|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 365
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:47 am: |       |
The point about Feldman's book is that, as my fellow Alan says, yes of course he is going to slant his evidence towards his candidate. That's just human nature. He actually does so a lot less than many other authors pushing a particular candidate.
He also spends an inordinate amount of the book tracing obscure members of the Maybrick family which proves nothing except that the Maybrick family is a lot larger than previously thought. That's one of the things I like about this book. He tries absolutely every possible avenue of research, and even when they don't work out for him he puts them in the book anyway. |
Peter R. A. Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Pbirchwood
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 7:17 am: | |
Concerning the genealogical side of Feldy's book (and he once offered me £200 to produce a copy of James' birth certificate!) it was done in an extraordinary manner in that all Maybrick birth/marriage/death certificates were ordered and then attempts were made to put them together to identify any relationship to James. Although the name is uncommon, there being only 7 listed in the 2003 electoral registers, this still left a large number of various records. This meant that there were a number where there was no obvious genealogical link to anyone and those were considered to be potential descendents of James. The Whittlesey bunch are of this sort. There is absolutely no indication that they were related to James apart from some fluff about James going to Manchester when he might have been going to Godmanchester.
The only identifiable and provable descendent of James' family is someone in Australia who is descended from Edwin.
|
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 4:31 am: | |
John
I did mention that many people have found candidates and tailored the crimes to suit them.
The point about Maybrick is that no other candidate has attracted such attention and such a number of people determined to rule him out. To date this has not been done conclusively. This despite the most tangible piece of evidence (the diary) which can be used for or against any suspect.
Alan |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Hi, John Omlor:
The mind plays tricks but I don't actually remember us doing an exhaustive analysis of Feldman. Am I wrong??? 
What I do remember us doing was an almost line by line analysis of the Diary itself. Is that what you are thinking of, John?
Hi Peter:
I agree that the Whittlesey Maybricks are probably a dead end with no connection to James Maybrick. The point is that Feldman was desperate to ferret out illegitimate Maybricks all over the place, whether they were offspring of James or of Florie. He was in other words, chasing specters. I think one of the funniest things in Feldman's book is the photograph comparing the facial features of the elderly Maybrick woman who was a nun with Albert Johnson, owner of the so-called Maybrick watch! What did that prove. Maybe that elderly English people often have similar looking faces? 
One of the interesting things that you have mentioned in the past, Peter, as I recall is that there was or is a black Maybrick in the Norfolk, Virginia, area, who possibly might be related to James from his time working in his Norfolk office. Any more information on that line of enquiry?
All the best
Chris |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
Chris,
"I think one of the funniest things in Feldman's book is the photograph comparing the facial features of the elderly Maybrick woman who was a nun with Albert Johnson, owner of the so-called Maybrick watch! What did that prove. Maybe that elderly English people often have similar looking faces?"
You're not giving Feldman enough credit here Chris. That was one of the funniest things in all Ripperology! It ranks right up there with Wallace's "anagrams" in Lewis Carroll's poetry. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I remember the diary text analysis thread well. But I think you'll find we also did a spate of writing about the specifics of Feldmaniacal prose, looking at a number of chapters and specifically a number of conclusion-paragraphs. I'm at a strange machine here at work and can't look for it in my old stuff, but I suspect there's plenty there to interest those now reading Paul's book.
Off to work,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 12:45 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
If you ask those who offered their specific candidates up for the crimes (Cornwell, the Carroll person, etc.) they'll tell you no one has been able to successfully "rule them out" either. Some people never give up, no matter what. But the handwriting and the textual problems and the provenance melodrama and all the rest remain and there is still nothing at all anywhere that links the real James in any legitimate historical way to these crimes.
But all of this is already available to be read in the archives. So I'm off to work.
All the best,
--John |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
I quite agree John,
why are you all still wasting time on the James Maybrick thread? Isn't it yet obvious that everyone's been duped by a fellow scouser and whoever he is, he has you right where he wants you. He or she is simply a prankster as many fellow scousers are, and its not that hard to do especially when the recipient's of the joke are so willing to keep it alive.
Come, come now, is it not enough for Michael Barrett who is actually a writer of fiction for crying out loud, to confess to frauding the diary? I know the shop where he bought the Diamine manuscript ink and I bet I could go there tomorrow to purchase some. It is a very good stockist.
Anyway no-one can argue about the name of the pub having a different name in 1888 to the one in the diary. It is called the Poste House Public House when in reality it was called the Muck Midden in 1888. Barrett has sworn this on his disclaimer - I will check it out in the records office in Liverpool if you like, but I know I would be just wasting time on what I know is true. Bit of a slap in the face don't you all think, even for the most ardent of you Maybrick enthusiasts? Would you even agree that this totally shatters the Maybrick theory?
As for the scientific tests carried out on the diary, well the paper was old enough, we know that. But the ink proved pretty inconclusive. Some tests showed the presence of chloracetamide and some tests did not. It seems quite clear to me that science is struggling to get to grips with pre-19th century chromatographical analysis and dating.
I know these points won't change people's minds because these facts are nothing new. But sometimes it is worth looking at what is staring you in the face. I have only read excerpts from the diary, but to me it seems to be a tale of fiction (or a work of art!)
Anyway, thats me done. And here's me thinking I was getting to bed early.
All the best to you all!
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Hi,Martin,
I never have much to say, on the Maybrick thread, for I consider the whole episode, as ludricous, the man was a victim, of poisoning, most likely by his wife, mayby not proven, or by his own overdoses in his system.
The Diary is well written, as one would expect any hoax to have been , note the Hitler diarys. but to include this man as a contender for Jack, does not fit any notion, i have had personally in 40years.
It is purely for novice reading, proberly aimed at the gullible.
Regards Richard. |
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
WOW !! I had a brainstorm about this Diary. I covered the book so the Title couldn't be seen. I opened it to the part where it shows the real Diary Script. My Goalie Coach for Ice Hockey just graduated from St Lawrence in Canada. He majored in Psycology. Of course he is no expert, but I just wanted him to read some of the Script, but not the last page where he signs it. I also gave him a magnifying glass to help him read the small writing. My Coach asked me " Who The Hell is this Psyco ? ". He said this is written by a Schizo Maniac !! I showed him the last page and he was Amazed ! I just got another person interested in the Jack The Ripper Mystery.
Regards,
Anthony |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Dear Peter
When you say that Feldman offered £200 for a copy of Maybrick's birth certificate, are you saying what I think you may be saying? That he might just be up to no good with his research? Quite honestly I've always respected the quality, (and quantity!), of his actual research, it's just his conclusions and/or opinions I find hard to swallow sometimes.
Paul |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 366
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:37 am: | |
John
I know your post was directed to the other Alan, but I do feel here that you and the rest of the anti-diary brigade are proving at least one of Paul Feldman's claims absolutely right. That is the one in which he says that the anti-diarists are not willing to accept any independent research.
Paul Stephen and myself have both on this and another thread said the same thing in the last few days, which is effectively that we don't feel we know enough about the diary yet, that we are trying to increase our knowledge of it, and that we are keeping an open mind until we feel we have enough information to make an informed opinion. Almost instantly the anti-diary brigade have come storming in all guns blazing attempting to belittle this and make it look like a stupid and futile thing to do.
What are you afraid of? If your position is so obvious, why are you not willing to allow people to perform their own research? Surely you should simply be confident that we will eventually reach the same conclusions that you did?
I don't believe that the diary is genuine, but I simply want to be sure of that in my own mind before I am willing to state it as a fact. Whether it is an old forgery or a new forgery, that is something I don't have enough data on yet to form an absolute opinion, but when I do then it will be my opinion and nobody else's.
As for the Cornwell book, I have never to the best of my knowledge on these boards said that Walter Sickert was not Jack the Ripper, I have only ever said that Patricia Cornwell wrote a lousy book, and that her claim to have conclusively proven her case is absolutely wrong.
We are all intelligent people here, I can see for myself the spurious connections in Paul Feldman's book, I don't need them pointed out to me. But just because his conclusions are sometimes dodgy does not mean that there is no substance beneath, and all too often I find that these arguments are simply a smokescreen to try to hide that. |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
Could any of those "keeping an open mind" about the diary's genuineness comment on the most glaring textual error - the assertion that Mary Kelly's breasts were left on the table in her room?
As is well known, this was stated in several newspaper reports, but was an error - it was the "flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs" that were on the table; the breasts were "under the head" and "by the right foot". (See the text of Dr Bond's post mortem report on this site.)
Why on earth would the murderer have copied an incorrect version of events from the newspapers?
This damning detail alone is enough to make it clear the diary is a fake. (There are many similar details, as rehearsed on the old boards and in the dissertation section of this site.)
By all means, keep an open mind about when, where and by whom the diary was faked, but in the face of evidence like this, keeping an open mind about whether it was written by the Ripper is simply perverse.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:58 pm: | |
Hi
If Paul Feldman wanted a copy of anyone, mine, yours (if you live in the UK,) or his, or James Maybricks, all it would cost is two stamps and a cheque to the registrar of the area for 7.50, why would he even try to pay 200 for it.
that doesn't seem like how he conducted himself to me!
but then again what do I know
jennifer |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Alan,
It's not fair to say that there even IS such a thing as an anti-diary brigade. Much less to say that they're unwilling to accept any independent research. We're all coming from different perspectives and backgrounds. We have no secret ring or handshake.
Most of us were in your position once, and we've done our research before coming to the conclusions we have. Personally I put 100s of hours of research in before deciding for sure it was a fake, and 1000s more trying to figure out WHEN it was faked. That one I'm still not 100% convinced on.
I don't think John O. is "afraid of" anyone not agreeing with him, but or unwilling to allow people to perform their own research, but merely trying to be helpful by pointing you towards some alternate sources of information.
There is a wealth of information and research on the old Casebook message boards that is simply not available in any printed source currently available. Both for and against the diaries authenticity.
If you wish to see arguments FOR the diary, they can be found there. Look for the posts of Peter Wood, as well as the occasional post from Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison.
If you wish to see arguments against the diary, they are there too. And you can also see the evolution of the current posters opinions to see how they arrived at the conclusions they did.
Regards,
John Hacker |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
Yes Chris, and that's not even mentioning the glaring handwriting problem, which needed one of Feldman's farthest of all reaches to even approach being remotely explainable (the delightful multiple personality scenario).
But Alan, I believe the last words I wrote to someone in one of my posts above were:
"The jury may be out for you -- but I think a reading of the old boards presents a thorough and convincing case against any hope of authenticity.
Still, don't take my word for that. Read the stuff on the old threads and decide for yourself."
So I don't see where you have any complaint against me not urging people to decide for themselves.
As for "independent research," if someone can show me one, just one, single document or account or record or material piece of evidence of any sort that can be authenticated and that links the real James in any way, shape, or form to these crimes, I'll happily consider it and accept it into a serious discussion. But until that first piece of genuine historical evidence turns up, this particular candidacy remains exclusively in the realm of speculative fancy.
All the best,
--John
PS: I have no idea how you can say that I am "not willing to allow people to do their own research." In fact, I have no idea how I could stop people from doing their own research. In fact, I encourage people to do their own research. In fact, I think people doing their own research is a great thing. I say go for it. (In fact, just between us, I'd even slip you a few bucks if your research included stealing the stupid book and getting it thoroughly re-tested.)
Relax everyone, it's only a joke. 
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
Thanks, John H., for clarifying my original suggestion. We were writing at the same time. And I just tried to send this post with only the first sentence and my signature, but my machine told me it was "too short" and had to "have at least 25 words that are at least two letters long."
There. I hope that does it.
--John |
Peter R. A. Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Pbirchwood
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:48 am: | |
Jennifer:
You would have to ask Feldy about that! However, and briefly, the entry for our James' birth does not exist, it not being at that time a legal necessity to record your child's birth civilly. I have no idea why he wanted a birth when there is an extant baptism. Maybe he just wanted a professional genealogist of many years standing to have a look for it because part of the conspiracy involved hiding the fact that James Maybrick was actually the true heir to the Throne due to his great grandmother being Hannah Lightfoot "the Fair Quaker?" Who knows.
It's only last year that the price of certificates went up to £7 and you only need one stamp. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
Well there you go then!
I'm sure that James Maybrick birth does exist!
When was he born, was it pre 1837, then I take it?
Perhaps the 200 quid option was for an original but I've never heard this idea before.
I'm sure I've look for a James Maybrick's birth but will have to check that one.
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
RE the above, the following from http://ww.familysearch.org
JAMES MAYBRICK
Male
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event(s):
Birth: 24 OCT 1838
Christening: 12 NOV 1838 Saint Peter, Liverpool, Lancashire, England
Death:
Burial:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents:
Father: WILLIAM MAYBRICK Family
Mother: SUSANNA
also
JAMES MAYBRICK
Male
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event(s):
Birth:
Christening: 26 JUN 1837 Saint Peter, Liverpool, Lancashire, England
Death:
Burial:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents:
Father: WILLIAM MAYBRICK Family
Mother: SUSANNA
It would therefore seem that they had two sons James one of whom died in childhood and so they also called the next son it, as was often done.
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 374
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:54 am: | |
John
I apologise if I took the tone wrong, and it wasn't just you that I was referring to. It just seemed that from the moment I mentioned that I had just finished the Feldman book and was looking into the whole diary saga it seemed like a whole host descended to say:
a. Feldman's book is rubbish and you are wrong to find any worth in it.
and
b. We've already discussed all this so you don't need to worry yourself, you can just look at our conclusions and all will be revealed to you.
The one thing I have learned in this whole Ripperology business is never to take anyone's opinion on face value, but always to look at all the available data on both sides of every argument before reaching a conclusion. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
No problem, Alan.
And your last sentence is indeed an excellent reminder to all of us about how to proceed.
All the best,
--John
PS: The book is rubbish, though.  |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:53 pm: | |
Hello One and all.
I’m still in the process of checking my facts myself before committing myself to paper on the handwriting issue, but as the matter of Kelly’s breasts has been raised again, perhaps I can be so bold as to explain why again I do not find this anything like conclusive evidence against either the diary being genuine, or Maybrick being the Ripper.
Now there does seem to be some consensus here that the Kelly murder was one of the most frenzied and awful attacks on a woman in the whole history of crime. It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that the murderer, whoever he was, would remember after such an appalling glut of dismemberment exactly where he put, or maybe threw, all of the body parts. It’s not a tidy scene in the photo is it?
Assuming the diary is genuine for a moment, just for the sake of the argument, we can reasonably conclude that it was written in chunks a little while after each murder took place. This can be deduced from the slight changes in the writing from time to time. Furthermore Maybrick the diarist actually mentions that he enjoys reading of his latest exploits in the papers.
I don’t believe he knew any of his victims, and yet he does mention Kelly, and only Kelly, by name in the diary. He must have got her name from the papers once she had been properly identified a few days after the crime. He would also have read where the papers apparently erroneously placed the breasts. It therefore doesn’t take much of a leap of faith to deduce that he would have accepted this as a fact and used it when he later wrote of his exploits in the diary.
I know something like this has been put forward before. To me it’s a very plausible explanation, more so in fact than assuming that the man, possibly on an arsenic induced high, would be able to recall much detail of anything he did in the time he spent committing his dreadful deed.
Regards
Paul
|
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:00 pm: | |
Hi Friends
I'm in the middle of the Diary mystery. I still can't decide if it is a hoax or not. The same thing goes for the watch. I'm going to get Caroline Anne Morris's Book and read that one next. This is very interesting !! And I Thank All Of You For Your Help !! I just read the Feldman book. I enjoyed it except for all the Family Tree Stuff. It got a little boring there. But I give him credit for all the work he put into it.
Regards,
Anthony |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
Well I said earlier that I was pleased to see the Maybrick thread revived……!
It has certainly done that thanks to Shirley Harrison’s new book and it’s announcement on these boards. Quite rightly so.
I’m sorry that I’m one of those gullible sort who still finds this tale as fascinating as it was when the diary first appeared. I for one will never be satisfied until the authenticity issues have been properly sorted out, which for me they have certainly not been to date.
There’s a pub near where I live called “The Britannia”. It has NEVER been known as such, being called “The Dog and Donkey” by locals for as long as anyone can remember. The Post House issue is therefore of no particular problem to me. I can well believe that a generic term like Post House could have applied to any number of establishments. Anyway, I know that argument’s been put forward before.
The ink tests are inconclusive at best, and likely to remain so until technology gives us something better.
The handwriting gives me no real problems for reasons I should like to discuss when I’ve had another look at examples of handwriting other than the dratted disputed will.
I could go on but I won’t. Not yet anyhow.
I’m not saying that I am convinced Maybrick was the Ripper. Quite possibly he wasn’t, but I really won’t be persuaded to rule him out until I have seen some better answers to some of the big questions still running around in my mind.
I started out on here only a week or so back by criticising Feldmans book, but I now find myself feeling defensive on his behalf. I see no reason to ridicule the man for including photos in his book to back up his claims that he may have found a few descendants of Florrie and James. He is only asking the reader to take a look and judge for themselves. I know it proves nothing concerning the diary, but it was part of his legitimate research as he saw it and no more.
I’m pleased to see that there are still quite a few who haven’t given up on the diary, and won’t until something much more significant comes along to sway the argument either way.
Long may it continue…..
Paul.
P.S . Cas. Thanks for your kind offer. I shall certainly take you up on it when I have had a chance to re-read Feldman and Shirley harrison’s latest.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
