|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 553
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:48 am: |       |
John O,
You said that the handwriting insn't close well I just wanted to comment on that. First of all, I don't believe the diary is real and is probably a fake, I just needed you to know that.
Ok, the handwriting being different to other things that James wrote isn't really an issue. James Maybrick may have been writing but if he made mental problems, which I think is quite likely, he may have written in a different style of handwriting. Many people with schizophrenia or MPD tend to write in one form of handwriting and then slip into another at other times. If he was Jack then it's quite possible that when he felt himself slipping into that persona he felt that he needed to write in that diary.
Of course I don't believe in the diary really but just wanted to say that. Also to clarify, I didn't mean that I though Maybrick probably had mental problems, I meant that if he really was Jack then he possibly had them.
Sarah |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for presenting us, officially, with Paul Feldman's delightful MPD story.
But, as with most of the "explanations" offered about such things in the diary, there's not a single shred of historical evidence anywhere to support such a "theory."
It's all the continuous building of a dream on completely unevidenced wish fulfillment and speculative fancy and the fact that such reaches are, over and over again, necessary should eventually register with the reader and lead them to the only logical conclusion.
So thanks for reminding us of yet another in a long line of such moments.
All the best,
--John
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 554
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
John,
I haven't read Paul Feldman's book.
It isn't a theory at all. There is no evidence that Maybrick himself suffered from anything like this but I'm just saying that people with those disorders, especially MPD do write in different styles when they switch from one personality to another.
Yet again I remind you that I am not defending the diary but am giving you an actual reason why the difference in handwriting doesn't matter.
Sarah |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 6:20 am: | |
Chris
Could you, or someone else please explain to me why the Ripper would have had to have made “a minute examination of Eddowe’s possessions after killing her” ?
You’ve lost me on this one. Just how long are you suggesting it took to rifle her pockets and produce an old tin box and check if it had anything in it? If it was the first thing that came to hand about 10 seconds I should think.
You wouldn’t even need much light to know the box was empty. A quick shake would do.
As for her other possessions, add another half a minute or so to hunt for trophies and you’re done.
The tin box argument against the diary is still a good one, but its these sort of manufactured extra “difficulties” that make me even more determined to reach my own conclusions my own way.
Regards
Paul
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 9:45 am: | |
Dear John H
No, I don’t think you’re wrong. I mentioned the fact that Michael was well known as a singer in his day, merely because it seems to have been missed recently. You never know. It might prove important one day!
To be honest there is absolutely no evidence I know of, that he wrote any of his own lyrics , but the appearance of an Edwin Thomas as the lyricist of one of his songs did strike a chord with me, (no pun intended).
I have spoken to a musical colleague of mine who is going to see if he can find out any more, but I doubt there is much that will further this debate one iota. If I do find any more I will post it here.
Maybrick, alias Adams was a third division composer of standard Victorian “Potboilers”, and as such nothing very much seems to have been written about him. He was totally outshone in every way by Arthur Sullivan despite what has been said in Shirley Harrison’s book.
He and Fred Weatherley were lifelong friends, and some have suggested that it was rather more than just friendship! Both were Masons, and I read somewhere that the choice of Micheal’s alias is connected to Freemasonry as it contains both Adam and Eve!
Regards
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Paul Stephen
Well, at any rate, he must have made an examination minute enough to find the matchbox and check it was empty. And replace it.
It wasn't only the match box that was mentioned in the diary but, if I remember correctly, tea and sugar as well (and perhaps more - I'd have to check). However, perhaps you will suggest that tea and sugar was mentioned at the inquest, and that as Maybrick was copying some details from the newspapers, he combined these with the result of his lightning discovery of the match box.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "manufactured" difficulty - perhaps one that may be unlikely, but not actually impossible to explain?
Anyhow, I'm not "manufacturing" difficulties, but trying to reach a balanced assessment of the likelihood of the explanation. To do this fairly, surely you have to take into account the unlikelihood of the Ripper going through his victim's things (and - I keep adding - replacing them), as well as the unlikelihhod of him duplicating the exact phrase - "tin match box empty" - that was used in the inventory.
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Paul,
I would certainly be interested in any more information regarding Michael you could dig up. I agree that we've tended to lose sight of his singing career, and focussed more on his work as a composer of late. Probably because the diaries focus seems to be concerned with Michael as creator.
But we should always try and keep as complete of a picture in mind as possible. That's one of the true joys of the JtR case, is that encompasses so many other little spheres of knowledge we might not otherwise come into contact.
Thanks again for the information. :-)
Regards,
John
(Message edited by jhacker on January 28, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 557
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
Since some of you have been talking about Michael Maybrick, AKA Stephen Adams I looked him up.
I found some information at the following web site:-
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/bio/m/a/y/maybrick_m.htm
A list of his music is at:-
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/mussm:@FILREQ(@OR(@field(AUTHOR+@od1(Adams,+Stephen+))+@field(OTHER+@od1(Adams,+Stephen+)))+@FIELD(COLLID+sm1870))
Information about one of his more famous songs is here:-
http://www.joemcpartland.com/holy_city.html
Hope this helps in anyway.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi John (H), All,
It doesn’t matter who started making circular arguments, and in connection with which theory, two circular arguments still won’t make a straight one. 
We don’t need a whole list of textual ‘problems’, that depend on an assumption that recent forgers were responsible for them.
We only need one textual ‘problem’ that delivers a fatal blow to any chance of the diary being an old document, no matter what the assumptions are, or whichever possibility we might currently be exploring.
Some people have reached the happy point in their lives when they no longer require a fatal blow or think they’ve already experienced one.
Statistics and probability can be wonderful assets when applied appropriately to situations by people who have access to all the available information, or can demonstrate to those who have such access an equally thorough understanding of all the issues involved. The tiniest detail not yet known or appreciated, can make a world of difference to the odds being assessed without it. Just a few words coming to light and put in context can play havoc with people’s probability calculations, and change a point of view forever – assuming it is capable of changing of course.
Collecting probabilities on this basis, in a case as complex as this one, and assuming the more you collect the nearer you are to certainty, is a temporary comfort. Let me know when you actually get there by sending me a postcard.
And how on earth can anyone here claim that Michael Maybrick ‘did not practise’ the art of verse, and therefore would not be known ‘in the family’ for it? The James of the diary was not trying to write music, so his perceived inadequacy was clearly not based on his brother’s most famous talent. If Lulu were my sister, and I wrote in my diary that I wished I could cook like her, would someone in a hundred years from now say the writer didn’t know what Lulu was famous for, otherwise they would have wanted to belt out ‘Shout’ better than her in the bath?
John (H),
Don’t forget, we only have Mike’s word that the Sphere Guide was in his possession at any time before 6 December 1994, much less that he had it pre-Doreen (April 1992). And Mike was well aware how convincing this would be, because he told Feldman’s secretary, on 30 September 1994, that having found the quote in a library book he would now be able to claim that he must have put it in the diary himself, using a copy of the same book he claimed to have owned since 1989, because – as he predicted the reaction would be - how else would he have known?
Hi Chris (P),
In the section of experimental lines where ‘tin match box empty’ appears, the next four lines are all crossed out and rejected, and then comes ‘first whore no good’. It’s exactly the same format - the writer is clearly meant to be jotting down ideas for the next funny little rhyme, omitting the verb ‘was’ from both lines.
So, while the writer may have obtained the info from the police list (the empty box, I mean, not the no-good whore), the argument that this line was simply copied verbatim, consciously by an exceedingly stupid faker or unconsciously by a very careless one, with no other reasoning governing the choice and sequence of the four little words, doesn’t seem to me a very convincing one. Besides, the silly faker apparently couldn’t copy the five little words from the Sphere Guide essay without making two errors.
Hi Sarah,
The question of why Mike would confess to forging the diary is the same whether his confession was true or false. None of those close to the heart of the investigation at the time accept his initial claim to have forged it by himself, nor any of his later claims to have played a major part in its creation. As far as am aware, Mike has never claimed for himself the only role – a very minor one - that has been seriously considered for him.
Why did Mike confess in June 1994 if he was involved in forgery, in any capacity?
The police had come and gone months before, the serious diary money had just begun to roll in nicely, and Feldy was falling over himself to help the cause and prove Mike really had been handed Jack’s diary on a plate with gold knobs on. What was going wrong? Something must have happened to make Mike think everything would be so much better if he confessed. There is no evidence that he had a sudden - and extremely momentary - crisis of conscience about all the lies that had been told. On the contrary, his whoppers steadily grew until the scale shouted “One at a time please!” as they went off it.
So Mike’s confession is an ongoing mystery regardless of where the truth – er – lies.
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:21 pm: | |
Caz,
"It doesn’t matter who started making circular arguments, and in connection with which theory, two circular arguments still won’t make a straight one."
I was just responding to your suggestion that "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’."
And let's be clear here. There is no circular reasoning in suggesting the author wanted a rhyme for "sweet". That works just as well if it's a forgery or real and he simply forgot, no assumption is necessary.
But the simple fact is that the author of the thing got the placement of the breasts WRONG. Twice. Period. End of story. There is no circular reasoning involved unless you want to try and make something out of the "feet" remark to cover the error. Either by the forger hedging his bets or Maybrick's half recollection. That's when the circular reasoning starts. Forger or not, they got it wrong.
"And how on earth can anyone here claim that Michael Maybrick ‘did not practise’ the art of verse, and therefore would not be known ‘in the family’ for it? The James of the diary was not trying to write music, so his perceived inadequacy was clearly not based on his brother’s most famous talent."
Let's quote from the diary again shall we: "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."
Again the author gets it wrong. How anyone can claim otherwise is simply beyond me.
"Don’t forget, we only have Mike’s word that the Sphere Guide was in his possession at any time before 6 December 1994, much less that he had it pre-Doreen (April 1992). And Mike was well aware how convincing this would be, because he told Feldman’s secretary, on 30 September 1994, that having found the quote in a library book he would now be able to claim that he must have put it in the diary himself, using a copy of the same book he claimed to have owned since 1989, because – as he predicted the reaction would be - how else would he have known?"
Read my post to Robert Smith where I dealt with most of this in detail.
Regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
I wrote:
It wasn't only the match box that was mentioned in the diary but, if I remember correctly, tea and sugar as well (and perhaps more - I'd have to check).
Yes: sugar, tea, match box, cigarette case, knife. Not just an isolated mention of the match box.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
"We only need one textual ‘problem’ that delivers a fatal blow to any chance of the diary being an old document..."
Yes, and it's certainly too bad for all of us that the forger didn't write "Saw Michael Caine as Abberline last night. Boy did he suck." Because it has long been clear that for anything short of that the "explanations" and "possibilities" and other excuses, no matter how implausible or unevidenced, will always be offered (see above) in a valiant attempt to keep hope alive.
But there is, after all, also the death of a thousand cuts.
All the best,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
I feel something that bedevils these discussions is the tendency to get drawn into abstruse, complicated discussions about who might have forged the diary, how and why.
But if we confine ourselves to the question of whether or not it was written by the Ripper, don't things become a bit simpler?
Regarding the match box, surely there are only two possibilities:
(1) The writer copied this and the other items from the inventory, or
(2) The writer went through Eddowes's possessions after he had killed her, listed them in his diary, and by coincidence used the same phrase - "tin match box empty" - that occurs in the inventory.
The coincidence, if true, would be remarkable. I don't see how it becomes significantly less remarkable because the diarist was writing doggerel, or because he used a similar phrase nearby.
Chris Phillips
|
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 23
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 8:38 pm: | |
Caz,
Your wandering thoughts and loose verbatim reminds me of a long-forgotten celebrity out in the middle of the Australian jungle in the hope that someone is watching, hoping to save his career!
Whether you believe the diary to be a fake or not, you are one of those people I told you about, the recipient of the joke - and you champion its cause well.
I don't think you really care what you are saying, you stray unashamedly far off the subject with trivial matters such as circles, probability calculations, etc.
"And how on earth can anyone here claim that Michael Maybrick ‘did not practise’ the art of verse, and therefore would not be known ‘in the family’ for it? The James of the diary was not trying to write music, so his perceived inadequacy was clearly not based on his brother’s most famous talent."
Can't argue with that, but why don't you address the finer issues such as why the pub is called the
Poste House when it would have been called the Muck Midden in 1888? You had a go at me last time but I noticed you failed to answer my points - probably because they were irrefutable so you just said they had done the rounds before and I was being subjective...
As I have already said and I remind you, you also misquoted me so I think you get the booby prize. ;p
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
As has been the case for several years now, I'm having a difficult time reconciling Mr. Smith's suggestion that Barrett was "barely able to write a line of correct standard English" with Anne Graham's provenance tale. I mean, am I alone here? Doesn't this run a little rough-shod over the claim that Anne handed him the Diary in order that he might 'write a story about it?' And why precisely did she and her father buy a word processor for a bloke who couldn't string two words together? Why did Barrett belong to a local Writer's circle?
The kettle boils down to this: our understanding of Mr. Barrett's writing ability is based on two things only. A) the opinions of those who were studying him during a very frightening binge, two or three years after the theoretical fact. B) Anne Graham's unproven claim that she had to tidy up (or even write) his literary work for him. (Which aint a problem anyway, as I see it)
I know I've made this slightly snide comment before, but why is the gaping disparity between Maybrick's Diary and Maybrick's will "inconclusive", when, at the same time, Mike's inebriated scrawl on the back of a check stub or a cocktail napkin or some similar 'document' supposedly tells us something of importance?
Mike did write at least one story: "Danny the Dolphin Boy." Doesn't sound like it will replace The Brothers Karamazov anytime soon, but I wouldn't care to judge it by the title.
And, er, speaking of writing, the sample of Anne Graham's handwriting in the Linder, Morris, and Skinner book doesn't really tell me anything, does it? She was writing in an obviously highly stylized manner for three people that she darn well knew would be scrutinizing it against the Diary. (btw., like the diarist, she didn't know how to spell the word rendezvous). Anywyay, in brief, I think I'd need to see samples of Mike & Anne's writing pre-1991 before scratching their names off the short list. All the appropriate salutations, &tc.
RP, common drudge. |
SPEARS
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hello
Does anyone know when it became common knowledge that Catherine Eddowes's tin match box was empty?
I know that this information wasnt disclosed at the time of the murders.
Kind Regards
SPEARS |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 7:24 am: | |
Hi chaps
Well the Maybrick postings are coming in thick and fast and, as usual it seems, getting absolutely nowhere.
There are clearly good points to be made, both for and against the diary, but it is obvious to me that some, particularly those who have already decided firmly against the diary’ s authenticity, are never going to budge an inch no matter what, and I fear that the debate is just going to peter out again in due course having achieved absolutely nothing.
I only started to ask questions here a couple of weeks ago in the hope of improving my understanding of the situation, but those hopes are rapidly running out.
Is it not reasonable to explore alternative scenarios to the same old stuff that is repeatedly put forward by those who have decided already against the darned thing? I’m not talking of half baked vague possibilities, but sensible arguments that might get us a bit further with this than the present stalemate.
I’m told the Ripper would have had to make a “minute examination of Eddowes body” to discover just three items mentioned in the diary. Tin boxes, one empty! - (To mis-quote a certain inventory). Do we not all accept that he was probably seeking trophies from his victims? Why is this so ridiculous and evidence against the diary? He could have done it in a minute in virtual pitch darkness surely?
I explained WHY I thought he could have got the positioning of Kelly’s breasts wrong and all I get back is how implausible any alternative scenario is. No one has actually justified their opinion short of saying that its implausible. Why are so many people convinced that the Ripper would have had total recall of the events at Millers Court?
I’m sorry if I’m sounding grumpy, but I was hoping for something a little more open than this supposed “conclusive evidence that the diary is a modern hoax”. If it was anything like conclusive, the world would have long ago given up on the diary. It clearly hasn’t.
It seems to me that there are still areas well worth investigation as far as the diary is concerned, and I hope against hope that it might still be possible, but I’m not holding my breath………
Paul
P.S. I’m half way into Shirley Harrison’s new book at the moment. It’s a good read, but nothing much new in there apart from the strange Austin Texas connection, and it doesn’t read as though even she really believes in that one!
|
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 6:40 am: | |
The Poste House – What’s in a name?
There is much debate about the reference in the diary to the ‘Poste House’ and an apparent anomaly to its existence under that name in 1888, most quoting the name as being ‘The Muck Midden’, the name of Poste House as it now called, being a much later title.
As most philatelists know, a mail system was in operation over 100 years before the building of purpose built collection houses or ‘post offices’ and the system we are now familiar with. It was common practice prior to this time, for letters in areas to be collected at the local public houses, which were operated under licence. The mail from the various public houses was then collected and taken away for delivery and mail dropped off for collection.
This often resulted in many of these public houses being referred to as ‘Post Houses’ by both regulars and locals, regardless of the actual Public House name. It is not unreasonable to suggest that this was the case prior to the name of ‘The Muck Midden’ and that it has possibly now reverted to the older name in usage many years later, as we see so commonly today. It cannot be discounted that in Maybricks earlier years, it was ‘referred’ to locally as the ‘Post House’, a name he has used in reference to it. It is hard to imagine that a proprietor or brewery would in their right mind call one of their establishments ‘The Muck Midden’, it would hardly be conducive to enticing clientele. It is also possible therefore that the name of ‘The Muck Midden’ was established after referral to it as such, by local inhabitants and the name, once commonly used, becoming acceptable by the proprietors.
In my youth I played darts for a public house in Alderley Edge, Cheshire that was referred to by all as ‘The Drum and Monkey’ regardless of its sign reading ‘The Moss Rose’ for many years. The place was in fact originally called ‘The Drum and Monkey’. Now some 20 years later the name on the sign reads ‘The Drum and Monkey’, a reversion to its original name. What’s the betting that the local youth will now refer to it as ‘The Moss Rose’ in years to come?
We cannot rely too much on the name, and it would be a ridiculously stupid error by what must after all be a very clever forger, to slip up on such a well known ‘fact?’.
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Paul Stephen
Sorry you think the discussion hasn't been a useful one.
To satisfy my own curiosity, I've been trying to elicit how those with "open minds" deal with what seem to be insurmountable objections.
Thank you for suggesting some explanations to these points, but surely you don't expect the majority on the other side, faced with the kind of explanations we've heard so far, to fall to their knees and embrace agnosticism.
I'm quite willing to be open-minded if anyone can suggest plausible explanations for these problems, but so far I haven't heard any I consider plausible - and surely you don't expect me to pretend I have, when I haven't?
Meanwhile, I can't help getting the impression - along with many others, I suspect - that "open-mindedness" in this connection really expresses a determination not to be persuaded that the diary is a fake, no matter what mental hoops one has to jump through to escape.
What kind of evidence would convince you that the diary is a fake?
Chris Phillips
|
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | |
Tiddly,
First let me acknowledge that you cited a good example of how a pub can often carry an "unofficial" name, so to speak. In fact, our local pub was called "The Brookhouse" for years before it was bought out by the "Finch and Firkin" brewery. Although I only came to know it by this name, everyone around me carried on calling it "The Brookhouse" and eventually it had to revert to its original title.
As to the Muck Midden title, it is not a very savoury name, you are right. But most unsavoury titles are affectionately given to pubs. But this is not to say it was not its official name anyway - you are far off the mark there. It was first opened in 1820 with the name 'Muck Midden' - the abbreviation 'MM' still stands over the doorway cast in iron to this day. It was renamed "The Poste House" because the main post office in Liverpool was opened a few yards away in 1899 and its workers used to drink there. Eventually, the title caught on. It was a fine building but even the Muck Midden has outlived the post office itself.
Anyway, it couldn't possibly have been called "Poste House" in 1888 because it was never called that before, and it wasn't given that title until the 1960s. The earliest it could have unofficially carried the title is 1899! And I stress the word unofficial.
If I have failed to address any other points, then it is not deliberate my friend. I will also try to unearth any sources of philately related to Liverpool pubs although I would think we are entering the realms of etymology myself. (i.e. merely straying far off the subject).
Here's a pic of it now:-
http://www.pubinnguide.co.uk/pubdetailsidx49459.asp
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 25
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
Thankyou Chris Phillips.
Of course you have to have an open mind, but in certain circumstances you can become very closed-minded in order to keep an open mind.
Hope that made sense.
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:28 pm: | |
Tiddley---What a remarkable bit of serendipidity that the latter day owners of the Muck Midden would "revert to the old name" just in the nick of time to eradicate what might otherwise be considered an awkward anachronism in Mike Barrett's dodgy book...
Yes, could be, of course. Could be. But isn't it a bit--er---theoretical? Based on vapor? There is no documentation for it, no real reason for believing it, just as there is no documentation for Mrs. Hammersmith, the murder(s) in Manchester, Maybrick's multiple personality disorder, his love for obscure 17th Century religious poetry, his brother Michael's "success" at rhyming verse, the existance of an adulterous affair prior to Brierley, etc. etc. ad infinitum: a whole frightening mob of spectres that have to be summoned out of the night air.
Yes. It's a good thing Maybrick was wrong about time. Time doesn't reveal all. Time ravages. It pulps the civil records. Destroys hotel ledgers, doctor's appointment books, personal correspondence. Leaving everything wonderfully vague for those who like to weave a good story... |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
Mr. Anderson--Thank you for that detail. How long this argument has going on! I now have a fuzzy recollection of the nearby Post Office from, I believe, Roger Wilke's article.
I'd be interested to hear a contemporary source for Maybrick's obsession with Abberline. From the 'pro side' , I mean. Before the Kelly inquest, he was mentioned in passing three times in the Daily Telegraph and a few times in the Times, but he really never became the great protagonist until Donald McCormick's book in 1959. Spratling, Helson, Reid, Chandler, etc. etc., received as much attention or more from the contemporary press. It seems like a fairly obvious anachronism to me. RP |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
RJ,
As far as I know, there is no evidence anywhere that the real James ever gave Abberline any thought whatsoever.
But Fred was the star of a TV miniseries about Jack around the time of the centennial (1988) and if you watch it and then read the diary, you'll see a number of stunning narrative parallels, including the transformation of the killings into a one on one battle between the two men and the existence in both the diary and the TV show of a completely ahistorical dramatic scene in which Fred nearly catches Jack in a trap but he escapes at the last minute. There's no reason to think that such a thing ever happened, of course, given all the records, but it made for a good movie scene and lo and behold it turns up mentioned in the diary at about the same point in the story.
I've always thought that was delightful.
All the best,
--John |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:46 pm: | |
Hi All,
>Some people have reached the happy point in their lives when they no longer require a fatal blow or think they’ve already experienced one.
Gawdfrey Daniels, I've achieved Nirvana. I am perfectly content in considering the diary a modern forgery, so I'm either dead or think I am.
>Statistics and probability can be wonderful assets when applied appropriately to situations by people who have access to all the available information, or can demonstrate to those who have such access an equally thorough understanding of all the issues involved.
Aw, c'mon Caz, that's hardly fair. I've already given your side the benefit of the doubt. I assigned odds of 100 to 1 on the MPD question. The actual odds are much, much higher. What I've read is that actual cases of MPD are very, very rare, on the order of 1 in millions. If MPD is the reason Maybrick's handwriting does not match that of the diary, then we're already at the point where the odds of the diary being authentic are 1 in hundreds of millions, and that's not factoring in the Poste House, etc etc etc.
>The tiniest detail not yet known or appreciated, can make a world of difference to the odds being assessed without it.
No doubt a convoluted, improbable explanation that negates the laws of mathematics will shortly be forthcoming.
>Just a few words coming to light and put in context can play havoc with people’s probability calculations, and change a point of view forever assuming it is capable of changing of course.
Ouch, icy tone noted. Well, I'm open minded, but if you want me to believe, you have to show me. BTW, I'm not even from Missouri.
>Collecting probabilities on this basis, in a case as complex as this one, and assuming the more you collect the nearer you are to certainty, is a temporary comfort. Let me know when you actually get there by sending me a postcard.
Will a cyber postcard do? I'm there. I'm permanently comfortable with the hundreds of millions-to-one odds against the diary's authenticity. Near certainty is a warm, happy place. So little in life is near certain, wouldn't you agree?
Love
Jim |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
