have, only he knows if he was. |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 8:35 am: |
|
Hi, Tiddley:
We respect your opinion when you say you are 99% certain that Maybrick was the Ripper, and of course you are not alone in saying that you think he could have been Jack. But it is not offbase for those of us who don't believe Maybrick to have been the Ripper to say where's the evidence? Neither the Diary nor the watch can reasonably be used as evidence that Maybrick was the murderer because neither has been proved to have been genuine nor to ever have been owned by Maybrick.
Best regards
Chris George |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 10:11 am: |
|
Afternoon Campers,
Hi RJ,
No rhetorical barbs, I promise.
You wrote:
‘I don't rely on Anne's account to conclude anything. All I was attempting to say is that your belief that Barrett was incapable of writing seems to me to be a contradiction if you also believe Anne's story.’
That’s fine except that I never said I believe Anne’s story – I just can’t be as sure as you are about who is telling lies about what. I do have to wonder what possessed Anne to put herself and her sick, elderly father in the spotlight, just so she could tell a load of rubbish about the diary’s origins, especially if she was a co-conspirator. But even if she had no idea how Mike ended up with the diary, it would seem to be an act of lunacy on her part, considering all the recent press interest, the accusations of fraud, not to mention Scotland Yard’s involvement.
But actually, Anne’s account is totally irrelevant to the question of Mike’s writing abilities. As you yourself wrote:
‘Of course, you know as well as I do that Barrett was pursuing a writing career in 1986-1991….’
So what Anne said in 1994 only confirms what was already on record – Mike’s enthusiasm for writing and his efforts to succeed at it. But Mike’s interest, and his (now ex) wife’s attitude and responses to it, claimed or documented, can tell us nothing about his actual talent, as anyone who has ever watched the Pop Idol auditions will appreciate.
‘Whether or not one believes that Mike was capable of writing all or part of the diary, probably has a lot to do with one's opinions about the complexity of the text.’
That may well be the case as far as you are concerned. But for others, it has everything to do with comparing the diary text with Mike’s own contributions to writing over the years – creative and otherwise – and arriving at an informed opinion on whether the former is beyond him or not. Those who have done so, and those who have had personal contact with Mike, don’t believe he penned or composed the diary. Have you talked with Mike? Have you read any of his published articles? Have you found out how much editing was necessary, or how much help Mike had from Anne or others? Have you seen his barely literate correspondence?
If not, why should your opinion count for more than the opinions of those people who have taken every opportunity to find out for themselves - some, like Keith Skinner and Melvin Harris, for more than a decade, and others, like me, coming in much later to see what all the fuss is about? If there is anything on record to back up your opinion that Mike's literary abilities could have helped produce the diary, the details are being kept extremely hush hush. Do you have a single detail on offer to break the silence?
‘Then we have pesky little details like Mike buying that genuine blank Victorian diary; Mr. Chittenden's statement that Barrett had been attempting to peddle the diary for several months….’
As far as I am aware, Chittenden’s statement in the papers has never been substantiated, although Mike did claim that he was referred to Rupert Crew by Pan Books. But if Mike was ‘attempting to peddle the diary for several months’, isn’t this at odds with your suspicions about the purpose of the tiny red 1891 diary, bought just before he was due to show the forgery to Doreen Montgomery?
Hi Chris (P),
Yes, it probably is ‘fair to say that most people don't think the diary is worth spending time on, once it's agreed that it wasn't written by Jack the Ripper’. But my point was that the very people who have, in combination, used millions of words and spent thousands of hours attempting to analyse the diary content and debating its suspected origins – as you say, ‘a minority interest’ - are also the ones who get their knickers most in a twist and will even deny their own lengthy and well-established track records by claiming that the remaining questions are not, and never have been, worth their time or energies, because of the ‘unfortunate’ nature of the ‘history of this discussion, since the beginning’.
Of course, ‘those who are or have been most deeply and professionally involved’ in the diary’s investigation and publication, or in recording its bumpy ride since Mike brought it to London, do not all have an interest in claiming he didn’t have the ‘capacity’ (I believe that was Melvin Harris’s tactful way of putting it) to have forged it himself. But once the idea of widespread corruption and self-interest takes root it can take more than common sense and the facts to stop the rot. Mike either did or did not help create the diary in or around 1989, and no amount of complaining about everyone else who got involved since that time will help prove the true extent of Mike’s knowledge, or how he really came by the scrapbook.
I’ll leave RJ and others with this gem from another thread:
All I know for sure is that if one never looks, one can never see.
Jeff Hamm Sept 26 2003
Love,
Caz
PS And before anyone jumps in, no amount of looking at the diary alone will help anyone judge whether or not Mike Barrett helped create it.
|
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:50 am: |
|
Hi Chris, cheers for your reply. The interesting point regarding my opinion and evidence for Maybrick being the killer are not based on either the watch nor the diary, though the diary certainly tallies with my findings. I am currently trying to get a publisher interested or will be shortly when I have compiled my evidence in a suitable format and to a reasonable level of order. I am also waiting to hopefully get the opinion on my findings from a well known ripperologist but it appears to be very much a waiting game if you are not in the author/publisher circle.
What I will say is that the impact of this evidence in ripperology will be undeniable and full of intrigue. Regards Tiddley boyar. |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Dear Tiddley,
Does your evidence include a "confession" from Maybrick, independent from the published "Diary"? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Hi again RJ,
I've been puzzling over one thing you wrote in your last post:
We also both know he [Mike] had published an interview with Kenneth Williams (among others)....
I can't recall ever reading this Kenneth Williams interview - or indeed seeing any of the celebrity interviews Mike is said to have had published - although it's quite possible they haven't stayed in my memory along with all the other documentation there was for me to plough through and attempt to summarise.
Could you remind me of the source of this information, and let me know if you've actually been shown any published articles, or better still, Mike's unedited drafts? Thanks.
Hi Tiddley,
You shouldn't need to be in any 'author/publisher' circle - I wasn't. I hadn't even written so much as an essay since O levels. I was simply interested in questioning the various theories put forward to explain the diary's existence, and one day in 2000, Keith Skinner wrote to me asking if I'd like to see some of the related documentation and everything just went from there.
So good luck with your findings.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 8:32 am: |
|
Caz--To use words of a crooked politician, it seems that at present I can "neither confirm nor deny" the existance of Barrett's interview with Kenneth Williams. I believe I'm remembering Barrett's own statement from the April 1998 Cloak & Dagger interview conducted by Keith Skinner. If these celebrity interviews have never been independently confirmed, they certainly might amount to only more hot air. I'll look into it further. Barrett's purchase of the word processor in April 1986 was confirmed by Melvin Harris. Cheers, RP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Of course, the fact that Mike had an enthusiasm for writing in the 1980s and purchased a word processor doesn't really tell us much. Even lying about it, or trying to conceal details, when trying to flog the diary to Doreen and co doesn't necessarily help.
It could mean Mike 'knew' he was 'up to no good', meaning he was involved in a modern forgery scam. Equally, it could mean that he was fully expecting to be regarded with suspicion ("A scouser who's found Jack the Ripper's confession and wants it published? Pull the other one!"), and didn't think it would pay to advertise his recent history of trying to make a name for himself from writing.
Would it make a difference if Mike was known as a truthful, happily married man, who had bought a word processor in the 1980s, had used it to turn out a Booker prize-winner, and arrived at the British Library with the diary, smiling wife in tow, assuring everyone the thing had been in her family for decades?
Love,
Caz |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 5:39 am: |
|
Maybrick was a very clever man, more so than we could have imagined. My evidence stands alone without the diary and will be astounding to most people though I know there will always be sceptics. I have been working on this for almost a year with a colleague and am almost ready to find an interested publisher. It's really frustrating having all the evidence as I have but it has to be released in a complete form. Hopefully it will be in the near future. One meeting with anyone, publisher or existing author would no doubt accelerate its release. Regards Tiddley boyar |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Hi Tiddley,
If you would trust Keith Skinner or Shirley Harrison - or even me! - with some idea of what your evidence consists of and how strong you believe it to be, one of us would at least be in a better position to offer you advice - if you'd like some that is.
You could always send me a quick email.
Love,
Caz |
Helen Crawford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 6:38 am: |
|
The autopsy report & photo's of the victims need to re-examined by a currently practicing medical examiner. Is the location of the victims bodies known? If so they then need to be exhumed along with Maybricks and all re-examined. DNA doesn't die, only people. Wouldn't it be an end to all questioning if Catherine Eddowes put up a strugle and under her finger nail was Maybricks DNA? It may sound a little far fetched but sometimes the answer is really easy and right under our noses. Considering the ferocity of the crime and urgency to complete it I believe the probability rate of the Ripper being able to undertake these crimes without leaving one part of his own dna (skin, blood, hair) extremely unlikely! |
John Fogarty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Hi, Helen:
Aye, an attractive possibility, and one that I've pondered in the past. Alas, however, all the victims' bodies were washed before and after autopsy, so any trace DNA evidence is long gone...
...unless some remains under one of the victims' fingernails. I doubt the standard dead house washing-up of these poor women would have been quite that thorough. I'd plump for MJK as the likeliest repository of any trace DNA from the Ripper, as she did indeed put up a ferocious struggle for her life. (See the well-known photos of her corpse and check out the slashes to her forearms. Also, Dr. Bond at autopsy claimed she had contusions to the hand and thumb, possibly defense wounds).
All for now,
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy)
|
Dennis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Whiskey Au Go Go was not on the Gold Coast. It was in Brisbane. The convicted were John Stuart and James Finch. Finch resettled in England. Stuart died in jail.
Dennis
Brisbane
Australia |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Hi Guys
Sorry but I have little knowledge of the Maybrick case,, but have some questions from advice given me.
Does the 'Diary' talk about someone that has never commited any crimes before starting on a quest for revenge? (A first time serial killer) and if so how does this tie up with the theory that the killer had already comited a series of murders in the USA of black women with an axe? (an experienced serial killer)
Either Maybrick was an experienced murderer when he started the White Chappel murders or he was a novice. What do we beleive???
Surely the Diary suggests that these were the first murders he had commited? Any details why you beleive Maybrick the murderer.
Advice gratefully recieved
Jeff Leahy |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 2:14 pm: |
|
A little clue here and a little clue there and the game is up for me. But other people still want to play. There standard of evidence is different.
To me, Diary evidence against Maybrick would have to be something in the line of the Hitler Diary's reported faux-pas--Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust! Anything else is just an unresolved question.
The Oswald Diary had errors, big ones that created all the Russian conspiracy theories. You remember the double Oswald?
Non-Diary evidence against Maybrick? He's a businessman?
As for his being a novice, no English gentleman could be considered a vetran of serial murder. He would have to distinguish himself in other ways. Because:
"I was here a hundred years ago, and even then I was an amateur!"
|
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 5:17 pm: |
|
If the writing of the diary does not match Maybrick's writing, then it is without doubt a forgery (the diary was signed Maybrick). I also have taken a look at the diary as well as Maybrick's writing and there is not a match whatsoever. Maybrick had been suspected of being the ripper by a few people even as early as the ninteenth century (but so have a lot of other people even ones in 1888 cleared by the police). Maybrick has been used to say the least for some persons wishing or hoping that he could perhaps be called the ripper of Whitechapel. No one has come across any person of the past , and handed down a confession or type of confession from Maybrick, there has not been found any letters from Maybrick to a person or persons with sufficent cause of suspicion, there hasn't been any poetry of the same nature, or any form of writing at all. The idea of a 'Game' in considering the ripper is not realistic, the first pieces of writing to mention a 'Game' was the Dear Boss letter's, which were written by a newspaper editor named 'Bulling' (his handwriting does match the dear boss letters!). As for DNA tests, i would think the only one's suitable would be: Catherine Eddowes body, and the kidney that was sent to George Lusk, to see if there was a match (this is if the kidney can be found!), also if the box which contained the kidney existed today, that could also have DNA swabs if the kidney could not be found, or either it arose that the kidney could not be identified as certainly the one that was sent to George Lusk .Also if the box had a stamp that had been licked (rather than the box being franked or hand posted), then we would have the ripper's DNA, but it would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack in comparing this DNA, even if it were possible to do, not to mention the money it would cost for murders dating back 116 years ago. The other would be to exhume the body of Mary Kelly to see if she did have a split femur. Another theoretical bit could be if the door of Mary Kelly's room still existed (and i don't think it does), if a key that fitted that lock could be found and traced, it might shed a bit more light on who the ripper was (yet again it might not)..... The mystery of the real ripper has yet to be born...In the 21st Century ? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 984
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Hi shelley,
I like your style of writing your mind is full of constructive points.
I would like to bet that when the site was demolished in the late nineteen twenties, souvenier hunters had their fill, i heard that the foreman on the site used to charge a sum for the house bricks, and I would imagine parts of the door to number 13 were snapped up as momentoes of the historical location.
Regards Richard. |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Hi Richard, thanks for your post... the site was demolished i believe in 1928, i can understand you mentioning the souvenier hunters, i expect that someone who bought the door of No 13 let someone further on down the line somewhere have it, and with them not knowing it came from a crime scene probably used it on the bonfire for Guy Fawkes night!...... I hope not! ...I found this of Rudyard Kipling : I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all i knew) Their names are WHAT and WHY and WHEN and HOW and WHERE and WHO.
Neat huh? |
guest 654
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
who was it that after being falsy accused commited sucicide but then the murders continued like two weeks after his death? |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 693
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Hi guest654,
I don't know of anyone who committed suicide because they were falsely accused.
Just curious, are you asking because of that song by the Christian rock group? It sounds like they heard something about the Druitt case but got it all confused.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
S. Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 1:50 am: |
|
Hi,
Just to keep the controversy going, I saw one piece of non diary evidence of great interest on another website. On October 6th 1888, a London newspaper printed an eyewitness description, as a drawing, of a suspect seen with a victim just before she was murdered. The drawing looks uncannily like James Maybrick.Has anyone seen it yet?
DAN NORDER: If you are at all interested in having a talk about the picture, could you post here for others to examine.Being unregistered, it is near impossible for me to post picture images(I have tried it before ). If you have not seen it , or dont know where to get it, I will tell you the website to find it. That is if you are interested - thank you. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 763
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Hi S,
You mean one of the two images based upon the statements of generally discredited witness Matthew Packer? I'm sure we've talked about that here a few different times and have the image up in some thread already. I can't seem to pull it up though with a search. Maybe someone else here can find it. If another thread can't be found I'm sure I or someone else can post it here.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
S.Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 12:22 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
I dont know about witness Matthew Packer or his statements being discredited.I only read that the paper thought it was important enough to print on the 6th Oct, a few days after the double event.
The pictures can be found on the website " jamesmaybrick.co.uk " - its 5th if you google james maybrick.
Press enter to get in.There are 4 picture images at the bottom.If you could post the 2nd and the 4th that would be good.They are only pocket images , but put together they show an uncanny resemblence.Thanks. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page