Archive through 19 January 2002

** 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 19 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Maybrick, James: Archive through 19 January 2002

Author: John Omlor Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 06:47 pm
Excuse the interruption. Peter Wood offers this priceless argument. "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." And so it has come to this. The arguments in favor of the diary have been dramatically and admittedly reduced to faith (like some people have in God). You have to believe the nipples are there, like you believe in God. You have to believe the diary was written in the proper century by a guy named James Maybrick, who was writing in one of seven or eight hands he must have had if the letters the diarist claims credit for are his and the letters others have assigned him are his and the Baltic correspondence is his. Yes, you gotta' believe. I'm tellin' ya children. We are gathered here today to testify, to send word to the heathens about our beliefs. Yeah, children. I'm tellin' ya that when it comes to the diary, ya simply gotta' believe. We don' need no ev-ee-dence. We don't need no a-nal-ee-sis. We don' need none of the demon "logic" or cursed "reasoning" to make our case, children. We just need the good book! The diary is the word of Maybrick, and we have the gospels of Peter and Paul to tell us so and that's good enough for us. Damn be the calls for actual ev-ee-dence. God doesn't give ev-ee-dence and neither does the diary. Sure, there's nothing in this earthly world that actually links the good book to the Man or even to the Time. But this earthly world is a world of demon demands for logic and material and testimonial and documentary ev-ee-dence. And that's ee-vil! The diary question, my children, is a question of Faith, with a capital F. It's a question of trusting the good book despite all the problems and believing with all your heart and soul no matter what the appearances, and of saying YEA! I believe! I have faith in the holy diary like I have faith in the Lord! Now come up, all you children who want to testify about the power and the mystery of the good book, show us your faith, drink the sacred meat juice while the choir sings "The Mother of All Sorrows," the English translation, and we all rejoice in the power of faith. Praise you all in Feldman's name, --John
Author: Ally Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 07:27 pm
That was rather funny. Ally
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 14 January 2002 - 06:53 am
Dear John, The power and the glory of the discourse is narrative, behind which lies The Word, and beyond this lies the infinitude of script...marks etched into a void. Nothing! Your faith is as profound as it is moving. Rosey :-)
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr Monday, 14 January 2002 - 07:52 am
You guys (and gals) take your reactions way beyond the extreme, you know that?
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 14 January 2002 - 10:30 am
Dear Richard, Yes. We know that! You must try and follow the 'plot' sometimes. Rosey :-)
Author: david rhea Monday, 14 January 2002 - 01:47 pm
I am reading this most interesting book by Melvin Harris-'The True Face of JTR",and it is fascinating.I look forward to Ivor Edwards book dealing with this same subject.One thing many of the Ripperologists do is make quotes and don't tell you where to find the quote.Where does one find the memoirs of Vittoria Cremers?Also it seems that Stevenson and Maybrick have things in common.Maybrick, arsenic and strychnine, while Stevenson is said to have 'sobered up on drugs(chloral hydrate in excess) to avoid delitium tremens'(Begg A-Z p428).Harris said that because of a gunshot wound ,Stevenson injected himself with morphine probably over long periods ,and quote "His capacity for hallucinating was thus at a peak"-regarding his encounter with a loved spirit.Now when do you determine that Maybrick or Stephenson is hallucinating.It seems that Stevenson had a wild imagination to go along with his real or fabricated adventures.Really we ought not to be too hard on Maybrick. Perhaps his hallucinations arose from a different drug. Anyway this V. Cremers leaves a lot to be desired.desired. She says that she didn't ask too many questions out of some kind of propriety, and then finds a key which she uses to go through his trunk and later to steal letters for a friend(Mabel Collins).Harris says that the testimony of V. Cremers is extremely invaluable. I would like to see it, or is it all in this book.This business of Maybrick and Stevenson is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 04:46 am
Hi David, Opposite ends of the spectrum - True Face v. Final Chapter. Yet in some ways you couldn't fit a pin between 'em - a blood-encrusted tie pin. Love, Caz
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 08:24 am
Rich--Don't take the jabs that you see Peter Wood and I exhanging too seriously. Peter is a decent fellow with good sense of humor. I know someday he'll swim away from the wreckage of H.M.S. Maybrick in search of his trusty life-boat Kosminski, and then we'll argue all over again the worth of this suspect, too. In regards to arsenic. There's a common perception that Maybrick was a drug addict, and that somehow arsenic is an extremely potent mind-altering drug. I haven't seen much, if any, evidence to back this up. Maybrick used various tonics and pick-me-ups [many Victorians did], but arsenic use wasn't all that uncommon and it doesn't seem to be a particularly mood-altering drug. I've found a couple articles on arsenic use in Victorian-era newspapers that even speak favorably of its use as a stimulant for mountaineers. The arsenic level found in Maybrick's remains wasn't enough to kill him [the Diary's implied conclusion that Florie murdered him after his confession to being Jack the Ripper is unlikely on this account], and the Diary's portrayal of Maybrick as a raving madman is completely at odds with the portrayal of his personality at the trail of Florie Maybrick. It's a fairy tale, nothing more, and Maybrick had no more connection to the Whitechapel crimes than any other businessman that lived 200 miles away.
Author: david rhea Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 09:25 am
It appears many of these people had access to all kinds of drugs;arsenic,alcohol, chloral hydrate, cocaine,opium,laudanum etc and took them all the time (sort of like Hadachol(sp) a few years ago.[ You know hadachol the tee totalers pick me up].Maybrick prided himself in the fact that he could take he could take lethal doses of arsenic which he took seven or eight times a day with wine or meat juice.I don't know what it did to him but he got some kind of a jolt out of it.Some of his acquaintances warned him that it might be fatal.In his final days,even though it was all over his house, he could not get at it or so some say.(Nobody seems to know what killed him other that heart failure).
Author: david rhea Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 09:42 am
Are the memoirs of the Baroness Cremers available in some source other than Melvin's Harris' book-"The True Face of JTR".
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 02:53 pm
R.J. Thank you for your kind comments - you may well be right about S.S. Maybrick and it's lifeboat 'Kosminski' - but only when people like yourself start to produce logical evidence that proves Maybrick did not write the thing ...now, if I could only get John Omlor's foot off my head ... To those of you unfamiliar with John, I feel bound to point out that he is very intelligent, very logical, highly infuriating - but ultimately a sufferer of that excruciating disease 'tunnel vision'. John likes to believe in his logic. John needs his logic to survive. It is, if you like, his faith. John gets great kicks from following me around and making much of my points - to the extent where he now has nothing of substance to say but would rather come up with a comedic aside that, whilst amusing in the extreme, adds nothing to the debate or John's own position. I simply made a point that just because you can't see MJK's nipples in the photograph doesn't mean they aren't there. I've seen the photographs, there are no breasts by her feet. There are no breasts under her head. What's that I hear John Omlor saying? " ...just because you can't see it doesn't mean it ain't there ...". Cheers Peter P.s. John. Hilarious! Best laugh I've had all day!
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 05:10 pm
Thanks, Peter, To be clear: There are some things for which I require logic (or at least careful analysis of evidence) and some for which I do not. The reading of the diary and the establishment of its authenticity or the establishment of a case against one or more possible forgers are things for which I do require logic and careful analysis. And so should you. It's not a faith. It's simply responsible, critical thinking. As of now, no evidence whatsoever has been offered in the case for authenticity that either links the book to its supposed author or its supposed century or that is in any way logically valid or material. And your argument about the breasts is only one of the examples where you offer no reliable evidence yourself and discount the best documentary evidence we have, the report of a trained expert. And you discount this report solely because you want the diary to be true (that's called wish-fulfillment) not because there is any real reason whatsoever to think that the expert was wrong (certainly not the initial statement of a completely untrained witness off the street who reacted to a horrible scene of carnage). Preferring the civilian witness to the careful and trained expert and to the documentary evidence only because you want this little book to be true is basing your reading of history on a belief in the diary alone, it's basing your interpretation of the available evidence solely on your own desire and, yes, your own faith, in a found 20th century document with no reliable provenance, no evidence that links it to its author, and not written in the handwriting of its supposed author. By choosing to believe a witness statement over the expert evidence carefully recorded by Dr. Bond only because you have faith in the diary, only because you want it to be true, you are practicing religion, not critical thinking. And this is the case with nearly all of the arguments ever offered in favor of the authenticity of this book. That was the point of my not-so-subtle comic aside. Bye for now, --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 06:34 am
Hi Peter, John, The thing about faith is that you need no argument, no evidence, no facts to actually possess it and keep it. And if you had all these things in sufficient abundance, you wouldn't need faith. Anyone who is completely happy with their faith wouldn't be debating here to have others cast doubt - unless they are preaching to others in order to convert them. And to do that they need all the help they can get from good argument, evidence and facts. John and I don't always see the same problems with these three essentials regarding the diary's origins, but just call us both Doubting Thomas the moment anyone tries to convert us without the necessary - whether it's you, Peter, with your 'what if we look at the evidence this way?', or Melvin with his 'the evidence I've seen is good enough for me so why does anyone else need to see it or ask for further verification?' Love, Caz
Author: david rhea Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 09:09 am
Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.(Heb.11:1)
Author: Vaughan Allen Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 10:37 am
Peter, so McCarthy could see the nipples once he'd opened the door, but we can't see them without opening the door? Like Schrodinger's cat in reverse presumably, some sort of quantum aureole? McCarthy also claimed that MJK (RIP)'s breasts were placed next to her liver, so maybe he, in a highly shocked state, as he himself testified, simply got things wrong. As there's no mention of any putative nipple, we can't really base anything around it, so to speak. Caz, you know I'm bound to disagree with your interpretation of the 'at her feet' rhyme. There are, I reckon three possible interpretations of why that should appear...and I'm discounting the Wood/'Bond was wrong' theory for now. 1) The Diary was written by the murderer, who forgot where he'd placed the flesh in question, but then had some strange memory/flashback as to where he 'really' put them, then got that wrong as well. 2) A Hoaxer has access to pre-1988 material and firmly believes (or remembers) that the breasts were left on the table. He/she puts that in, but wants also to include a funny little rhyme about spraying the body around the room, perhaps in an attempt to make 'Maybrick' seem more psychotic. There are, as I've suggested before, only a very limited number of places where he/she could place them, and he/she strikes lucky. This luck is somewhat helped by the fact that the real murderer has split the breasts up in his placement, thus massively reducing the odds in favour of getting it right (don't know why but this reminds me of the Monty hall problem). 3) The Hoaxer is aware of both pre and post-1988 theories. Even though post the rediscovery of the Bond report, firm opinion is that the breasts were not on the table, he/she is not so sure, and wants to cover all bases. So, in the main text he/she writes that the breasts were placed on the table, while then constructing a silly little rhyme that gets wrong what it says in the Bond report (for some reason), so screwing up his/her own reasons for including this knowledge. To compound this error, he/she crosses out the rhyme, thus ensuring that even more weight is given to the material in the text. I'm sorry, but only (2) makes any sense here. The others simply don't hang together, and we really have to try and look at what is most likely--what is the simplest explanation. Notion 2 is strengthened by the fact that the hoaxer also gets wrong what happened to MJK's heart. But then I believe, until there's evidence to the contrary, that the Diary is a very simple hoax. It seems to be common in hoax cases that very very intelligent people like yourself try and find any explanation for what's going on that ties them in knots, whilst the simplest explanation is the, uhhr, simplest. And, hey, Peter's got to believe in the Diary. He's an ex-PC, and you know how fond the British Police are of faked confessions (ducks and covers as tac-nukes fly over the Pennines. Vaughan
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 11:05 am
The whole faith/belief/evidence argument is interesting, but I don't think anyone here is riding on "faith". Whether you believe the diary to be genuine or hoax, each person thinks the evidence supports that belief. RE: Breasts location. I've already said that I don't think this is a huge issue, whether or not the diarist got it right or wrong. The evidence seems inconclusive from what I've read. But let's assume for the sake of argument that the diarist got it wrong -- that the breasts were not where he said he left them. Even for JTR this was a most violent crime - much more so than his other victims (though they were just as dead). Who among us (hopefully no one) has experienced that situation? Isn't it possible that he intended one thing, did another, and later wasn't sure? Yes, I can see the anti-diary camp lining up to accuse me of making excuses and/or trying to find loopholes. I am not. I am merely trying to hold the anti-diarists and the pro-diarists to the same standard. Both sides have mostly circumstantial and/or inconclusive evidence to work with, and both sides tend to consider the other side more critically. I'm trying to attack both sides until I cannot find an argument that works. I am neither pro-diary nor anti-diary ----- I still don't know. But looking at it as objectively as I can, the breasts issue is not critical. This information would be more important: 1) Was Maybrick ever elsewhere at the time of the murders? Does he have an alibi? 2) Can someone provide handwriting matching the diary, that absolutely came from someone other than Maybrick? 3) Can scientists agree on any of the dating tests? Could they be wrong? How? Some anti-diarists say that Maybrick doesn't need an alibi because without the diary he would not have been a suspect, that many people don't have alibis for that time. True. But -- the diary, whatever your opinion of it, exists. It does cast some suspicion, and in a murder investigation no detective would dismiss him without checking it all out, so unless or until there is hard evidence that Maybrick couldn't be JTR, he has to be a suspect. Even proving the diary a hoax would not completely eliminate him, unless the reason for the hoax were known. And even then....? The pro-diarists have to realize, too, that unless or until another piece of hard evidence surfaces that point to Maybrick, he will become one of a long line of suspects -- accepted by some and rejected by many. Both sides offer "logic" as part of their argument. And both make good cases, at times. But if the diary is genuine, and by extension Maybick is JTR, logic only works so far. If true, he was not sane, and insanity - even occasional insanity - often precludes logic. We're told it was not "logical" for Maybrick to write in a previously used book. He should have bought a new one, we're told. But, if he had the sudden urge, while high on arsenic, to write down his passions, do you really think he would go shopping? No, cut the other crap out, and get writing! By the same token, pro-diarists use "logic" for other arguments, but it's not always hard to shoot holes in those, either. What I'm saying, in a verbose way, is that some things will never be agreed upon. Is there anything we can agree on, something that cannot be easily refuted? Just rambling.......
Author: Vaughan Allen Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 12:21 pm
Richard, you are of course quite right. There is only circumstantial evidence on either side. However, the circumstantial evidence against the Diary being a true confession is rather more damning than the reverse. Indeed, the evidence pro-Diary wouldn't stand up in an English court of law because an essential point about a chain of circumstantial evidence is that each link has to come from a different source (ie, you can't build one piece on top of another), whereas the pro-Diary side always relies always on going back to the Diary. One of the problems for me is that Feldman's book is not a statement of the case for the Diary. What I would like to see (and have said before) is an essay/list/article that states the case for the Diary. Too often, it involves raising certain points and going, 'ah-ha, so what about that then?'. If there was a court enquiry, the Maybrick side would be arguing quite strongly that this 'confession' was nothing of the sort. Their case would be built around the following central points: a) Handwriting. Not, on its own, good enough, but going with what's below, fairly damning. The handwriting in the Diary does not match any extant writing of James Maybrick (which we do have). Neither does it match any of the letters supposedly sent by JtR, as claimed in the Diary. b) Provenance. A document like this has to have some form of confirmed provenance. When it is not in a subject's handwriting, there has to be evidence that it was actually written when it's claimed to have been written. However, no-one outside the immediate Barret/Graham family saw the document until the early 1990s. It's never been traced further back than that. Anne Graham has claimed that she originally saw it in 1969 (IIRC), but that has never been corroborated. c) Mistakes. The Diary gets some vital facts wrong. It isn't just a question of the placement of MJK (RIP)'s breasts at the murder scene, but also the use to which her heart was put, the fact that JM's brother wasn't a lyricist as the Diarist claims, and so on. (There's also the much discussed issue of the farthings that weren't found by the body of Annie Chapman (RIP)). d) Style. As St John of Omlor has stated, the style is wrong for what the document purports to be. We are meant to be half-way through an on-going diary/journal, yet we start the first page and have withn a small number of lines a full mise en scene. Wwe know where we are, we're provided with back-story. It has little connection to how 'real' diaries/journals flow. e) Content. Apart from the above, the content is completely different to that we have come to expect from a serial killer, rapist or even fantasist. It's simply too lily-livered, too limp-wristed, there's no passion in the descriptions of the death scenes, no fantasies about what the author would really like to do. Compare it to the writings of real murderers and SKs, or to de Sade, who didn't kill anyone, or to Bataille imagining himself as Gilles de Rais. All are on a completely different level. On a related point, no-one's been able to come up with another example of an SK who travels 200 miles to kill his victims, returns home and then travels the same distance again. f) New Evidence. Or rather the lack of it. Wwe are told that 'Maybrick' murdered two women in Manchester, yet evidence for this has never been found. Apart from that, we have nothing new. No sliver of information that could be proved one way or the other. In all these pages, you'd expect something intimate, something different, something proveable. There are also some added 'soft' elements: Rather conveniently, the diary only has, of the 12-13 victims of the various Whitechapel Murderers, the canonical and accepted five being murdered by Maybrick. This might, of course, be because they really were the only victims, but again, it feels 'wrong'. Alongside the notion that 'Maybrick' wrote the famous letters, this is a very conventional, very orthodox, view of JtR. There's nothing too out of place, no masons, no Black Magic (sorry, I'm being facetious), and it all seems as though it could have come from a standard refernce. Finding WHICH standard reference is another issue, though. So what I'd really like to see is not the pro-Diarists rejecting that with 'what about 'Sir Jim'?', but a positive statement of why, in all likelihood, we should accept the document. It would make interesting reading anyway. But, yes, as you say and as most people have said, it all comes down to a balance of probabilities... To answer your specific questions... No, no alibi's been found. But then there's nothing to say he WAS in London either, which would somewhat help advance the pro-Diary case. Your logic tends to suggest that--as you say even if the Diary were proved to be a hoax, Maybrick would still be a suspect--everyone alive in 1888 without an alibi would be too... On the handwriting, the problem is you can't ever prove that this piece matches this piece (any more than you can with DNA)...you can say it's very likely that they do, but that's as far as you can go. There are some ongoing investigations into the hand-writing of various of the suspected hoaxers...see the Re-evaluation Board for that. And Scientists can't agree on the dating, no. they can't even agree on which bits of the ink they seem to be dating. And, FWIW, having worked in both Bosnia during the War, and Rwanda just after it, I've seen rather too many mutilated bodies. And I have to say that nipples tend to disappear into the mass of flesh caused by evisceration. HTH, Vaughan
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 01:32 pm
Hi Vaughan, Going back to your previous post if I may, I'm not sure which interpretation of the 'at her feet' rhyme you are disagreeing with exactly. I was asking why and how others thought the line came into being and I've now got some answers to consider. You say that, as you've suggested before, there are 'only a very limited number of places where he/she could place them, and he/she strikes lucky. This luck is somewhat helped by the fact that the real murderer has split the breasts up in his placement, thus massively reducing the odds in favour of getting it right...' I'm not so sure about 'very limited' myself and would like to know what others think. In any case, the reasons offered so far for it entering the author's head to mention an alternative position for the breasts are weak to say the least. RJ suggested the diary author was simply stuck for a rhyme for sweet, and unable to think of anything that tied in with the crime scene as he understood it, and had already described it, he comes up with the line about her feet. And I responded with a couple of lines ending in treat that my daughter at age five could have come up with in seconds which kept the breasts firmly on the table (if there was no other reason for him to deviate from this position apart from his difficulty with verse). It also worries me slightly that the most plausible option for you depends on luck, be it a lorra lorra luck or only a little bit. You say that this one is strengthened by the fact that the hoaxer also gets wrong what happened to MJK's heart. But he did write, when referring to the deeds Maybrick committed on Kelly, 'no heart no heart', and Kelly's heart was indeed missing, according to Bond. We don't know for sure that the killer took it from the room. It's possible he burnt it symbolically on the fire. Finally, I'm very flattered by the reason you give for my attempts to find any explanation for what's going on rather than stick with the simplest. I agree that if the simplest explanation works and fits all the facts it would be rather pointless to consider more complex ones. And I'd be thrilled if I could fit all the simple explanations into the bigger picture to help complete the jig-saw puzzle. But at the moment there are still too many missing pieces, or pieces which don't seem to belong, for me to know what it should look like when it's finished. (And this one doesn't come in a box with the picture on the lid. ) Love, Caz
Author: david rhea Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 01:55 pm
Christie writes in 'Etched in Arsenic' p 34 that James Maybrick had only a conventional school education--informed in the mercantile sense--.How many of you ever heard of Crashaw before University.I only heard of him in seventeenth century literature.I don't believe that James Mabrick ever heard of Richard Crashaw let alone ponder his poetry in dementia.Another shot in the void I guess.
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 02:03 pm
Dear Vaughan, I agree that the circumstantial evidence is more damning against the diary than for it, at this point. But then again, it should be, because it should absolutely be much easier to prove a hoax than to prove it genuine. To be genuine it has to meet almost every test, whereas to be false it only needs to fail a few key tests. I disagree that the pro-diarists always go back to the diary. I have read many bits of evidence that use historical documents, testimony, court papers, and so on. Yes, they are often compared to the diary, because it is the diary which is the most important piece of the Maybrick theory, but it is also being compared the Maybrick himself. Feldman, in my opinion, was not the person to write that book. His style was wrong for an argument in favor of the diary�s authenticity. So, we certainly agree on that. He wrote a history of his work on the diary, but it bogged down and made some rather unrealistic assumptions. The best work on the diary � pro or anti � has yet to be written. A) Handwriting. Agreed, still the best argument against the diary being genuine. I agree with your assessment that doesn�t match Maybrick, but there are similarities. In the end, if the Maybrick theory goes down to defeat, handwriting may be the reason. But I�m not convinced, and am gathering what materials I can to see for myself. B) The provenance will likely never be corroborated. If hoax, the reasons are obvious. If genuine, it seems that there was effort to keep it secret for years, and if this was the case, it was all too successful. It�s one in the �doubt� column, to be sure. C) Mistakes. Another area I have to read more about, but the mistakes I have read about, if they are mistakes, are not enough to convince me it is a hoax. There are many more details which are amazingly correct. If a hoax, it is a brilliantly researched piece, despite the claims of some that it is a simple fake. D) Style. I don�t necessarily agree that the style is �wrong� for what it purports to be. If genuine, for whatever reason Maybrick chose that moment to write down his thoughts, and he may have been lucid enough to know that some kind of summary � even just to collect his own thoughts � was necessary. I understand what you are saying, and I see your point, but I can see it being genuine and still set up this way. Truth isn�t always logical. E) Content. I agree completely that JTR doesn�t fit the �normal� pattern of a serial killer. However, I think it is a mistake to judge the behavior of someone so twisted based on the behavior of others, especially when those others are twisted, too. But, if the killer is too smart to kill at home, and has the reason or means to travel, I don�t find it impossible. F) New Evidence. I don�t know enough about this to even comment, so I will concede this point for now. You comment that it feels wrong because the diarist only claims those who have been widely accepted as legitimate ripper victims. Then again, if he is the ripper, and if the ripperologists are correct, those are the only ones he could claim. It�s a catch-22. If someone could create a list of what standard references, or what sources, would be needed to forge this document, it would take me 99% of the way toward the hoax-group. I�ve heard tell that someone has such a list, but I haven�t run across it yet (I�m spending too much time on this as it is). I am not suggesting that Maybrick is a suspect because he doesn�t have an alibi. I admit that under those conditions thousands of people would be suspects. I am saying only that now that the diary has surfaced, regardless of whether it is genuine or not, good investigative skills dictate that if an alibi is available, we should find it. If it is not, we cannot exclude him. If the diary proves to be a forgery, certainly he goes way down on the list, but what has been unearthed about Maybrick�s life and death is enough to keep him on the list without that alibi, for now. In my opinion. Science may find the answers for us one day, since it is ever-changing. Just a couple quick comments to keep the fire going: -- I don�t think that, if genuine, Maybrick disguised his writing. I think that under these circumstances he was involved with personality-altering drugs, and this caused the difference in handwriting. Yes, extreme, but it has been done before. -- I find it highly unlikely that it was a Walter Mitty fantasy. -- An old forgery? Not impossible, but for what reason? And why wasn�t it used? Such a story would be as interesting as a real JTR diary! I have so much more reading and absorbing to do, so if my arguments seem vague, its because I jumped in here before I was ready. But I couldn�t resist the forum. Thanks, Rich
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 03:09 pm
Hi, Vaughan: Congratulations on a good run-down on the weak points of the Diary argument. I am sure Peter Wood will vehemently disagree with your analysis but then as we have heard from him, Peter's argument pretty much comes down to, "But the Diary exists" which is no proof that Maybrick was what he is purported to have been--Jack the Ripper. Good point about the Manchester murders mentioned in the Diary never having been proven to have taken place. I might mention in a quick aside that in a telephone conversation I had with Shirley Harrison soon after the "60 Minutes" segment aired on the Diary, she mentioned that there was some thought among the Diary investigators that the Diarist might have meant Manchester, New Hampshire, USA, where she believed Maybrick had business connections through his work in the cotton trade, presumably because of the textile mills that I should think existed at that date in Manchester, New Hampshire! I think it is pretty clear though based on the time frame implied by the Diary and no mention of Maybrick hopping on a transatlantic steamer to bump off any Manchester, NH, ladies of the evening, that it is Manchester, Lancashire, that is meant--a city only thirty miles from his home in Aigburth, Liverpool, and a mere 45 minutes or so by train. Although Sir Jim does complain about how cold it was in Manchester! Best regards Chris George
Author: Peter Wood Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 03:29 pm
"New Evidence. Or rather the lack of it. Wwe are told that 'Maybrick' murdered two women in Manchester, yet evidence for this has never been found. Apart from that, we have nothing new. No sliver of information that could be proved one way or the other. In all these pages, you'd expect something intimate, something different, something proveable." Pure class. I can't believe you are pulling this old chestnut out again. Let me just point out (once again) that if a reference to the Manchester murders had been discovered, then you and the rest of the detractors would simply claim that source as where the 'forger' must have looked. It is in much the same mould as 'Mrs Hammersmith', it can't be 'proven' so you instantly dismiss it as invention. But when something can be proven you just rush to the place where it is quoted and add that particular volume to your ever growing list of resources the 'forger' must have used! Much of what you have written could be argued against in that way, so I will leave you with that thought for now. On Mary Kelly's breasts: "And your argument about the breasts is only one of the examples where you offer no reliable evidence yourself and discount the best documentary evidence we have, the report of a trained expert." That would be the same 'trained expert' whose word has been discredited due to him having been denounced as a drug addict, wouldn't it John? It matters not, for all we have is one man's word against the other and you don't have to be a trained expert to recognise a woman's breasts. A pancreas, maybe. But not her breasts. So that's that then. Cheers Peter.
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 05:02 pm
Hi Peter, You still are arguing that the breasts were on the table and not where Dr. Bond reported them to be only because you want the diary to be true. Not because you have any reliable material evidence of any sort that they were (the conflicting testimony from a self-admittedly shaken amateur is not a legitimate reason to simply assume the doctor must have been wrong). That's backwards. You need to use the best material evidence available to check against the diary, not dispute the evidence based on the diary. It's the diary that is in dispute. And there is still no material evidence of any sort which links it to its supposed author or even to having existed in the proper century. And I suspect you are wrong about how easy it is for anyone untrained just to walk in off the street and correctly identify hacked up body parts scattered around the room. A doctor making an examination, of course, is probably another story. But this is really beside the point. Except it�s part of a pattern. Every time the diary is contradicted by the known evidence, the readers who want the diary to be true find an excuse to save the diary. This is not analysis, it�s advocacy. Maybrick actually watched the Grand National from an autobus and not in the stands near the Prince the way the diary says. "Well, he was probably just exaggerating to make himself sound important � in his own private diary." The diarist gets what Michael, James� celebrated brother, did for a living wrong. "Well, maybe Michael also wrote verse that no one ever knew about or maybe (Peter actually once said this) James didn�t know what his brother really did for a living or forgot!" This pattern happens over and over again. These are only two examples. I could list several more and their accompanying excuses. It is reading as desire and it�s what makes the arguments in favor of the diary�s authenticity intellectually suspect. Rich, you mention that Maybrick might have written the diary in a different hand because of his use of "personality-altering" drugs. First of all, there is no reputable scientific data that suggests arsenic could produce such an effect. Paul Feldman's goofy use of MPD sufferer's handwriting is irrelevant, since there is no evidence in all the stuff we have about Maybrick (and we have a lot of testimony about him because of the trial and the publicity that surrounded it) that Maybrick ever actually had such a condition. It is more wish-fulfillment of the Feldmanator�s part. Secondly, the "personality-altering" drugs, even if they could have changed Jim's handwriting, would have had to change it several times over in several markedly different ways, since the diarist claims authorship of several Ripper letters and Paul has also argued that he has written several others, based on his reading of the diary. In all, there are at least a half-dozen different handwritings that Maybrick would have had to use if the diarist is telling the truth, given the documents we already have, including Maybrick's real handwriting. Finally, Chris George is correct when he says there is not a single piece of new information in the entire diary that can be verified. This is allegedly the private recording of a day to day lived life (even though it certainly does not read that way -- starting out in faux media res, building in an Aristotelian way to a traditional climax and ending with a self-consciously constructed, single page conclusion that funds to melodramatic closure and recognizes its own end even though its supposed author could not have). But as an allegedly intimate and private journal of a lived life, it has a lot more effects for an audience (the melodramatic "ha ha's," and the lines struck through, but only enough so that we can still read them all, and the focus on Abberline as sole demon-chaser despite the real history of the case, and the not-so-subtle yet buried references to the murders, which are never once described in anything like significant sensory detail fully developed, but are rather presented almost filmically as buried hints and shadows -- it�s easier to write them that way when you haven�t ever actually killed anyone and don�t know what it�s like -- and even the cartoonish plot developments near the end, with the dangling ink-line at the end of "no heart" as our hero swoons at the most dramatic moment and is unable to lift pen from paper. I mean really, a careful reading of this brings laughter in all the wrong places� uh, sorry for the personal digression) Anyway, as I was saying, it has a lot more effects for the audience (who shouldn't even be considered in a private journal, after all) than it does the specific details of a lived life or the actual fragmented constructions of a genuine diary. And in it all there is not a single piece of verifiable information that was not already available. This should tell readers something, anyway. Or do we believe historians are that thorough -- such that when we do get a self-written record of Jack's own experience, he will have nothing verifiable to tell us that we didn't already know? I for one, find that very hard to believe. Anyway, I too am rambling. So I'll stop. Thanks all for the afternoon's reading. All the best, --John
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 06:37 pm
Hi All, A word about methodology seems in order here, lest we think this is just a pro-diary vs. anti-diary debate. The diary is a document, an artifact, which first appeared in public in the late twentieth century. It claimed to be from the nineteenth century. Consequently, since it is only known, so far, to have existed since 1994, it becomes the burden of the diary and its supporters to prove its authenticity. Until they do, it remains only a found twentieth century artifact. The burden is not on those who doubt the diary's authenticity to prove it a forgery (although they are certainly motivated to do so and thereby prove their suspicions). The burden of proof rests with the document that is making the claim to legitimacy. Consequently, any measure of the state of the argument or of the place of the diary in history must be a measure only of how thoroughly it has been established as authentic, not of how or whether is has been proven to be fake. And so far, as a critical reader, it seems clear to me that the establishment of it as an authentic nineteenth century document written by James Maybrick has not even begun. Not a single piece of reliable or verifiable evidence of any sort has ever been offered in support of it. Not one. Ever. It still has not established any verifiable provenance. It still has no history that checks out in any way. It still cannot be placed in the proper century by any means whatsoever. And it still cannot be linked in any way to the real James Maybrick, its supposed author. There has been no serious case even started that has offered any evidence that in any way begins to establish this document as anything other than a found twentieth century artifact. Until there is, that is what this diary remains. Interestingly, for a glimpse into the state of the diary-as-document among scholars and historians in the academy, I offer (without endorsement) the following casual mention in a quick list that appears in Professor L. Perry Curtis' book from Yale University Press on the Ripper case and its treatment in the nineteenth century London Press. We're all mentioned indirectly there, as well: "The Ripper's handiwork lives on in the popular culture by means of red-and-black souvenirs, B-minus teledramas, C-minus films, whodunems, comic books, a bogus diary, tourist walks through a transformed Whitechapel, and a few titillating Web sites." Still proud to be (intellectually) titillating, --John
Author: Richard A Buchko Jr Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 11:21 pm
I don't agree that the burden of proof lies more with proving the document authentic than it does with proving it false. The burden is equal. The diary exists, but what is it? Is it real? Is it fake? There will always be some disagreement about whether one test or another is accurate, about whether a piece of information is vital or not. I find the pro-diary arguments compelling at times, weak at times. The anti-diary arguments are sometimes compelling, sometimes weak. The final piece of the puzzle is still missing. I resist the temptation to argue some of today's comments, things I consider to be either weak or subjective arguments. On both sides. I need to see more information first. What should I be reading? This thread is great, it offers plenty of conclusions, but I need to go to the sources. I repeat a question from earlier, because it is a critical question in my opinion: What information would ahoaxer need to create this document? Is it available? I'll keep reading, but I'll stay behind the scenes for a while. Rich Rich
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 07:04 am
I know I have skimmed the preceding posts, so no doubt I missed it, so I apologise for probably drawing attention once again to the fact that Dr. Bond described the body of Mary Kelly as �naked�, whereas the chemise she was wearing appears to be clearly visible in the photograph. I�m sure it was far more important to Bond that he accurately locate the body parts rather than note what remained of any clothing Kelly may have been wearing, so I don�t suggest that Bond�s error suggests ineptitude.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 07:06 am
Hi Rich, Quite apart from the source books a modern hoaxer would need to have consulted in order to produce the finished product, he/she may have read many many more that aren't necessarily reflected in the text. I should have expected far more factual errors to creep in otherwise, because unless the hoaxer was very well-read on the ripper, how would he know that the few books he did choose as his sources would be the best and most accurate? Other information a hoaxer would need to get past first base would be what sort of pen and ink to use, how to disguise a natural handwriting that was the product of a modern education system, whether the ink would need to be aged artificially once on the paper and how, how to avoid using a single word or phrase that is known to have come into being after the 1880s, and so on and so forth. Another point to make is that the hoaxer would need to have learned or gathered all this information discreetly so as not to risk anyone remembering some guy borrowing certain books from the library, purchasing his materials, asking questions, ordering copies of documents, visiting the PRO, or buying a book entitled 'How to forge your own ripper diary in a fortnight without anyone being any the wiser'. And of course no one's mentioned the watch here for a while - that little bit of extra and totally unexpected luck for the diary hoaxer, that a Maybrick watch would make its timely debut to make up the double event, and that two independent metallurgists would report in 1993 that the scratches inside were made decades before. How lucky was that, if the almost invisible scratches were actually put in there just weeks beforehand, by an amateur opportunist? Love, Caz
Author: Vaughan Allen Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 07:12 am
Such a lot to answer... Caz, sorry, I was referring to what seems to be the idea you hold to that the document is the result of the writer attempting to balance the info pre-recovery of Bond's report and the info found in that report. I have to disagree with that and I think I attempted to show why. Yes, any disagreement between us comes down to a view of luck and of how many potential places there could be for placement of the flesh in question. I would say there could only be a very limited number...divided into two sections, furniture and parts of the room OR parts of the body. In the first we have bed, table, fireplace, floor. Well, bed would be right, table couldn't work because that's where 'Maybrick' does put them, fireplace is unlikely because there's other stuff going on. Then there's parts of the body...head, chest, legs, feet, hands...of those, three would be right. I'm not sure it's even a question of luck really, or only of a very limited sort. Why the rhyme about this? Well, we know he's talking about 'leaving it all over the room', he's thinking about the mayhem there, and this rhyme seems to fit with all that. But your argument is very sound...why this subject? If your theory (that the hoaxer is trying to balance the two divergent reports of the state of the room) is correct, why does he then get the correct placement incorrect as it were? Surely it's more likely that it's a throw-away piece? There doesn't have to be a reason for everything, and there seem to be a lot of rhymes in the diary that are there for no reason, or just to attempt to add mood. As for the heart, I think I've already answered this haven't I? I think you're reading into it a meaning that the hoaxer didn't have; they may actually be referring to 'Maybrick' as having no heart. How does writing 'no heart no heart' work if 'Maybrick' burnt it (or if we follow PHF, he somehow crumbled it and spread it over the walls). That simply doesn't make sense... But then we have an essential difference about the quality of the work involved in the diary (must decide whether to capitalise that or not in future!). My feeling is that with the canonical murders, the letters, the farthings, it's a very orthodox reading that owes everything to Ripperology in the 70s/80s, pre-Begg/Fido/Sugden. Chris, and if 'Maybrick' was in the habit of jumping on boats to go and committ murders, the idea of hopping down to London to do another becomes slightly less implausible! Peter, yes I brought THAT Manchester statement up again. Sorry. Yes, anti-diarists probably would come up with an explanation if you/PHF ever discovered a relevant murder, but at least give us the chance to do that! Until you can find a Manchester murder at the relevant time, there isn't even the chance to be challenged, because the two events remain firmly in the realm of fantasy alongside Fairy Fay. Though it is with some chutzpah that you raise the point. After all, again and again anti-Diarists have challenged elements in the document and PHF and you have squirmed into the most unlikely of defences. PHF even claims he deals with the issue of MJK (RIP)'s breasts, when clearly he doesn't. You're reduced to arguing with the official report. You keep challenging anti-Diarists to find a document that proves Maybrick wasn't where 'Maybrick' claims he was. Well, find one that does, or find something that confirms the Manchester murders. And I don't have a very long list of sources at all...the very conversation I'm having with Caz. The whole history of hoaxes shows fairly simple people creating things and very intelligent people then reading lots more into them...from Conan Doyle to Trevor-Roper. And as for 'not having to be trained to recognise breasts'...your view is that they were sliced off and placed on the table like Kipling's Bakewell Tarts? From the carnage committed, it's far more likely that they were reduced to a mass of flesh, and, yes, you'd have to be trained to recognise them... But you still haven't answered the main point of my posting...can you PURR-LEASE provide us with a similar summary of Maybrick's guilt, the sort of argument you'd have to take to the CPS to get the man to trial??? At least then we can make a comparison of arguments... Richard, Completely agree about Feldman's style. I read it with a fairly open mind, but by the 'Sir Jim' argument it was closing, and by the time of the ludicrous assumptions made in the Billy Graham interview, it had turned against what he was trying to say... Re. your points...provenance...you're probably right, but we also need to get the provenance back as far as possible. At the moment it's stuck in the early 90s with one person claiming 1969. If we even knew that Maybrick kept a diary, that would be a start! Mistakes...what details are amazingly correct? Can't think of any that amazed me, have to admit. There's a problem with confusing what the Diary actually says and what PHF or Peter WANT it to say, of course. And what is about Maybrick's life and death WITHOUT THE DIARY that would make him a suspect? We have a refernce to hitting his wife and, uhhr, that's it surely? If he really was the arsenic-addled maniac he's meant to be, wouldn't he have been less able to plan his trips to London and his escapes? On the books required for research, as you'll see from my conversations with Caz, this is a matter of some debate and has been since Melvin Harris came up with his three/four/more list. A lot depends on what you read into the various little rhymes and so on. And, as has been pointed out before, there is absolutely no evidence that Maybrick took mind/personality altering drugs...so this particular argument over the handwriting becomes a way of excusing the diary, and semi-accepts the Diary without working from facts we know about the real person. And I'm afraid the sainted Omlor is right...the burden of proof lies with those backing the Diary. That burden would only shift if reasonable evidence could be produced that it was a Victorian document, that the real Maybrick kept a diary, that he was in a position to murder any of these women. If the burden was not this way round, then anyone could produce any document and claim it as 'proof'. Which is exactly what they do in Ripperology of course, but the post-Begg/Fido/Sugden generation have tried to bring a more historiological attitude to this research (without getting into a Heidegger type debate on historicism). Oi John, I made the point about the new evidence, though I'm sure Chris has done so many times before...you're gonna lose your halo if attribution goes astray... Wandered over to the Deleuze list yesterday, which I haven't looked at in a very long while...is that you there? Vaughan
Author: Vaughan Allen Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 07:25 am
Caz, our posts crossed there...I would admit that a lot more work went into getting the book and the ink right than went into the content, which might suggest a number of hoaxers.. As to the point about 'how would he know which books'? Well, I'd know, a quick visit to here would tell me. Yes, I know casebook didn't exist then, but a quick flick through the books on sale in the local store would lead you towards Rumbelow as the most objective surely (assuming mid-late 80s)? A lot of the Diary strikes me as a very orthodox reading of the case, and that orthodox reading is found in the first few chapters of almost every book on the ripper, BEFORE the 'and my candidate is...' chapters start. Indeed, up till the B/F/S research, writing a book on the ripper was easy, you just copied the first five chapters (the 'five victims') from all the others, and then set off on a flight of fancy. Indeed, it's what some still do... The non-anachronistic words thing is very interesting. I hate to go 'luck' again, but one of the most remarkable elements of lexicological research is how ancient so many words are. As long as you avoid the obvious 'new' words ('robot', 'internet'), it's actually pretty hard to make a mistake. Look at Jon Green's wonderful 'Dictionary of Slang' for instance. I just don't believe this IS particularly remarkable. But isn't there still some debate anyway about a couple of the words? Why did he need to visit the PRO? Ah, but, yes, the watch. Now that is an interesting quandary. But it's also a separate issue Phew, really must do some work... Vaughan
Author: John Hacker Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 07:32 am
Peter, I notice you failed to reply to my last post. But fortunately you solved my problem with your last post. "That would be the same 'trained expert' whose word has been discredited due to him having been denounced as a drug addict, wouldn't it John?" So even if the diary were written by Maybrick it's worthless, right? Cause we know he's was a drug addict. Unlike Bond of course. The actual quote from Paul Begg's booth that Smithkey was referring to was "In middle life he had suffered from insomnia which coupled with overwork led him to use drugs. It is not stated, though it is possibly inferred by virtue of being mentioned, that he was addicted to the use of narcotics. Presumably this did not impair his faculties, but it is a possibility that should be borne in mind." Sounds like "sleeping pills" to me, oh no! Not a particularly strong denunciation in my mind. But (as I intend to keep reminding you) we can verify the reletive accuracy of Bond's vs McCarthy's descriptions of the scene by simply looking at the pictures. Bond's report is far longer, with plenty of detail that matches up against the physical scene. (He does of course describe MJK as "naked" which could be construed as a mistake. I've always taken it to mean that she was, er, "exposed". It certainly could be an error on his part.) McCarthy fares less well when compared to the photographic evidence. "Both her breasts too had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table." MJK''s liver was NOT on the table. This was an error on McCarthy's part. The liver is clearly visible in the photograph right where Bond's report places it. We have 2 photographs that show the surface of the table and neither of them show anyting that looks like what McCarthy described. Why is that Peter? Hmmm? Regards, John Hacker P.S. Could you post a summary of your argument regarding McCarthy vs. Bond? Which pieces of actual evidence led you to this conclusion?
Author: John Hacker Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 07:42 am
Vaughan, You make a very good point when you said "A lot of the Diary strikes me as a very orthodox reading of the case, and that orthodox reading is found in the first few chapters of almost every book on the ripper, BEFORE the 'and my candidate is...' chapters start.". It's always struck me as an "old school" Ripper tale, right down to the classic mistakes. The the breasts on the table for example :-) The author avoids detail like the plague so the reasearch didn't need to be too extensive. Regards, John Hacker
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 07:59 am
Hi Vaughan, You ask how writing 'no heart no heart' works if 'Maybrick' burnt it (or if we follow PHF, he somehow crumbled it and spread it over the walls) and say that simply doesn't make sense. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this one. Yes, the author might have had Maybrick asking God's forgiveness for being so heartless to do what he did to Kelly. But it's quite a coincidence if he didn't know that Kelly too was heartless - but that in her case it was literally. The known facts don't show what he did with it afterwards. But whether it was left at the scene somehow or taken away and eaten or kept as a souvenir, the fact remains that the killer did leave Kelly with 'no heart'. Love, Caz PS '...a quick flick through the books on sale in the local store would lead you towards Rumbelow as the most objective surely...' Well it might and it might not. And I didn't mean the hoaxer needed to visit the PRO necessarily. I just meant in general terms that if he did think of going beyond ripper/Maybrick texts to primary source info, this is the kind of visit he'd not want to advertise or have recorded for posterity.
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:11 am
Hi Vaughan My brain is dying on me today, so please excuse me if I get the following wrong, but Bond�s report was discovered in late 1987 and was first published in the 1989 paperback edition of Martin Fido�s book. So the earliest the diarist could have known what Dr Bond said about the placement of Mary Kelly�s breasts was late 1987, though I am not sure how easy it would have been to obtain the report at that time, or more likely 1989. So if the �diary� reflects a date of composition prior to 1987 � i.e., a very orthodox reading that owes everything to Ripperology in the 70s/80s, pre-Begg/Fido/Sugden� - then we have a bit of a problem. On the other hand, a date post BFS would conflict with the orthodox reading you otherwise feel the 'diary' reflects. It's headache making.
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:28 am
Hi Vaughn, Sorry about giving Chris your line about the lack of any verifiable new, intimate information whatsoever in the alleged private diary of Jack the Ripper. It was indeed from your fine post of Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 12:21 pm, above. Yup, I am on the Deleuze list (and the Derrida list, where I was a good deal more active for a time, and a few others that are similarly related to my job -- and my not so secret love of critical theory). I thought I recognized your name. Shall we talk about Jack becoming animal? Or Mary as a BwO? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) All the best, --John
Author: david rhea Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 09:36 am
Dr. Bond says that "the breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions, the muscles down to the ribs being attached to the breasts".In just hacking something up would you take all this care?Is there some reason to remove them in this manner if all you wanted to do was destroy the human body?Seems like there was a reason and method here. What say you?
Author: Scott E. Medine Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:22 pm
It goes into ritual. The killer has fantasised about this and has played the scenario over and over in his mind. Just as the placement of the flesh and organs are a part of his ritual. Peace, Scott
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:58 pm
Daniel Farson in his book "Jack the Ripper" 1972 I think,-- (it was my first book), has Mary Kelly's intestines hanging around the room like Christmas decorations. The bedside table bore the display of Kelly's kidneys, and slices of her heart and breasts, this time he hadn't ripped, he had sliced like a butcher preparing meat for display. Now I like spectacular horror, and I believed that version for a number of years, then I eventually read Dr Bonds post mortem report, and that is what I consider to be the truth,-- for what its worth. Rick
Author: david rhea Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 10:25 pm
Then there was method in their removal.The whole breast and not a part.There has to be a reason for this. The removal of a human breast was not the same as a cow, goat, sheep teats was it?Whoever did it must have done it before and had a reason for it. Ritual might not br far from the truth.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 18 January 2002 - 02:46 pm
Dear David, We "think" before we "do"! Masturbation, for example, is "thinking a lot" about "Camelot".:-) Our existence as sentient beings is a complex series of rituals...in this regard we do not differ from "Jack". As regards the realm of, so- called, fantasy...Hollywood fulfills this need and even excels at this service.How many serial killers owe it all to Hollywood? Rosey :-)
Author: Peter Wood Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 09:29 am
" ...and recognizes its own end even though its supposed author could not have)". Phew! You guys have certainly been busy since my last visit. But John, as ever, it is you to whom I turn first. Way back you made the statement I refer to above. May I refer you to a letter that James Maybrick wrote to his brother Michael on April 29th 1889 - just days before his death, which, in part, contains these words: " ...What is the matter with me none of the doctors so far can make out and I suppose never will until I am stretched out and cold and then future generations may profit by it if they hold a post mortem which I am quite willing they should do". You'll find the letter reproduced on page 189 of Shirley's book, it's the letter that starts 'Dear Blucher'. Read it John. There you have incontravertible evidence that the real James Maybrick was aware that he was dying. Consequently your damning appraisal of the last page of the diary is nothing more than your oft used phrase - 'wish fulfillment'. You see John, in order to 'attack' the last page in the diary, you first have to be of the opinion that the diary isn't genuine. But look at the evidence and you will find that the last page in the diary is entirely in keeping with Maybrick's state of mind when he wrote it. Well, that was satisfying. Peter.