|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:24 pm: |       |
Hi RJ,
Thanks very much for your comments.
I’d like you to put yourself in the Johnsons’ position for a moment. You have a watch that someone has offered $40,000 to take off your hands.
If you know the scratches that prompted the offer were made very recently, do you hold out for a much higher figure rather than leap at the chance of making a very easy $40,000, by ripping off a Texan with more money than sense?
Or perhaps you decide not to sell for fear of being exposed at some point in the future and done for fraud? But in this case, why pull the stunt in the first place, since you could presumably also be in trouble with the various diary publishers?
If, on the other hand, you discovered the scratches in your watch and believe they are old and possibly made by Jack the Ripper, might you not fear that someone may get their grubby hands on what would undoubtedly be a priceless artefact if genuine, for a mere $40,000?
So do you decide not to sell until you know exactly who may be ripping who off, and by how much?
As for not giving our readers enough information to ‘pin anyone to the wall’, I’ve said it until I’m sick of saying it that we could only give readers the information we had ourselves. As more comes in, or as more bits of the jig-saw fall into place, the truth may or may not emerge one day. But if anyone could have been pinned to the wall by now, assuming you mean for their involvement in a modern forgery, I’m certain they would have been, and it would not have taken more than a few pages to tell that story, let alone more than a decade’s worth of documentation. 
The fundamental difference between our book and the Rendell report is that, despite the latter giving no indication of a real desire to solve the mystery, it still felt able to reach certain conclusions. We would dearly love to have been able to solve it, but make no bones about admitting that we haven’t and we can’t – not yet, at least – hence no conclusions.
Ours was not to analyse every individual piece of testimony, bringing in all the various arguments for or against its accuracy, truthfulness, logic or common sense, but simply to report what we felt were the most important words and actions of the major players over the years and leave the readers with a realistic, if depressing, picture of the state of affairs when a questioned document has been thrust into the public, and commercial domain.
I do appreciate that it can make for uncomfortable reading to find so many negative aspects of human nature all set on record in the one book. What I am always staggered by, and depressed by, is the capacity by some people to look for (and assume, even when they don’t find) even more negative aspects than the evidence already provides us with.
The diary seems to be a powerful magnet for negativity for some reason.
I truly hope 2004 will bring something positive – ie constructive - to the investigation. And I don’t consider forgetting about it a positive move, although I realise others would.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 05, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Whoops! Unintentional double event there.
Sorry.
(Message edited by Caz on January 05, 2004) |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 572
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
Caz,
Locked my copy away in my desk drawer at work...
...didnt get back to work till yesterday !!!
Best laid plans and all that eh ?
Monty
 |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2917
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
The following article has been posted to the Casebook, per the request of Shirley Harrison. It can be found at:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/deardiary2004.html
Full text below:
--------------------------------------------------
DEAR DIARY
by Shirley Harrison
Reproduced by permission of Paul Begg from "Ripperologist"
Reading through the first chapters of “The Ripper Diary the Inside Story” has been a curious experience. Sometimes I felt I was drowning, my life passing before my eyes. All that turmoil. That anger. The accusations. But I was not drowning - even in those days. I did not go under, I survived and, almost alone, of those originally involved with the diary I have felt largely enriched and stimulated by the experience despite everything that has happened since 1992. When the smartly-suited Michael Barrett handed me that now infamous diary I acted on a hunch that it could be genuine. Then, on publication of the first edition of the resultant book “The Diary of Jack the Ripper”, The Sunday Times banner headlines yelled FAKE and the world of true crime enthusiasts was overnight divided. Those, who like me, believed it could be genuine, those like Melvin Harris who declared it was without a shadow of doubt a modern forgery and that we were all charlatans conspiring to deceive the public. And there those, like Keith Skinner who preferred the notion that the diary was written long ago but not by James Maybrick. A handful sat wobbling on the fence and in no time we were all were drawn into a uniquely bloody literary battle. The question of who wrote Shakespeare or who created the Turin shroud has never been so angrily contested.
On the other hand the diary has undoubtedly been an instrument for a great deal of good it has taught us much we didn’t know has made many new friendships.resulting in lively and entertaining debate.
This “shabby hoax”, as it has been frequently called, has inspired several documentary films, a television trial of James Maybrick which judged “our man guilty”, an opera, several university courses, and a Hollywood epic still in the pipeline. And now, apart from Paul Feldman and Anne Graham’s own Maybrick-inspired books, comes “The Inside Story” and three chapters in David Canter’s “Mapping Murder.” which, at last, gives a different and totally independent slant on the importance of the diary from an outsider of international standing.
Oddest of all, is the phenomenal success of the Jack the Ripper Casebook and the Message Boards. These were started by Stephen Ryder as a direct result of reading the first edition of my book. He then visited Florence’s grave in New Milford, Conneticut, and was inspired to create the web site which has now become such an invaluable resource to serious crime historians worldwide. Yet it is on the same message Boards that the Diary has taken its most ferocious battering and those who dare to remain objective been subjected to the most bitter and personal attacks.
The arguments rage, strong and unbalanced as ever, on and on and on. Twice the site has been suspended. Few of us with most knowledge of the diary and those connected to it now post on the Boards. Caroline Morris, who does not believe the diary is a modern forgery but is honestly uncertain about it origins, has played devil’s advocate bravely and tried to counter some of the more uninformed and hysterical attacks with reason and insight.. But even she has become embroiled in highly coloured, petty, argument which resulted in Stephen Ryder banning some contributors and sending them off, dunce’s hat in hand to stand in the corner.
People who have never seen the diary, have never met any of its researchers and, unlike us, know nothing of the personalities and places in the drama, pontificate with inordinately long messages ad infinitum on “certainties” of which they can’t possibly be certain. Professor David Canter has called this “affirmation bias” – presenting evidence as a historical conclusion. It is a common complaint among enthusiasts and one of which I know I have, on occasion, been guilty unlike the meticulous Keith Skinner.. To paraphrase an earlier, rueful and much quoted observation from Keith, they base a theory upon a hypothesis, sink it deep in speculation and confound it with mystery.
It could be interesting were Professor Canter now to make a study of the reasons for the profoundly emotional and often irrational passions aroused by the diary. What is its power that it mesmerises so many, presumably, previously rational people?
For me it concerns the challenge of an unanswered puzzle. I have been privileged to tip-toe hesitantly and even be welcomed into the previously unknown worlds of forensic science, of criminal psychology, Scotland Yard and the archive departments of libraries and museums around the world. I have been to America and to Liverpool.
It is true that mistakes, were made by us all in those early days.
So far as the fast growing “modern forgery” brigade was concerned my biggest mistake it seems was to be a professional writer working for money and for this reason nothing I have ever said can be believed.
My previous books had been free from confrontation and I did not enjoy my first experience of the well-established need for any mass-market publisher to push an author off the fence, in order to give an exciting, press-worthy spin to their text and so stimulate sales. Perhaps I did not always fight my corner as strongly as I should. Financially, it is true as a result, I probably earned more in the early days than most Ripper authors dream of, but equally the diary generated income for a great many others as well….journalists, film producers , authors and now academics alike. Set against legal fees `and expenses (divided in two between Mike and me and now by Anne), over ten years, my share of the alleged fortune accrued by “the diary camp” was hardly in the Patricia Cornwell league and is openly detailed, for the curious, in “The Inside Story”. My most recent royalty cheque, received after publication of that book, was £100!
Some of those around me, especially my agent, Doreen Montgomery suffered unbelievable stress for little reward and we were both delighted to hand over our files to Seth Linder, Keith Skinner and Caroline when they were investigating , in the belief that they would view the facts behind this incredible story with fairness. . We had nothing to hide.
Is it significant that the chief orchestrators of the “Modern Forgery” Campaign did not feel the same or even agree to grant the authors an interview?
One of the crosses we have all had to bear over the years, while trying to unravel the truth, has been the chameleon character of Mr Barrett himself. He is extremely plausible, however contradictory his stories. Keith, Caroline and Seth had the same problem when working on their book. There is always a hope he will produce the nugget that will give us the final solution to the puzzle, so we listen patiently knowing in our hearts his evidence is unsound.. This is not trickery nor is he skillfully baiting the dimwits in London. He simply does not recall what he has said.
“The Inside Story” ends with the delightful picture of Michael Barrett striding out of our lives into the sunset, to tend the garden he loves. “I want to walk away from it all” he told the authors. But by the time of publication they were already out of date. Michael Barrett was back. Doreen Montgomery, Keith and my publisher Blake arrived at work one morning in September, to find their answer-phones brimming with messages in that familiar Liverpool accent..
“I’ve found Mrs Hammersmith. Ring me back.” Sadly, I was able to cool their excitement. Several years ago, at the time when when Michael believed that HE had forged the diary, he reported to me a visit he had had by a descendent of Mrs Hammersmith. He even gave me her name. But she didn’t exist. Michael Barrett’s unpredictable imagination has tied many a knicker in a twist and wasted hours and hours of time
So what now?
Last year I read a contribution to the Message Boards from R.J Palmer in America. It concerned some serial killings in Austin, Texas USA in 1885. This caught my attention. Roger told, how subsequent press stories in 1888 linked the Whitechapel killings with those earlier murders in Austin. I knew I was courting trouble from those who had already decided I belonged to a bunch of desire driven geeks but I was curious and decided to take the risk..
I had read Stewart Evan’s investigations into the American quack Doctor Tumbelty and I knew of Scotland Yard’s visits to The States on the trail of the Ripper. But what of Maybrick – the cotton merchant - with business London, Liverpool and Norfolk, Virginia. What was HE doing in 1885?
I was fortunate to make contact with Otto Gross a American businessman with a serious interest in history and, in particular, the Maybrick case. .Otto offered to help and, over the course of the next two years threw himself, gratis, into research among the American archives. He travelled to to the key locations and spent hours in the principal academic institutions holding likely records. His regular Emails – detailed and meticulously careful - were a joy and a huge encouragement although the American aspect of the Maybrick saga proved as enigmatic and elusive as had my investigations in Britain. Always Otto urged me not to let my imagination run riot and not to succumb to the enthusiasm of my publishers.
From newspapers and libraries in St Louis, New Orleans, New York, Mobile, Dallas, Wyoming we learned that a Maybrick from Whitechapel had been exiled to America as a convict in 1775, that during James Maybrick’s sojourn in Virginia from 1875, we learned that he had made frequent visits down south on the Cotton Line both for business and pleasure and that he had many friends in the southern States. These included General J.G Hazard (who probably introduced him to Florie) and John Aunspagh, from nearby Dallas whose eight year old daughter Florence, stayed at Battlecrease House in 1888.. According to the press Maybrick also had a hitherto unknown office at Galveston, a major cotton port, miles from Austin.
Most interesting of all, I felt, was the opening on December 23 1884, of an International Cotton Exposition in New Orleans. This was a vast spectacular, launched with a remote control switch by the President in Washington. The British stand was said to be “much ahead of other foreign sections.”
Early in 1884, from Liverpool, Maybrick had posted a letter of resignation as a director from the Norfolk Cotton Exchange But significantly he had asked to remain a foreign member – obviously intending to return from time to time. Brother Edwin took on the Norfolk office.
Did James use the opportunity to mix business and pleasure? it seems unlikely that he was not in New Orleans, enjoying the illuminated fountains and the bands set among 249 acres of gardens along the banks of the Mississipi. He had left Florie over Christmas on a previous occasion.. But so far, I have found no sighting of him on the crucial dates.The first Austin killing took place on Dec 30 1884.
The period of 1884/5 in Liverpool was superfically content for the Maybricks and their two young children. But behind the scenes, with an economic downturn in Britain, Maybrick was becoming more and more drug-dependent and Florie was often left alone. We have only one diary date recording his movements – he was present – alone – at the funeral of Florie’s brother Holbrook on April 17. On May 23rd – during the closing celebrations of the Exposition Eliza Shelley was murdered in Austin. Maybrick could easily have made the journey from Paris to America.
The Austin killings continued sporadically through 1885 and then on December 24 came the “double event” two killings which echoed, strangely, the murders of Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes in 1888.
The press continued to speculate at possible links but the final connection was never made.
The anniversary edition, now titled “The Diary of Jack the Ripper The American Connection” and based on this speculation. is about to stir it all up again. My publisher, with a keen tabloid approach, has an understandable eye on the cash till. The book has a somewhat embarrassing, lurid and stars and stripes jacket and a newsworthy, if imaginative, flyer.
So here am I again, standing waiting; like Chicken Licken for the sky to fall.
One thing is clear. The Maybrick diary will not go away. Is it not time, at least to acknowledge that? It may not stay in the headlines and its fame is measured to a large extent by the ferocity of the fire it has drawn though sadly often not always by the quality of the debate. Its deceptively simple content and power to tease is unique and it is at last attracting the attention of serious historians and academics. Its existence has alone generated the discovery of an immense amount of valuable and useful 19th century information and been responsible directly and indirectly the launching of some first class international resources and magazines – not least being Ripperologist. Let’s appreciate the positive. One day it may even resolve the problem of Jack the Ripper?
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 127
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
Oh please. You have to be kidding me. I am sorry but yes this is crass commercialism at it's highest. Texas didn't even have train service connecting it to LA until sometime after the 1900s and even then it wasn't passenger service for a few more years and yet we are supposed to believe that Maybrick traveled from New Orleans to Texas, which a distance of 500 miles or so in 5 days? I don't think so.
(Message edited by Ally on January 06, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
Hello,
Since the topic of this new edition has arisen, I feel I should state, for the record, that contrary to the impression left by the paragraph that contains my name on page 349 of this book, I most certainly do not "agree" with Paul Begg and Robert Smith that, before any testing of the diary begins, it would be "essential to understand exactly what the laboratory could undertake and whether the results would bring us confidently nearer to knowing when the diary was written within a reasonable margin of error."
It is my position, and it always has been my position, that no reputable scientific laboratory could or would promise such specific sorts of results prior to examining the material in question and that to make such an advance promise a requirement before agreeing to send the diary to a lab will serve only to prohibit, in advance, the diary from ever being thoroughly and scientifically tested by any reputable lab again.
I do not know whether the rest of this book is as misleading as this paragraph that mentions my name. I can only suggest that, as with all such endeavors, the buyer and reader beware.
As for me, I have no desire whatsoever to discuss these issues any further. I have, happily, moved on to more productive endeavors.
Thanks,
Dr. John V. Omlor
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 692
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
I am pleased that Canter is apparently going to turn his valuable services away from profiling and perhaps teach us all how we should feel emotionally when we read books that might upset or anger us because they are purely commercial enterprises designed to profit out of our misplaced trust and belief in the honesty and integrity of the authors employed in this escapade of financial excellence and deeply tarnished embellishment of what should be a serious subject.
If the long-winded post I read above was an apology than it was a good one.
Problem is, this stuff sticks.
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 99
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 8:42 pm: | |
Ally,
I take no position on the thesis, but I would be quite sure the rail trip was possible. The closest I could come to the date was the 1893 Official Guide to Railways, but my sense is that the service would not have been much different five or six years previous.
A traveler would leave New Orleans on the Texas & New Orleans (a Southern Pacific subsidiary) at 9:30 a.m. and arrive in Houston at 10:50 p.m. The traveler would then board an International Great Northern (later became part of the Missouri Pacific system) train that left at 11:10 p.m. and arrived in Palestine at 6:05 the next morning. A train then left Palestine at 10:30 a.m. and chugged into Austin at 7:25 p.m.
So, the trip could be made in fewer than 36 hours. Whether James Maybrick ever made the journey is another question altogether.
Don. |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 131
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 9:55 pm: | |
Actually it's not just a few years. That's closer to a decade. And that's a significant chunk of time. But you have piqued my curiousity. I'll look into it more closely. My information could have been wrong.
Regardless, I still think the theory is a pile of crap. It's more of Cornwell logic--well we have no proof that he wasn't in New Orleans so he must have been. Bleh.
And just out of curiousity..why in the hell would he go through three train switches to kill prostitutes in Austin..not once but several times? He was in New Orleans, they have prostitutes there. Why go through all this rigamarole. It's too ridiculous.
(Message edited by ally on January 06, 2004) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:17 pm: | |
"Early in 1884, from Liverpool, Maybrick had posted a letter of resignation as a director from the Norfolk Cotton Exchange. But significantly he had asked to remain a foreign member – obviously intending to return from time to time."--Shirley Harrison.
Shirley--He may or may not have intended to return. The question is, did he? Apparently not. From the transcripts of Florie's trial:
"The last time my brother was in Norfolk, Virginia was in 1884." --Edwin Maybrick, Monday, 5th August, 1889.
A.P.--Thanks. Brandy sounds good about now. |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 132
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Ah but see RJ...just because he wasn't in Norfolk after after 1884 doesn' mean he wasnt in Austin --for some reasn going thousands of miles out of his way to kill prostitutes.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
wheres his 1884 diary thats what i want to know! now!!!!!!!!!!!!
jennifer |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 5:40 am: | |
Dear RJ,
Whilst researching the father/son movements of the Ziani de Ferranti's during the 19th century,
I had cause to locate to Liverpool to follow up on the father Cesar de Ferranti, who had a studio in Bold Street. He was an accomplished painter and a skilled photographer...even inventing new processes for developing photographs! His studio was patronised by many distinguished people of the time.(Is there a connection to Maybrick?)Still much work to be done hereabouts!
PS. When in Liverpool Prison avoid leaving gold watches around with "Jack the Ripper" inscribed on the works...the convicts take advantage of any kindness!
Rosey (Unchained at last) :-) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
Rosey--Why de Ferranti? I looked at that hideous dynamo in Deptford. He seems to me have had the Promethean bug in a bad way. Of Deptford is a place of intrigue; Kit Marlowe and all that. RP |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Wow. What's next? "Maybrick on the Moon"?
I always found it pretty strange, that Maybrick was considered a suspect when he couldn't even be placed in London at the times of the killings the diary takes credit for. But in my opinion it's absurd he's now being "connected" to murders where he cannot even be placed on the CONTINENT at the times of the killings. Especially when the diary text has Maybrick working up his courage for his alleged trial murder in Manchester. Nowhere in the diaries text is there anything that suggests an earlier series of killings.
I also have to disagree with Shirley's assessment that the diary "Isn't going away". The diary is pretty much dead as a topic for those with a serious interest in the Jack the Ripper case. Very few knowledgable people give it any weight whatsoever as a serious possibility. I can link to any number of sites that espouse faked moon landing/flat earth theories, but that doesn't mean that actual serious debate continues.
The only debate that been raging for quite some time is who forged it and when.
Jennifer,
The inks probably still drying on that one. Hopefully they went the extra mile and got the handwriting right this time. 
Regards,
John Hacker |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Whatho all,
Is Maybrick behind the disappearance of Beagle 2?
Cheers, Mark |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 9:00 pm: | |
Mark,
It's entirely possible! It would explain a lot.
It's also my understading that with new computer enhancement, the initials JFK can be found on the watch. Which might help explain the rumours of a man in a tall black hat behind the grassy knoll. :-)
Cheers!
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 5:42 am: | |
Er, chaps and chapesses, isn’t going off into space ever so slightly going off the topic of the inside story of the diary?
One doesn’t need an interest in Jack the Ripper to be curious about who created the diary (and watch scratches) and when, and why it hasn’t all come out by now.
And John (H) hit the nail on the head here.
It’s the fact that the world’s best hoax busters have so far failed to identify the creators of both diary and watch, or demonstrate in detail how each hoax was conceived and executed, that leaves others free to theorise another day, and to offer their theories to anyone who will care enough to read about them.
It makes me smile to think that the strongest modern forgery adherents, while claiming both artefacts to be obvious late 20th century hoaxes, are also forced to admit their failure to bust either.
Those of us who are not quite so sure of ourselves, and continue to look for alternative possibilities, are actually allowing that there could be other explanations for the failure of the hoax busters that go beyond simply not having what it takes.
Shirley clearly doesn’t believe the diary and watch are recent fakes, and will never do so without proof. So by sticking to your guns, aren’t you shooting yourselves in the foot by criticising Shirley for being free to carry on theorising because of the failure of others to crack what they believe to be two pathetic recent hoaxes?
If the diary and watch are modern fakes, as you believe them to be, then Maybrick didn’t murder anyone, anywhere, at any time. What else do you need to say?
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
Caz--You're argument is a bit like saying, "because the bank robbers haven't been nabbed, it means that the bank wasn't robbed. Meanwhile, please ignore that large pile of bricks, the gaping hole, and the smell of gunpowder in the back alley." Cheers, RJP |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Ooh, R.J.! 
Ooooooh, again! 
Duck! 
Aaaaah, that feels so much better. . . |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
Caz,
You're right about the discussion going a bit off topic, but this is where the announcement of Shirley's book was made, so it seemed the logical place to discuss the newest, er, revelations. Perhaps we should make a new thread for Shirley's newest endeavor.
"It’s the fact that the world’s best hoax busters have so far failed to identify the creators of both diary and watch, or demonstrate in detail how each hoax was conceived and executed, that leaves others free to theorise another day, and to offer their theories to anyone who will care enough to read about them."
I can't agree with that statement. As my previous post indicated, there are still people that believe the world is FLAT. No amount of proof will stop people from theorizing if it's in their nature to do so.
"It makes me smile to think that the strongest modern forgery adherents, while claiming both artefacts to be obvious late 20th century hoaxes, are also forced to admit their failure to bust either."
Of course the "modern forgery adherents" are somewhat hampered by our lack of access to the diary itself for proper testing, as well as lack of access to the actual results of many of the tests that have been run. At least Mel Harris was willing to share the results of the tests he ran. But that's neither here nor there.
"Those of us who are not quite so sure of ourselves, and continue to look for alternative possibilities, are actually allowing that there could be other explanations for the failure of the hoax busters that go beyond simply not having what it takes."
Here's where we get to the heart of the matter. I haven't seen anyone looking for alternate possibilities. For all the talk we hear about how it might be an old forgery from a VERY few individuals, they don't seem to be making any effort whatsoever to actually try to support their position, or attempt in any way to identify the diaries creators. They simply seem to simply start and end with the premise that it's not Mike or Anne based on their assessment of their abilities or character. Forgive me if I'm not wowed. It's also notable in my opinion that those few folks who have publicly pressed the possibility of an "old forgery" all seem to be emotionally invested with one or more of the principals of the case.
I would love to hear the details of anyone actually LOOKING for these alternate possibilities and what avenues they are pursuing.
"Shirley clearly doesn’t believe the diary and watch are recent fakes, and will never do so without proof. So by sticking to your guns, aren’t you shooting yourselves in the foot by criticising Shirley for being free to carry on theorising because of the failure of others to crack what they believe to be two pathetic recent hoaxes?"
No one is criticizing Shirley for theorizing. I've always had a fair degree of respect for her, even if I don't share her beliefs. But realistically, the nature of the supposed "American Connection" is so tenuous as be more wishful thinking than actual theorizing.
And to lay this at the feet of those who believe that the diary is a modern artifact is simply silly. The evidence that the diary is a fake is overwhelming. And if there is blame to be laid at the door of the modern hoax proponents, then it must also be laid even more firmly at the door of those who believe it's a forgery, yet who haven't made even a token effort to identify where or when the thing came into being.
And perhaps my original post was a tad misleading, because you seem to have come away with an incorrect impression. When I said that the only debate that raged was who and when forged it, I did not mean to imply that there is any real debate at this point. Identifying the forgers has always been a very specialized interest that only a handful have engaged in debating. And there hasn't been any actual debate on that point in quite a while.
R.J.
You hit the nail right on the head! :-)
Regards,
John Hacker |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:15 am: | |
Dear RJ,
Why de Ferranti? For the last two hundred years four men have had possession of a fabulous cupboard. At the turn of the 19th century, Marc Aurelio Ziani (later adding "de Ferranti") residing at Bologna. He was a man of wide culture
and liberal opinions, a keen student of Dante, on whose works he lectured and wrote, and a musician of distinction. He translated Les Sept Rois by the philosophical and political writer, Lamennais into Italian verse.
He spent his later life at the Court of the King of the Belgians as Guitarist to the King!
His son Cesar Ziani de Ferranti came to Liverpool and by 1860 had established a reputation in the field of photography. His son was Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti (that Prometheus you described).
The 'cupboard' appears to have been made about 1530 according to various furniture 'experts', in Southern Europe...Italy...France...even Switzerland! Who knows! But its style is distinctly Rennaissance.
Finally, it passed through the hands of a Sir Vincent Ziani de Ferranti ("Colossus" computer,
another Prometheus)into the rather grubby hands of that erratic Hermes in the Far North...whence I was allowed to research its curious provenance
and the equally curious carved female figures (technically refered to as "termes"), all four of them having had their throats cut and what appears as a 'disfigurement' to their lower abdominal areas. Now exactly where and when these
'disfigurements' took place is a mystery...before or after 1888? It seems to have baffled some of the greatest authorities on furniture...all agree however, it is a most extraordinary ,and the most sinister oject to come out of Deptford, c.1888.
Rosey (My Lighter Side of Life):-) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Hi John (H),
So, you reckon the blame must be laid ‘even more firmly’ at the door of those who believe it's a forgery, yet who haven't made even a token effort to identify where or when the thing came into being.
Couldn’t agree with you more there, John. Trouble is, once people actually believe something to be true, beyond doubt, they may no longer see any need to delve any deeper to get at the whole story, and some even resist doing so in case delving too deeply sheds possible doubt on a belief already firmly expressed. You speculate about possible ‘emotional’ investments in people when you don’t know the supposed investors, or the people you think they are investing in, nearly well enough to judge such a thing. I tend to think there is more emotional attachment going on here when theorists have invested their stated views with their own intellect to such an extent that they cannot look objectively at the subject because it would mean questioning their own abilities.
Of course, I don’t ‘believe’ anything yet about the diary’s exact status, which is why I continue to ask questions of those who do hold fixed beliefs yet continue to come here to watch and contribute to the ‘debate’ about those beliefs.
And despite my lack of beliefs, or more properly because of that very lack, I am in fact making some considerable effort to identify where and when the thing came into being. If I get anywhere, I hope I will be able to write about it some day.
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Caz,
"You speculate about possible ‘emotional’ investments in people when you don’t know the supposed investors, or the people you think they are investing in, nearly well enough to judge such a thing."
It's a simple statement of fact from my perspective that the only peple I have seen publically plugging the possibility of an "old forgery" have met with the principals and appear to have firmly held beliefs regarding them. But yes, my conclusion is only speculation.
"I tend to think there is more emotional attachment going on here when theorists have invested their stated views with their own intellect to such an extent that they cannot look objectively at the subject because it would mean questioning their own abilities."
I haven't seen any evidence of anything like that here. Most of us debating the diarys origin seem to me to have extremely open minds. (But I cannot read minds of course, so this is only speculation.)
Many of us do however have a tendancy to dismiss speculation as to what the diarist "might" have been thinking, or what Mike, Anne, or others "might" or "might not" be capable of as something that CANNOT be known and is therefore not relevent to an objective investigation as to the diaries origin. While it can make an interesting topic discussion, it's by it's very nature entirely speculative and doesn't contribute anything towards answering the basic question of where the diary came from.
"And despite my lack of beliefs, or more properly because of that very lack, I am in fact making some considerable effort to identify where and when the thing came into being. If I get anywhere, I hope I will be able to write about it some day."
Good luck with that one. I'll be looking forward to it when/if it comes out.
Regards,
John Hacker
(Message edited by jhacker on January 13, 2004) |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
As someone who has been quietly reading these boards for a couple of years now, I hope you all won’t mind if I just write here to say that I felt Shirley Harrison’s most recent post was one of the most readable and interesting for a while.
It really saddened me therefore to find that, as per usual she, or anyone with any pro-diary views, get attacked just for holding to the view that the Maybrick diary is not a modern hoax.
With the exception of Caroline Morris, who is another who’s posts are eminently readable to me, I do find that those posters who just insist that the diary is a hoax and that’s that, without really properly explaining their position, do nothing to further their views or make me want to listen to them.
I do appreciate that professional writers and journalists will have the advantage here, but I for one would enjoy reading some of the posts a lot more, and probably be more accepting of an individual’s views, if they were all written in a similar vein.
Perhaps I should state here that I’m neither for or against the diary. I’ve read everything I could find on the subject and would describe myself as a fascinated sceptic. I shan’t come to any conclusions about Shirley Harrison’s new book until I’ve read it .
Well that’s it and I’ve got that off my chest. I shall now go back to being a passive reader of the casebook, and look forward to reading a lot more informative posts on all aspects of the case.
Thanks to all for a darned good daily read.
Paul
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
