|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 3:52 am: |       |
I think we've probably just about done Kelly's breasts and the "tin match box empty" to death. Maybe it would be useful to raise a third point. Not a new point, of course, but one on which I'd be equally keen to hear the views of the "open-minded".
Until the late 1980s, it was usual for books on the Ripper to state that certain items had been found with the body of Annie Chapman - two rings, two farthings, and a torn envelope with the letter 'M' on it containing two pills. These continued to appear at least as late as Wilson and Odell's book in 1987.
They also duly appear in the diary.
A ring or two will leave this clue
One pill thats true
M will catch Sir Jim with no pills
left two
two farthings,
two pills
the whores M
rings
The problem here is that, as discussed in detail by Sugden, neither the rings nor the farthings were there, as is made clear by the evidence of both Inspector Chandler and George Baxter Phillips at the inquest.
The murdered woman did have rings, and there was evidence that they had been wrenched from her fingers, but they were not left at the scene. That was incorrectly stated in a report by Oswald Allen of the Pall Mall Gazette (at least, thus according to Stewart's book on the Ripper), and passed into the apocryphal literature. I won't press this point too hard, as I'm sure the pro-diarists will say that the diarist doesn't explicitly say he left the rings at the crime scene (though I think that is the natural interpretation of "A ring or two will leave this clue").
But the presence of the farthings - unless it can be plausibly explained - is again fatal for the authenticity of the diary. Sugden says that they were first mentioned by the Daily Telegraph the Monday after the crime:
There were also found two farthings polished brightly, and, according to some, these coins had been passed off as half-sovereigns upon the deceased by her murderer.
As Sugden further recounts, this story not only passed into the literature, but was apparently later accepted by two police officers - Inspector Reid the following year, and Major Smith in his memoirs in 1910 (who also repeats the strange story about a man who polished farthings to deceive prostitutes). But as Sugden points out, Reid was on leave at the time of the murder, Smith had no involvement in the case at all, and the inquest testimony is quite clear).
So how the farthings got into the diary definitely requires explanation.
Chris Phillips
PS Just in case I'm accused of "selective quoting", maybe it's worth mentioning that according to Shirley Harrison quotes correspondence from Martin Fido saying, "it is my speculation that the initial silence on these coins was police strategy to try to hold back information that would be known inly to a guilty suspect." In view of the fact that the information had already been published in the press, so that this suppression of evidence would have served no purpose, this speculation seems wide of the mark.
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 8:27 am: | |
Chis
I agree. The kelly breasts and tin box have been done to death. The only thing is that I explained my point of view and why I had reached it. You have never once said why you hold the views that you do. Not once.
I shall take your silence on that to mean that you cant.
regards
Paul |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 687
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
I’m sorry, John (H), but I don’t think the ‘rhyme for “sweet”’ argument ‘works’ at all. We know where the murderer really placed each breast. He actually put one ‘by the right foot’ (from the Bond report). And lo and behold, the diarist tells us, just as Maybrick is supposedly reliving the experience of kissing the breasts later in his mind, that he ‘thought’ of leaving them ‘by the whore’s feet’. Thank goodness he thought of describing the taste in verse, and chose the word ‘sweet’ – had he plumped for ‘bitter’ instead, goodness alone knows where he’d have thought of leaving them. 
And others get accused of stretching plausibility? Give me a break.
The point about the ‘feet’ remark is that it’s there, and it touches on information only surfacing in recent years, that revealed no breasts on the table. By all means ignore it, if you think it has no relevance, but don’t criticise others for exploring reasons why it might be there, beyond the need for a ‘sweet’ rhyme.
The author gets what wrong about Michael? Blimey, if the James of the diary thinks he has proven he can write verse better than Michael if he tries, Michael doesn’t need to be all that clever at it, does he? He only needs to have tried his hand at the art of verse at some point in his life, at school or at home, and James only needs to have read examples of it, for the diary author to get this ‘right’!
Why you can’t see this is beyond me.
Another thing I just don’t get is why people think the historical record is the place to find every detail of Florie’s extra-marital dalliances, how many she had, and their exact nature and duration. What they find there must be the truth, what they don’t find probably never happened. Yeah, right. How naïve is this? The only people who could have known the whole truth also had the best motive in the world for not revealing it, and not admitting to any more than the evidence could expose. Everyone else in the world, including Maybrick, has to be content with suspicions or assumptions, or a charming acceptance of the word of the exposed lover of a woman charged with murdering her husband – her assumed motive, adultery.
Hi Chris (P),
Some coincidences are indeed remarkable – like a forger using the word ‘sweet’, when writing about the breasts, and then needing a rhyme for it which just happens to hit the spot where one of those breasts was really found.
Things are never simple, in a case where remarkable coincidences pop up whichever theory one happens to be exploring.
Incidentally, the diarist did claim that it took him a while to wrench the rings from Chapman’s fingers. So who knows? Perhaps he was imagining Maybrick back in Battlecrease, with his little brass souvenir for company.
Hi Martin,
You refer to ‘the pub’ in the diary being called the Muck Midden in 1888. Assuming you checked with the diarist that this is ‘the pub’ he was referring to, could you enlighten everyone?
If not, why not try asking in Rigby’s, the big old traditional pub in Dale Street, if anyone can tell you where the Post House is? You might find yourself being directed, not to Cumberland Street at all, but to School Lane, where there is a pub (or at least it was there in 1997) called ‘The Old Post Office’.
You might also be told that the address used to be 17/19 Old Post Office Place, the pub being part of The Old Post Office Buildings, which date back to at least around 1800. The stables opened out on to Hanover Street, which leads straight down to the main Post Office. It appears there was another post office at the back of the pub on Church Street, and that post office would have given the name to Old Post Office Place.
The pub is very close to Central Station (on the Aigburth line) and Liverpool’s Whitechapel, and the actual building (as at 1997) dates back to around 1840, but there was an established ‘drinking place’ on the site by at least 1797.
Now, I have no idea if this could be the diarist’s ‘Poste House’ because I have no one to ask. We do know that the author put an e after ‘post’ in ‘post haste’, giving the incorrect ‘poste haste’. Yet, oddly, he wrote ‘Jew’ and ‘Jews’ correctly, despite claiming to be the graffiti artist who so famously put an e after the w that shouldn’t have been there!
Hi RJ,
Your questions about Mike’s level of literacy, regarding where it would leave Anne’s testimony etc, are neither here nor there, since no one is arguing that Anne told the truth. She could have been lying and we would be no nearer knowing whether she or Mike helped create the diary. The fact remains that Robert is absolutely correct: Mike Barrett is barely able to write a line of correct standard English. I have yet to see an example of his unaided work that could possibly support a claim that the diary made any use of his literary skills.
Everyone closely involved has seen more evidence of Mike’s literacy level, aided or unaided by bottle or wife, than they care to remember.
Yes, it would be good to have examples of the Barretts’ writing pre-1991, and presumably there are many people in Liverpool who would know what both look like in an undisguised form (would even be able to put their hands on examples), and are well aware of the diary story and the suspicions surrounding this couple. Perhaps one will eventually come forward with their ‘evidence’, whatever it might suggest.
Hi Jim,
What’s my ‘side’ exactly? Just because I have access to more diary documentation than most, and can see a danger in people estimating probabilities on less than the full monty, it doesn’t mean I have landed on a particular ‘side’. Besides, I am not arguing that under or overestimating probability could make the difference between real and fake, only that it could make a difference between a suspect being involved in a modern forgery and none of the suspects knowing a modern forgery has even been created.
When I talked about the ‘tiniest detail’ not yet known, I thought it was obvious I meant a factual detail (perhaps not yet known to me either) that had not been taken into account by people when amusing themselves with probability calculations. What do I want you to ‘believe’, Jim? I don’t care what anyone believes, or why they believe it, based on their own understanding, as long as they don’t expect me to believe what they believe, based on my own.
No, the postcard would have to bear a certain postmark to show it was sent from certainty, and not signed by someone who claims to be somewhere near certain but only believes that’s where they are at.
Have a great weekend everyone. Your beliefs are your own affair. My lack of belief is mine.
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
Paul Stephen wrote:
You have never once said why you hold the views that you do. Not once.
I shall take your silence on that to mean that you cant.
Sorry, but I've said as much as I can, as clearly as I can, to explain why I find the explanations implausible. If I can explain more fully on particular points, please put them to me.
To be fair, you must realise that I'm far from alone in finding these explanations implausible. Indeed, for most people, once they are expressed clearly and concisely - which is partly what I've been trying to get the pro-diarists to do - their implausibility is self-evident.
Indeed, you have yourself admitted that the coincidence of the phrase "tin match box empty" is a "major problem". It's perhaps revealing that none of those who have responded has quite been able to put his or her thoughts into a sentence such as, "Maybrick used the same phrase as the inventory by coincidence", which is, after all, what's required.
As I've already said, we'll have to agree to differ on how likely or unlikely the explanations are. And others will have to make up their own minds.
Moving on, I'll be interested in your - or anyone else's - thoughts on the Curious Case of the Missing Farthings.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
The point about the ‘feet’ remark is that it’s there, and it touches on information only surfacing in recent years, that revealed no breasts on the table.
I'm still having a problem seeing the relevance of the "feet" remark, unless someone can help me out by being more explicit.
Does "only surfacing in recent years" imply that this information surfaced too late to be included in a forgery, and therefore had to come from the Ripper? Is that really true? According to the note to the transcript on this site, Bond's report was returned in 1987, that is 5 years before the diary emerged. Was the report not published in the interim?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 689
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
The relevance is, Chris, that if a forger had read the Bond report, that stated one of the breasts was left by the victim’s foot (but neither was left on the table, as all previous reports had indicated), he/she nevertheless opted for the ‘old chestnut’ table anyway, later adding some jumbled memory of Maybrick’s, that he had thought of putting both by her feet but evidently hadn’t done so.
Some of us have simply tried to explore why anyone writing the diary might have used this strategy.
We don’t need anyone else telling us the diarist made a mistake. We knew that from the off.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
John--Thanks for that. The Michael Caine film might well be a rewarding study. I'm interested in the line "Abberline says, he was never amazed" and then repeated later in a variation, "Abberline says he is now amazed'. Probably just gibberish. But as there is no contemporary source for this, I'm wondering if it might be lifted from a more recent, popular source? I'll have to watch the Caine film.
Caz--Thanks. Well, I won't worry my pretty little head about it further, then--if it's a "fact." Likewise, I won't worry about the bookkeeper's statement at Rensburgh, either. RP |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
Thanks for that.
No argument with the idea that a forger could have seen Bond's report and the older versions, and chosen to copy the wrong one, while hedging his bets with reference to the other.
And I do realise that these are all familiar points to some, but - as I've said several times - I'm interested in eliciting the current "pro-diarist"/"open-minded" position on them. After all, I remember on a previous occasion you said you didn't know what the current "pro-diarist" position would be on the "tin match box empty" question. Robert Smith has enlightened both of us on that one.
Chris Phillips
|
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
Hi All,
>What’s my ‘side’ exactly? Just because I have access to more diary documentation than most, and can see a danger in people estimating probabilities on less than the full monty, it doesn’t mean I have landed on a particular ‘side’.
Frankly, I don't really know Caz. You've consistently claimed the high ground of objectivity, yet just as consistently produced the same sort of improbable explanations and practiced evasion we're so accustomed to getting from the pro-diary camp. Whether you're aware of it or not, you do come across as some sort of apologist for the diary.
>Besides, I am not arguing that under or overestimating probability could make the difference between real and fake, only that it could make a difference between a suspect being involved in a modern forgery and none of the suspects knowing a modern forgery has even been created.
Well now, I'm thoroughly confused. Just when I thought I understood your position as "undecided, but leaning toward authenticity", and provided arguments to the contrary, you now appear to be saying you're also convinced it's a modern forgery, it's just a question of who was involved and to what extent.
Would you kindly clarify exactly what your position is? You didn't address this point in your book, and you seem to be tap-dancing around the issue now. Do you think the diary is a modern forgery, yes or no? Old forgery, yes or no? Authentic, yes or no?
>When I talked about the ‘tiniest detail’ not yet known, I thought it was obvious I meant a factual detail (perhaps not yet known to me either) that had not been taken into account by people when amusing themselves with probability calculations.
Well, to overcome the overwhelming probability that the diary's a modern fake, that would have to be one helluva tiny detail. As far as amusing myself, the amusing part is people that remain intransigent in their beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
>What do I want you to ‘believe’, Jim? I don’t care what anyone believes, or why they believe it, based on their own understanding, as long as they don’t expect me to believe what they believe, based on my own.
Machiavelli wrote that belief is stronger than truth almost 500 years ago. I guess not much has changed.
>No, the postcard would have to bear a certain postmark to show it was sent from certainty, and not signed by someone who claims to be somewhere near certain but only believes that’s where they are at.
In the context of this discussion, the distinction between what I believe and what I claim escapes me. I've consistently posted exactly what my beliefs are on this thread, so I'm afraid I don't get your point.
Love
Jim
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 7:24 pm: | |
Dear Caz
What an excellent and insightful posting I read of yours today. I’m half way into Shirley Harrison’s new book, and although there isn’t much new in it, it has really set me thinking.
Your comments, particularly about James’ jealousy of his brother, really struck a chord as I’ve only just been re-reading what Shirley Harrison has to say on that subject.
It was she, I believe, that first suggested James was jealous of his brother’s ability to create rhymes in his songs.
The diarist says no such thing.
Had Michael been a butcher, baker or candlestick maker, the point would never have arisen. His being a composer is therefore a total red herring and an irrelevance.
Those who choose to use this against the diary, suggesting James should know all about his brother’s profession, which of course he should, are making a spurious argument and should be directing their criticism at Shirley Harrison and not the diary.
Mr Netley could drive his coach and horses with a couple of double deckers in tandem through that well-worn “textual difficulty” now.
I must say that like most others I hadn’t seen the wood for the trees on that one!
Brilliant.
A careful reading of the diary itself, and all of Shirley Harrison’s books reveals several other instances where the diary has maybe been the subject of unjustified criticism too.
All of a sudden this diary debate is getting quite interesting again.
Thanks
Paul
|
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Hi Martin,
"...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."
Is this to say that it was 'built'in 1820? If not is there any history of it's prior use? As Caz says, it may not be the PH to which the author is referring anyway, particularly as previously stated, the common usage of 'post house' for numerous PH's used for mail collection.
I cannot see a forger cocking up on historical detail such as this and believe there must be a simple reason behind the reference. |
SPEARS
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Hi
Was it common knowledge that Catherine Eddowes's Tin Box was empty before 1988 or does anyone know exactly when this piece of Info was made public.
Regards
SPEARS
|
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
RJ Palmer
What is there for you to reconcile? I and others have dozens of Mike’s handwritten letters and postcards over eleven years (not just two or three years), demonstrating his inability to write “correct standard English”.
All literary agents receive many letters every week from prospective “authors”, which by comparison, make Mike’s letters look like the work of a literary genius, and they are all
convinced they can write a best-selling book. I expect some of them belong to local writers’ groups. (Do we know that Mike did?).
You obviously don’t believe “Anne Graham’s provenance tale”, in which you say she claims she handed Mike the Diary in order that he might “write a book about it”? Her actual words are: “so that he would be able to use it as the basis of a book”.
You are absolutely entitled not to believe Anne’s story – I, too, am not entirely convinced - but don’t then use it as evidence of Mike’s literary prowess. You should certainly look for specimens of Mike’s writing pre-1991 and come to your own
conclusions.
Robert Smith
|
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Recently on these boards, I was asked to provide my own take on a number of textual questions. I did this to the best of my ability, partly to help people, who have not made up their minds, but also to remind newer visitors to the site that the question of the authenticity of the diary has by no means been settled.
“Hope” has nothing to do with it. My opinion is that the diary is authentic, but as I have said many times before, I am open to the idea that it is a fake, and I am not going to crack up, if tomorrow someone proves it.
A few of the reasons that led me to conclude, that on the balance of probabilities, the diary was written by James Maybrick are:
1. James Maybrick was familiar with Whitechapel. His life-long mistress, Sarah Robertson, lived in the next parish, Stepney, for many years. He had an interest in a business, with offices near one of the murder scenes at Mitre Square. The fact that the murders all took place within such a small territory, suggests that the murderer did not permanently live in the area and did not have the confidence to range further.
2. James Maybrick had a flirty wife, much younger than him, who had found out about his mistress and her five children. Florence Aunspaugh in 1888 had noticed her physical fondness for Edwin; and Liverpool cotton broker, Alfred Brierley, was also on the scene, showing her attention. It isn’t relevant that their tryst in London took place after the murders. I think it reasonable to assume that when a married Victorian lady takes a man, who isn’t her husband, to bed in a London hotel, there has been a relationship of some kind in place for quite a period of time.
3. The Florence Aunspaugh evidence, with the reference to Sir James, is echoed in the diary on numerous occasions in the use of “Sir Jim”.
4. The historical evidence that James Maybrick was a frequenter of brothels, a drug addict and a wife beater. That doesn’t make him a murderer, but it is proof of an unstable character, living at the edge.
5. The watch, which appeared in a Wallasey jewellers at the same time as the diary was first offered to a London literary agency, Rupert Crew Ltd. Two universities, UMIST and Bristol, concluded that the scratches were at least several decades old. Dr Wild at Bristol told me privately that he himself could not have faked the corroded brass particles in the scratched initials, MK, although many people on these boards think it would be a piece of cake.
6. Similarly many people think that faking the diary would be easy, just by getting hold of three books (the titles of the three books vary, and we are never given the references for all the information in the diary). I am impressed by people, who have depth of knowledge and experience of serial killers, like Professor Canter and Dr Forshaw, who are convinced the diarist’s sentiments, language and descriptions could well be those of a serial killer and addict.
7. On the forensic side, I had many conversations with Dr Easthaugh, who did far more extensive testing of the ink than anyone else. He concluded the ink was not inconsistent with the date of 1888. What is more the Rendell Report fully endorsed Dr Eastaugh’s professional competence and had no issues with his analysis. The fact is that, unlike with the Hitler diaries, no substance has been found in either the ink or the paper, which wasn’t in use in 1888. Even chloroacetamide, which may or may not be in the diary ink, was in commercial use from 1857.
8. We know that Maybrick was often in London, not least, to visit Michael. And there are no prescriptions for drugs, collected in Liverpool, which conflict with dates of the murders in Whitechapel; nor are there any other conflicting dates.
I could go on, but I won’t. I am not trying to make out a case for the diary being written by James Maybrick, but just trying to explain why I may not be a complete imbecile, if I think that it may have been. They are some of the principal reasons, why I believe it is rational to keep an open mind. I believe that I, in previous posts during the last seven days, have provided perfectly good explanations for the five or so textual queries and problems raised.
With regard to the handwriting, it doesn’t appear to match the handwriting of any of the samples we have seen of Maybrick’s handwriting, including the will. Nor does it match the handwriting of one of the “forgery suspects”. It is a neutral point. It either means that someone we don’t know yet, wrote the diary in 1888/9 or a century later. Or it means that someone we do know of, either then or now, was able to disguise his/her writing. Or it was written by someone, when in an altered state of mind. On the last point, there seems to be little understanding on these boards of how mind-altering drugs or severe stress or certain kinds of mental illness change a person’s handwriting out of all recognition. I would be surprised, though, if some people here, have not had first-hand experience of this phenomenon in their own families.
In summary, I cannot conclude definitively, whether the diary is either authentic or a fake. Continuously asserting either position achieves nothing apart from giving the writer a temporary ego-boost. On the other hand, no one should belittle someone else’s right to believe, that it is genuine or that it is a fake.
Robert Smith
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
Have you ever watched television and seen a commercial and then there's another, different commercial, but right after that, due to some weird glitch in scheduling or something, there's the very same first commercial all over again, even though you've just seen it?
Welcome to the diary debate -- speedily going around in circles of repetition for the last ten years.
Putting aside all the many reasons why there's no way this book was written by the real James Maybrick or the real murderer, consider just this bit of logic, offered above:
"With regard to the handwriting, it doesn’t appear to match the handwriting of any of the samples we have seen of Maybrick’s handwriting, including the will. Nor does it match the handwriting of one of the “forgery suspects”. It is a neutral point."
But even as described here, this is not a "neutral" point at all. There's nothing "neutral" about it. The writing purports to be a historical document by a known author and the handwriting clearly doesn't match in any way that known author's. Forget the rest of the paragraph, that in itself cannot, under any circumstances, be considered a "neutral" point within any serious, careful, logical discussion of the question of authenticity.
To claim that it is somehow a "neutral point," that it is some sort of wash, is simply to spin what is clearly an inconvenient fact in order to keep hope alive (just like the invocations of and eventually desperate prayers for MPD).
So despite all protestations to the contrary, the rhetoric is clearly being used in the service of desire. And that's not science, that's advertising.
All the best,
--John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:17 pm: | |
All,
In regards to the handwriting I have to agree with the comments of R.J. Palmer, and John Omlor.
This is in no way a neutral point. Not only does the handwriting clearly not match that of the historical James Maybrick, it does not match that of the Dear Boss letter which the author takes credit for. (We have the testimony of Sue Iremonger and members of Rendell's team on that.)
And the claim that "Nor does it match the handwriting of one of the 'forgery suspects'." seems a bit weak considering the inadequacy of the handwriting exemplars displayed to date. (Particularly in the case of Anne Graham.) Frankly upon reading The "Ripper Diary: The Inside Story" I was stunned to find out what the that claim actually rests on.
Before that claim can be made with any authority, some serious handwriting exemplars need to be taken, under professional supervision and the handwriting compared by a qualified expert.
Caz,
"I’m sorry, John (H), but I don’t think the ‘rhyme for “sweet”’ argument ‘works’ at all."
Ummm... He used the word "sweet" in connection with the breasts 8 pages before the "feet" remark. He was clearly making a rhyme, as he does throughout the book. "Feet" rhymes with "Sweet". In what way DOESN'T that work? It was certainly prescient of him to use the word "sweet" 8 pages ahead of time to allow for the inclusion of "feet" when writing a poem about the breasts if we're to assume he was hedging his bets or had "forgotten."
It's certainly not the only possibility, but it's definately a valid one. Not every bit of doggerel needs to have a deeper meaning.
And here I thought you were the one with an open mind! 
Regards,
John Hacker
(Message edited by jhacker on January 30, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 5:37 am: | |
Paul Stephen wrote:
What an excellent and insightful posting I read of yours today. I’m half way into Shirley Harrison’s new book, and although there isn’t much new in it, it has really set me thinking.
Your comments, particularly about James’ jealousy of his brother, really struck a chord as I’ve only just been re-reading what Shirley Harrison has to say on that subject.
It was she, I believe, that first suggested James was jealous of his brother’s ability to create rhymes in his songs.
The diarist says no such thing.
Had Michael been a butcher, baker or candlestick maker, the point would never have arisen. His being a composer is therefore a total red herring and an irrelevance.
Actually, my first reaction was to ask how you "got round" this difficulty before the revelation, based on the post, that it was a "red herring"...
Because I know less about the Maybricks and Liverpool than I do about the Ripper case in general, I haven't raised any of the related objections.
It may be that these are less clear-cut than the textual difficulties I've been raising, but so far I'm not convinced that the explanations pass the plausibility test.
For example, on the objection that Michael Maybrick is described as writing verse, the counter-suggestion seems to be that he may have had an unrecorded private hobby of writing verse. But surely the diary is referring to something more than this when it says:
if Michael can succeed in rhyming verse then I can do better, a great deal better he shall not outdo me ... I curse Michael for being so clever, I shall outdo him, I will see to that.
Surely the "success" referred to is something more than poetry circulated among family and friends!
On the "Poste House", perhaps the evidence is not so clear cut as first appeared. But unless the pro-diarists can come up with some documentary evidence that there was a pub known by this name in 1880s Liverpool (or even somewhere else within Maybrick's orbit), it sounds like an attempt to find an alternative for the obvious explanation - that the "Poste House" in Liverpool is being referred to by a forger unaware of that pub's history. A Google search shows only a handful of pubs with that name in England, despite the commonness claimed for it by the apologists.
One that's not been raised in the current discussion is "Mrs Hammersmith", though it's being discussed on another board. This name appears to be virtually unknown in the late Victorian period, anywhere in England, let alone Liverpool. Of course it's possible that a Mrs Hammersmith from America or elsewhere made a visit to Liverpool. But surely in a balanced evaluation we always have to bear in mind the alternative possibility - that a modern forger wanted to invent a surname, and thinking of West London unluckily hit on a possible surname - Hammersmith - that did not in fact exist in England at the time. (Perhaps along the lines of "Vanessa Kensington" in the Austin Powers movies!)
On the whole, what I'm still trying to say is that in all this long series of difficulties, there is an obvious interpretation, and there is a more or less unlikely one that has to be chosen if the diary is to survive. Often the obvious interpretation is precisely the one that was originally adopted by the pro-diarists before the difficulty became too blatant.
Thus the "Poste House", Michael's verse, and the "initial here and an initial there [that] will tell of the whoring mother [Florence Maybrick]" -now apparently claimed to be nothing at all to do with the theory that the initials "F. M." were written on the wall of Kelly's room - a theory, strangely enough, that emerged at the likely time of the forgery, in the late 1980s.
Stack up all these improbabilities, and mathematically speaking, you get something as close to impossibility as you could wish.
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Dear Robert Smith--Hi. To respond to one of your questions. My source for Mike belonging to a 'writer's group' is Shirley Harrison.
"Mike bought a word processor and launched himself into extensive research, intending to write the story of the diary himself. He had had a brief flirtation with the writing world as a member of the local writer's circle and as a contributor of simple word puzzles to the children's magazine Look In." (Shirley Harrison, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Pocket Books edition, 1995, pages 8-9) The 'Look In' bit was evidently confirmed by Maurice Chittenden.
Melvin Harris was able to establish that Barrett actually bought the word processor as early as April 3rd 1986; it was an 'Amstrad', No 8256."
Your quote from Anne Graham is entirely correct. She also stated "I was hoping he would be able to write a fictional story about the Diary." (quoted by Linder, Morris, & Skinner, p. 127). As Alan Gray was able to obtain a copy of Barrett's story "Daniel the Dolphin Boy" (which he viewed as 'a load of rubbish') it seems reasonable for me to come to the conclusion that at some point Barrett entertained hopes of writing fiction.
Your view of Barrett's actual literary ability (or lack thereof), as well as your observation that this doesn't directly contradict Anne Graham's provenance story, is, of course, duly noted.
Cheers, RP |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
If possible I would like to make contact with Robert Smith (ex Smith-Gryphon)reference the diary and an ongoing project in which references to it would be useful. My e-mither is tiddleyboyar@34gg.freeserve.co.uk.
Thanx. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 692
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 9:00 am: | |
Hi Jim,
Please give specific examples of ‘improbable’ explanations I have ‘just as consistently produced’ as my claim to be looking objectively at the evidence for a modern hoax. And what about an example of ‘practised evasion’ while you’re at it? What am I supposed to be evading, other than the beliefs thrown at me by people who don’t know any more than I do, but accept and reject explanations offered on the basis of those beliefs?
Where have you seen my position described as (in speech marks) “undecided, but leaning toward authenticity”? Since I don’t think I have ever expressed a ‘position’ other than one of complete ignorance about who wrote the diary and when, you must be putting your own or someone else’s words into my mouth. Please don’t. It doesn’t add to the pool of useful information and it says more about your position than it does about mine. When I know what to think about the diary’s true origins I’ll let you know. I’m not going to be forced into making predictions I can’t support with any evidence. There are already more than enough fools rushing in.
And you don’t have to rely on what I ‘appear’ to be saying – just go by what I am saying. How do you work out that I am ‘convinced’ the diary is a modern forgery because I have to consider the possibility that none of the suspects knows a modern forgery has even been created?
You can hardly be accusing me of being intransigent in my beliefs, in the face of your own, that the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of the diary being a modern creation, since I haven’t reached the stage of having beliefs, intransigent or otherwise. You are welcome to your faith, and it is duly noted that you feel this can be stronger than the truth. Stronger than both IMHO is the ability to stand firm and not be unduly led by people who need their faith to stand in for truths that are a long time coming.
An ‘expert’ in cot deaths here in the UK led juries to wrongfully convict mothers of murdering their babies because of a combination of his suspicious mind and his calculation of the odds being overwhelmingly against the deaths being the result of anything other than foul play. This was despite the fact that such deaths are still classified as ‘inexplicable’ due to the generally acknowledged deficit of information and understanding about why they occur. Fortunately, his ‘expertise’ has finally been questioned by new evidence that shows his calculation of the odds should never have been taken on trust, let alone accepted as sufficient ‘expert’ evidence that the mothers had ‘probably’ committed murder. It was the only evidence presented, and was used to persuade juries to pronounce guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We now know better than this 'expert' thought he did.
Hi John (H),
I would suggest it is for anyone who is claiming that at least one of the modern suspects must have penned the diary to find and produce examples of their handwriting and/or literary skills that might persuade others to consider such ‘must haves’ seriously. If no one is claiming ‘must have’, only ‘could have’, it is still up to them to support that claim with evidence. Evidence that doesn’t simply consist of their personal, and therefore unhelpful opinion that anyone of ‘average’ intelligence could have done it – ie disguised their own hand and transcribed the words into the diary as they appear. What about ‘average’ literacy skills, when considering Mike’s candidacy, for example? Give me some evidence and I will be pathetically grateful to consider it. Until then, you will just have to accept the fact that I can’t in all honesty believe that any of the suspects penned the diary.
And it would be refreshing to see some thought going into how the modern hoax theory still works, even if none of the known suspects did pen the diary.
Inside Story makes no ‘claim’ to sufficient evidence or expertise to allow anyone, the authors or their readers, to conclude that any one of the suspects did or didn’t write the diary, did or didn’t make the scratches in the watch. My own opinion on these boards is just that - my own opinion, based on everything I have learned, that if anyone committed forgery in recent years they have yet to be identified.
And now, what was that about me not being open-minded enough to swallow your explanation that ‘the whore’s feet’ only get a mention in conjunction with her breasts because the author needed a rhyme for ‘sweet’? I consider every explanation offered for what is written in the diary, and neither accept nor reject any of them. I am open-minded enough not to reject your ‘feet’ explanation, despite the fact that it fails to bowl me over in the probability stakes.
But I have noticed that modern hoax ‘believers’ rate probability according to whether or not an explanation depends on, or at least allows for the diary being a modern creation. In other words, the mind miraculously opens as wide as it takes to accept an explanation that affirms your faith, however unconvincing it might look to the – dare I say it? - growing band of diary agnostics. But the mind closes again like a steel trap on each and every explanation that questions your faith. They are all rejected as implausible or impossible on the (circular) grounds that the diary could never turn out to be, in your opinion, an old document.
A mind that appears to operate by opening and shutting in accordance with set beliefs masquerading as strong suspicions, doesn’t impress anyone but the like-minded, and certainly doesn’t move the debate forward. If anyone here believes that a single textual explanation is beyond dispute and shows them the smoking gun (remember, you only need the one), why do they carry on producing, demanding, disputing and dismissing other explanations, and getting nowhere? What’s the point? I’m here because I don’t know, and I keep seeing posts that suggest I am not alone, despite the claims to the contrary. I suspect similar posts will be appearing at regular intervals in five years' time. I wonder how many familiar names will still be using the same arguments for a modern hoax that are proving nothing today, in their struggle to kill off the dream by tomorrow.
Hi Chris (P),
Where were you when all the old post house discussions were going on? In Victorian times, we would not expect to find any pubs or inns officially named ‘The Poste House’ – it is a modern idea which, as you have observed, is not that common. But there used to be inns all over the place referred to unofficially as ‘the post house’.
People continue to claim that the diary author (also suspected of being a scallywag scouser who has drunk in more Liverpool pubs than eaten hot dinners) was obviously referring to one of the modern pubs so named, specifically the one in Cumberland Street, and therefore made a fatal error by failing to check what its regulars would have called it in Maybrick’s day.
This is despite all attempts to point out that this ‘fatal error’ depends entirely on guessing which pub the diarist actually had in mind when writing. I have pointed out a possible alternative to the tiny Cumberland Street establishment (known locally as Liverpool’s smallest pub) in the shape of the Old Post Office pub in School Lane. Was this pub known as the post house by its Victorian regulars? Was there a ‘Poste Restante’ sign, that could have led a customer to imagine an e on the end of the ‘Post’ in ‘Post House’, as well as perhaps an e on the end of the ‘post’ in ‘post haste’?
The School Lane alternative wouldn’t help date the diary, but it exists and challenges the ‘fatal error’ claim if it can’t be eliminated as a possibility. You are free to consider it and drop it without further ado, in favour of cosy Cumberland Street, which leaves no room for doubt. I fully expect School Lane to become a no-go area for all those with an agenda, except for perhaps an uninformed opinion here or there that the ‘Old Post Office’ pub would never have been chosen by the diarist and represented as the ‘Poste House’.
A theory that the initials FM were daubed in blood on Kelly’s wall was indeed used to claim that Maybrick did the daubing and described it in his diary as initials here and there. I have never denied the existence of this theory. I simply observed that the words used in the diary don’t necessarily refer to letters on the wall, and therefore the diarist may have played no intentional part in promoting this particular theory.
Hi RJ,
Would your beliefs be in any way affected by a realisation that the Mike, whose unaided written work is a veritable wonder to behold, forever etched on the memory of all those who have been on the receiving end, did not help with composing or writing the diary?
The diary, incidentally, that Mike was trying to find a publisher for, at the same time as the watch appeared in the jeweller’s shop window, both inviting their respective future owners to make an offer. In fact, the publishing agreement for the diary was made within a fortnight of Albert’s offer being accepted for the watch – both in July 1992 – with nothing to suggest that the parties to either transaction had the slightest clue that the other was taking place, or would become inextricably linked before the passing of another full year.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on February 03, 2004) |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
Hi Chris
Nice to see you’ve published me in bold text again!
Robert Smith’s excellent posting covers, much better than I could, most of what I would have said in response to your latest.
What I find so pointless in some of this “debate” is the constant nit-picking around a couple of dozen words in the diary. A couple of dozen words from many thousands of words.
The same old stuff has been repeatedly trotted out time and time again, and quite frankly It’s getting absolutely nowhere. It probably never will. Several people have responded in detail to all of these supposed difficulties, and nobody who is anti diary seems prepared to even consider those responses.
I read with some amusement that these textual difficulties among others, have proven the diary to be a fake. I don’t think so. The silent majority have cast their votes in the casebook poll, and in other places, and Mr Maybrick is there…… right at the top……. Number One!
Plese don’t tell me this is a gullible public who can’t think for themselves either. If that were the case it would be Sickert up there. But it isn’t…!
Is it not possible for you and others to take a few steps back. Look afresh at the diary. It’s amazing insights into Maybrick’s life, symptoms of arsenic poisoning, addiction?……… The extremely subtle use of Crashaw with it’s Whitechapel connections………… to name but a few. ? If this thing was forged then I really don’t see how it could have been done by anything other than an army of experts in their fields, who coincidentally made several very lucky guesses. The sort of lucky guesses and coincidences that those who seek to put the diary down at all costs tell us add up to impossibility!
Yes, the diary challenges a few long held assumptions about the Ripper case, but they are assumptions after all, and no more than that.
The diary just tells us that Maybrick took refreshment at “the Poste house”. That’s all it says. He doesn’t say it was a pub. He doesn’t even say it’s in Liverpool. That is all assumption on the part of pro and anti diarists alike. It could have been a café, anything….. Who knows? It’s a throwaway line that doesn’t prove a darned thing either way.
The last “murder” in Manchester has also been used as an argument against the diary. What murder? The diary says “…..I left her for dead”. More inaccurate assumptions?
There is much within the content of this diary that works, and works well. Some of it in my humble view is brilliantly done. If it wasn’t written by an army of very lucky experts then there remains only one explanation in my mind.
Regards
Paul
|
Sadie Jones
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
Hi all.
I've been reading the different postings on here with interest. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it would be incredibly boring if everyone believed the same thing!!
However, I think there could be a possibility that some people do not want to believe in any way the diary could be genuine. I state once again as I have in previous postings I've made that I have an open mind on this subject. After discussing this message board with a close friend, the thought crossed my mind that if the diary is proven genuine, it would be irrefutable that Maybrick was indeed the Ripper. Then the case would be solved, no more speculation and no more mystery. Then what would all of us interested parties do then? The whole reason that so many people have an interest in this case is the mystery. People have wondered 'who did it?' for over 100 years. Maybe we will never know.
John Hacker.
You said in your reply to my previous posting that you believe the possibility of Maybrick being JtR rests on the diary and the diary alone. Maybe for some that could be true. However with me that's not the case. I believe Maybrick could have been JtR because he seems to fit the profile of the person I personally think could have committed such awful crimes. The diary would be a bonus if proven genuine, but my opinion is not based on the diary but on other reasons of my own deciphering.
But thank you for your reply I appreciate it.
One thing I have noticed through researching information, reading postings on the message boards and conversing with friends on this subject is that not all records are accurate. Even today clues are missed, details reported incorrectly and misinformation given. There are conflicts of information in every area of this case. No-one can be 100% sure that the information recorded on this case is completely accurate. Files have gone missing either turning up at a later date or lost completely. Maybe there is a reason for this or maybe it was carelessness at the time. We in this day and age have a very different perspective on things in comparision to Victorian times and are much more careful in our dealings with records. But even in our time things get misplaced.
Thanks for listening to my rambling again!!
Best wishes.
Sadie. |
BJMarkland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
Caz, I am upset with you, Keith, and Seth!! I finally picked the book up last Thursday and began reading it about 5 p.m. last night. Sometime around 2 a.m. I finished.
It was an absolute "page-turner". Beyond being a fine read, it offered neophytes, such as myself, who have stayed well away from the Diary, a very good overview and line-up of the players and their roles. I had realized that when it came to the "politics" of the Diary, I was one of the proverbial blind men identifying an elephant.
Thanks to you and your co-authors for at least opening my eyes to where the various arguments are coming from.
Now, one editorial comment: EVERYONE connected with the Diary had to be nuts!!!
One of the more interesting aspects of the book was following MB's downward spiral mentally. It struck me that perhaps that is a template for our real JtR. I daresay that if MB had lived in Whitechapel in the latter part of 1888, his behaviors, attributed to alcoholism, would have landed him either in an institution such as Colney or under the microscope of the police, if not both.
Anyhow, thanks again for the book. While I still believe the diary to be a forgery, I will be a bit more open minded regarding its authenticity.
By the way, did Cornwell compare Sickert's handwriting to the diarist's? (eagerly awaits the firestorm to hit  )
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
Thanks for your response, but I can't help wondering whether you read my message properly.
What I said was this:
On the "Poste House", perhaps the evidence is not so clear cut as first appeared. But unless the pro-diarists can come up with some documentary evidence that there was a pub known by this name in 1880s Liverpool (or even somewhere else within Maybrick's orbit), it sounds like an attempt to find an alternative for the obvious explanation - that the "Poste House" in Liverpool is being referred to by a forger unaware of that pub's history. ...
Nothing in your message really changes my impression that the obvious interpretation - the same one that Shirley Harrison made initially - is probably the correct one. Unless, of course, you do have documentary evidence of another pub being known as the "Poste House" (or even the "post house"). If you do, I'd be interested to hear of it.
And I'm sorry for reading something more definite into your observation about the initials than you intended.
Paul Stephen
Thanks for your response. But sorry that you view the questions about the crucial errors and anachronisms in the diary - the breasts, the "tin match box empty" and the farthings - as "nit picking".
I'd have been genuinely interested to hear what you - or anyone else who thinks that the diary could have been written by Maybrick - thought about the occurrence of the non-existent farthings in the passage about Annie Chapman's murder.
I think it's obvious that pointing out these errors isn't achieving a great deal. In most cases, it's not even achieving a suggested explanation of the errors, no matter how outlandish. Still, I think maybe one more could be pointed out.
As is well known, the police were unable to enter Mary Kelly's room, which led to a mistaken belief in some quarters that the murderer had locked the door and escaped with the key.
But in the evidence given at the inquest, Abberline stated:
An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch.
Nevertheless, the diary, as in so many cases, follows the mistaken impression:
With the key I did flee
And so on, and so forth.
Only six words (although variations of the phrase are repeated several times), but once again absolutely fatal to the authenticity of the diary, unless a plausible explanation can be offered.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 6:15 pm: | |
Paul,
"The extremely subtle use of Crashaw with it’s Whitechapel connections…………"
This is a joke, right?
If not, please do explain, because there are only 5 words from Crashaw in the diary and there is no reason at all for those five words to have had anything at all to do with Whitechapel; and Crashaw's own family "connections" to the area are, in his case, thin at best, his being a very small child and all. And, of course, there is every good, sound, historical reason to believe that the real Maybrick could not have quoted that poet or that poem if his life depended on it.
I do this for a living, Paul. I have PhD in literature, I work at a university full of PhD's in literature, including specialists in the field of Metaphysical poetry (Crashaw) and Victorian literature and history. I asked no less than six of these scholars on my own campus and another handful from around the country, including an endowed Chair who came here from Oxford if there was any way the real James Maybrick would have been quoting this line from this poem by this poet in his diary. These people had no interest in the diary and no interest in the Ripper and were utterly professional and objective. Every single one of them without exception spoke quickly and confidently. And everyone single one of them said NO. Every single one of them confirmed without hesitation that the appearance of that line from that poem in a diary signed by that historical figure was clear evidence that the thing was a forgery.
And that's before they knew that the guy who placed the diary into the public arena just happened to have a copy of a book at home that had that very same line removed and conveniently excerpted in the middle of a prose essay in his possession.
So, if you think you can seriously cite the presence of those five words as evidence for authenticity, then you have quite a bit more research to do.
But thanks for the line, it did make me smile.
--John
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
