|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 10:31 am: |       |
Hi Martin,
Thanks again for all your observations.
The trouble is, as you say, with so much documentation there had to be a limit on what we could include. Several factors not necessarily related to authors' preference could have determined what went in and what didn't.
Also, don't forget, that in the case of the Hitler Diaries, the author was prosecuted and convicted for forgery. There must, I feel, be a limit to how useful a policeman's observations and opinions could have been since there was not a single arrest, never mind a prosecution, for forgery and/or fraud over the diary or watch, despite the Scotland Yard investigation.
I believe with all my heart that had Mike Barrett shown Doreen, or anyone, a forged diary of his own composition, in his own or Anne's handwriting, it would have been returned to him without further ado.
Incidentally, Seth's a dear, and a great pleasure to work with. Did you know, his father produced 10 Rillington Place?
Hi John,
My reasons for looking at alternative possibilities re Crashaw are many and varied, taking into account every twist and turn of the story, and everything I have ever heard or read of Mike's words and actions. The fact that you feel able to reduce this all down to excuses and no desire to know on my part is sad and rather depressing considering how things started out between us, and how much I thought you really knew about me.
I wouldn't dream of making excuses for behaviour of the sort you describe, of which I have no knowledge. But turning on me for my brief responses to your legal problems (whatever they are) is a bit of a silly diversion from the point. Either you can support allegations you make with facts or you can't. If you can, you can treat whatever it was you found in your mailbox as everyone else treats junk mail or chain letters - get rid of it, forget it and get on with life and honest debating. Since you have not done either, and I have no idea whether it's because you won't or can't, you're right - there's no point in discussing it further with me, which is exactly what I suggested to you when you last emailed me.
Love,
Caz |
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 10:46 am: | |
My Dear CAZ:
I'm sure you're far more well versed in the diary controversy than I. Still, I have done a fair amount of homework in this area--far more than I'd ever wanted, to be honest. I'm familiar with the Rendell report, Sue Iremonger's and Anna Koren's reports, Rod McNeil's and Dr. Nickell's work, as well as the dissertations by Melvyn Harris, Paul Feldman, and Paul Begg. So, I'm not completely ignorant of the various findings and opinions.
However, I've yet to read your book, so I must hit Amazon.com and get a copy. I understand you, Seth and Keith have distilled just about all there is to know on the subject, and I can't wait to read it.
In the meantime, however, let me just say that if I am in a "dead end," in believing the diary to be a hoax (probably by Mike Barrett), it must be an extremely crowded dead end.  True, I'm not privy to as much info on this as you, Seth or Keith (or many others, for that matter), but I am convinced the diary itself is a hoax and probably written by Mike Barrett.
The evidence of a hoax (by whatever hand) is overwhelming: 1) the diarist says he put MJK's breasts on the bedside table, which is false (one breast was found under her head, t'other between her feet). 2) The diarist also says he took nothing away, yet then states "no heart, no heart..." something only the Ripper or someone writing after 1988-89 (when the MJK autopsy was released) would know. But if he got it right about the heart, how could it blow it so badly on the breasts? 3) The diarist claims to have left two farthings with Annie Chapman's corpse--a well-known canard busted by Phil Sugden, based on actual police reports of the day.
Again, the language of the diary is so closely bound to the first "Dear Boss" letter that only two options remain: either the diarist also wrote the "Dear Boss" letter and "Saucy Jacky" postcard, in which case Maybrick is indeed the Ripper, or someone else wrote the diary aping the "Dear Boss" letter. Since the diary's handwriting matches neither the "Dear Boss" missive nor the known samples of Jim Maybrick's handwriting, it MUST be a fake. There is no other possibility.
As to precisely who faked it, well . . . that's another question. Maybe it wasn't Mike or Anne, or Tony Devereaux, or Billy Graham, or Oral Roberts, or Jimmy Swaggart. (just kidding...actually, I think it was Jimmy Swaggart). I still think it was written after 1988 and before 1992. I only wonder how baking the pages and ink would affect the outcome of an ion migration test via scanning auger microscope....?
All best,
John
Rosey:
Yes, it's a fake all right. Please see my three main reasons above for reaching this conclusion.
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 10:57 am: | |
Hi Goryboy,
I didn't say you were in a dead end for believing the diary to be a hoax, only if you were sure Mike Barrett was responsible.
Just wanted to make that clear. I see now you are saying 'probably' - you'll get there in the end. I have every faith in you. 
Love,
Caz |
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
Caz writes,
"I wouldn't dream of making excuses for behaviour of the sort you describe, of which I have no knowledge."
This is one claim "not to know" that I don't believe for a second.
But clearly there is no pointing in debating anything in the face of such explicit dissimulation.
--John
PS: For anyone still interested, yes, the relevant e-mails are all still available via a private request.
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 3:54 pm: | |
I do find that threads about Jack’s so called diaries do vaguely scratch at my lower interest level, quite why I don’t know, for I have always regarded such threads at the lowest form of demanding or engaging on the general interest level. I suppose I am just plainly flabbergasted - and perhaps secretly enthralled - that anyone on this planet today can believe that a killer of the nature of Jack with such an inherent and massive disassociation with the crimes he has committed would then actually and actively record that disassociation in an associated fashion that we would term a ‘diary’.
This is clearly impossible.
The very crimes of Jack do solemnly dictate that his own Pinball mentality would not have allowed him to write a note for the milkman let alone an entire diary of the events that quite honestly passed him by.
I have found but two jottings from a killer in their diary in many, many years of research, the names escape me now, but the entries do not, for they be so unique.
‘Killed a girl it was hot.’
‘Stabbed him, it was warm.’
That is it.
In a millennium of murder that is all we have.
Two tiny entries from totally disassociated killers who managed to scrabble back enough from the white wall of noise to make a brief record of events that had again quite honestly passed them by.
It may suit us to believe that our ‘hobby’ killers had the intelligence, time and inclination to record the events that engage us but history honestly shows us that if you look for killers then you must do it in police and court reports, newspapers and the public library and not in the personalized items of a man’s history on this planet.
To base a universe on the scratching on the back of a watch is now’t but a fob.
|
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 5:54 pm: | |
Dear CAZ:
"I see now you are saying 'probably' - you'll get there in the end. I have every faith in you."
Yes, I must amend my earlier post. Although I'm certain the diary is a hoax, I'm less than certain as to its author. I'm plunking for Barrett, based on a host of factors, and I don't for one moment believe Florence wrote it. I still think the internal evidence points to a creation date between 1988-1992.
But...I'm still researching, reading, learning. Your faith is well placed, luv. I won't let you down! 
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
Hi John (O),
Read it again: "I wouldn't dream of making excuses for behaviour of the sort you describe, of which I have no knowledge."
In other words, I don’t recognise anyone’s behaviour from the descriptions you have given me here. And I’m afraid I don’t know everything that has been going on behind the scenes, or has been claimed (as at least one of your emails to me confirmed, and you know this to be true). So all in all I won’t be forced into publicly excusing or condemning any behaviour of an absent third party on this basis.
You can believe what you like about me, John. But I can’t help you with your legal headaches. All I have seen, or all I have been allowed to see, is poor Johnny crying because he claims Mr. Grumpy is threatening to take his ball away for no good reason. But as I didn’t see how the game ended, nor have I been given a straight account of all the action or the rules, I am in no position to guess how nicely Johnny was playing.
If Mr. Grumpy judged that the ball came too close to his greenhouse, for example, Johnny’s choice was simple: stop kicking it in that direction or risk having it confiscated. But if Johnny believes Mr. Grumpy is growing something in his greenhouse that he shouldn’t, and wants to help put a stop to it, he is going about it in entirely the wrong way. Kicking a ball and trying to use Mr. Grumpy’s reaction to seeing it come flying towards his greenhouse (“If you do it again, sonny, you may lose your ball”) against him (“See? He must be growing something dodgy in there to react like that”) may impress a few of Johnny’s more impressionable classmates, but teacher would need more evidence, before taking Johnny’s tales to the relevant authorities, that Johnny really cared about public-spirited whistle-blowing, and was not just cross at having to play nicely or lose his ball.
Unfair in Johnny’s eyes, maybe, but life isn’t always fair.
If I've misjudged what you've told me, you can always give me the info I need via email to put me right.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 2:17 pm: | |
Hi AP, Goryboy,
Interesting thoughts as always, AP. Happily I don’t think anyone here is currently trying to argue that Maybrick wrote the diary, or was Jack - only that Mike or Anne Barrett wrote it.
The main argument has always been that it is clearly not in Maybrick’s handwriting, and therefore anyone theorising that he wrote it must explain how that can be. This is perfectly right and fair, and equally, anyone theorising that Mike or Anne wrote the diary must find some evidence that either could have disguised their own writing sufficiently well to have avoided being caught out on this most basic of issues.
If there was any suspicion that Mike or Anne had actually penned the thing, based on their own handwriting, I feel it would have taken a huge and highly unlikely conspiracy of silence, involving anti-diarists as well as pro and agnostics (not to mention everyone who has ever known the Barretts, and been able to compare their writing with the diary), to keep any doubts alive.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 4:34 pm: | |
Thanks for the gentle reply Caz.
Old fool I am, I honestly thought I had entered a discussion concerning the authenticity of the so-called Ripper Diary.
If, as you say, that the Diary is obviously not authentic then I see no point for further discussion.
This all leaves me baffled and confused as I thought Mister Maybrick had won awards all over the place for being Jack the Ripper, even here, but now you seem to be telling me that no, Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper, and no, Maybrick did not even pretend to be Jack the Ripper… but a gullible readership convinced by a load of hype and tripe think Maybrick was Jack the Ripper?
I think I ought to become a writer, there is an obvious market for this type of tripe.
I’m more out of date than I even thought.
And there was me about to launch a tirade about the impossibilities of a disorganized killer of the nature of Jack taking on an organized task like writing a diary.
I suppose what might have just happened is that some disillusioned author whose own efforts in this case were scuppered by the old cadre of the time, whom he had maligned most terribly - back then in the early 90’s - might have sat down in a pub with a few people and come up with a wonderful scam like this.
This author would have had to be master of disguise with many names and personalities, and a considerable personal fortune at his or her beck and call, plus a knowledge of the publishing and JtR world second to none, and I suppose he or she may well have gotten away with it.
Just a thought.
Personally I should like everyone else to believe the diary to be genuine, just so that I am able to argue that it is a fake.
|
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 4:40 pm: | |
Well gee,
I'm glad someone has finally set me straight about life being unfair.
It's simple, Caz. Legal threats and bullying are ways to shut people up; especially people who actually have a life other than these boards and don't consider the issues hereabouts important enough to go through the pain of spending time with lawyers and in courtrooms, even if they know they have done nothing wrong, have the truth behind them, and can prove it.
I'm sorry, but I have many better things to do, and those whose first response is simply to threaten legal action no doubt realize that and count on such threats to keep real, open debate quiet. I do not need the hassle that writing my analyses and thoughts here will no doubt once again bring me. To that extent, the strategy has worked.
Fine.
I'm confident that the public I care about can make their own judgments about the behavior, the maturity, and the responsibility of all involved from the record as it stands.
And your posts to me here I think usefully and accurately position you within that record.
I'm quite happy for it to end there.
--John
|
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 65
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
Caz,
Again..sanctimonious bull. Many people do not have the time, energy or money to waste on frivilous lawsuits regardless of whether they have the truth behind them or not.
And freedom of speech is stifled whenever any crying whining nancy starts yelling lawsuit. And all the baby talk in the world doesn't change that fact, baby. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 5:28 pm: | |
Ah, me dear Ally
Freedom of speech is it?
You vote for such things on one channel and then actively stifle them on others.
Does 'freedom of speech' mean your 'freedom of speech'?
What about my 'freedom of speech' which you have stifled for no other reason than it doesn't suit your 'freedom of speech'?
If there is a bull in this yard then you have put the horns on the beast. |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 66
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 5:55 pm: | |
Hmmm you mean freedom of speech like calling "queers" "insidious evolution" as you like to do? You can say whatever you like and I can disagree with whatever you like. That is the essence of freedom of speech. I believe in that.
I don't believe lawsuits are the way to handle it. The way to handle it is to say, I can't stand bigoted uptight little prats and I would be happy to discuss my views with you any time, anywhere.
Freely.
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2842
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 6:00 pm: | |
Caz, John, Ally, AP and anyone else I may have missed:
KEEP THE PERSONAL BARBS OFF THE BOARDS. Just because you see one person devolving into a personal attack doesn't mean you now have license to follow suit.
Behave, or go elsewhere. The excuse "she/he started it, I was just defending myself" does NOT hold water - just because I've not yet had a chance to delete an offensive post doesn't mean its content is appropriate to the boards.
As I said this is the final warning. Keep your personal bullshit to email, or post it to another site. It has no place here.
If it happens again, all future posts from your account will require queue approval. After that, its bye-bye for good.
Email me with questions.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 6:06 pm: | |
Stephen,
Yup. Done and done.
--John |
John R. Fogarty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 6:20 pm: | |
Hi, CAZ:
Oooh! Do we have any samples of Mike's or Anne's handwriting online? Or could you please scan and post a sample? Pretty please? PRETTY PUHLEEEZE WITH KIDNES ON TOP????
;-)
John-e Goremeister
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 2:25 pm: | |
Hello Goryboy,
What you are really after is a right old 'Kaneing'. Forgive the pun.
A. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 6:30 am: | |
Hi Goryboy,
Fraid not, but there are examples in our book. There's even a wonderful KIDNE moment in there somewhere too.
Hi Andy,
Perhaps the fact that we seem to be back with The Barretts of Wimp Old Street is an indication that Kane's kaning is having the opposite of the desired effect? 
Hi AP,
I suppose what might have just happened is that some disillusioned author whose own efforts in this case were scuppered by the old cadre of the time, whom he had maligned most terribly - back then in the early 90’s - might have sat down in a pub with a few people and come up with a wonderful scam like this.
This author would have had to be master of disguise with many names and personalities, and a considerable personal fortune at his or her beck and call, plus a knowledge of the publishing and JtR world second to none, and I suppose he or she may well have gotten away with it.
Yes, and what's more, he or she would probably find it almost impossible not to drop hints about his or her own brilliance in coming up with such a scam. At the very least, he or she would leave a funny little rhyme in his or her will that includes proof of this mark made on history. Otherwise, people might see a different kind of proof, and imagine the Safeways Spanish brandy was doing the talking - along with Jim’s arsenic.
Just a suggestion. 
Love,
Caz
|
Andy and Sue Parlour
Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 9:51 am: | |
Here Caz,
How dare you have a go at Safeways Brandy! Its what kept me sober the last few years!! Youv'e really upset me now....
A. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 11:17 am: | |
Hi Andy,
I'm only bitter because Tescos have run out of Galliano and I'm reduced to Tequila with freshly squeezed orange and lime juice, in other words Freddie with all the Fud taken out of his Fudpucker - it'll do but it ain't quite the same. 
Love,
Caz |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 1:39 pm: | |
Caz,
you caught me there.
It was the Safeway's Spanish Brandy that was doing the talking.
Drink enough of it and you could almost imagine you are JtR let alone a measely writer.
But I'll plod on with me trusty pen. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 11:16 am: | |
Gory--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.
As for your MB theory. This has raised a chuckle in the past, but remember that most of those who have dealt with MB didn't really get the full dose of his enigmatic personality until the diary had already been kicked around for a good long while. By the early 1990s he had gone through a heck of a mess, and he was no doubt a changed man.
When the diary first came out, it was claimed that MB had bought a word processor in order to research & write about the diary. This is not quite the true story, however, but misinformation sent down the pike by MB himself. MB was already a would-be writer, and had already purchased the word processor before the diary ever came to light. In the mid-to-late 1980s he was attempting to write, and had published a few interviews with celebrities along with word games in children's magazines, etc. This must have been at least as early as 1987. He also belonged to a "Writer's Circle" in Liverpool. All of this he kept hidden at the time he brought the diary to London---under the nom de plume P. Williams--- as (obviously) he didn't want his literary aspirations known---it would cause suspicion. No, he was no Evelyn Waugh, evidently, but neither was he the utterly 'incapable' fellow that those who wrote about him in later years depicted(usually referring to his worst period of when he was going through a painful divorce along with a drinking binge) .
|
John R. Fogarty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
RJ, CAZ, Andy & Sue:
...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.
Exactly. Agree 100%.
I finally managed to scrounge up a sample of MB's handwriting, and CAZ is correct: the diary is not in Mike's handwriting. Kudos to CAZ, and hurrah for the Goryboy; he is no longer languishing in his self-imposed dead end.
However, I still believe the diary is a hoax. The writer got it all wrong about the placement of MJK's breasts, yet still mentions "no heart, no heart," a fact only known AFTER 1988-89 when her long-lost autopsy was mysteriously returned. How could the real Ripper get it wrong on the breasts but right on the ticker?
I still blame Jimmy Swaggart, though Billy Graham remains a suspect. (I exonerate Oral Roberts as his name [and "ministry"] are too ludicrous for words).
So. It was Billy Graham with Tony Devereaux's waverly nib in Kane's study. J'accuse!
All breast,
Er, I mean, BEST,
JF
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 116
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 8:13 pm: | |
I am stumbling belatedly and ignorantly into
the Maybrick quagmire only to say that I
recall a Scottish 'expert witness" on suspect
documents, back in the late 1970's.
His name escapes me, but he appeared in several prominent court cases and claimed to be able to give a percentage of probability that a
named individual authored a given document.
His system was named "----tronics". And he compared two pieces of text. One suspect,
another known to have been written by a
given individual.
I think he is now dead. But my point is that
such an important methodology would certainly have spawned disciples.
Does any of this ring a bell? Or is the fact
the unnamed expert is dead make this all pointless? |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 117
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 8:18 pm: | |
The name "(Reverend ?)Morton" and the word "Stylometry" have just popped into my head.
( See previous posting).
Hope he wasn't a discredited T.V. Evangelist! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
