|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 13 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Maybrick, James:
Archive through 13 January 2002
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 05:48 pm |        | Hi Rich,
Just a quickie for now.
I agree that it's a poor argument that Maybrick would have bought a posh new journal just because he could afford to, instead of using the blank pages of that scrapbook we've all come to know and be annoyed by. (And the same critics will say that it isn't Victorian anyway, which rather renders the other argument pointless!  ) Since when have people of means always bought things according to those means? My dad would never have spent good money on a book for his own private use all the while he had scrap paper or blank pages in any old book he could find at home or get dirt cheap at the local bring and buy sale.
Love,
Caz |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 08:20 pm | | | If it was a hoax it would only have meaning now with all this interest.If Maybrick wrote it he was a nut case reaching for another pill (in and out of sanity).After you've proved it one way or the other you still don't know whether he was the ripper or not.Some people have thought themselves to be Jesus or the Marquis de Sade, and probable made a good case for it.A lot of sound and fury---. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 12:06 am | | | Rich/Caz-- This doesn't 'buck the trend.' It's a far more incompetent hoax than the Hitler Diaries, Piltdown, etc. it's just that this is Ripperology so every weird theory seems to stay airborn. To prove your point, please give me an alibi for: D'Onston, Tumblety, Chapman, Barnett, Hutchison, Jame Kelly, Francis Thompson, Ostrog, Kosminksi, etc. etc. Any which one will do. I hear my comrade Peter Wood voicing this same argument. It's not a good one. Cheers, RP |
Author: Chris Farris
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 01:22 am | | Howdy all,
I'm a newbie with a stupid question. Please forgive. The question is: Is there a possibility that the diary could be a quite old flight of fancy? Something created by an imaginative journalist of the day? Someone who would know the facts about both the Maybrick and the Ripper cases? Again, please forgive the impertinence. Ya'll know much more than I, I'm sure.
Thanks,
Chris |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 08:01 am | | Dear RJP,
I cannot give you an alibi for those other suspects. I'm not suggesting that not having an alibi makes you a suspect. Thousands of people could have been JTR if that were the case.
True, Maybrick was never considered before the diary, but now that he is here, can he be excluded?
You say that this is a more incompetent hoax than others in modern times. Yet, no one answers the first question I posed, and the most important --- what makes it a fake?
I want to be clear that I am not saying it is genuine. I see problems with it. However, I haven't heard the one piece of damning evidence that can make me exclude it. In history -- indeed, in most research -- it remains a possibility until it is proved impossible. Doesn't mean I accept it as genuine, just that I cannot toss it completely aside.
If someone can give me that piece of evidence I'm more than happy to set Maybrick aside and move on. I'm sifting through the literature, but there's a lot of it. This board alone could eat up months. I have a lot by Melvin Harris, but most of it is ranting and raving about others, and I must be missing the most important pieces of his work on the subject.
Why do you believe the diary to be a hoax?
Just as an aside to David: I think it unlikely that Maybrick wrote it if he was not JTR. Not impossible, but whomever wrote it had first hand knowledge of great many details, either through action (if genuine) or later research (if a hoax).
What a lot of fun!
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 09:27 am | | Rich--The handwriting makes it a fake. It doesn't match Maybrick's. It doesn't match 'the Dear Boss' letter. If I took this to court you wouldn't be able to find a document examiner that would risk their reputation by stating that the handwriting was genuine. In any other scholarly field, a questionable document is thrown in the wastebasket when it is proven that the handwriting doesn't match. Why are you unwilling to do so here?
Cheers, RP.
PS. By the way, there's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. Many, many court cases are decided on circumstantial evidence. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to take the arguments against the diary's authenticity into a court room. For instance, the diarist claims he left MJK's breasts on the table. This was the standard line in newspapers and Ripper books for years. Yet a document surfaced in the late 1980s showing that they were in fact under the head and the right foot. In other words, the diarist wasn't at the crime scene. Why wouldn't this convince you?
But let me ask you the same question. Would you be willing to argue in court that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper? Can you link the diary to him? Can you show it is in his handwriting? Can you place him in Whitechapel on the nights of the murders? Can you show the ink is authentic? Can you show that the text of the diary is accurate? [For instance, was there a Mrs. Hammersmith or murders in Manchester?] Let's not talk about 'excluding' a 'suspect'. A suspect means that there is suspicion. What makes you suspect James Maybrick? Best wishes. |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 10:24 am | | | R.J. Thanks for this post.It couldn't have been said better.After all of this verbosity, the question still remains(did Maybrick write the diary and was he really Jack the Ripper.I think he probably thought so and directed his frustration with his wife into this scenario. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 11:19 am | | Hi, David:
Yes but it is a rather contrived scenario, that a man would take revenge on his wife by murdering prostitutes 200 miles away, isn't it? If Maybrick had wanted to direct his frustation about his wife, there were more direct ways of going about it. I am from Liverpool, and I can tell you that at that time, 1888, Liverpool was a thriving seaport with plenty of prostitutes. Why go all the way to London to kill? The only reason I can think for making Maybrick go those 200 miles to kill those prostitutes would be because someone, for some reason, wanted Maybrick to be the Ripper and thus wrote a hoax Diary purportedly written by him.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 01:54 pm | | | Chris; Yes it is contrived,but so is all this discussion to some extent.By the way, and I know it is out of place here,I was reading Harris' book 'The T F of JTR' :"With his nerves stretched to screaming, strident police whistles adrenalized him"--In the"Ultimate JTR", City Police constable said about whistles-"He did not sound a whistle, because they did not carry whistles.The watchman did whistle". Did the Metropolitan police carry whistles while the City ones did not? |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 02:06 pm | | | Chris; afterthought. Anne Graham's book, recommemded by K. Skinner ,"The First Victim", is an exercise in contriviality.I can't believe after the prior books about Florence Maybrick( "Etched in Arsenic' and 'The poisoned life of Florence Maybrick)that this was published unless it had an ulterior motive-a contrived one-that she kept her mouth shut at the risk of hanging to protect the character of Maybrick was "Jack". |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 02:55 pm | | Dear RP,
First, and most important, your reply reads as if I have indicated an unwillingness to accept evidence, or to accept logical arguments, neither of which is true. Your questions "Why are you unwilling to do so here?" and "Why wouldn't this convince you" sound like you are frustrated with someone who won't listen. That's not the case. All my posts say that I am not only willing to listen to any evidence, I am asking for just that.
The handwriting has always been a strong argument against the diary, but I have read conflicting cases, and to this point it has seemed inconclusive. In fact, that's just the kind of evidence I am asking for --- has the handwriting been conclusively proven not to be that of James Maybrick? If so, then you have the case proven lock, stock and barrel. I have seen arguments for and against, though. This is something I am trying to find out more about. So, I am not unwilling to accept the evidence, I just don't know where to find it.
As to the breasts being in the wrong place, you ask why this wouldn't convince me. Simply because until I read your post I had seen no information about the breasts being in the wrong place. This would be a very strong case against the diary. Has this been proven?
I'm not looking to prove it genuine, or even to argue against the anti-diary case. I just want to know.
I would not take the case to court with the evidence at hand, if I had to prove the diary genuine. Nor would I want to go to court against it at this point. I don't have enough facts, and that was the purpose of my post - to get them, particulary from those who believe the diary to be a hoax, whether a recent hoax or an old one. It is easy to get reasons why people think it is genuine - strong reasons and weak ones. I asked for the "one damning piece of evidence against" because I saw this as the best way to get hard facts rather than opinion. Based on your response, I think it worked. I have asked it four other times on this board, but you were the first to come back with evidence, and not just conjecture or speculation.
My reason for including James Maybrick as a suspect is the diary. Without it there would be no reason to have looked at him in the first place, on that I agree. However, looking at his life indicates at least a possibility that he could be JTR, albeit without the diary a very slim chance, but enough to see if he can be excluded. His life, loves, and circumstances surrounding his death indicate the need for at least a look. Once he is in the picture, why not check it out, and at least see if he can be completely excluded? Just to cover the bases.
Thanks RP. If you can steer me toward the information (handwriting, breasts) you brought up, I'd be grateful. There so much to go through, and no time.
I just picked up the ULTIMATE JACK THE RIPPER COMPANION. Quite a nice piece of comtemporary material!
Rich |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 03:18 pm | | | Rich:About the breasts look on p.346 of "The Ultimate JTR Companion.Par. 2. |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 03:35 pm | | David - Page 346 in my edition has just a few letters (end of chapter 15), not the material about the breasts. There are probably different pressings and the page counts don't quite match. I'll look through the material surrounding that killing and I'm sure I'll find it somewhere here. Thanks!
Rich |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 04:22 pm | | | Rich; This material is in chapter 18 under the report of Doctor Bond. Why is your edition different from mine?-hardback or paperback-. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 04:54 pm | | Rich--Hello. Don't get me wrong, I'm not being cranky; here's the evidence you want. Judge for yourself. See the left side of your screen? Click on the white "Back to the Casebook". When there, go to "Documents". About the third document down you will find Dr. Bond's Report on Mary Kelly. The passage in question reads:
"The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table."
Now go back and look in the Maybrick diary and see how the diarist describes the murder scene.
As for the handwriting. Three seperate forensic experts studied the handwriting, and all three came to the conclusion it was not Maybrick's. They compared it to Maybrick's will and his wedding certificate. You'll have to look this up in the books by Kenneth Rendell or Joe Nickell, if you want details. I don't understand your comment that there were any conflicting reports about this. There is a graphologist by the name of Anna Koren that looked at the Maybrick diary and said it was written by a disturbed man, but she didn't compare the handwriting with Maybrick's will or with the Dear Boss letter. If you go back to the Casebook, you might also wish to click on "Ripper Letters" and view an enlarged version of the 'Dear Boss' letter. Judge for yourself if you think it matches the diary's handwriting. I believe if you look, you can find Maybrick's will as well. The handwriting is entirely different.
The confusing part of the Maybrick "debate" is that many of its most passionate supporters quietly admit that they believe that it is a hoax; while those that would swear on their mother's grave that it is a recent forgery, are reluctant to suggest that Mike Barrett or Anne Graham are complicit in the forgery. It's a crazy scene, really. RP |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 09:12 pm | | David - My edition is paperback (Carroll & Graf 2001). I see that there is an earlier UK edition (2000), so that could be it.
RP - Thanks for the direction. I cannot point to the exact writing tonight (I borrowed more of my JTR material than I bought over the lest few years), but it suggested that the differences in handwriting were not that severe, and/or could be the results of a separate personality of the same person being involved. I will review everything, thanks! The handwriting is a strong argument against.
It does seem odd that someone would be a supporter of the diary publicly, and privately dismiss it. Of course, there could be financial interests involved which color some comments - I don't know, of course, because I don't know of whom you speak. As to those who swear it is a recent forgery but don't see MB or AG as active participants, I have less trouble understanding this. Neither MB nor AG, if my information is correct, really tried to push the diary consistently or forcefully. Mike Barrett seemingly couldn't even decide his own activity or his own opinion about it. If it is a recent forgery, they seem more like tools than craftsmen. If it is an older forgery, then the possibilities are fascinating.
Thanks again.
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 11:34 am | | Rich--Just a couple of observations & then I'll leave you alone to conduct your own line of reasoning and research.
Sometime when you're in a larger-sized library check out Joe Nickell's book on forgery and look at the Maybrick display inside. If you still believe that the differences in the handwriting samples are "not that severe", I'll be greatly surprised. The point is three highly respected forensic document examiners indepedently concluded that the diary's writing is not Maybrick's. I would have to say that really ends the matter.
Suppose I came up to you and tried to sell you a journal written in an old clippings album. I claim it was written by Charles Dickens. You take the journal to a forensic document examiner and she tells you it clearly wasn't written by Dickens. What would you think if I tried to explain this away by saying that Dickens had a "split personality"? What would your reaction be? Perhaps that it was a rather lame excuse?
This is clearly the case with the Maybrick Diary. We know quite a lot about James Maybrick. He had a very active social life in Liverpool. He was under the care of several physicians. He was a successful businessman, and had countless business contacts. There is nothing in the known life of the real James Maybrick that suggests that he had the rare and controversial condition of 'multiple personality disorder'. When his widow was on trial for her life, Maybrick's physicians took the stand. Surely if they suspected him of having psychological problems, this was the time to speak up. They didn't. There is really nothing to suggest that Maybrick was anything other than just a typical businessman that overmedicated himself. It's a common type. But since he kicked the bucket in 1889, someone apparently thought he'd make an interesting Ripper candidate, along with the hundreds of others that have been suggested.
Considering the diary isn't in Maybrick's handwriting, and the diarist gets the Kelly murder scene wrong, I'd suggest to you that the diary is a fairly obvious fake. Best wishes, RP |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 12:15 pm | | RP - I'm about 95% on the handwriting, subject to seeing it for myself again, and anything that may come up in the future (History never ends). The Mary Kelly scene is compelling, but not as much as the handwriting. I would say that it tips the scales, and it now become incumbent on the pro-diary front to find a way that this COULD be the handwriting of Maybrick somehow. That's the 5%.
It makes one wonder: Why would someone go to the lengths they did, the research and the detail, the effort and the time, of creating the diary, when it had to be known that Maybrick's handwriting was documented and available? Whether you believe the diary to be genuine or hoax, you have to see that a great deal of work went into this. To do it, and ignore what has to be the most compelling evidence against it being Maybrick's - the penmanship itself - seems inconsistent.
Thanks again. We now return you to your regularly scheduled arguments. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 12:18 pm | | Hi Rich,
The breasts issue has been argued to death but RJ didn't mention one small thing that may or may not be of interest to you. The diary does indeed have Maybrick saying that he left the breasts on the table, which does require an explanation because the murderer, of all people, ought to have known where he put them and that the newspapers he read afterwards got it wrong. But later in the diary, in a line that was struck out, we see that he 'thought of leaving them by the whores feet'.
Two small questions arise that have yet to be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Did a hoaxer (ancient or modern) get the idea to connect Mary Kelly's breasts with her feet out of thin air? If so, why did it even enter his head to offer an imagined alternative position, if everything he had read quite specifically and only referred to the breasts being placed on the table? And (sorry, three small questions), what were the chances of picking her feet (could have been better phrased), or any other part of her anatomy for that matter, out of all the possible places in that room other than the table? And if the hoaxer didn't pluck the idea for this peculiar line out of thin air, but had maybe seen the Bond report and was in some confusion about which source was correct, or whether it had even been established beyond doubt (sorry, four small questions! ), why mention the breasts at all? There was plenty to write about and make into funny little rhymes without them. And it wasn't as if he was even covering his back and giving himself a 50-50 chance with the way he introduced both alternatives. I could at least understand if he'd put something about the reports confusing him and that he wasn't sure now whether he'd put them by her feet or on the table. But it makes no sense to offer both alternatives as security but come down 100% on one of them actually happening!
None of this may be important in the great scheme of things and when the question is simply 'What makes this a hoax?' But I felt the whole story wasn't being given to you and you just might want to know.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 12:46 pm | | Hi again Rich,
I agree it's odd that no attempt was made to copy Maybrick's handwriting, particularly if Ryan was a source, because he mentions the will in James' hand. Wouldn't the first thing for any forger, however inexperienced or thoughtless, be to check if the original will in Maybrick's own hand was available? It's obvious that any investigator would do the same, and they did.
But as for your observation that someone went to great lengths with their research, detail, effort and time to create the diary, and suggesting that 'you have to see that a great deal of work went into this', I think you will get an argument on that one. In 1999, Mike Barrett claimed it was all done in a couple of weeks, and people really have tried to convince themselves and others that any reasonably intelligent and literate adult could have knocked this thing up with a minimum of forethought, planning, expertise, source books, effort, you name it - oh and a dash of the old Liverpudlian cunning and an extra helping of luck for good measure.
Scouse honour!
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 01:50 pm | | Caz--Sorry if I am a little sensitive here and take issue with your claim that Rich "wasn't being given the whole story." But the only reason I originally chimed in to this conversation was that when Rich asked if there was any "downright proof" to the Diary being a forgery you made the remarkable claim:
"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. "
Now frankly, this is a ridiculous statement. The diary is not in James Maybrick's handwriting and several very well-esteemed forensic document examiners have gone on record stating this. If there is a "expert in every field" that has given a "conflicting opinion", then I presume you can supply a name of a document examiner that has stated that the Maybrick Diary matches James Maybrick's handwriting? Or were you, perhaps, not telling the whole story? There is no hope of this thing being genuine, and it is best to admit that openly... RP |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 02:46 pm | | CAZ - Thanks for the added information about the breasts (a phrase I can't say I ever expected to use, frankly). I don't think RJP was not giving me the whole story, because I asked for an encapsulation, which means the shortest possible version. He gave me what I asked for - a quick look at evidence. I was planning to look into it in more detail, of course. The breast error could be either an error by a hoaxer, or error by the genuine diarist. It's an argument, but not, in my opinion, the diary-killer.
You might be able to convince me that the diary is a hoax, but you'll have a whale of a time trying to convince me that this was some "quickie job". This was not done in a couple weeks, nor was it done with the Harris-claimed two or three books. I am a writer of history, biography, non-fiction, and fiction. I am no ripper expert, but I know enough to know this could not have been thrown together. Mike Barrett's credibility went out the window years ago. Hoax - maybe. Sloppy and/or quick - no.
The handwriting is damning. I have to look at it myself. Not because I am an expert in hadnwriting - I am not - but because a good researcher accepts nothing without checking it out.
RJP - I am not ready to say that there is no hope of it being genuine. If that time comes, you'll certainly read it here, openly admitted with as much glee and satisfaction as if it were proved genuine. I acknowledge that the handwriting is a big issue, perhaps THE issue. Out of curiosity, since you obviously have no doubt that the diary is a forgery: 1) Do you think it was quickly thrown together, with a minimum of source material? 2) If so, what material do you think was used? 3) What are your thoughts on the fact that the diarist didn't worry about handwriting analysis?
One last thing, RJP --- While you make good arguments, I disagree with your assertion that if James Maybrick had psychological problems they would have necessarily been brought up at the Florence Maybrick trial. The psychological angle only matters if JM was the diarist, and if that were true, then it becomes true that Florence and her brother in law found out, and killed him. Under those circumstances, hiding Maybricks "disease" would be a priority, because they would fear that the truth would be discovered. Again, its all predicated on the diary being genuine, and without that assumption it wouldn't matter what his mental state was. Even in a fight for her life, Florence and others might have considered the so-called family name more important. You point out that Maybrick was not known as a nut, and that is undoubtedly true, so I am not rejecting the whole point, just the part about the trial.
Lastly -- Can one person have two distinct handwriting styles? Can it fool an expert? Has it been tested? That 5% again....
Yours,
Rich |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 08:51 pm | | R.J.
The "alibi" for Tumblety, in my opinion is that until two days before Kelly's murder he was in police custody and appeared before magistrates' court a few days later.
Stewart Evans makes a far better case than I could of explaining why Tumblety could have been released on bail - basically something to do with he wasn't arrested on suspicion of the ripper crimes but on a 'misdemeanour' and so the police had no choice but to give him bail. I have told Stewart that I am impressed with his argument, and for me Tumblety weighs in at second or third place behind Maybrick and occasionally Kosminski. But the others you are right about.
Now to Mary Kelly's breasts. How many times do I have to tell you young man that the first person in her room that day, John McCarthy, reported seeing her breasts on the table. Eyewitness evidence. So all we are left with is Bond's word against McCarthy's, and because Bond is a medical man are we somehow supposed to believe him more? Bond was writing up his notes from memory after the post mortem. McCarthy was quoting the one thing he remembered about the scene. McCarthy wasn't stupid, he knows a woman's breast when he sees one. So why the opposing opinions? Short answer - I don't know. But Paul Begg has raised an interesting reading of the line in the diary which reads "I thought of leaving them by the whores feet, but the table it was bare, so I went and left them there". Apart from skirting around the possibility that a 'forger' may have been hedging his bets, Paul does (I think!) admit that the above line lends some weight to the argument for authenticity purely because it was not until XXXX year that Bond's report was released. Sorry, I don't remember the year and I don't want to guess, but the point Paul was making was that a forger would at the very least have had to read Bond's report to even think of suggesting 'leaving them by the whore's feet'.
"Lastly -- Can one person have two distinct handwriting styles? Can it fool an expert? Has it been tested? That 5% again.... ".
Look in Feldman's book Rich, he prints a page that shows exactly that, the handwriting of one person who displays several different styles. There is also the case of the dusseldorf ripper, Peter Kurten, who wrote to the newspapers after each murder, in a completely different hand, and even showed the letters to his wife, so confident was he that she wouldn't recognise the handwriting. And she didn't.
"My reason for including James Maybrick as a suspect is the diary. Without it there would be no reason to have looked at him in the first place".
Oh come on R.J.!!! Do you mean that without the diary Maybrick's Whitechapel connections wouldn't have existed? Or that the 'Mibrac' entry at the Charing Cross hotel wouldn't have existed?
Maybrick both lived and worked in Whitechapel. He had a brother living in London. He had every reason to be there.
Excuse the pun, but - you guys kill me, you really do! You are quite prepared to argue that when a part of the diary can be authenticated by reference to a modern tome then that part of the diary must have come from that tome, but you aren't prepared to accept that someone like Mrs Hammersmith could have existed independent of any verification. Seriously, if there was verification that Mrs Hammersmith existed you would purely argue that that is where the diarist got her name from! Your argument is spurious.
It may interest you to know that a T.A. Hamer attended the funeral of James Maybrick.
Sorry Caroline I just skipped back to your post and saw that you made a much better job of the breast argument than I did. I agree with you that for the diary to be a forgery the forger would have had to have knowledge both of McCarthy's testament and Bond's post mortem report. And in the light that Bond's report (for some reason, after all it is only one man's word against another) appears to be the favoured theory, then why did the forger deliberately set out to make life difficult for himself by going against modern opinion?
I have looked at the Kelly photographs from every angle. I can't see a breast anywhere near her feet, but I can see something that at least looks like one (or two) on the table.
Hmmm.
Regards
Peter.
P.S. Just in case you didn't get the message, Maybrick wrote the diary in 1888 and it is futile arguing otherwise. |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 11:32 pm | | Peter -
When I said that without the diary Maybrick would not have been a suspect, I didn't mean necessarily that he shouldn't have been one, only that none of the modern works included him before the diary. I agree with you that even without it he is as plausable as others, if not more so. I think you railed RJ for that comment, but it was mine.
I appreciate the extra information on the breasts. I hadn't reached that in my reading yet. No one had mentioned a conflicting account. Thanks.
It is interesting that you say "Maybrick wrote the diary in 1888 and it is futile arguing otherwise" while RJ says "There is no hope of this thing being genuine, and it is best to admit that openly." You're both so certain, both of your facts and your conclusions. Those of us who lean one way or another, or simply don't know yet, envy your convictions.
I do see the Feldman handwriting examples, and it is enough to make me look more closely.
Each day, other piece of the puzzle.....
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 01:01 am | | Peter--Hello, old chap. Aren't you even slightly embarrassed about peddling this awful smelling snake-oil to those that are relatively new to this discussion? Especially when they don't yet realize that this is all just a great joke to you. Like arguing that the earth is flat. [One question I've been dying to ask: are you Paul Feldman's nephew or something??]
It is plain to anyone who has read Dr. Bond's report [a police surgeon, by the way] that he is writing from meticulous notes and there is no comparison to the rattled & shocked statement of McCarthy.
One last time with patience [and I hope Caz is reading]:
The Kelly murder scene in the Maybrick diary is a small little paragraph. And yet it gets it entirely wrong.
1. "I placed it all over the room." This is nonsense taken straight from Ripperlore that was published before Bond's report was returned to Scotland Yard. [For instance, see the description in Farson's 1973 book: "There were bloodstains on the wall and pieces of flesh dripped from the mantlepiece and the picture-nails"
2. "I thought it was a joke when I cut her breasts off...left them on the table with some of the other stuff." Bond is painfully clear on this point, there can be no mistake: 'the uterus & kidneys with one breast under the head, the other by the Rt foot..'
3. "I cut the off the bitches nose, all of it this time". Wrong again, I'm afraid. Dr. Bond: "The face was gashed in all directions the nose , cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed"...
And yes, Peter, Dr. Bond also even makes it clear what old man McCarthy really saw on the table:
"The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on the table."
But there is no need to argue the point, old chum. A photograph of the remains on the table survives and can be found in Evans & Gainey's book 'The Lodger'.
Summary:
The Maybrick Diary makes 4 statements about the Kelly murder scene [the other being a vague reference to an attempted decapitation] and 3 of the 4 statements are demonstratably wrong!!. Only someone willfully ignoring the obvious [that's you, Peter] would still argue that the diary was written by someone who was actually present at the Miller's Court murder scene.
As for the rhyme that appears later in the diary that Caz refers to:
I kissed them
I kissed them
They tasted so sweet
I thought of leaving them by the whores feet
This is clearly just a matter of the diarist trying to find a rhyme for "sweet". He comes up with some nonsense about "feet". The diary got it wrong where it counts, and even here it still doesn't match Dr. Bond's report. But I'm glad to concede the point, because this would demonstrate the diary was written after 1987, since that's when Bond's report resurfaced at Scotland Yard.
As for Mibrac & etc., this has all been dealt with before, Peter. But maybe I'll bother to give you a refresher course on the facts when I get the time. If you have Evans & Gainey's book, check out the report from The Globe. That's the article where Feldy got his idea about the baggage left at a hotel. See a problem with hs reasoning? See ya later, RP |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 09:53 am | | Rich
Sorry for mistaking you for R.J., I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Now when stating that none of the modern works included Maybrick as a suspect before the diary was published you are only partially right. Because, although it wasn't published information, there is evidence to show that there were people in Liverpool who suspected Maybrick of being the Ripper long before the diary saw the light of day.
And don't forget that Florence's name was associated with Jack the Ripper's as far back as 1889 when she was arrested for James' murder.
But to R.J. we must turn:
You do, I concede, make some good points old boy. But the problem I have with your reading of things is that you expect everything to be so perfect.
You know what R.J., if the handwriting of the diary had matched the Dear Boss letter perfectly then I would have been suspicious of a forgery, because that would have suggested someone copying the handwriting. And the same goes for your other arguments where I can demonstrate that you are simply misguided (I hate to tell anyone that they are wrong). Thus:
"I placed it all over the room." This is nonsense taken straight from Ripperlore that was published before Bond's report was returned to Scotland Yard. [For instance, see the description in Farson's 1973 book: "There were bloodstains on the wall and pieces of flesh dripped from the mantlepiece and the picture-nails".
Come on R.J. You are interpreting "it" there as meaning Mary Kelly's body parts. Such a leap in reasoning is unworthy of you. Neither you nor I know what the diarist meant by "it". And the other point to take, R.J., is that we only have two crime scene photographs of Kelly's room - neither of which show the part of her room away from the bed and so no-one is in any position to say that there were not body parts 'all over the room'. Either way you lose.
2. "I thought it was a joke when I cut her breasts off...left them on the table with some of the other stuff." Bond is painfully clear on this point, there can be no mistake: 'the uterus & kidneys with one breast under the head, the other by the Rt foot..'.
Yes, R.J., 'Bond' is painfully clear on this point.........but McCarthy is also clear. Therefore you have a straightforward difference of opinion. So why should we believe one man more than the other? And you still fail to answer the question of 'If the forger used modern books to compose his masterpiece, why would he quite clearly fly agaisnt modern opinion?' And even then he gives us the possibility that he 'thought of leaving them by the whore's feet'. Bond's report may have been rediscovered in 1987, but when was it first published? This point alone should show that the diary is either genuine or an old forgery, and no one really believes that it is an old forgery............
"I cut the off the bitches nose, all of it this time". Wrong again, I'm afraid. Dr. Bond: "The face was gashed in all directions the nose , cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed"...
R.J., you simply must be reading this differently to me. It suggests that the face (the nose the cheeks and the eyebrows) were gashed in all directions and the ears were partly removed. Not therefore the nose being partly removed. Look at the photograph old boy. She hasn't got a nose.
As for the rhyme that appears later in the diary that Caz refers to:
I kissed them
I kissed them
They tasted so sweet
I thought of leaving them by the whores feet
This is clearly just a matter of the diarist trying to find a rhyme for "sweet". He comes up with some nonsense about "feet".
Well, you would argue that wouldn't you R.J? So purely coincidentally the diarist in the space of a couple of pages mentions putting the breasts on the table and considering putting them at her feet. And to you this is just "nonsense". And you explain this away by saying the diarist was just looking for a rhyme!
I'm no Eminem, but try these for alternatives:
"I kissed them, I kissed them, they tasted so sweet,
The clothes I did burn for I wanted some heat".
OR
"I kissed them, I kissed them, they tasted so sweet,
I cut her up and now she's just meat".
See, R.J? Your argument is only convenient to you. You are reaching a conclusion and then delving back to try to find the 'facts' to support your conclusion, which is the wrong way round to do things.
I believe you are one of the people who would have rubbished the diary even before Shirley's book was published. Whereas.........I waited to read the facts before making up my mind.
I am still of the opinion that the diary could be genuine. You have shown me nothing to prove that it isn't. Just your personal opinions.
And remember, to knock the diary on the head once and for all, you can forget discussing silly rhymes, just break Anne Barrett's story. That's right - the woman who says she saw the diary back in 1969 which means absolutely positively in no way could Bond's report have been used, in no way could the ink be diamine and in no way could the Sphere guide have been the source for the Crashaw quote.
Still, it is fun debating with you, even if you do make it rather easy.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 10:51 am | | Peter--Hello and good-morning. I've just popped in and I can see by the time of your post that you must be lurking very near. Like the Ripper, you've disappeared into a bank of fog and I've just missed you.
Here is the sentence, in its entirety, from Dr. Bond's report [Evans & Skinner, p 346.]:
"The face was gashed in all directions the nose, cheeks, eyebrows & ears being partly removed."
There is only one way to read this sentence. "Nose, cheeks, eyebrows & ears" are all part of the same clause, with Bond describing them as "partly removed". Your grammatical scan of that sentence is, shall I say, remarkably optimistic and fancifull in regards to your personal theory, but grammatically it is a non-starter and leaves "the nose, the cheeks, and the eyebrows" adrift in mid-sentence with no verb in sight.
But I must admit that your favoring of the rattled McCarthy over the police surgeon is amusing. I can see why John Omlor gets a charge out of you. Tell me, what's your theory? Was Dr. Bond blind or drunk or just amazingly incompetent? Cheers, RP. |
Author: John Hacker
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 11:30 am | | Peter,
We've gone round on the McCarthy vs. Bond issue before as I am sure you recall. Futile though it seems, let's try one more time.
Let's try and evaluate the reletive cases shall we...
Bond was a medical examiner used to dealing with "parts".
McCarthy was a landlord.
Bond actually spent time in the room examing the scene piece by piece, taking notes
McCarthy popped in for a second after the door was knocked down.
Which of these is the more credible witness Peter? Honestly?
But we don't need to rely on witnesses, do we Peter? Between the two photographs we can see the surface of the table. There's no breasts there Peter. If you disagree, please indicate WHERE on the photo they are. If they're so obvious that McCarthy could identify them in an instant, they must be visible on the photograph, right?
Just for reference here is an excerpt from McCarthy's statement from the Times, 10 Nov 1888:
"The poor woman's body was lying on the bed, undressed. She had been completely disembowelled, and her entrails has been taken out and placed on the table. It was those that I had seen when I looked through the window and took to be lumps of flesh. The woman's nose had been cut off, and her face gashed beyond recognition. Both her breasts too had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table."
Where are the breasts "placed be the side of her liver" in the photographs? You won't find them there. You will find the liver though if you take the trouble to look. It's right between MJK's feet where Bond said it was. Oops... McCarthy was wrong on that count as well. He's not much of a witness I fear.
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 12:38 pm | | 'The woman's nose had been cut off'.
To McCarthy, it looked like Kelly's nose wasn't there any more. To Bond, who examined everything in detail with a professional eye, the nose was in fact 'partly removed'.
To the 'Maybrick' of the diary, that nose was cut off, which was an improvement on what he managed with 'the other whore'.
Not all that much of a howler, surely RJ? 'Maybrick' was bound to err on the side of boastful achievement, wasn't he?
And try this one for size:
I kissed them
I kissed them
They tasted so sweet
I left 'em on the table
where they looked a treat
Hi Peter,
You say 'no one really believes that it is an old forgery'.
My problem is that the evidence, or lack of it, that we all have to go on, means that I believe nothing. I can't believe Maybrick wrote the diary. I can't believe it was finished as late as the end of 1989 (the Bond report, for instance, was first published in Martin Fido's 1989 edition, for those who don't believe 'the whores feet' came out of thin air, or that 'no heart no heart' did too), and I don't believe either Mike or Anne helped write it, and the evidence for them knowing and protecting those who did is extremely poor and fraught with unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions.
That would only leave me at present with the possibility of the diary being an old fake. But I don't know how that could be the case either.
So I'm still waiting for new evidence, or a twist in the tail, or tale, of the old stuff.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 01:15 pm | | John (Hacker)
It is an important point you make but it still all boils down to the difference in opinion between two men, and neither you nor R.J. have even attempted to explain why a forger would deliberately fly in the face of current opinion on Mary Kelly's breasts.
And I love this:
"Bond was a medical examiner used to dealing with "parts".
McCarthy was a landlord.
And that means McCarthy is less likely to recognise a breast when he sees one? It's not difficult is it, it's got a nipple on it.
And I think being a 'landlord' may have qualifed McCarthy to see just as many breasts as Bond did, although Bond didn't get to see them until his subjects were dead, whereas McCarthy probably got to see them in exchange for knocking off a week's rent.
Hi Caroline: Actually, you're right, the 'old forgery' theory does seem to be getting more popular, doesn't it? Isn't that what Keith subscribes to? But wouldn't 'tin match box empty' tend to throw the diary back to the present or make it genuine?
What's this about Geordie windows? Can I have it too? I have some 'plastic Geordie' friends at work.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 01:16 pm | | | Who can you believe?There is no end to this discussion, and perhaps it is a good thing.In reading Smithkees book on the 'Inquest of Mary Kelly' Dr. Bond comes under fire .Seems according to a quote from Begg that the good doctor was a dope addict.Smithkee concludes -"What at one time may have been interpreted as a positive assessment from a qualified expert becomes a questionable conclusion by a gentleman of suspect reputation when viewed with the knowledge of his personal identity". When you want to prove your case everything is suspect--all the evidence, testimony and everything else.Bond or McCarthy-depends on which way you want to go.You might kiss and make up. |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 01:20 pm | | | Perhaps Dr. Bond And James Maybrick got together for a snort of arsenic and a few pills laced with strychnine. |
Author: John Hacker
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 01:38 pm | | Peter,
This does not "boil down to the difference in opinion between two men". It's simply a mistake on McCarthy's part. That's all. You see Peter, we have the pictures. If the breats are on the table WHERE ARE THEY ON THE PICTURES? Hmmm? Stop evading the point.
We've gone round on your nipple theory as well. Needless to say, there are no nipples in the photographs. And of course, McCarthy did not mention any nipples in his testimony. That's nothing but your invention to try to justify your insistance on McCarthy's validity. As you accused R.J. of, "You are reaching a conclusion and then delving back to try to find the 'facts' to support your conclusion, which is the wrong way round to do things."
John Hacker
P.S. Where are they on the pictures? Hmmm? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 01:47 pm | | Oh my, Dr. Bond so stoned out of his mind that he didn't know what he was seeing? And the photographs? These are fakes, I presume? Good gawd.
Peter--I must at least say one thing for you; you are a loyal old tar, in the great British tradition! H.M.S Maybrick has sunk, and you willingly went down with it, clinging to the mast. Cheers & happy dreaming, RJP
[Damn that round shadow on the moon! It almost makes you believe the earth is a sphere...] |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 07:06 pm | | Man, oh man --- I know I'm going to regret saying this, but I must. The whole breast issue, regardless of what/who you believe, is not a definitive issue. It matters, and it can shed some doubt on the diary, but in the grand scheme of things is not a diary killer. If genuine, the diarist may simply have meant to place them in one place, but not done it.
RJP's comments on the handwriting are more important. I'm not ready to say the "HMS Maybrick has sunk", but this IS a major issue. Anything more from the pro-diary camp on handwriting?
Each person this week has made good points, and not all of them can be 100% proven one way or the other. Why do you guys all take it so personally? |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 10:44 pm | | | "The Grand scheme of things"? What handwriting expert is the final authority? There is none.Like in a criminal case-the psychiatrist goes in whatever way the lawyer wants him or her to.Psychiatry when used to solve anything is a pseudoscience. Handwriting experts are very much the same.Take your pick, they can prove anything you want them to. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 08:42 am | | Hi Rich,
I take none of this personally. If I did, I'd be rather silly to hang around this place taking the knocks to my attitude that I believe nothing just because someone else tells me it must be so. If you do that, someone around the next corner tends to trip you up on your merry and trusting way home and tell you the opposite is true because 'it must be so'.
I still don't believe Maybrick wrote the diary but it's not based on the handwriting argument alone. Peter Wood's example of Kurten writing to the papers after each murder in a completely different hand, and even showing the letters to his wife, who didn't recognise the writing as his, at least shows that it's possible that Jack the Ripper could have done the same. But (and there's always one of those) one wonders why James would have bothered disguising his writing in the diary when the text leaves absolutely no doubt who the author is supposed to be. Even if he began in a different hand, in case the diary got found mid-campaign, he could not have wriggled out of it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 01:14 pm | | CAZ -
If Maybrick wrote the diary, it is not a matter of him disguising the writing intentionally. It would be a matter of the writing being different because he was in a different state of mind, or involved in a drug-induced different personality. He would not even be aware of the differences. Extreme, I agree, but not unheard of in the annals of science, and JTR is nothing if not extreme. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 03:27 pm | | It's not extreme Rich, it's logical.
Now, who was that arguing with me about Mary Kelly's breasts? Not R.J. - the other one, two grainy old photographs and our murderer is supposed to think " ...I must place the breasts in such a position so that R.J.'s mate will be able to see the nipples in just over a hundred years time, otherwise he'll think I slung them by her feet".
So you can't see the nipples. So they mustn't be there.
So you can't see God. But there are several million people who believe in him.
At least Jack the Ripper was real.
And yes, it does come down to the difference in opinion between two people. David makes an excellent observation that Bond's report is unreliable because he could have been as much of a dope fiend as Maybrick (aside: Can arsenic be snorted?).
The handwriting? It's the part of the diary that bothers me least, Rich. Why? Because I know for a fact that I've got several different styles myself - tired, rushed, formal, informal, birthday greetings, business letter - know what I mean?
Take the handwriting out of the equation and you still have Anne Graham saying that she saw the diary in 1969. You still have Alec Voller as stating the diary ink is not diamine and dating it back tens of years. What you do not have is any evidence that proves the diary could not have existed in 1888.
So go find some John. And when you find it then you can afford to be facetious.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: John Hacker
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 04:00 pm | | Peter,
Now you're simply embarressing yourself. The photographs are not so grainy as to obscure any breasts lying on top of the table. Unless of course you're suggesting that they're to be found underneath the "top layer", which of course would further harm your argument. Because of course the odds of McCarthy picking out the alleged breasts on the table would certainly go down if they were under the pile of gore. And that's not what his testimony was.
Once more, McCarthy testified: "Both her breasts too had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table"
Where are the breasts by the side of the liver and other entrails? Look at the photograph under the MJK suspect section on the casebook. It's very clear and details are easily discenernable. And shows that McCarthy was certainly incorrect as to the placement of the liver. :-)
If there were breasts lying on the surface of the table they would be visible. There is simply no getting around it by complaining about the quality of the photo. Or are you seriously suggesting that McCarthy was mistaken (twice in one sentence!) and the breasts are under entrails (as opposed to next to), but we should trust him that they were on the table?
John Hacker |
|
|
|
|
