Archive through May 31, 2001

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through May 31, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Maybrick, James: Archive through May 31, 2001

Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 12:05 pm
Hi Caz: Although the evidence is not definitive, I think there is a possibility that James Maybrick was indeed an arsenic addict and that it was the interruption of his routine doses of arsenic that actually killed him. So it was not arsenic that killed him but lack of arsenic. Make sense? Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 06 November 2000 - 04:49 am
Absolute sense, Chris. I believe there is evidence that the withdrawal symptoms can be fatal, which, in James's case, would be consistent with finding so little in his body after death. If someone were happy to have Florie found guilty of using arsenic to kill James, it would be in their interests to play down, or deny, James's own use of the stuff. And there was the convenient muddle over what was actually found, or not found, during the first post-mortem. Also, I know Florie was a bit dim, but was she dim enough to let herself be observed by suspicious servants, soaking fly-papers, for the pathetic amount of arsenic she may have been able to extract from them, if she knew there were hat boxes full of the stuff, ready to go? It almost seems like some people wanted her not to be innocent of her husband's murder, so they could condemn her to serving 15 years for adultery with clear consciences. That said, whatever the truth is, both Maybricks fell victim, in the most terrible way, to each other's human weaknesses, which serves as a lesson to us all. Yet maybe this is what we all fear, so some prefer to shun, and lock away, rather than seek to understand. Monty Python�s stoning scene comes to mind. Love, Caz
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs Saturday, 11 November 2000 - 10:00 pm
Caz et. al: Actually, I really don't think Florie was dim at all. I think she was "stupid like a fox," as modern-day residents of Florie's Southern United States say. I know that the young girl Florence (not Florie but the charge of James's who stayed with the Maybricks while her father was away on business) described how Florie would get a sort of "empty" or "vacant" look on her face, and I know she didn't know what to make of it (she wouldn't, being an innocent, non-murderous soul), or she never would have defended Florie that way. Describing a vacant look on someone's face generally labels him or her as "mentally below par." Victorians, as we see in many of their whodunits, usually think of the vivaciously sexual female morons as capable of anything having to do with sex and violence. This is part of the trickle-down of the historical view of women as following "that which is other from that which is in the mind," "their emotions/passions," and other such misogynist claptrap. I think, as I have said, that the younger Florence described this look because it made an impression on her -- that is, it was impressive. The only sort of impressively-vacant looks I've ever seen have been in the eyes of persons such as Ted Bundy, Aileen Wuornos, Richard "The Night Stalker" Ramirez, Peter "The Yorkshire Ripper" Sutcliffe, et cetera. I think that Florie was not intellectually dim, but morally so. She looked at the child, Florence, and did not know what to do. SHe was supposed, as a human being, to feel love for the child. But, being a morally-deficient person in that mysterious way that eternally-unremorseful murderers are, she could not find the proper emotional reponse, and, therefore, sould not insert the proper facial expression and eye sparkle. She was at a loss, because this being in front of her could remember her actions to testify to them, but could not give her anythjing concrete for which she could wheedle. So, she emitted NOTHINGNESS, and that chilled the poor child so that she remembered the experience into old age, repeating it with just the same mystification anyone would who had not heard of moral-defect and personality disorders. Anyhow, I don't mean to be mean about this. I just happen to know a girl from the South of my country (the USA) who acts precisely the same way Florie did. She just recently married her Brierly after complaining for months of entirely spurious abuse whose bruises and cuts only the starry-eyed then-lover, now-husband could see. She almost got the current husband to kill the old one and throw him off a bridge. No lie. And Florie has the same look in her eyes as this woman. It looks fine for a few seconds, but if you look longer, there's a swirling galaxy of surplus self-pity and greed (emotional, physical, and material), waiting to cry to you from the prettily-eyelashed void of a blue-rimmed pupil. It's cold, like the absolute zero of outer space. There's no one in there but her, and no one else is invited. As you stare in, you want to cry, and your mind tells you it's for her pain, for her physical abuse (which she can convince you she was bruised and cut by, but not for long unless you're the current husband, and you'll even see the cuts and bruises for a second, because you want to believe her), but your heart tells you, as you stare into that void, which swirls like Charybdis, that your tears will be of terror, of being sucked in and drained of whatever she can get out of you, of being taken into the Icy Blackness. So you don't go. Or you do. Either way, it never leaves you once you've dived in. YOu weren't invited, so she throws you out once you figure out that it's only her fragility that tricks you into wanting to believe her and give her things... So, that's what I'm saying: Florie's twin voids are still sucking us in, from beyond the grave. Make her close her eyes. You can read between the lines then. But don't take pity on her. She's a liar. I can't truly explain how I know the two women are alike, but someday you'll meet one like the one I know, and you'll realize that you can never be more evil than she is, not even if you murder your own husband ("you" used here in the sense of "The Hypothetical Evil Caz," not in the sense of "The Real Caz Who Exists Right Now") because you have a soul and a spirit, and she never did. Sarah
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 13 November 2000 - 04:52 am
Hi Sarah, If Florie had been the most evil person in the world, I would still take pity on her, for being so. As it is, your speculation about this woman, from the expression in her eyes, which you compare with another unique human personality of which you do have experience, only increases the pity I feel. If only we could see behind the eyes and read the thoughts, perhaps we could then represent Florie, not as she would have us represent her, but as she really was. I can't claim to have the gift you do for seeing such truths at such a distance. Use it carefully. Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 12:41 am
To Our Aussie Friends: Still time to attend JACK THE RIPPER A new adaptation based on the recently discovered writings of James Maybrick. Written & Produced by Gerard Cogley. (HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES at Rippon Lea Estate). MELBOURNE'S ATHENAEUM THEATRE November 1st - 18th, 2000 Wed - Sun 8pm Bookings through the Athenaeum 03-960 1500 or Ticketmaster 136 166 $19.90 / $16.50 Group discounts available. Tickets now on sale. Presented by REED/COGLEY, in association with LONG SHOT FILM ENTERTAINMENT For further information, contact Gerard Cogley - thecomicbox@yahoo.com, or Katrina Mathers - longshotfilm@yahoo.com
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 11:39 am
Hello Martin, Sorry I haven't answered your post till now. Thanks for the info on the comparison of Kaminski and Cohen, seems I had the wrong "Inski". I've got the book--The Mamoth book of JtR and I owe you an apology for not getting my facts straight, especially after your hard work getting them, I looked up Cohen and "Kosminski" only, in the A to Z. You/we are still left with Cohen/Kaminski as the possible murderer, if you'll excuse me saying, is it possible that a violent madman like that could kill in such places and reason himself through an escape plan,--eg Chapman and Eddowes?. I know the murder sites looked like a raving demon had been at work,-but- the escape was of a clever sane man. One other thing please, will you tell me why Barnett is pictured so prominently in a splash of red on the front cover of The AtoZ? J All the Best Rick
Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 04:18 pm
Hi Rick, Last question first: I've no idea. we don't design the books. Probably, as an educated guess, because Headline publish Bruce Paley as well as the A-Z. Why do you feel there was a remarkable 'escape plan' from either Hanbury Street or Mitre Square? Provided nobody actually came through the doorway of no.29 or into Church Passage just as he was leaving, our boy walks straight out and into the ordinary people on their way to work in the first case, and the relatively empty streets in the second. If he's heading for Black Lion Yard he has no peculiar moves to make, and he's put concealing walls between himself and a body in an enclosed space in either case. Nor does he have to go up Bell Lane and Commercial Street, which Bernie Brown indicated in a recent Ripperologist were fairly humming with night omnibus and road repairing activity. He may have had a bit of luck, but I don't myself see that he needed any great judgment. And many thanks for the kind remarks. Martin Fido
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 10:35 am
Martin-- So he just might have hopped on a bus and discarded of the evidence (if there really was any) on the bus? Why is it that no one has ever heard of these buses before? Is there any way of finding out their routes? Many "highway serial killers" have been caught out when detectives realized that their killing paths matched some ex-con's trucking route. What if the seeming "disappearance" and "random choice of murder scenes within a certain area" are all clues that are begging to be read as "Jack's bus route home"? On the other hand, he may have been a member of a road crew. If his job description included working on a road crew late at night, then he might have told the police some story about needing the large knife for protection on the way home. At any rate, thanks for the info about buses and road crews. It adds to the general picture of what the Ripper would have had to either be or deal with/pass through on his way "to work." Sarah
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 09:29 am
Hi Sarah, I was as surprised as you to hear of an all-night omnibus station. In 1842 when Daniel Good was heading from Putney to Whitechapel to hide out, taking his murdered common-law wife's property from Marylebone to his ex-wife, he had to take a cab and leave his luggage at the omnibus station in the Strand at midnight and come back with his ex to pick it up and proceed by onnibus in the morning. So I've always assumed there were no night buses. But Bernie Brown who wrote the piece (in the course of it erroneously imagining that I think the Ripper went up to the Flowery Dean neighbourhood) is a really first-class historical researcher, who manages to keep up with the absolutely dizzying and confusing shifts of Metropolitan Police Divisions from one letter to another. I'd be surprised if he just guessed that the omnibus station was open and working at night. It's something that any researcher based in London might like to run a quick check on. Martin Fido
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 10:27 am
Rick: Re the cover of A to Z, as Martin said, this is probably out of the hands of the co-authors. In designing the cover of different editions, Headline seemed to have gone with a "flavor of the month" suspect, e.g., Tumblety, Barnett, and Maybrick. . . This does not mean Begg, Fido, and Skinner endorse those suspects -- I can say for a fact they do not -- it is just that those suspects were in the news before the edition was published. Best regards Chris George
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 05:39 pm
Martin -- Sorry to go away for so long, and I'm also sorry if my list of questions seemed like a hot-lights-in-the-face barrage of interrogation, rather than the genuine show of amazement and wonderment (yes, the "Double-ment" chewing gum of original research ;-) that it was. The reason the all-night omnibus surprised me was that it punctured (neither in a good nor in a bad way, but in a neutral way) my vision of quaint (yet also, admittedly, hard-to-clean-up-after, diseasemongering) horse-drawn hansoms, diligences, carriages, and other conveyances named for reasons one might marry a man. It forced me to accept that Jack might not be the Gaslighter that most of us (including many very serious Ripperologists (though not necessarily including yourself or Mr.'s Begg & Skinner)) see with our minds' eyes, playing to the City Police and the Home Office (the two sets of Box Seats), to the West End (and who more appropriate to sit in for the Orchestra Section), to the Hampstead Heaths of the time (the balcony at the back), with handwritten stagebill ("The Juwes are (not?) the men..." etc.) and an act too shocking to be seen by the public. Understand, again, please, Martin, that none of what I say should be taken as harshness. I am a brusque person by nature, and have always tried to express my admittedly sometimes-Byzantine opinions as tersely as possible, and just hoped that a reader would understand the tone and significance from cultural context. I often forget to remember that just because U.S. television programs and music have madem their way overseas does not mean that the U.K. has been, or ever will be saturated enough by American culture that the more subtle tonal allusions I make to American popular culture will automatically be grasped and understood by a Brit ina similar niche in the U.K. to mine in the U.S., in the same way as I do or as my friends do. I attempt to write in a more "Anglophone" -- as opposed to "Americanophone" manner, but I do not always remember that some of my tonal allusions are, at the same time, A) Nonexistent in British English, as she is spoken, and B) Too ingrained within my mode of speaking and/or writing to remember to delete when I edit. The stream of questions is meant to sound to the reader like an excited prospector in a 1940s Western movie who has just been told that there is gold underneath railroad tracks that he supposed wouldn't be built for another twenty to forty years -- he is ecstatic to hear about the actual gold, but his joy is muddled and slightly muted by his genuine befuddlement over the existence of the tracks over that gold. I hope this makes sense. Sarah
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 08 December 2000 - 10:38 am
Dear Sarah, Many thanks for the posting addressed to me. Is it an apology for something? A self-justification? I'm not awre of having been offended by anything you've ever written to or about me - maybe I'm just obtuse. In fact, I'd better admit that I am. I really haven't the foggiest idea what your posting is about. I don't think you are actually asking for any information or response from me now, but if I'm wrong, please, by all means be terse and brusque in asking for information or clarification. With all good wishes, Martin
Author: Dennis Hoffmann Sunday, 28 January 2001 - 04:39 pm
According to my only a few hours ago finished perusel of "The Diary..." I have to admit that I feel trapped by the idea James Maybrick possibly is a strong suspect. BUT: If the diary were genuine, why does it's handwriting not match the letters? Why did the police force of the time not concentrate on recently rented flats in the area? Why (the hell) did nobody realise the psychological habits of serial killers? I am a student of the English language, so don't mind possible mistakes according to grammar etc. Any answers to this post could also directly be sent to tautriadelta@gmx.net ... I would certainly appreciate further discussion.
Author: Jon Sunday, 28 January 2001 - 06:14 pm
Dennis Welcome....and in response to your questions: "If the diary were genuine, why does it's handwriting not match the letters?" Firstly your question presumes the killer wrote the letters. Secondly, the Diary, is....well....oh, never mind. "Why did the police force of the time not concentrate on recently rented flats in the area?" The Police were thorough, house to house, room to room, etc....and we have no reason to presume they did not investigate the single room rentals. We unfortunately, do not have much history on the police investigation, but lets not assume they ignored the obvious single tenent, in fact that very point was made at the time. "Why (the hell) did nobody realise the psychological habits of serial killers?" The sexual serial killer, as a predictable(?) species, was unknown in those days. Studies of this sort came much later. Regards, Jon P.S. There are many more informative and accurate books available on the Ripper.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 29 January 2001 - 06:35 am
Hi Dennis, Welcome indeed. In addition to the points Jon has made, the diary handwriting is even more of a problem because the author seems to have made no attempt to make it look like James Maybrick's. He/she certainly lays claim to 'Dear Boss', and possibly the Lusk letter too, referring (jokingly?) to eating cold kidney for supper. If these letters/postcards were hoaxes, as is widely believed these days, the diary must also be a hoax. Unless, of course, anyone believes Maybrick was so spaced out on arsenic that he only imagined he sent the letters! :-) But it does seem strange to me that the author, even if he/she had no access to examples of Maybrick's handwriting, did not make any effort to copy the familiar style of one of the famous letters. Do take everything regarding the diary with a pinch of salt. There are many many things about it that just don't seem to add up. But having said that, there are also certain things about the modern story which refuse to add up unless you are into creative maths. Most people prefer not to even go there. Best of luck. Love, Caz
Author: Dennis Hoffmann Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 12:44 am
So, after some consideration of what Jon & Caz wrote, my former excitement subsides... Following my post in this forum, I received an e-mail saying it's originator claims authorship of the diary...??? How serious do I have to take that? To my mind, it's not the philosopher's stone... All questions I replied to a former mail to the same person remain unanswered, until today. Now I know, that the police were not as ignorant as I actually thought, thanks for that. During my studies of the case as a whole I came across of a lot of different theories, the one less likely than the other. Whoever committed the Whitechapel murders, it must have been a most ingenious (or should I say "lucky") person to escape the authorities and even public. The Diary meant to me a new track to follow, easily destroyed while considering YOUR opinions. I took it again with a pinch of salt, taking into consideration how I reacted when buzzed or st****... isn't that easy to tell. On the one hand, I can't imagine the effects of any of the substances Maybrick used to escape the real world. On the other I'm convinced that regular consumption of drugs is less effective and leaves space for "clear thinking"... after all, I'm lost in a maze of distress... Yours truly, tautriadelta. P.S.: By the way, WHO or WHAT is davidoz???
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 03:39 am
If I knew I'd tell you. I just got another cryptic e-mail from him. He must be as thick as I am because I've already told him I haven't the foggiest idea what he's on about. But still they come... I'd suggest taking more water with it but I should talk. :-) Love, Caz
Author: Richard Buchko Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 01:31 pm
I am a relative newbee to the Ripper puzzle, and even newer to this board, so I am trying to approach everything with an open mind, and I am also catching up on a lot of old posts. However, having read THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER and JTR: THE FINAL CHAPTER, I am inclined to believe that the diary could be genuine. People have pointed out problems and inconsistencies with it, I agree. But no one has offered (that I have read) hard and fast evidence that it is a forgery. The evidence for it being genuine is in many ways circumstantial, but there are many hard and fast pieces of evidence that it fits the Maybrick life and circumstances terribly terribly well. On balance the evidence for is stronger than the evidence against, with nothing (in my opinion) strong enough in the against column to tip the scales. Does anyone offer hard and fast evidence against it? The handwriting issues are valid, but I have read many viable explanations for differences in handwriting - sceintific explanations which are easy to accept. And I have seen evidence of Ripper/Maybrick similarities, too. The provenance, the murder trial, the descendents, and the whole "picture" works for me. Again, I am keeping an open mind, understanding that if this is a forgery it is very very well done, and therefore worthy of study in itself. I hear a lot of general "it can't be real" comments, but have seen very little "because...." following, and those I have seen are weak. Does anyone wish to tackle a few points with me? By the way ---- I've been on a few of these boards for different subjects, and my arguements DO NOT degenerate into insults and silly sniping. I respect all opinions. Also, a question: If the Maybrick diary is real, do you think people will resist facts (perhaps unconsciously) because then the puzzle is solved, and the thing which has captivated people for 110 years has been explained? Also, an idea ----- I THINK I could create three or four examples of my writing, in different styles, in front of witnesses, and that I could fool some experts. At least, I'd like to try. Has anyone tried this? Looking forward to reading a lot more. Rich richnjulie@netzero.net
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 04:17 pm
Well Rich, what can we say ? I believe the "Diary" to be true because Mike Barret once said it was. I also believe that the "Diary" to be fake because Mike Barret said once it was. The truth of the matter is we will never know. If someone comes up with so called "Hard Facts" then someone else will come along and debunk it. Hence forth "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". At this point in time I believe that everyone must make up there own minds about it and stick to their guns until they choose otherwise. On a final note, forgery or not, it does put up a good case against Maybrick. Tris
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 06:11 pm
G'day Rich, There is evidence in 'The Diary' that links James Maybrick with Jack the Ripper, but nothing in the Ripper case to link the murderer with James Maybrick. Leanne!
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 07:29 pm
Dear Leanne, I have a feeling that we are, in some odd way, staring right at a 'missing link', but I can't for the life of me quite see it.To be honest, I can see everything and nothing...but it has that effect on everyone...does'nt it? Love, Rosemary
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 08:54 pm
I always thought that the missing link was Melvin Harris. But I'm sure he'll find some way to disprove it :-)
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 09:32 am
Dear Triston, Many a word said in jest? Whoever wrote the Diary most probably went to great lengths to publicize it by... complaining to Scotland Yard...then informing the newspapers that an investigation was underway...then...the mind reels at the Diary author's deviousness. Poor Melvin catches the flak. This is not cricket, chum. Love Rosemary
Author: Richard Buchko Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 05:39 pm
An interesting observation - that is, that the diary links Maybrick with the murders, but that the murder investigation is not linked to Maybrick. Frankly, I find this more compelling than any of the other arguments against the diary being genuine. This means, I think, that either: 1) The diary is genuine, and Maybrick was very cunning and lucky not to be caught. 2) The diary is genuine, and the police were not very thorough in their investigation. 3) The diary is not genuine, and the forger of the diary deserves both an award and punishment. 4) The diary is geniune, but Maybrick only thought he was the ripper, hence no evidence pointed to him. I still think we're looking at #1. And on the subject of Mike Barret - it is impossible to accept anything he says, for or against the diary, because his credibility is long since gone, IMHO.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 16 February 2001 - 06:03 am
Dear Richard, Interesting summary. Mike appears to have wittingly/unwittingly erected an insuperable barrier. Love Rosemary
Author: Avril Sprintall Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 03:51 pm
The Diary, like many other Ripper books, raises questions and gives rise to intriguing thoughts. As with every theory raised, it cannot be discounted simply because we do not know - nor I think will ever know - definitely who Jack really was. To argue that someone is totally wrong does not make sense, who are we to say who is wrong & who may be right? I have, over the years, been convinced many times that I was sure so and so was Jack, only to be "convinced" later that someone else was the more fitting suspect. I hope to continue my search for many years to come, and as was said in M J Trows book, on the day we stand before our maker He will introduce us to Jack the Ripper and we will say "Who is that?"
Author: Scott Russell Chapman Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 05:20 pm
Hi, I have discovered that Albert Bachert is my Great Great Uncle, and i have heard that in the diary his name is mentioned, could anyone tell me what is said about Bachert? Thanks, Scott
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 09:49 pm
Hi, Scott: I have studied the Maybrick Diary and I believe I can state with some confidence that there is no mention of Albert Bachert in it. If I am wrong, anyone, please feel free to correct me. Scott, who told you that Bachert is mentioned in the Diary? Best regards Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 26 February 2001 - 05:04 am
Hi All, Hi Scott, I agree with Chris. Unless someone has spotted some cryptic reference (which would be very interesting), I'm pretty sure your Great Great uncle can rest peacefully in the fact that he plays no active part in the diary mayhem! Love, Caz
Author: Alkhemia Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 06:55 pm
Hello everyone: I've looked around the internet and in some medical journals and I cannot seem to locate the side-effects (e.g., hallucinations, hyper-activity, etc.) or any description of the 'high' attained from arsenic and/or strychnine addiction. Since I haven't been able to find much, I also have to ask how prevalent this addiction would have been circa 1880-1890. Was arsenic widely used as a mood-altering drug or was it a drug for those of a "lower" class or "junkies"?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 06:20 am
Hi Alkhemia, I don't know the answers to your questions about recreational use and addiction. But I gather that arsenic could be used medicinally, in the treatment of malaria, as an alternative to the more usual quinine. It has been suggested that this is how James Maybrick was introduced to the substance, and that he subsequently became addicted. However, I don't know how strong the evidence is in support of this. Love, Caz
Author: Alan Hunt Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 08:06 pm
Arsenic was also used as an aid to digestion back in those heady days of Victoriana Regina.Just think if it was still used today,we would have old films like "Arsenic and old Rice" or Mary Poppins singing "just a spoonfull of Arsenic makes the medicine go down" Alan
Author: Dean Proudfoot Monday, 21 May 2001 - 09:46 am
To whom it may interest... During yet another reading binge on this subject, it became apparent using a simple cross-reference between books that the "Diary" cannot be genuine. Very simple but I cannot reconcile this glaring historical error in the alleged writings of J. Maybrick. Interested? Dean.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 21 May 2001 - 01:50 pm
Dear Dean, Interested? That's an under-statement.You have our total attention in this matter of Mr Maybrick's Diary. Rosey :-)
Author: Dean Proudfoot Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 05:22 am
Dear Rosey, Thanks for your encouraging attention. As my P.C. and books are at separate locations, please forgive a slight delay while I obtain the relevant titles & page no's. I hope my observation is not old-hat and previously reconciled. Will post again later in week. Best regards, Dean.
Author: Dean Proudfoot Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 09:41 am
Dear Rosie, In all but one of the books I have read on the Whitechapel murders, Louis Diemshutz has always been clearly stated as the discoverer of Elizabeth Stride's body. Some commentators have gone as far to surmise that Mr Diemshutz actually unwittingly disturbed the murderer and fuelled the motivation to subsequently attack Eddowes. The author of the 'Diary' and it's editor clearly subscribe to this version of events wholeheartedly. Mr Diemshutz and his horse are described as disturbing Mr Maybrick in his mutilations. Obviously, if Louis WAS NOT the first to discover the body, the alleged ravings of Maybrick MUST be fantasy based on historic assumption. According to a seemingly well-researched mainstream book, the body was found earlier by another man. While he was raising the alarm, sprinting away to alert the police, along came Louis. This reference to the actual discoverer of Stride's corpse just appeared to be thorough research and was mentioned as incidental information. I feel, in the matter of the 'Diary' debate, it is crucial. Any thoughts? Dean.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 09:47 am
Hi, Dean: Instead of hinting at "a seemingly well-researched mainstream book" that names a discoverer of Stride's body prior to Louis Diemschutz, why don't you name that book and quote from it, detailing that author's evidence? If you were to do so then we can debate the possibility. Best regards Chris George
Author: Eduardo Zinna Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 10:15 am
Is this Gilleman again?
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 12:00 pm
Peter Turnbull in The Killer Who Never Was advocated Gilleman as the discoverer of Stride's body, but the original source material makes it clear that Gilleman is Louis Diemshutz. See Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth ' Long Liz ' Stride: By alex chisholm on Sunday, June 25, 2000 - 09:31 pm for an independent view.
Author: Dean Proudfoot Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 06:40 am
Dear Chris, I do apologise for not including the information about the source I drew my observation from. Thanks to Paul Begg for explaining the chatty question, "Is this Gilleman again?" I am sure the book was not 'The Killer who Never Was'. The name 'Gilleman' does not ring a bell either. Having recently moved and having most of my books still piled up and boxed, it is difficult to find. I was looking over the weekend and will continue this week. When I post the details, I will look forward to reading your comments. If the person in question is named Gilleman, I will grovel appropriately. Apologies, Dean.