|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 679
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 2:25 pm: |       |
Hi All,
Circular arguments are regularly used to explain ‘errors’ in the diary, but almost always by those who insist that the ‘forger’ (how’s that for circular reasoning?) gave the whore’s feet alternative because he/she: had read the Bond report in the latest ripper book but chose to go with his older sources, hedging his bets by mentioning both possibilities; used only the traditional, incorrect sources and mentioned the feet purely by coincidence because he wanted a rhyme for ‘sweet’.
If I, or anyone else suggests that the real ripper could have had memory blackouts after his crimes, causing him to have only hazy or sporadic flashbacks to the scene, and a reliance on the newspaper reports if he wanted to get the details clear in his head, we are accused of assuming the diary is genuine and then coming up with an unlikely argument to fit what’s written.
But Maybrick is as an arsenic head who is known to have complained of severe headaches from August to November 1888. A would-be forger would have felt positively orgasmic to come across this little gem during his/her reading up of the subject. One can see how this might have been expanded upon, in a forged diary, to create a killer who suffered from sleepwalking, nightmares and blackouts, and could therefore exhibit the utmost difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality, thoughts from actions, even someone else’s actions from his own.
Yeah, it makes everything ‘convenient’ for a forger, gives him/her a way out of any unintentional textual errors, by blaming them on Maybrick-as-Jack’s state of mind, but there it is.
Similarly, only a recent creation could have featured the Cumberland Street Poste House, or taken its one quotation from a modern essay. They are both perfect examples of circular arguments claimed to be smoking guns. Obviously, if and when forensic tests can show the diary to be a recent creation, any such arguments would become redundant anyway.
Actually, the diary handwriting cannot be reconciled with anything else its author claims for himself – whether it be ‘Dear Boss’, the funny Jewish joke – ie the graffito - with Jews misspelled ‘Juwes’, the Lusk letter, or anything written by the real James Maybrick. Perhaps it was such a tall order to make the diary handwriting style and spelling consistent with more than one of these things in the one document that our diarist just said “Sod it, I won’t try to copy any of ‘em”. But the impression I get is of someone who attached no importance to making the handwriting match what he/she was actually saying.
Love,
Caz
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Even in the unlikely event someone had access to the police files years before they were made public, and that someone then composed a fake diary,
Hi again,
I just want to reiterate my point that, someone did have access to police files. Where were they all this time. In a time warp, no they were somewhere in a dark room away from public access but as they around today then it follows that they were around yesterday, furthermore someone could have accessed them. It is not that big a stretch of the imagination is it?
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
Caz,
Actually the circular argument regarding the breasts started at day one in Harrison's book.
A quote from Harrison's book explaining the error in the diary regarding the placement of the breasts "David Forshaw's view is that the ecstasy of what he was experiencing left the murderer unable to remember that he had put one breast under the head and the other by the right foot."
And now a quote from the beginning of Forshaw's report which Rendell kindly put into his report which did NOT make it into Shirley's text. "Starting from the assumption that the journal is genuine, the aim of this contribution is to come to an understanding of James Maybrick the man, and of the state of mind of Jack the Ripper". The starting assumption was the it was genuine, and thus anything he said is operating from circular reasoning of the most suspect sort.
And his actual conclusions? (Again unpublished by Shirley in the original printing, which DID made it into subsequent printings.) "If this journal is genuine, then it tells a tragic tale. The account is feasible and indeed makes sense. However there are other possibilities; it could be a modern or an old fake or the product of a deluded mind contemporaneous with the Jack the Rippper murders."
Frankly, I don't think that those who believe it's a forgery have added much "circularness" to the argument. The author got it WRONG. It's only those who attempt to attach meaning to one line of a crossed out poem that STILL gets the placement wrong that keep it going in circles.
"Perhaps it was such a tall order to make the diary handwriting style and spelling consistent with more than one of these things in the one document that our diarist just said “Sod it, I won’t try to copy any of ‘em”."
It would be more than a tall order, it would be impossible to make it match both Maybrick's and the Dear Boss letter in my opinion. :-) As to the importance the writer attached to it? I wouldn't dare hazard a guess.
Regards,
John |
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
John Hacker and Chris Phillips
I reckon that an “open mind” concerning the diary is being able to put oneself in the position of, say, Jack the Ripper on the one hand, and a modern day forger on the other.
There seem to be four main areas of concern about the text of the diary.
1. “Left them on the table”
Chris, you refer to Dr Bond’s autopsy, which only resurfaced in 1987, and which revealed that one breast was placed “by the right foot”. You argue that the real Jack the Ripper would have got this detail right, and would not have relied on contemporary newspapers, which incorrectly reported that the breasts were placed on the table.
The diarist’s very first words on the murder of Jane Kelly confirms, that he is indeed influenced by newspaper reports: “I have read about my latest….”. If we assume, that the diarist was present at the crime scene, he would have been high on the thrill of killing, and, if he were Maybrick, high on arsenic as well, as maniacally he cut up her body and distributed parts of it around the room.
In a more rational state, a day or two after the event, would he have been sure of his recall of every precise detail of his killing orgy? Might he not have read the newspaper reports of the murder and accepted, doubting his recollection, they must be true. Interestingly, it is only after further time has elapsed, and when he returns to the same subject a few pages later, that he writes: “I thought of leaving them by the whore’s feet”. He therefore does appear to have a partial memory of where he wanted to place the breasts, but at the fully conscious level still accepts, that the newspapers must have their facts right about what he actually did.
2. “Tin match box empty”
Now this time, Chris, you are making this opposite point. In your supposition of events, the forger, having failed to get the post 1987 facts right about the breasts, does use other information which came back into the public domain after 1987 correctly, by apparently quoting verbatim from the police inventory of Eddowes’s possessions.
But look at the context. The diarist is writing verse at this point, trying out words and phrases, and crossing out the words, which he wants to rework. “Tin match box empty” is poetic inversion, a technique, often used by the diarist. A few pages on, we get: “With the key I did flee”. In non-poetic language, this would be: “I ran off with the key”. In fact, in his final version, he discards the inversion, and it becomes: “damn it, the tin box was empty”. He is obviously happy with this line, as he repeats it four pages later.
3. “Oh costly intercourse/of death”
Given the amount of poetry (OK doggerel) in the diary, it is understandable, that the diarist would use an apposite quote from a well-known poet.
Certainly, if Barrett forged the diary, the Sphere book is the likely source. If a diarist in 1888/9 wrote it, then the prime source has to be a published collection of Crashaw’s poetry. However, it is only a snatch of five words (two of which are misspelled), which could have been recalled from memory, rather than badly copied from an actual book in the diarist’s possession.
I have previously reported finding two copies in bookshops of The Complete Works of Richard Crashaw edited by William B Turnbull, published in 1858, and drawn attention to the prominent positioning of this phrase at the very top of page 187. Well, on Saturday, with a few moments to spare after my wife and I had been to a superb production of “After Miss Julie” at the Donmar Warehouse, we popped into a book store nearby and found yet another copy of the same popular 1858 edition of Crashaw. An inscription on the fly leaf revealed that the book had been once owned by a man in Liverpool, though sadly not James Maybrick. If I can casually find three copies of this book in the 21st Century, there must have been quite a few thousand around in the second half of the 19th Century?
I also remind readers that William Stebbing, Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford University, in a book published by Oxford University Press in 1907, wrote the following, explicitly about this poem, Sancta Maria Dolorum:
“The eleven stanzas are an inspiration…….I think it is Crashaw’s furthest, his highest, effort in the region of sacred song”.
4. “I took refreshment at the Poste House”
In my last post, I showed how “the Poste House” could be referring to an actual post house (or coaching inn) in the 19th Century, rather than to the little modern pub of that name in Cumberland Street, which couldn’t possibly be one.
In fairness, I should point out, that the correct spelling, even in 1888/9, is post house. However, the diarist’s syntax, punctuation and spelling are not of the best. (In the same paragraph, we get “rondaveau” (not rendezvous as listed in a little 1850 dictionary I own). Twice in the diary, he mistakenly adds a final ‘e’ in “poste haste”, and so at least his spelling of “Poste House” is consistent.
In none of these examples has the diarist made a “glaring textual error”, and he does get a great number of other details about Maybrick’s life and the Ripper murders correct, some of them surprisingly so, as has been rehearsed over and over again on these boards.
Robert Smith
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Paul Stephen
I'm still a bit confused by your distinction between forgetting and having no recollection. Do you mean you think that he never really knew what he had done, and therefore couldn't "forget" it?
Either way, I have to say I still find it very implausible. But I'm pleased to have clarified that this still seems to be the explanation favoured by the "open-minded".
Robert Smith
Thank you for your thoughts on the breasts, the tin match box and other points.
I still feel that, "poetic inversion" or not, it would be a remarkable coincidence if the real murderer had come up with the exact phrase used in the inventory.
On top of this, there is still the difficulty of imagining that the murderer made this minute examination of his victim's possessions in the corner of Mitre Square. Do you really think that's likely?
As for the other points, I think they only underline the main thrust of my argument. With sufficient ingenuity, it is possible to come up with an explanation of each objection to the diary. But while these explanations can't be said to be absolutely impossible, many of them involve remarkable coincidences or unlikely circumstances like intermittent amnesia or multiple personalities.
Perhaps it's just conceivable that Maybrick was referring to another pub as the "post house" - and that no other reference to that pub by that name has been found - and that by coincidence Maybrick misspelt the name in just the same way that would later be used for a different pub. But how likely is that, compared with the likelihood that a modern forger just got it wrong?
Perhaps "costly intercourse" is a bona fide quotation by a Victorian diarist, and all the rest of it over Barrett owning a book with the phrase in it, and being able to identify it is just a grotesque coincidence. But perhaps it was no coincidence at all.
No one can say any of these explanations is absolutely impossible, but I still think that diary believers have to invoke so many improbable coincidences and unlikely circumstances, that in combination they add up (or rather multiply up) to improbability, for all practical purposes.
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
Robert,
Many thanks for your courteous reply. Just a few quick points:
1) While you propose an explanation for the "Breasts" error, which may or may not be plausible depending on how you view the case in general. The author does in fact, place the breasts on the table. Twice. I think this is an error of the glaring type. REGARDLESS of whether the author was Maybrick or not, he got it wrong. I find it hard to believe that the actual Ripper would have gotten this one wrong because the placement by head and feet makes an odd kind of sense. ("Pillows fer yer head and feet milady?") While your proposed explanation is possible, it's highly implausible in my own personal opinion.
2) I find the coincidence of the "Tin match box empty" wording a bit much to swallow. It's not beyond possibility but improbable.
3) There is no evidence whatsoever that the historical James Maybrick had the slightest interest in Catholic poetry. None. If a copy of a book of Crashaw's poetry COULD be placed in Maybrick's possession then the argument for authenticity is strengthened greatly. However he was then, and is still now an extremely obscure author. A few thousand copies isn't all that significant considering the number of households in England.
The problem with this quote is compounded by Mike's tale of discovery of the quote in the Sphere Guide in the Liverpool library. From an authenticity point of view, this was disastrous. If it could be definitively proven that a copy of the Sphere Guide vol. 2 was in the possession of Mike Barrett prior to the diaries first public appearance, it's pretty much a statistical certainty that we've got a modern forgery in our hands.
4) I actually agree with you here, I've never really bought into the Poste House argument being particularly significant as far as the diaries authenticity goes. It's probably an error, but it's not enough for me to go out on a limb on.
One of the ones that you missed that I DO find troubling is the diaries apparent lack of knowledge regarding the occupation of his brother. The author sets up a rivalry with Michael over his "rhymes", when Michael was not a lyricist, but a composer. Big difference there. And for that to be made a major thematic element in the diary seems to be another glaring error.
While arguments can be made against all of these points, I have to agree with Jim DePalma and Chris Phillips that taken cumulatively, statistically it's very hard to swallow.
While I will certainly admit that he got a lot of details regarding James Maybrick's life correct, Maybrick's life was pretty well documented, so that's not entirely surprising. I myself have a transcript of Florries trial which contains a considerable number of the facts that the diary contains, and it was published in 1912.
Good luck with your Diamine quest.
Regards,
John Hacker |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:45 pm: | |
Chris,
You write: "Perhaps 'costly intercourse' is a bona fide quotation by a Victorian diarist..."
Hey, literature in English and its relationship to history... Excellent. On this I am a fully qualified, degree toting, class-teaching, university paid PhD of an expert.
And guess what....
It's not.
All the best,
--John |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
Hi All,
Jennifer, my apologies for the poorly worded sentence, there is perhaps an extra comma in there that blurs my intended meaning.
We know for a fact that a few people were allowed access to the police files before they were made public. Stephen Knight was allowed access to the files in the '70s, I believe Dan Farson may have seen them in the '50s. I also seem to recall an earlier reference from someone who claimed to have seen something in the files about the Ripper being part of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour, though I don't recall that person's name.
So, there's one definite, and two others that may possibly have seen them. My point was, it's extremely unlikely that of the very few people who accessed the police files prior to them being made public, one of them subsequently created a fake diary. And if you accept that remote possibility, it's still not an argument in favor of the diary's authenticity, is it? It still means the diary is a fake, doesn't it?
Robert Smith, thank you for your thoughts on some of the points that have been raised here. I think though, that you have simply re-inforced the point regarding unlikely explanations being used to work around the diary's difficulties. Which is the more likely explanation? Poetic inversion, or the forger simply copied the passage verbatim from a source that was in the public domain after 1987?
Best to all,
Jim |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 387
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Jim
I think you missed quite a few people who had seen the police files. There is also everyone working on the case between 1888 and 1894. If the diary were an old forgery then one has to ask the motive, and the most likely motive for an old forgery pointing the finger at James Maybrick is that it was created by someone involved in trying to secure the release of Florence Maybrick. Many of these were London lawyers and barristers, and many of these people had close contacts within the Met and City Police departments. Many of the connections that Feldman makes in his book in support of the diary would be equally true in support of this particular kind of forgery hypothesis. However, as you quite rightly say, whether new or old a forgery is still a forgery and gets nobody any closer to saying who Jack the Ripper was.
Chris Phillips
I happen to agree entirely with your point that the more convoluted explanations you have to come up with to show that the diary could be genuine, the more likely that means that it is not. The point is, as I have made before, that I am not trying to prove that the diary is genuine, I am simply trying to assemble ALL the available data so that I can satisfy myself on whether it is or isn't. Just because something looks more likely to be true does not mean that you can pronounce it to be an absolute fact. Too many people have been wrongly convicted that way over the years. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
Alan Sharp
Thank you for your post. Like you, I am trying to assemble data.
So far, I've suggested two difficulties, and the responses have been as follows:
(1) Difficulty: The diary states incorrectly that Mary Kelly's breasts were placed on the table.
Response: The killer, perhaps as a result of taking arsenic, had little or no recollection of the details of the crime. So he copied details from inaccurate newspaper reports into the diary.
(2) Difficulty: The diary uses the phrase "tin match box empty", identical to the inventory of Catharine Eddowes's possessions first published in 1987.
Response: The use of this phrase was a coincidence; the uncommon formation, with the adjective following the noun, was because the auhor was using "poetic inversion".
[No one has commented yet on the unlikelihood of the killer carrying out a detailed examination of the victim's possessions - down to the level of the contents of matchboxes.]
So long as there are still people who have an open mind about the diary's authenticity, I think this is a useful exercise, and I intend to raise some more similar points in the future.
I'll raise them individually, rather than making a list. Some excellent lists have been posted here in the past, but when that's done there's a danger of the "easy" points being dealt with and the more difficult points ignored.
Chris Phillips
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 549
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Paul,
I don't chose to accept any of his claims. I can understand why he would claim that it wasn't a fake but I don't understand why he would then claim that it was a fake. Surely he must have known that the latter would ruin his reputation and also colour people's views of the diary.
If you were Michael Barrett and you didn't fake it or know it was a fake then why would you announce that it was a fake? You wouldn't. No normal person would. If you can think of a reason for doing so though please let me know.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 702
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:38 pm: | |
Chris,
On top of this, there is still the difficulty of imagining that the murderer made this minute examination of his victim's possessions in the corner of Mitre Square. Do you really think that's likely?
Good point mate. As far as I can remember (as usual folks, I dont mind being corrected) the only possessions that were not on the body were a piece of apron (found in Goulston st), a thimble and a few buttons.
X-ray vision or rumbling through Kates pockets, locating the box....and then putting it back ? Odd.
You choose.
Of course, the other possibilities are Kate offering Jack her final match. Which would indicate Jack was a smoker. Which would raise the question why did he not have any matches on him ? Or Kate used the final match herself in his presence, but there is no indication of a pipe or woodbines.
Of course the senario of 'ere, ave a look at my luvly match box' may have happend.
I dont know.
Monty
 |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 389
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Chris
So long as there are still people who have an open mind about the diary's authenticity, I think this is a useful exercise, and I intend to raise some more similar points in the future.
Agreed 100% and I look forward to reading them.
Sarah
If you were Michael Barrett and you didn't fake it or know it was a fake then why would you announce that it was a fake? You wouldn't. No normal person would.
He also announced at the same time that he only had days to live. That was a total fabrication. From all I have read about Mike Barrett, the rules of normal people don't apply.
|
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
Hi All,
Alan, point taken. When I think in terms of an old forgery, I tend to think of years or decades after the case was closed, ie, sometime in the early-to-mid 20th century. You're quite right in pointing out that it could have been created much earlier. There are, however, so many indications of modern forgery that I frankly don't give the old forgery theory much credence.
Sarah, trying to make sense of the actions of Mike Barrett, as volatile as he was in 1994, is very dicey business. My personal take, FWIW, is that Mike Barrett was at a crossroads in his life. His career had failed, he'd had some serious health problems, and his marriage was falling apart. In a desperate attempt to turns things around, he got involved in something that quickly spiraled out of his control. All of Mike's subsequent, seemingly senseless actions, including the event to which you're referring (the July 1994 statement to Mr. Bragh of the Liverpool Post that he'd forged the diary) were attempts by Mike to regain control of a situation that had completely overwhelmed him. When subjected to enormous stress in their personal lives, people will do all kinds of things that appear strange to outside observers.
I emphasize that all of this is just my personal take on the situation. I have little to back it up, except that Mike Barrett certainly did not seem to be the "master forger" type, I don't think he was capable of that. I see his role as more of a "placer". Once Anne supplied the new and improved provenance for the diary, there was no longer a need for a placer. The "I got it from a bloke down the pub" story was no longer needed, the diary had been in the Graham family all those years. I believe Mike saw this as further indication he was losing both his wife and his important role in the diary story, and in conjunction with his heavy drinking at the time, provoked him to behave as he did.
All IMHO, of course.
Best to all,
Jim |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
HI
Yes it is unlikely. I did misunderstand you I apologise. It is also unlikely JTR wrote a diary!
Paradoxically neither may be true!
Still I do think a lot more people had access than we think, such as those who worked around the closed documents, not that I am suggesting they did any wrong doings. Also the police at the time, likewise not saying they did any wrongdoing. BUT they are both unlikely,
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
Chris Phillips and John Hacker,
Thanks for your comments.
In general, you have both made reasoned and reasonable arguments. At least some of the people on the boards can perhaps see, that the diary’s authorship is not a closed case, Until there is indisputable proof, it must remain a matter of opinion. The real problem is that if it wasn’t James Maybrick or Mike and Anne Barrett, who wrote it, who the hell did? We are really no closer to answering that question, than when the diary was first published in 1993.
A few more thoughts on “Oh costly intercourse/of death”.
The fact remains, that the poem was written in the 17th Century and therefore can be the direct source of the quote. Yes, he was a Catholic, but why can’t Protestants read Catholic poets? And don’t Catholics read Protestant poets like the great 17th Century poet, John Donne, who was Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral? These five words are not Catholic dogma. They just appealed to the diarist. Indeed there is a very physical, even violent, quality to much of the language in this poem.
As I wrote, “Oh costly intercourse/of death” is a snatch of poetry. The diarist didn’t actually have to own a copy of Crashaw’s poems. And to judge from the two errors in five words, he almost certainly didn’t have the printed words in front of him.
Even if we assume, that Mike Barrett did have the Sphere book in his possession, prior to the diary being submitted for publication (and there is no independent witness to support this contention), then we still have to overcome two huge stumbling blocks:
(a) We have to accept, that Mike, barely able to write a line of correct standard English, was searching through several volumes of an erudite ten-volume set of literary criticism, looking for an appealing quote. And why the need to do so, when there are no other quotes in the diary?
(b) When Mike desperately asserted in June 1994 that he had forged the diary, he failed to mention, that he had used the quote from the Sphere guide – a piece of vital evidence, which would have convinced most people of his authorship.
(c) There is no evidence whatsoever that Mike knew the origin of the quote until 30th September 1994. Indeed Alan Gray, the private detective employed by Michael Barrett, knew nothing about the quote until November 1994, as he confirmed in writing to the authors of Ripper Diary, referring to a taped conversation between Barrett and Gray on 7th November 1994:
“If the tape you refer to as being made in early November shows indifference on my part to the Sphere book, this is no surprise, because at that time no person had ever mentioned that it could be of great importance and that includes Mr Melvin Harris”.
All the assertions in the world that Mike owned a copy of the Sphere guide in 1992/3 and that it is the source of the quote in the diary, doesn’t get past those problems. But please do not think, that I do not understand why many people find it difficult to accept, that Barrett came across the quote in Liverpool Public Library.
John, you raised the point about Michael being a composer, rather than a lyricist. Does anyone have enough knowledge of popular Victorian music to know, whether Michael ever wrote lyrics to his music? Did he have a Gilbert to his Sullivan? Even if he didn’t write lyrics professionally, might he not have written some good poetry privately? Certainly, the diarist’s obsession is with poetry, and, if it were James, who wrote the
diary, criticism of Michael’s poetry or lyrics could have been his way of expressing his feelings of rivalry and inferiority towards his brother.
|
Sadie Jones
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:56 pm: | |
Hello again everyone,
I have not posted again for a while as I needed to read up on a few things before I replied.
Yes I believe Maybrick could have been the ripper, but not because of the diary. The diary is interesting and as I have said before, I do not believe it to be fake or genuine. I keep an open mind. If it does turn out to be genuine, then it will be a bonus for those of us who believe the possibility that Maybrick could be JtR.
I have gone away and looked at other sources of information, to do with other cases aside from JtR. Obviously in 1888 etc they did not have the same opinions or the knowledge we have today on serial killers etc. I do not believe that JtR was someone who lived in or close to Whitechapel, as someone who obviously was inclined to commit such deeds, I think would not have been able to exhibit such self-control as to leave such time gaps inbetween victims. In my opinion, it had to be someone who lived some distance away. Also I have read that apparently serial killers etc tend to murder their own race/within their own ethnic groups (from what I have read). Maybrick lived in Liverpool but was able to frequent Whitechapel. I have also been reading about long term effects of the use of arsenic and strychnine. I will still continue to read until I convince myself that Maybrick was either JtR or not. If not, then I will start to read about another possibilty and so forth!!!
On the subject of the diary...
There is so much speculation about whether it is genuine or fake. It is a very interesting subject. Once again, I can only say that I would think logically speaking, that it would be far easier to prove something fake then genuine. I have not read one official report or the like that states 100% that it is a forgery.
If it was indeed written around 1921 as one opinion I read suggested, then does anyone know if there were details of James Maybricks use of arsenic and strychnine doses, were they documented and if there were documented facts on long term effects of arsenic and strychnine use? (I have not actually found any from that time).
Would it have been easy to describe what Maybrick was feeling as he never actually truly told anyone the depth of his addiction (although it was common knowledge he was using drugs). If anyone knows the answer, please let me know as I would be interested to read it.
If the diary was written late 1980's early 1990's...why can it not be proved fake? I know there is dispute about chloracetamide, I thought I had read it was in use as early as 1857, but no confirmation as to it being used in ink or not. These are my own opinions of course, I am not an expert, and I appreciate hearing different points of view.
Thank you Shannon and John for your previous replies. Caroline, the book is excellent and I will continue to recommend it to others to read.
Sorry to waffle on!!
Best wishes to you all.
Sadie.
}}}} |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:35 pm: | |
John
I found your posting very interesting in the question you pose regarding James’ apparent misunderstanding of his own brother’s profession. English composers of this period are a bit of a “thing” of mine and I have collected early recordings of long forgotten songs of the era for many years.
I own an Edison wax cylinder from around 1910 of Maybrick’s ballad “We all love Jack” which should become the casebook’s “Anthem” in my opinion!
I know I’m not saying anything new here, but Michael Maybrick used the pseudonym Stephen Adams when composing music. He was also well known, better known in fact in his day, under his real name as a singer of ballads in concert halls. As far as I am aware he was not an opera singer as has been suggested.
Much of Adams’ sheet music states on the front page, “as sung by Mr Maybrick” or suchlike as if to give it a bit of extra kudos.
Anyway to get to the point. James would probably have thought of his brother more as a singer than composer, so maybe his comment about not being able to make his poetry rhyme quite as Michael does is not quite as absurd as it seems at first sight?
It is well known that a certain Fred Weatherley was Maybrick’s lyricist for many of his songs, although most of these collaborations I believe date from after the diary.
Weatherley is known to have written the music to at least one of his own songs, and it is not uncommon to find composers who have had a go at writing their own words. Interestingly one of Adams’ songs, “A warrior bold”, had words by a certain Edwin Thomas. A pseudonym for Michael perhaps, using his brother’s names? I can’t find any reference to an Edwin Thomas as a lyricist anywhere else!
Regards
Paul
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
Chris
I don’t know how I could put it much plainer. Let me try one last time. If I go out and have a damned good Saturday night in the pub, I might wake up on Sunday with little or no recollection of the previous evenings events. Somebody then tells me I made a complete idiot of myself standing on a table doing Elvis impersonations, and I believe them as it’s quite possible that I might do that!
I may not have done so, but I may accept it precisely because I don’t recall what actually did happen.
Hows that? It’s better than plausible. It has actually happened to me in my younger days more times that I’ll admit here.
Robert Smith has most eloquently made the self same point, (not the Elvis bit!), and I really, honestly don’t understand why you and others have such a problem with it.
To me this issue is by far one of the weakest arguments against the diary I’ve heard so far.
Jennifer
Your point is a good one and is often missed here. I know you have made it before and it was worth repeating. Of course any “lost” evidence has existed somewhere in all the years before it resurfaces. (Unless it’s forged of course!) There is no real way of knowing who knew what, especially early on in the century when plenty could have been handed down by word of mouth.
Alan
In response to your comment about the tin match box. Feldman does make quite a good case for the diary by quoting the line, “Damn it, the tin box was empty”, which wasn’t a commonly known fact before 1987. Unfortunately though, this isn’t the only mention of a tin box in the diary. The diarist also quotes, apparently directly from the police inventory, almost word for word, “Tin match box empty” in one of his little drafts for an intended poem. It’s not overwhelming evidence against the diary in my view, but is certainly one of it’s major problems.
Regards
Paul
|
Raymond Speer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
In regard to Michael Barrett's tale of the source of the Diary, please notice that Mike has moved on to another variation of the Diary's provenance. According to pages 270-271 of _Ripper Diary_ by Linder, Morris & Skinner, Barrett is now claiming that the Diary is a heirloom of _his_ family, not his ex-wife's family. The excuse for his failure to tell the truth way back in 1992 was that Mike was not going to reveal the true story until both of his parents were dead!!!!
The team that wrote _Ripper Diary_ honored Barrett's request that they not write about his newest assertion in detail. As for myself, I note that Barrett has done all he possibly could to rouse skepticism against the Diary, as (at various times) Barrett has claimed to have gotten it from a pal who has since died--- forged it with his ex as a partner --- & now he has obtained it as an heirloom through his family! (The only provenance that Barrett has yet to endorse is the alien adbuction scenario in which Grays hand him the Diary while he is in their flying saucer.)
By the way, I've done some side reading on the Maybrick matter and it seems to me that Florrie's infidelity is consistently dated to December 1888. Maybrick's wife's affair in December 1888 could have had nothing to do with him going wild in August, September and November 1888.
Sure, we can formulate arguments to dispute the obvious:
Maybrick wrote all the diary entries in one or two days, choosing to tell his story in 1889 as though he was making contemporaneous entries a year before. That accounts for the misleading passages.
Or, Maybrick may have assumed infidelity at a time when there was none, or maybe the Diary is right and his wife was screwing around in the summer of 1888, though belatedly she and her lover never admitted an early start to their affair.
Those excuses for Maybrick getting flustered in August '88 over an event that occurred in December '88 do not satisfy me.
Is there any evidence (outside of the Diary) to substantiate a claim that Florence Maybrick was unfaithful to James Maybrick in the summer of 1888? |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Paul Stephen
I understand your explanation for the incorrect information about the breasts - I think I always understood it - though I still don't find it probable.
What I was trying to clarify was the distinction between "forgetting" and "having no recollection", which seemed to annoy you before. Still, it doesn't particularly bother me.
I'm pleased you agree that "tin match box empty" is a major problem for the diary. As you don't consider it overwhelming, though, I assume you think it's within the realms of acceptable coincidence for Maybrick to have duplicated the phrase in the inventory by chance. I assume you also think it's believable that he made a minute examination of Eddowes's possessions after killing her?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 27, 2004) |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
Sadie,
Realistically, the entire case for Maybrick being JtR hangs on the diary and the diary alone.
"I have gone away and looked at other sources of information, to do with other cases aside from JtR. Obviously in 1888 etc they did not have the same opinions or the knowledge we have today on serial killers etc. I do not believe that JtR was someone who lived in or close to Whitechapel, as someone who obviously was inclined to commit such deeds, I think would not have been able to exhibit such self-control as to leave such time gaps inbetween victims. In my opinion, it had to be someone who lived some distance away."
Serial killers don't travel 100 miles to kill within such a confined geographic area. They kill in their own "comfort zone". Also, killers do leave gaps in time when they do not kill. Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer was thought to have stopped in the 80s, but has confessed to a killing in 1998. Ted Bundy in interviews also mentioned that the urge is to kill is not constant. It ebbs, and then builds again. The heavy police presence could also influence the timing.
Without the diary, Maybrick is no more likely to be Jack than any other male living 100 miles away from London.
Regards,
John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 8:44 pm: | |
Paul,
Thanks for the information regarding Michael's singing career, however I don't think that really changes my basic perspective that the diary is in error.
Here's a couple of quotes "Michael would be proud of my funny little rhyme for he knows only too well the art of verse. Have I not proven that I can write better than he." and "my head aches, but I will go on damn Michael for being so clever the art of verse is far from simple. I curse him so." He's clearly referring to Michael's gift at writing verse, which he is challenging by trying to better with his funny little rhymes.
Michael would be known in the family for his compositions, or his fine singing voice. Not the art of verse which he did not practice. Were this sibling rivalry to be true, his own perceived inadequacy would have been based on what Michael was praised for. I find it difficult, if not impossible to believe that he would be in error here.
Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Regards,
John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 8:47 pm: | |
Robert,
Thanks again for your reply.
I understand your point that the quote was a 17th century one, and that an argument could be made that Maybrick was somehow aware of it, but realistically that's a complete non-starter in my opinion. Crashaw was obscure even in catholic circles, and outside of that one quote there is nothing that would be likely to appeal to an arsenic addicted cotton merchant serial killer.
In regards to your further points:
a) You're making the assumption that it was Mike who was doing the searching, which is not one I would comfortably make at this point. Additionally, we have testimony that the book tends to fall open at that page (as well as a couple of others) and those isolated lines of poetry could easily have stuck in somebodys head. Be it Mike, Anne, or someone as yet unknown.
b) This makes 2 assumptions I am uncomfortable with...
1) That Mike was the forger and thus aware of it at this time.
2) That he was actually trying to prove at that time that he DID author the diary. Mike seems to have made quite a hobby out of changing his story through the years, and I'm not sure he would actually want the game to end.
c) I agree here. There is no independently confirmed evidence that he was aware of the source of the quote prior to Sept 30 of 1994. However his tale of discovery in the Liverpool library is statistically unbelievable. It makes no sense whatsoever unless he had some form of prior knowledge. It's possible in the same way a plane might explode overhead and drop a suitcase of money into your front lawn.
For him to have the same book in his possession prior to the appearance of the diary to also be a coincidence is virtually impossible in my opinion.
There are many possible diary creation scenarios, and I'm not quite willing to sign on to any of them yet. And any argument the relies on Mike acting in any way rationally is suspect, because his actions have never been consistent.
As far as Michael as lyricist/poet goes, please see my response to Paul who brought up an intriguing point. I still don't think that the diary text supports such an interpretation, but as I've said before that's just my opinion.
Regards,
John Hacker |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
Man, somewhere I hear old Jesse Jackson shouting, "Keep hope alive! Keep hope alive!"
But the truth is that there's the smell of desperation in the "explanations" and the "possibilities" and the "remote chances" and the "coincidences" and the "misunderstandings" and all the rest.
The thing's a fake. The handwriting isn't even close.
And I am a credentialed expert on at least one thing professionally and I can assure everyone here that the real James Maybrick did not write that line from that poem in that diary. No how; no way.
But still we're told that the appearance of that exact same line, conveniently excerpted from that same obscure poem in the Sphere Guide that Mike owned, is just an amazing coincidence.
And somewhere Samuel Taylor Coleridge is chanting softly to himself something about the "willing suspension of disbelief."
And somewhere Lincoln is smiling and joking about fooling some and maybe even all of the people.
And somewhere the diary sits. And sits.
And the same talk continues.
Listen, you can almost hear it in the distance...
"Keep hope alive. Keep hope alive."
He forgot where he put the breasts, he misunderstood what his own famous brother did for a living, he must have meant some other Poste House, maybe he had MPD, it was verse so it was bound to look identical to a police items list, hey, who knows what the word "preparations" means anyway... But we do want to know the truth. Honest.
"Keep hope alive."
I hear ya', Jesse.
--John (who's been here before) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
