|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 09 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Maybrick, James:
Archive through 09 January 2002
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 09:48 am |        | Hi, Dean:
Thanks for your response. I will look forward to your later message hopefully providing the name of author who states there was a witness who found Stride's body before Louis Diemschutz came along.
Best wishes
Chris George |
Author: Dean Proudfoot
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 07:03 am | | Dear Chris,
It's groveling apology time, I'm afraid. At last, I found the relevant book and it was 'The Mammoth Book of Jack The Ripper'. So, the Gilleman/Turnbull issue snared another naive reader. Sorry.
On re-reading Mr Turnbull's assertions, it is hardly surprising. He does not seem to be expressing an opinion about the actual discoverer of Stride's body, he states it as fact using the Times and inquest report as his sources. He is also quite scathing regarding the inability of previous authors to reach the same conclusion.
I took Paul Begg's lead and read the archive exchanges he suggested but still saw no definitive evidence to contradict Mr Turnbull's assertions. As the identity of the very first person to find Stride is now crucial to eliminating the 'Diary' as fiction, does anyone have this information? At present I feel I am missing some facts that everyone else is aware of. (Not for the first time).
Thanks for your patience,
Dean. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 08:45 am | | Hi, Dean:
Thanks for the clarification. As Paul Begg has indicated the "Gilleman" sighting of the body seems to be a false report.
Chris |
Author: Mark List
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 03:15 pm | | I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, but I do know that I would be "the odd man out" if I asked on the Maybrick diary board.
Could someone please give me an update on the Diary and handwriting issue? I read somewhere that there is a match with the handwriting. Could someone please help me out?
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 03:31 pm | | Hi Mark,
Very good question. I think I can help, but first I was wondering where you have read that there might now be a handwriting match? This is sort of a sensitive subject around here, since we've been told by some of those who have seen the alleged "new samples" of a certain someone's handwriting that we're really not supposed to talk about it (all very hush hush, and all that, you know, harrumph).
Of course, I have no idea why all the secrecy and why the small, selectively chosen and privileged few insiders and why the apparent lack of analysis by experts and why the cliquish little hints on the boards have all been necessary. But strange indeed are the ways of some.
And curiously enough, those individuals who had at one point been listed here as having seen the new samples have now all, one by one and without exception, explicitly withdrawn from discussing the diary or anything at all about who might have written it.
Curiouser and curiouser...
Anyway, if you let me know what you've heard and where, I will let you know what I know, even though I'm not supposed to talk about it anymore...
Yours and, with you, still on the outside looking in,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 03:36 pm | | Mark,
Some people feel that handwriting has been matched. The person who owns the samples of handwriting is unable or unwilling to come forward with the information at this time. So the answer to your question would be: depends on who you ask. All the information currently available about who the man is and what his link is to the diary is on the Maybrick Diary board. There isn't anyone here who can help more than that. In the interests of saving space, it would be best to read it first before asking John any questions. There isn't all that much more to be gained that can't be read there.
Ally |
Author: Mark List
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 03:50 pm | | Algeria and John,
Thanks for the input.
John,
I had read about the match on the Maybrick Diary Board and I can't remember the name of the person who's handwriting matched the writing (Trent or Dent or something of that sort.) However; Awhile back, When I first found the board, I was 95% sure that Maybrick was the Ripper. Now, I don't, but I have long felt, as most I'm sure, that the Diary has a genuine intensity to it that a forgery "appears" unlikely.
But, that's the magic of a great forgery.
I would just like to be able "put to rest" my feelings towards the Diary--if a forgery: Fine. But, having study a bit of psychology, I find the Diary compelling, to say the least.
I do not want, when discussing the Ripper on the Board or elsewhere, to make a fool of myself with the wrong or outdated information. Thus, my interest in where the Beast Lies now with the Diary.
Cheers,
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 04:01 pm | | Hi again, Mark,
Oh what the heck. I'll just tell you anyway. (Our posts just crossed.)
About two months ago, over on the diary board, Peter Birchwood announced the existence of new handwriting samples from a certain Mr. Kane, a signed witness on Tony D's will. (You see, some people already thought that the Kane-written signature and address on the will looked a little like the writing in the diary, although this was a very tiny sample and, as far as I know, it was never submitted to any experts for any analysis and no one had ever linked this Mr. Kane guy to the Barretts or to the diary or even had any evidence that he had ever even met Mike or knew Mike even existed or that poor Mr. Kane knew anything at all about any diary or about James Maybrick or Jack the Ripper. Still, he had signed Tony's will and Mike and Anne once said that Tony gave Mike the diary and someone thought Mr. Kane's scrawl might maybe look a little like the diary writing (you can see some posts over on the Diary board where I've posted individual .jpgs of words written on the will by Kane that also appear in the diary ["Liverpool" and "place"] and decide for yourself if they look even similar). And then, when someone went to ask him about the diary one time, he acted "nervous." So that was apparently good enough to make him a suspect, I guess.)
Anyway, Peter mentioned there were now new samples of Kane's handwriting available, although we weren't allowed to see them here on the boards for some reason. Then Karoline Leach posted a message saying that not only did these new samples exist, but the "consensus" among the chosen people who had been allowed to see them was that it "now" looked "very possible that Kane could have written the diary."
Of course, many of us were very curious to know who was in this little consensus that had decided that this was what the new samples revealed. After much prodding, Karoline finally named herself, Peter Birchwood, Melvin Harris, and ("perhaps" she said) RJ Palmer (oh, and some "unnamed others" she also said).
Now, as I mentioned before, all of those people -- Peter, Karoline, RJ, and Melvin -- have suddenly stopped discussing the diary entirely.
And we do not know who has the alleged new samples, and we do not know how large they are, and we do not know why we can't see them here, and we do not know what they really demonstrate , and we do not know if they have ever been analyzed or even seen by any expert whatsoever, and we do not know their future or what plans there are for them.
And we do not know why we do not know any of this.
But other than that, we know all about them. 
As you can see, as of yet they cannot be considered evidence of anything at all and their credibility as evidence remains seriously in doubt until they have been released, authenticated, examined and discussed.
And still no one has been able to link poor Mr. Kane to Mike or to the research, composition or dissemination of this diary in any way whatsoever.
Perhaps this is the new "match" you have read about somewhere.
--John |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 07:04 pm | | In defense of some of those who withdrew from the discussion, they withdrew after being asked the same questions over and over even after they demonstrated that, regardless of whether the topic should have been introduced or not, they were unable/unwilling to give any more information. There is no conspiracy of silence.
The Maybrick Diary board is rather silent of late and the proper place to continue this conversation, if it must be continued.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 07:31 pm | | Hi Ally,
I thought this was the Maybrick board.
Or did you want us to go over to the diary board?
And to be fair and precise, Karoline withdrew allegedly because she thought she was being grievously insulted and personally mistreated, Melvin withdrew without answering any of the questions about the forgers he was asked on the diary board, because he said he had no interest in fingering any forgers and besides, all the "useful and valid" information that existed was already available on screen, and Peter simply stopped reading certain posters' writing for several different stated personal reasons. Perhaps RJ's specific reasons for withdrawing might approach those you have offered above -- he can tell us either way -- but the others offered different words in print.
And it is a fact that the people who have now withdrawn from even discussing the diary are the very ones listed as having seen the samples and the ones who at one time or another here thought (and still think) that Mike and/or Anne were complicit in this forgery, but who demonstrably could not make a reliable or thorough evidentiary case against them.
I draw no conclusions here, but I do insist on carrying with me a healthy skepticism concerning things publicly hinted at, implied, and then withdrawn from consideration. And I politely suggest that all thoroughly careful and responsible scholars do the same in the face of that which people mention, announce the results of, and then remove from the conversation entirely, for whatever reason.
All I have ever said is that these samples cannot yet be considered as evidence of anything at all. And, given the fact that the writer/suspect in question remains completely and utterly unlinked to this diary or to those who presented it to the world, this new alleged "evidence" must remain highly suspect and dubious until it is properly analyzed and the findings of that expert analysis are carefully scrutinized.
But if you meant we should take this to the Diary board, I'll be happy to meet, over on that board, anyone that might still be interested in how this investigation is now being conducted.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 07:35 pm | | This is the Suspects board. Its purpose is to discuss the Suspect James Maybrick. My further answer to your post is on the Maybrick Diary board.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 07:40 pm | | Hi Ally,
Cool. I'll go there.
(But you changed the last sentence of your earlier post, I think. When I first read it, it just said "the Maybrick board" was rather quiet of late and we should go there. Sorry for the misunderstanding.)
--John |
Author: Porritt
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 08:27 pm | | Greetings all -
Despite the rather intriguing tangeant of the JtR (fictional) Diary, I'm still fascinated with the forger's decision to pin the crimes on Maybrick.
Can anyone tell me how much of a suspect Maybrick was pre-Barrett?
Porritt. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 11:16 pm | | Hi, Porritt:
James Maybrick was never a suspect before the Diary.
Chris |
Author: Porritt
Monday, 02 July 2001 - 06:05 pm | | Thanks Chris -
Ye Gods! A straight answer in the midst of the JtR tangle! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 04:04 am | | If the real Jack ever stands up, many here on the boards believe he will be someone who was never suspected.
Like you, Porritt, I'd love to know how the germ of an idea to paint Maybrick as the ripper began life.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 09:23 am | | Hi, Caz and Porritt:
It is indeed a mystery where the forger came up with the idea of making James Maybrick the Whitechapel murderer. However, as Melvin Harris has noted, the two cases were almost contemporaneous and are often mentioned together in books published since 1889. I was looking recently at yet another text that mentioned the Trial of Mrs. Maybrick and Jack the Ripper in the same sentence. It is one of a number of books that bracket the two cases together. However, the Diary appears to be unique in being the first known piece of writing to make Mr. Maybrick the Ripper and not just a hapless murder victim.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 09:40 am | | True, Chris. Furthermore the cases appeared in the newspapers at the same time. When researching Alice McKenzie's inquest in The Times last summer, (believed by most people at the time to be a Ripper murder), I found the Maybrick case being reported extensively in the same issues from July 1889. In fact, on some days the cases were reported on the very same page. One wonders whether our forgers had ever seen copies of old newspapers. After all, microfilm copies of The Times in particular are widely available in public libraries across the country.
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 10:11 am | | Hi, Viper:
Excellent point about the newspapers of the day mentioning the cases in the same issues. Also, as you noted, the public and indeed police perception was that the Whitechapel murders encompassed more murders than the canonical five and the common view was that the murder series went on into 1889.
Naturally, James Maybrick could not have killed Alice McKenzie because he was by then already dead. However, your point that a modern forger might have seen the two cases together in old newspapers, and that this may have given him or her the idea of giving Maybrick the mantle of Jack, is well taken.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: sandy haines
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 09:05 pm | | | Mark (June 11) are you still there? I think we could be kindred spirits. Of course there are doubts about Maybrick being Saucy Jack, but the diary is a wonderous piece - be it fiction or non-fiction. I am not a know-all, be-all expert on Jack, but I found this "diary" one of the best theories I have read, and I have read a few. I find it fascinating to theorize that someone addicted to arsenic {laughing at death daily by inviting it and even becoming addicted to it, and finally not being able to survive without it} could be considered even remotely capable of being THE most famous serial killer in history. Is it any harder to believe than a man who kills because God spoke to him through a dog? Or that not one, but two religious leaders could take their followers into death - two men the world never heard of before their infamous acts. Why does the being capable of committing such hideous crimes {even more so considering the time they occurred - long before the world became jaded by movies showing such gruesome crimes on a daily basis} have to be delegated to someone famous {the royals theory}. Also, we seem to be so engrossed in the child abuse theory for present day serial killers, would it not be possible for a being with such hatred of women to be the husband of an unfaithful wife. What better way to learn hatred of women than to be so awfully betrayed {or at least perceived so} by one? Do I really believe Maybrick did it? Maybe. Maybe not, but it is a wonderous diary; and who is ever entirely truthful in their diary? |
Author: Porritt
Tuesday, 03 July 2001 - 10:05 pm | | It appears obvious to me that the Diary was created after 1988; there is too much historical fact included in the Diary that was undiscovered before that time. . .
But why did the creator choose Maybrick?? Chris is right - the two are mentioned (at least in passing - not as a direct link) in several references. I have just grabbed a copy of Abrahamsen's "Murder and Madness" - the linking element between Maybrick and JtR was the Stephen clan. James Fitzjames Stephen was the judge in charge of the trial of Flo Maybrick and his son, James Kenneth Stephen was the tutor of the duke of Clarence who was an outsider in the stakes to be the real JtR. The link is tenuous at best. But it may have been enough of a reference point to get our Diary creator doing some research. And let's face it, go off on enough tangeants in this murky case and you can find justification for nearly ANYone being JtR!
Time for another gin.
And a shot of arsenic. . .
Porritt. |
Author: Kevin Mitchell
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 03:37 pm | | I have just begun delving deeply into the Jack the Ripper case and am therefore reading Sugden's `The Complete History. . .' which, I am given to understand, is by far the best book on the subject.
Can anyone explain to me why Maybrick is so popular a suspect in view of Sugden's dismissal of `The Ripper Diary' as `an impudent fake' and with it him as any kind of contender?
Having spent a good twenty hours so far perusing the Casebook I have yet to read anything to convince me that Sugden is wrong in his assessment. What other evidence is there to support Maybrick being The Ripper? |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 04:17 pm | | Kevin,
One of the reasons that Maybrick is a popular suspect is because he's "new".
No one ever had a a lot of information on the Ripper in 1888, so he, technically, could have been anyone.
Having the Diary and The Watch around and the ongoing controversy surrounding it's origin keeps Maybrick alive as a suspect.
However, it should be noted that anyone who was suspected as the Ripper (then or today) has the unfortunate curse of remaining a suspect indefinitely.
I, for one, don't believe the Diary or Watch were written/created by James Maybrick, however, I do have an interest in where and when these items were made.
Did whoever create them feel that Maybrick WAS the Ripper, was this their way of "proving" that he was? Or did they do just to start controversy?
IS the watch really "tens of years old"? if so then who made ...Blah, Blah, blah, etc. etc.
Cheers,
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 04:17 pm | | Hi Kevin,
There is no evidence. And the Diary itself cannot be classed as evidence unless someone could prove it to be a genuine confession by James Maybrick. Even if he had written it, it would not mean he was the ripper.
Happy reading.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kevin Mitchell
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 06:53 pm | | For Maybrick to remain such a popular suspect, either a lot of those with an interest in the case have yet to read Sugden's book, or they dispute its reputation.
As Mark and Caz say between them (thanks!), the diary - authentic or otherwise - proves neither Maybrick's guilt or innocence, but it does make him stand out somewhat from the anonymity of the countless potential suspects.
Since Sugden's mentioning of Maybrick begins and ends with his brief refutation of the diary, did he see - in researching such an exhaustive work - no reason to persue that particular line of inquiry?
If the author of the definitive work on the case can make such an error (if it is such), what hope is there for the rest of us? |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 09:11 pm | | Hi Kevin,
I think Maybrick is a popular suspect for the same reasons that the pet rock and polyester pantsuits were popular..because people are insane.
Nice website, 
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 03:30 am | | Hi Ally, Kevin,
If you could find a way of making your average reader, who doesn't have quite the same interest in the case as we do, select Sugden from the bookshelves instead of The Diary, maybe Maybrick wouldn't be the popular suspect he has become.
It's a fairly common phenomenon for the population as a whole to be grabbed by whatever appeals to them on the surface, and stick with it, rather than to dig too deep, lest their initial impressions, expectations and desires turn out to be pie in the sky. If they want to believe Jack confessed in a diary, because it draws a line under the mystery for them, they'll put the book down and never read another ripper one. I don't think that makes them insane. Otherwise you could say exactly the same about those who too quickly opt for the modern forgery, by two people whose handwriting is no more like that of the diary than Maybrick's, and will continue to believe it, because it draws a line under the diary mystery for them.
And don't forget that average readers around the world (Ally's insane people  ) far outnumber us superior ripperfolk.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kevin Mitchell
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 05:16 am | | Caz
I'm not sure that doing what, to me, seems the obvious thing, i.e. reading Sugden, sets me among the `superior ripperfolk'. However, having an interest in the case and not reading it is rather like being a Christian and not reading The Bible, etc. And who would do that? J
Kevin |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 07:17 am | | Hi Kevin,
A whole lot of people actually - those who are interested in mysterious finds or forgeries in general, or the Maybrick diary and watch in particular, without really wanting to get to know every last word on the JtR case. People may read the bible and become a Christian or not, according to whether they believe what they are reading. Many people will read one ripper book and believe it solves the case, without bothering to read any more. And that will be the extent of their interest. It all depends which book was the first to tickle their fancy.
My reaction to the diary was that I wanted to know more about everything - not just the ripper, but the Maybricks, forgeries and all the people involved, in whatever capacity. This just seemed the obvious thing for me to do at the time. I'm not even sure I understand it myself.
But what's obvious to you or me is not necessarily obvious to others.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kevin Mitchell
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 07:52 pm | | Hi Caz
People may read The Bible and become a Christian (or not), just as people may read a Ripper book and swell the ranks of the Ripperfolk. But as The Bible is to Christianity so - as far as I am aware - Sugden is to Ripperology. Of course, one can profess to be a Christian or a Ripperperson without knowledge of either publication, but with how much credibility, or even conviction?
Love
Kevin |
Author: D L Lewis
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 12:08 am | | | It's been a while since I've been to the boards, so to those who won't remember me - Hi again. Just re-read Paul Feldman's book, and then Melvyn Harris' on Donston. I have some ideas, which I would like personally to discuss with Feldman (I enjoyed his book greatly - as I did Harris'). Is he still interested in this type of stuff? Meanwhile, one of the conclusions of the diary is that Maybrick's handwriting was 'confoundingly variable'. Which, as the will and the marriage certificate, and various other letters have shown to be correct. This suggests to me a strong prima facie case for inclusion of Maybrick as a viable suspect. |
Author: Daniel Lynn Hollifield
Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 01:02 pm | | Greetings & salutations,
For the last few days I've been re-visiting this website after a long absence. I used to hang about here in the *very* old days of the Casebook. Its nice to see that the current crop of Casebook Ripperologists are some very impressive minds. Y'all are having some very interesting discussions. Thanks for many great hours of reading.
Now to the point of my needing to speak; It was earlier asked why Maybrick continues on as a suspect in light of the arguements over the diary's origin. I think that as a writer of fiction, I can partly explain James Maybrick's continuing appeal.
The short version is that the Maybrick/ripper *story* is so entertaining that it has an appeal of its own. The longer version is that Maybrick's life and the diary/watch are rather good elements that one's imagination may freely play upon. This is like some homework assignment for a creative writing class; "Take this outline and this character and write a mystery." Whether or not the story has any basis in fact, it automatically "feels" real in a dramatic sense. So people latch onto it. JM makes a great Ripper- dramatically speaking. What real evidence anyone could find becomes totally beside the point, irrelivant. The story is so good that it takes up a life of its own, like an urban legend.
Actually, the story is so good that it makes me wonder how many facts could actually be tied to it.
In any case, that's just my opinion as a fiction writer.
Dan |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 03:17 pm | | Hi, Dan:
Welcome back to the site. Could I ask that you kindly go over to the "Re-evaluation" board and tell Peter Wood, as several of us are gently trying to persuade him, that the Diary is a work of fiction?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 04:31 am | | Hi All,
Here are all the messages posted since 7th October:
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 29 October 2001 - 06:38 pm
Christopher
Be sure that your postings will find you out.
And to all those naughty people who swallowed Melvyn Harris' nonsense about Mr 'Kane'or as Paul Feldman would have it Mr 'Cain'.
Apparently Melvyn accused Mr Cain of 'going missing' around the time that the diary came to London. Paul Feldman did Melvyn's research for him - Cain did not go missing, he suffered a debilitating illness which meant he could neither go up nor down stairs.
As PHF put it "It would not be the only time Harris could consider himself fortunate not to be sued"
Why on earth are you discussing Cain as a suspect when Paul Feldman conclusively knocked Melvyn's little theory on the head many years ago?
G'night.
Peter.
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 29 October 2001 - 09:18 pm
Hi, Peter:
The samples of writing by Gerard Kane shown at the mini-summit on the Diary in Oxford on October 2 showed that Kane might have written the Diary, so he is not in the clear as a suspect as the penman of the Diary. As noted on the pub thread a couple of days ago, I have been making enquiries about making the better of the two samples public. But please continue with your fantasy that James Maybrick wrote the Diary by all means.
Best regards
Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 30 October 2001 - 03:22 am
Hi Peter,
I don't think Melvin has ever publicly accused Gerard Kane. He has stated in public that Anne and Mike were handlers/placers of a document forged by others, and conceded that the diary handwriting isn't theirs. But we have no way of knowing at present whether these were facts Melvin picked up from the mysterious journalist(s), or whether it was a bit of guesswork, based on what else he picked up - possibly concerning the possibly much-maligned citizen Kane.
As far as I'm concerned, there is little difference between accusing Maybrick and accusing the various modern players, when the evidence is either insufficient, or being sat on, or both.
And so the saga goes on, and the diary books continue to sell, and this site fills up with great reams of diary posts (for me to send to Keith Skinner, who, poor soul, is still struggling to find the evidence he needs to put the diary out of its misery, which in turn will free up the boards for something more constructive).
But no one seems to care, Peter, and I get a mouthful every time I suggest that those who hate the subject the most, and claim to know the truth, expect others to get off their ass and kill it off for them.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 12:00 pm | | Dear Caz,
You got your pretty foot in the door...just in time.
Is this a conspiracy?
Rosey. |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 09:20 pm | | Oh! What beauty to delight the eyes.
What strawberry perfection, what vanilla confection!
And all things sugar and spice.
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 02:59 am | | Sounds so good, David, I could eat it myself. What is it? 
Good to see everyone back.
Love,
Conspiratorial Caz |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 10:04 am | | I only get the time to come to this board occasionally. I'll try to do better in the future. I want to weed through the thousands of previous posts, and find some of the information I seek. I have asked these questions a couple times, but unless I missed it, don't yet have an answer. Simply put:
1. I know there are many pieces of circumstantial evidence which make the diary look like a hoax. There are piece of circumstantial evidence which make it seem real. Is there one piece of hard evidence that it is either a recent or old forgery? I don't mean problems with it, or things which make it seem like a fake, but downright not-afraid-to-take-it-to-court evidence? Of course, a lack of this doesn't mean it is real, but it would sure simplify my thinking.
2. If the diary is a hoax, is Maybrick still a suspect? Or, is there something which excludes him?
3. What are the best books and/or articles available on JTP and/or the diary right now?
The JTR story may never be solved, and as each year passes we get farther and farther away from the events, making the truth more evasive.
I hope you don't mind my asking for an encapsulation. I may never catch up, but this seems the best way to start.
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 01:03 pm | | Hi Rich,
1. I don't believe there is any 'downright not-afraid-to-take-it-to-court evidence' because for every expert in the various fields that has been asked to examine the diary and has given their professional opinion up pops another who gives a conflicting or downright not-afraid-to-state opposite one. (This is not the case with the watch scratches though. The two independent specialists here both thought the scratches were decades old.)
2. I think we need to know why Maybrick was chosen for a hoax of this kind. There is no known reason why anyone would have suspected him if it hadn't been for the diary.
3. I'll let others give their opinions on the best literature available.
It will be odd if in 100 years' time the diary is still a mystery and its author ranks alongside Jack himself for his ability to remain anonymous and out of reach.
Love,
Caz
PS And of course no one minds you asking for an encapsulation. If I knew what it was I'd give you mine. |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 02:29 pm | | Caz,
Thanks for writing! While the lack of evidence to refute the diary beyond doubt doesn't mean it is genuine, I am nonetheless fascinated by the fact that, if it is a hoax, it is certainly well done enough to linger on -- unlike other modern hoaxes (Hitler, et al). In history, when it comes down to proof, it is more often easier to prove something could not have happened than to prove that it did. This certainly bucks the trend.
I agree, if the diary is a hoax, then Maybrick had to have been checked out rather thoroughly before it was written. After all, anti-diarists usually look to the journal itself when they make their arguments against it (paper, handwriting, provenance, etc.) rather than to point out why Maybrick could NOT have committed the crimes. JM's whereabouts were better known than most of the suspects, some of whom have already been cleared due to their location at the time of one or more murders. So, whatever the final disposition of the diary, so far it doesn't appear Maybrick has been cleared --- no alibi.
Some of the arguments against the diary are strong. Others appear to be fuzzy. Some critics point to the pages being cut out of the diary as an indicator that it was forged. Okay, I can certainly see how someone would buy a semi-used journal, cut out pages, and use the rest. The critics say "Maybrick could certainly afford a new journal". However, I can picture Maybrick deciding to write his thoughts down while still in the throes of his latest episode, and not really feeling like going down to the local stationary shop to buy a new book. These were moments of passion, not deliberation. Also, anyone clever enough to forge the diary would be clever enough to find one not yet written in. IMHO.
Ditto the provenance. It sucks. A clever hoaxer, I would think, would have done a better job.
These points do not support it being genuine, not at all. But they aren't, in my humble opinion, the strongest arguments against the diary.
A hundred years from now? I'm wondering what we'll think next week!
Rich |
|
|
|
|
