Archive through 22 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 22 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Maybrick, James: Archive through 22 January 2002

Author: Peter Wood Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 09:51 am
" ...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...". Fair comment, Vaughan, so here goes. 1) Maybrick lived in Whitechapel. 2) Maybrick worked in Whitechapel. 3) At the time of the murders Maybrick had a brother living in London. 4) At the time of the murders Maybrick was still doing business from an office in Whitechapel. 5) James Maybrick therefore had every reason to be in Whitechapel in 1888, a fact not widely known before Paul and Shirley began to investigate the diary. 6) Circumstantial evidence: The 'Mibrac' entry in the Charing Cross hotel register. It is a name that doesn't exist, but as we know Maybrick liked to play games with his name ...this is another straw on the camel's back. 7) Maybrick was known to be violent towards Florie. 8) Maybrick was known to take mind altering drugs ...and any argument against this is so silly that I shan't even bother discussing it with you. Just accept it as fact that it has been proven beyond doubt - James Maybrick took drugs. They affected him physically and mentally. 9) Consequently we have a combination of a man with a predisposition towards violence now known to have taken narcotics. A lethal combination. And I haven't even got to the diary yet! 10) The diary. No, it hasn't been proven as genuine. No, it hasn't been proven to be a fake. Therefore anything in it that causes problems for the "forgers" theory must be a positive for Me, Shirley and Paul. Thus: 11) Tin Match Box Empty and the (strange) reference to MJK's breasts being either on the table or at her feet would seemingly 'pull' the composition of any forgery to the present, BUT - the scientific examination consistently places the composition of the diary in the past. And quite how far in the past is, at this point, immaterial. The fact is that not one of the 'experts' engaged to examine the diary has said "... yes it was composed within the last five years ...". Variously they have said "Decades", "1920's", "1970's", "Victorian", etc etc. The point here is that if the experts can't place the composition of the diary as being modern then you can't use the volumes cited in the past for selection of such pieces as Tin Match Box Empty and MJK's breasts (i.e. Martin Fido and Dr Bond's report). And if that is the case then you seriously have to consider the possibility that they had to have come from the one person who knew more about them than anyone else ...Jack the Ripper. 12) Alec Voller. A learned gentleman who completely knocks on the head the idea that the diary ink could be diamine, thus placing the composition of the diary so far into the past that there really is no other option than it must be genuine. 13) Anne and Billy Graham's evidence. Yes, yes, yes John, before you start tapping away at your keyboard both those people could be said to have an 'interest' in the diary so their evidence remains unsubstantiated ...but evidence it is. And until you can prove that they are/were lying then it is material evidence in favour of the diary as being genuine. 14) The 'Galashiels' letter, which matches the handwriting of a proven Maybrick missive so perfectly that Bill Waddell was driven to remark "One and the same". 15) ...that is far from it. But for now it will do you as I have ten minutes before Man U kick off against Blackburn ...and I have other people to address. Regards Peter.
Author: John Omlor Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 10:01 am
But Peter, The question isn't did James Maybrick think he was about to die. (He seems to have thought that on and off for most of his adult life, by the way, according to the trial testimony.) And in any case, the quote you cite, if you read it carefully, is no different than any one of a number Maybrick was reported to have made and written to his friends often over the years and does not indicate that he knew he would be dead in only a few days (he didn't, obviously). No, the question is how, on May 3rd, the diarist knew to end his diary with a neat, single page entry that melodramatically and tidily closes his life and the performance. The real Maybrick, although ill, would live for another week and had, in fact, just that same day, gone to the doctors to try and get stronger and better medicine. So he hadn't given up hope or seen the inevitability of his own end on that day and in real life would have no reason to suddenly and performatively end his diary completely. Now of course, our forgers knew Maybrick was about to die, and so they had to end the diary thereabouts and probably figured that the last time Maybrick went out (although Maybrick couldn't have known this was the last time he was going out), before he became bedridden with his final illness, was a good time for the last entry. Honestly, how many things in this diary have to excused away in order to believe it? The pattern continues. Ah, well. Did you try asking the Sphere people about their donation, Peter? All the best, --John PS: "the scientific examination consistently places the composition of the diary in the past." Well, it couldn't have been composed in the future. But if, by past, you mean the distant past, this is a lie. The scientific examination remains consitently contradictory on this question. Please be accurate, Peter. PPS: And, as expected, not a single thing in that whole list above links this book to the real James Maybrick in any reliable or even material way, nor places this book in the right century even. It's a long list of dreams and non-evidence, because, after all, there is no evidence.
Author: Peter Wood Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 10:02 am
Me again Err ...which of you was it asked me to summarise my argument of McCarthy v Bond? Anyway ... As Paul Begg has so ably managed to prove above, Bond has been proven wrong on one blindingly obvious point - i.e. Mary Kelly was wearing a chemise. That point alone would seem to suggest to me that Bond was writing his report from memory, NOT at the scene. Thus anything Bond says in his report is now questionable and inadmissible in a court of law. Yes, yes, yes ...I would have it thrown out as evidence owing to it's "author" having been proven wrong on a basic point and thereby being unreliable on any other point. McCarthy. What qualifications do you need to recognise a breast? Yes he said they were next to the liver on the table ...but the point here isn't that McCarthy was mistaken about the breasts being on the table, but that it is more likely he was mistaken about the liver being on the table. That's right - a lump of slimey flesh confronts him and he thinks " ...aah, a liver". Two mounds of flesh with nipples confront him and he thinks " ...aahh, two breasts". Bond's evidence is unreliable. McCarthy's is more likely to be true. And in my court of law where Bond's evidence has been thrown out ...you only have McCarthy's left. So there. But then there is that strange little rhyme in the diary, which you lot use to claim the diarist was 'hedging his bets'. Remarkable isn't it? This isn't wish fulfillment, just a genuine question from someone looking for the middle ground, ...I wonder if they could both have been right? I wonder if there was breast tissue on the table and by MJK's feet? And that's it ...the football just kicked off. See ya Peter.
Author: Peter Wood Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 10:05 am
"Now of course, our forgers knew Maybrick was about to die, and so they had to end the diary thereabouts Wish fulfillment? Peter
Author: John Omlor Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 10:09 am
No, just a logical conclusion. They couldn't have very well had the diary go on past the day we know the real James died, now could they? --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 01:13 pm
Er, John, that really wasn't worthy of you. I took Peter to mean that our forgers didn't have to end the diary thereabouts at all. In fact it would have been better to leave it almost in mid-stream (as they made it begin) and to let the readers assume that Maybrick had hidden the diary as usual (where it would be found after his death) but been too ill to carry on writing in it. There was absolutely no need for the forgers to create the dramatic (and artificial-looking) final page the way they did. Any fool would have realised without it that the writer was supposed to be Jack the Ripper. In fact, I can't think why they decided to end things this way. I can only think they wanted to have Maybrick putting his thoughts in some final order after coming off the arsenic (I wonder if they knew that withdrawal could have precipitated his death - I wonder if James knew) to finish the yarn off properly. But this wasn't supposed to be a yarn. This was supposed to be the real thing. So either the forgers boobed here - or Maybrick did know this time that his death was probably imminent, in which case it makes some kind of sense for him to want to make this final entry before it was too late. Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 05:05 pm
Hi Caz, But what I'm suggesting is that the forgers acted consistently -- they wrote the end of the book just as they had written the rest of it, in a completely conventional manner. Of course, I suppose they could have ended it in mid-stream. Fair enough. That would indeed have even been more natural for a diary. But remember, they didn't actually begin it in the middle (a quick reading of the first page, as it gives us everything we as readers need to know, shows us that). They began it with a clearly conventional opening page of establishment (despite the shallow pretense to beginning in media res) and they ended it with a clearly conventional closing page of conclusion. They were perfectly consistent in the fulfillment of all the clichés of melodrama. And the recorded evidence suggests that on May 3rd Maybrick did not know that his death was imminent (or did not believe it) as he went to the doctors for new medicine that very day and went to his office as well. All I meant was that the forgers had to end the thing before May 9th, and since they knew that Maybrick would end up being bed-ridden the last week, they were sort of stuck ending it about when they did (or before). The fact that they waited until one of the last likely moments, knowing the history in a way Maybrick could not have while he lived it, doesn't surprise me at all. It seems perfectly consistent with the conventional way they structured the rest of this book. Sorry if my flippancy made my intention unclear here. By the way, if you go back long ago to the post of mine to which Peter is responding here, you'll see it contains a long list of textual reasons why this diary seems artificially constructed. This is only one of the slightest. But let the debate continue. I shot 75 today and am headed out to dinner and a movie and a holiday weekend of fun. Bye all, --John
Author: Harry Mann Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 04:10 am
Peter, I doubt you would get Maybrick to trial on the points you mentioned.Don't confuse evidence with information,and I think Vaughn was making this point. Information there is aplenty,both in the Ripper case and surrounding the Diary,but real evidence seems to be lacking in both. However you make good points,and John and others do a fine job of counteracting them.Perhaps when you all agree we may then accept that there is indeed evidence to support or reject Maybrick as a reasonable suspect. Regards,H.Mann.
Author: John Hacker Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 09:10 am
Peter, Thanks for indulging me regarding the summary of your McCarthy vs. Bond argument. It certainly gives a fascinating insight into how you evaluate evidence. I really do suggest you look at the pictures a tad more closely. They clearly rule out the scenario you proposed. Unforunately I'm stuck with noisy house guests for a couple of days but I will post a comprehensive reply once it's quiet enough to think. I don't expect to convince you Peter, but if nothing else it might be helpful for someone else the next time this issue comes up. As it seems likely to. Regards, John
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 10:18 am
"And the recorded evidence suggests that on May 3rd Maybrick did not know that his death was imminent (or did not believe it) as he went to the doctors for new medicine that very day and went to his office as well. Pray tell, John, how do you interpret the 'recorded' evidence as suggesting Maybrick did not know his death was imminent? Surely my pointing out of the 'Blucher' letter suggests otherwise? And, of course, we have the evidence of the servants, just a few days later, who heard James cry out (and I paraphrase) " ...if I am to die, let me die in peace". Clearly James Maybrick was a man who knew that all was not well in his world. Maybe after one too many Coors or Colt 45's you've been heard to remark " ...ugghhhh, I feel like I'm dying", the difference with James Maybrick is that when he said it, I suspect he really meant it. And quite clearly John, healthy people do not go to their doctor's surgery for medicine. Maybrick knew something was up. The amount of visits he made suggests that it was serious. And as such your argument against the last page of the diary is no longer valid. Caz - thanks for jumping on John's case ...from the little I wrote that you and John both commented on, I merely meant to infer that, by making that statement, John was already accepting that the diary is a forgery, i.e. the only reason that the last page could have the structure that it does is because the diary has to be a forgery. That's not responsible. That's not looking at both sides. I'm not someone famed for doing research, but even I can remember the 'Blucher' letter and the evidence of the servants. Clearly the diary is either genuine OR our forgers have done much more research than John would like to give them credit for. It's cold here today. United play Liverpool on Tuesday - and I can't even e mail Chris George because my Outlook is still goosed. Peter
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 10:25 am
John (Hacker) Would you consider changing your first name so I don't have to keep putting your last name in brackets? Only joking ... Well, I have looked at the pictures again - two grainy old photographs, poorly taken and poorly reproduced. But they are all we have. They aren't conclusive and they don't rule out either of our theories. But as for suggesting I look at the photographs ...it's a shame someone at the time didn't suggest to Dr Bond that he look at the scene a little more closely, then he might have been straight on the basic point of Mary Kelly's attire. Paul Begg has proven him wrong on that point. I have seconded Paul's opinion. Bond is an unreliable witness, therefore his evidence would be discounted in a court of law. And when I win the lottery I will pay to put James Maybrick on trial somewhere in Liverpool. Yes, we'll get all the famous barristers ...I'll even pay for Cherie Booth to defend him (to those of you from over the water that's our Prime Minister's wife) - but it won't do any good, he'll be found guilty. 114 years after he did it. May as well campaign for Florie to get a pardon too. Why not? Cheers Peter
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 11:54 am
Hi Peter, First a few simple things, then a review of your evidence. I'm sorry I misunderstood your line about wish-fulfillment. I see now that you were suggesting that I meant, as you say, that "the only reason that the last page could have the structure that it does is because the diary has to be a forgery." And you are absolutely correct, if I had meant that, it would not have been responsible of me. It would have been an utterly invalid argument. But that wasn't what I meant, honestly. If you go back and check the paragraph, you'll see that I first discussed the idea of James writing it and wrote why I thought that was not likely given his actions on that day, and then entertained the idea of the forgers writing it and why I thought that was more likely, why I thought they would have been bound to write it that way given the structure of the rest of the book. But I did not mean to imply that the reason they had to write it that way is because the diary had to be a forgery. That's why I considered the idea of James writing it first. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding we might have had. I apologize for not understanding your initial remark. Secondly, as we know from the trial transcripts, Maybrick was sick and regularly visiting doctors almost his entire adult life. He was also a constant complainer about his health to everyone and several people at the trial testified to him being something of a hypochondriac besides really suffering from the tortuous things he was doing to his body. He was always bothering the doctor for new medicines and stronger medicines and May 3rd was no exception. He went to the doctor to get better stuff and he went to his own office. And he was ill that night, just as he had been ill many, many nights over the past several years. And the remark you cite in a letter, if you read it carefully, says nothing about James thinking he'd be dead in only a few days. It just says when he dies and they examine his body, people will learn he's been telling the truth about all his complaints. And as the trial testimony shows, Maybrick had made these sorts of remarks to his friends and family regularly for years. Consequently, there is not a single shred of evidence that James Maybrick did or said anything on May 3rd that indicated he knew his end was upon him. But according to the diary, this was the day he was wrapping things up (and, incidentally, he was sick again that night, like so many others, so it is not clear when exactly, during that day of doctors visits and time at the office and vomiting in the evening while being nursed, he might have sat down to write that last neat single page, melodramatic conclusion to his life's diary and to sign it "Jack the Ripper" in a way that doesn't resemble any of the other documents signed "Jack the Ripper" that he allegedly wrote according to the diary and that in no way resembles his own signature or his own known handwriting, even though the handwriting on the last page of the diary is neat and controlled and perfectly ordered and shows no indication of any loss of control). Yup, the evidence clearly points to James. By the way "the amount of visits" to the doctors, which you mention, had been going on for quite some time. And what the servants heard several days later is irrelevant if we're talking about James' actions on May 3rd. Finally, read the last page of the diary once more, Peter. Do you actually believe that page is the final, confession of the guy who killed the women in Whitechapel? Despite the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence linking the supposed author of these words to the words themselves or to the book they appear in or to the crimes? Oh yes, evidence. Let's look at yours. Here we go: "1) Maybrick lived in Whitechapel." Uh, this is somehow evidence that James was Jack? If so, a whole bunch of guys are in trouble. "2) Maybrick worked in Whitechapel." See above. "3) At the time of the murders Maybrick had a brother living in London." Oh yeah, now we're getting somewhere. "4) At the time of the murders Maybrick was still doing business from an office in Whitechapel." Well, that narrows things down and is clearly evidence of... What!? Do you understand the meaning of the word "evidence." We're looking for evidence that Maybrick was the Ripper. So far, that evidence appears to be "Maybrick might have been in Whitechapel sometimes." Well, I'm convinced. "5) James Maybrick therefore had every reason to be in Whitechapel in 1888, a fact not widely known before Paul and Shirley began to investigate the diary." And this is evidence of... Come on, Peter, just one thing that suggests that James was killing whores while he was there might be nice. Or that he even should be considered for a moment as a suspect. The diary, of course, doesn't count, since that is what you are trying to prove is genuine. "6) Circumstantial evidence: The 'Mibrac' entry in the Charing Cross hotel register. It is a name that doesn't exist, but as we know Maybrick liked to play games with his name ...this is another straw on the camel's back." Oh yeah, this one's a clincher. Except that when you read the actual advertisement in the paper that prompted all this confusion, you see that there is no reason to think that this has anything at all to do with James. Well, one reason really. Paul Feldman's dreams and wishes. That's many reasons, I guess. Sorry. "7) Maybrick was known to be violent towards Florie." Ah, the first piece of data we have that in any way even begins to speak to the question. Of course, it's not evidence in favor of James as the ripper or even as a plausible suspect, but at least its something. "8) Maybrick was known to take mind altering drugs ...and any argument against this is so silly that I shan't even bother discussing it with you. Just accept it as fact that it has been proven beyond doubt - James Maybrick took drugs. They affected him physically and mentally." James Maybrick took arsenic. A drug which probably affected his behavior in certain ways, just as it did the many men who were taking it in less than lethal doses at the time. There is no valid clinical reason to think it caused him to become homicidal or to develop MPD (and six or seven handwritings) or to become an enraged serial killer. Unless you really, really, want him to be. Then, I guess, anything is possible, despite what we know and don't know. "9) Consequently we have a combination of a man with a predisposition towards violence now known to have taken narcotics. A lethal combination. Dramatic musical sting... " A lethal combination." Dum dum duuuuuum.... More Feldmaniacal inferences and melodrama here. But when spelled out clearly the argument obviously doesn't work. James Maybrick took arsenic. James Maybrick hit his wife. Therefore James Maybrick was a serial killer who butchered women in Whitechapel. The first two pieces of data are not only not sufficient logical premises for the induction which follows, they are not even evidence linking the real Maybrick to either the diary or the case. "And I haven't even got to the diary yet!" And since there is nothing at all that links the real Maybrick to the diary, it cannot be evidence of anything regarding the real Maybrick, so you shouldn't mention it as evidence in favor of the real Maybrick as suspect. You can use it all you want as evidence against the Maybrick mentioned in the diary. But since there is no real, logical, material reason to suspect he is a real person or ever lived or is anything more than a fictional character based on a historical one, you can't use anything in it to say anything about the real Maybrick, Peter. At least not until you offer just one single, solitary piece of reliable evidence of any sort that links this book in any way to the real James Maybrick or even to the proper century. Until someone does that, this book cannot be used to say anything about the real Maybrick since there's no real reason to think he wrote it or even knew it existed. "10) The diary. No, it hasn't been proven as genuine. No, it hasn't been proven to be a fake. Therefore anything in it that causes problems for the "forgers" theory must be a positive for Me, Shirley and Paul. Thus:" This is a logical howler. The book remains completely unlinked to the real Maybrick -- so if you are supposed to be offering solid reasons why we should think Maybrick was Jack, the book and anything in it can not be among them yet. Otherwise, you are using the diary to prove the diary and that is a logically invalid and fallacious move. "11) Tin Match Box Empty and the (strange) reference to MJK's breasts being either on the table or at her feet would seemingly 'pull' the composition of any forgery to the present, BUT - the scientific examination consistently places the composition of the diary in the past. And quite how far in the past is, at this point, immaterial. The fact is that not one of the 'experts' engaged to examine the diary has said "... yes it was composed within the last five years ...". Variously they have said "Decades", "1920's", "1970's", "Victorian", etc etc. The point here is that if the experts can't place the composition of the diary as being modern then you can't use the volumes cited in the past for selection of such pieces as Tin Match Box Empty and MJK's breasts (i.e. Martin Fido and Dr Bond's report). And if that is the case then you seriously have to consider the possibility that they had to have come from the one person who knew more about them than anyone else ...Jack the Ripper." Complete and utter nonsense. "the scientific examination consistently places the composition of the diary in the past. And quite how far in the past is, at this point, immaterial." If by "in the past," you mean the distant past, then this is a lie. The science has done nothing of the sort and remains completely contradictory and therefore cannot help you here. And the material you mention, especially the "tin match box empty" line written in the same words exactly as the police report found in several modern Ripper books, suggests the book was written recently and the science has not been able to say it wasn't. So your argument here is logically pointless, since it uses the science to say the book must be older than the modern Ripper books, but the science does not say that. This one is really a piece of Feldmaniacal prose. In fact, the science doesn't place the book in any specific time. So you can use whatever sources you see as likely to have been used. And one of them is the Sphere Guide and one of them is a source for the police list. And both of those are modern. But this is all irrelevant, since we're supposed to be listing reasons to consider the real Maybrick as a suspect and there is still no evidence at all that this book is in any way linked to the real Maybrick at all. "12) Alec Voller. A learned gentleman who completely knocks on the head the idea that the diary ink could be diamine, thus placing the composition of the diary so far into the past that there really is no other option than it must be genuine." Wrong. Alec Voller's comments about the ink not being Diamine tell us nothing at all about when the book was written. "13) Anne and Billy Graham's evidence. Yes, yes, yes John, before you start tapping away at your keyboard both those people could be said to have an 'interest' in the diary so their evidence remains unsubstantiated ...but evidence it is. And until you can prove that they are/were lying then it is material evidence in favour of the diary as being genuine." Tap tap tap. Anne told a story. Her dad might have backed her up (Peter B. has pointed out that Billy never even says he saw this diary). But this story, which Anne and Billy tell, is the story that needs evidence to support it. And you have none. Billy's support isn't independent evidence, of course. He's her dad. Anne told a story. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that story. None. Of any kind. The diary has no established provenance whatsoever. That should be remembered by everyone. The diary has no established provenance whatsoever. It has a bunch of stories behind it, none of which check out in any material or reliable way. Consequently, the diary remains only a found 20th century artifact in search of a confirmable history. It is a document without a reliable provenance and therefore cannot be considered authentic or reliable as history. And it remains in no way linked via any evidence whatsoever to its supposed author. Therefore it cannot be considered evidence of its supposed authors guilt by any responsible person or careful thinker. "14) The 'Galashiels' letter, which matches the handwriting of a proven Maybrick missive so perfectly that Bill Waddell was driven to remark "One and the same"." "A proven Maybrick missive," Peter? I think you mean the will. The Galasheils letter does not match the handwriting of the Baltic letters that we know Maybrick wrote. But that's not even the point. Here's the point. Neither the Galasheils letter nor the Maybrick will nor Maybrick's Baltic letters in any way shape or form match or come close to matching the diary, or any of the letters the diarist claims to have written. So if you are seriously offering handwriting as evidence of James' guilt, then you really have no idea what the word evidence means. Handwriting is evidence, repeatedly, most markedly, of James having nothing at all to do with this silly book. So what are we going to court with? Well, your honor, this guy was in Whitechapel sometimes and took arsenic and hit his wife and... Well, and that's it. So we say he must be the Ripper. There is this book that says he is, but we have no evidence that this book is linked to him in any way or that it was even written in the proper century and it didn't appear until a later century, so I guess we can't really use that. But listen, he hit his wife. And he took arsenic. And he visited Whitechapel. So he must the Ripper, your honor. Honest. Yup. James is going down. Seriously though, what is almost criminal is that people can take a clichéd and hackneyed and shallow book like this, for which there is no evidence that it is in any way authentic or even linked to Maybrick and use it to accuse of him of these horrible murders. The book offers us not a single piece of previously unknown, verifiable information. There is nothing at all that places it anywhere near the real Maybrick or even in the right century. I know, this is what we do. That's why we have Lewis Carroll and a Prince we know was elsewhere and that's why dear Patricia can go on TV and accuse Sickert of these crimes (with about the same amount of evidence that we have linking James to them). It's our hobby. But sometimes, serious critical thought should come into play. And serious critical thought and careful reason leaves one with no reason at all for thinking that this book is linked in any way to the real James Maybrick or that he was in any way linked to these horrible murders. Now I must read the newspaper. All the best, --John
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 01:08 pm
John Thanks for the detailed and well thought out response to some of my points. My points were, of course, 'off the cuff'. Perhaps if I were to sit down and compose a proper list ...then we would have a debate. Actually John, what the beginning of my list was supposed to infer is that the band of "forgers" must have done some pretty solid research before they even dreamt of putting pen to paper, because otherwise they have enjoyed extraordinary luck with James' Whitechapel connections and the fact that he worked in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. Well, as you quite rightly point out John, so did several thousand other people. But, of course, none of them is being accused of writing the diary. Only James. So it is fair to make 'circumstantial' claims for evidence, as much as would be allowed in any modern court of law. Seriously though, what is almost criminal is that people can take a clichéd and hackneyed and shallow book like this, for which there is no evidence that it is in any way authentic or even linked to Maybrick and use it to accuse of him of these horrible murders. No John, that isn't strictly true. Either James Maybrick wrote the diary or a forger did. This much is true (apologies to Gary Kemp and Tony Hadley). No one is really taking the diary and using it as evidence to accuse James, although the inference is there - and it is a very fine line. What people are doing is examining the diary and it's provenance. You provide some fine arguments against it, but I am afraid that calling it a "clichéd and hackneyed and shallow book" is simply mis reporting of the grossest nature. As I have already pointed out, if the diary is a forgery then it's forger(s) have enjoyed an incredible amount of luck OR they have done some serious research even before they thought of launching it upon the public. Witness: You have mentioned the numerous occasions on which Maybrick is now known to have visited his doctor - show me how a forger could have written the diary around those dates without knowing those dates. Evidence of research? Or perhaps it is genuine. At the time that Shirley's book was published there were very few, if any, people who would have associated Maybrick with the Ripper - so for the forgers to select him as their candidate AND then enjoy the luxury of finding out that he lived and worked in Whitechapel, had a mistress there and was a known drug taking misogynist is stretching credibility. To other points. In short, your reading of Alec Voller is wrong. See the relevant page in Shirley's book, Alec says categorically that the ink is not diamine and that places the penmanship some distance in the past because Diamine is the only ink of it's type for many a year. Your dealing of Bill Waddell's comments on the Galashiels letter is a good attempt at a sleight of hand. Fair enough, Maybrick's known hand doesn't match all the ripper correspondence, but right now we are concerning ourselves with a letter that was known to have been sent by "the ripper" and James Maybrick's will. Bill Waddell thinks they are identical. Comments please. "10) The diary. No, it hasn't been proven as genuine. No, it hasn't been proven to be a fake. Therefore anything in it that causes problems for the "forgers" theory must be a positive for Me, Shirley and Paul. Thus:" This is a logical howler. No it's not. It is quite logical. Just common sense really. I was merely stating that anything which does damage to the arguments of the detractors must be a plus point for Shirley, Robert, Paul and me. What's wrong with that? And your defence for Maybrick is ...? Cheers Peter.
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 01:59 pm
Hi Peter, Let's be clear about this. As of now, James Maybrick needs no defense. Because the only thing that even suggests that he might have been in any way involved in these crimes is the diary. And there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that links the diary to the real James Maybrick in any way. So no defense for the real James Maybrick is necessary, since there is no real case, material or otherwise, against him whatsoever. And Peter, the logical howler in #10 is that "the diary" should be listed as evidence against the real James Maybrick. It can't be. It's not. Now then, as to your other points. First of all, the fact that James Maybrick had London connections is still not evidence in support of him being the Ripper. And it was known before this diary appeared and is mentioned in several of the books about the Maybrick case, including Ryan's. Then you say: "Well, as you quite rightly point out John, so did several thousand other people. But, of course, none of them is being accused of writing the diary. Only James." But the diary is not evidence. It is irrelevant in the "case" against Maybrick since there is still no logical reason to think that James had anything to do with it and there is no evidence whatsoever that links it even to the proper century let alone to the real James Maybrick. So telling me that James might have been in Whitechapel tells me nothing at all that can be considered evidence of James' guilt or of his being the Ripper. You also write, concerning the diary: "I am afraid that calling it a 'clichéd and hackneyed and shallow book' is simply mis reporting of the grossest nature." But it is a clichéd and hackneyed and shallow book. It reads like cheap melodrama, has a thoroughly conventional fiction-plot structure, is completely bereft of any intimate insights and offers no previously unknown, verifiable material or information. The fact that the forgers got some things which were already on the record correct does not change any of this. It is written in a clichéd and hackneyed and shallow manner. I have always argued that the forgers did some research (I have argued that they did more research than most people give them credit for, in fact -- if you check the archives, you'll see this in my debates with RJ and Peter Birchwood). But they didn't have to do any more research than was possible. That's the point. Everything in the diary was available to them elsewhere or was easily produced. And they didn't have to write around any doctors visits or dates, since Bernard Ryan gives us Maybrick's schedule of visits and since the actual dates aren't on record. Then you write this: "for the forgers to select him as their candidate AND then enjoy the luxury of finding out that he lived and worked in Whitechapel, had a mistress there and was a known drug taking misogynist is stretching credibility." Wait a minute, Peter. Why on earth do you assume it happened in that order? Why couldn't the forgers have read up on or heard about Maybrick first, learned about his London connections, his drugs, and his bad marriage (all matters of readily accessible public record) and then thought of him as an interesting person to accuse of the Ripper crimes in a forgery? There would be no "enjoying the luxury" involved. In fact, this would be the most logical sequence of events, wouldn't it? Regarding Voller -- we have learned since his initial statement that his claim that the ink is not Diamine does not allow us to conclude that the ink is therefore old. Please see the archives for the details, but it turns out that there are a number of other modern possibilities, even if Voller is right (and this remains an unsettled question, scientifically speaking, as you well know). And, finally, you have not offered us Bill Wadell saying that Maybrick wrote this book. You have not offered us any expert on handwriting that says Maybrick wrote this book. No expert on handwriting has ever said that Maybrick wrote this book. Why? Because the book is not in Maybrick's handwriting. As to Bill comparing the Galasheils letter and the will, it is interesting, but Bill is not a handwriting expert, he is a retired traffic policeman and museum curator and the Galasheils letter does not match Maybrick's known writing in the Baltic letters and this is all irrelevant anyway, since none of these things matches in any way the writing in the diary. And every time you mention handwriting you force me to remind everyone of that fact. James Maybrick's known handwriting is on record. It looks nothing at all like the diary writing or the writing in any of the letters that the diarist claims to have written. Why? Could it be because James Maybrick didn't write either the diary or the letters the diarist claims to have written? (I love those Feldmanesque rhetorical questions.) Funny thing , though. Some people say, "James Maybrick's known handwriting is on record. It looks nothing at all like the diary writing or the writing in any of the letters the diarist claims to have written." Why? Why, because James Maybrick must have had a Multiple Personality Disorder that no one knew about, or because we all have many different handwritings that look nothing at all like each other in any way (we do?), or because James Maybrick was writing in his own private, personal diary in some sort of weirdly but thoroughly disguised handwriting for some reason even though, in the book , he explicitly wants everyone to believe it's written by him, or... well, or something like that. Yeah. That's the more rational and responsible and critically careful response. And still, as the years pass by, no one, including my dear friend Peter Wood has offered even a single piece of evidence of any sort that links this book in any way to the real James Maybrick or even to the nineteenth century. Not a single piece of evidence anywhere. And yet there is talk around here of courtrooms and guilt? It's just sad. Now back to football, --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 21 January 2002 - 04:01 am
Hi All, Hi John, There is some independent evidence that Maybrick could have come off the arsenic and that the withdrawal could have been what caused his final deterioration and death. He was said to have taken more arsenic on a regular basis than would be needed to kill most people, yet they found next to none in his body after death. And we have heard from experts who say withdrawal itself could prove fatal. So at least our forger, when having James stop taking the stuff and make his final entry, seems to have used the evidence to suggest he knew his end was in sight. (Perhaps the nurse should have covered it up to preserve his dignity. ) Not much, I grant you, but something. The other point I want to make is that on pages 198-9 of Feldy's paperback we get Billy's account of being given the diary. Keith describes it as "the journal that's come down to...Anne", and Billy says "The diary?", before going on to give his account of how it was given to him. So even if it wasn't the diary he saw, Billy seemed to be in no doubt or confusion over Granny Formby having left him a diary of some kind. And we know (sorry, we have been led to believe) that she was illiterate. Was Billy telling an outright lie then, to support his daughter's tale? Or was he, as some have suggested, confusing the diary with another book entirely, in which case why did he use the word diary to confirm what Keith meant by journal? And how likely is it that whatever book he was talking about would have been given to him in exactly the same way as Anne had described to Feldy earlier - in other words, that it was left to him by Granny Formby and given to him by her daughter, Edith? If there was another book which fulfilled these specific conditions, did Anne adapt this family story by changing the book into the diary, so that her dad wouldn't need to tell any whoppers? Seems a bit far-fetched to me, and again rather too handy that Anne had a Granny Formby in her family with a book to leave to Billy. What say you? Love, Caz
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Monday, 21 January 2002 - 06:12 am
It really is unforgivable to attempt to prove something by quoting from a book only the words that support the point you are making. Thus Mrs Morris:"The other point I want to make is that on pages 198-9 of Feldy's paperback we get Billy's account of being given the diary. Keith describes it as "the journal that's come down to...Anne", and Billy says "The diary?", before going on to give his account of how it was given to him." The accurate quote (from Feldman's 1st edn. and therefore on pp. 178/179) reads: "KS [Keith Skinner] The journal that comes down to - well to Anne - which was, I believe, given to you - is that correct, the diary? BG [Billy Graham] The diary?" obviously echoing what Keith has just said rather than agreeing in any way that there was a diary concerned. The statement: "Or was he, as some have suggested, confusing the diary with another book entirely, in which case why did he use the word diary to confirm what Keith meant by journal?" is shown therefore to be also extremely misleading in that the words "...the diary?" (KS) are not mentioned in Mrs Morris' post. And as I have said on several occasions Billy goes on to say how in 1943 there was a tin box upstairs which he never bothered with and there was a book with "...very small print..." and my point has always been that this does not describe the diary in any way. So to say: "So even if it wasn't the diary he saw, Billy seemed to be in no doubt or confusion over Granny Formby having left him a diary of some kind. And we know that she was illiterate." is, at the least, misleading and incorrect. Mrs. Morris also asks: "And how likely is it that whatever book he was talking about would have been given to him in exactly the same way as Anne had described to Feldy earlier - in other words, that it was left to him by Granny Formby and given to him by her daughter, Edith?" To which I reply that although the book itself is probably impossible to identify at this stage, we must remember that this family is Catholic ( and can we forget the story of the Crucifix that later becomes attached to the tale of the book and the tin box?) and it would not be unlikely for a breviary or some other devotional book to be handed down in this manner even if one of the persons involved was illiterate. And to the last, Mrs. Morris says "What say you?" I say that it is a shame that this sort of thing can be put on these boards as though it were factual with no other purpose than to add some sort of basis to the shaky diary provenance. If of course Mrs. Morris has quite simply made a mistake in he quote or if for some peculiar reason Feldman's paperback edition does not include those important two words from Keith's question then I am sure that she will acknowledge this and apologise for her mistake. It might however be safest to check anything that she mentions most carefully in the future.
Author: Vaughan Allen Monday, 21 January 2002 - 08:04 am
Everyone... bin away for a few days (including watching the mighty tractor boys massacre Derby...Peter, we're second only to your lot in recent results...don't think that'll last!), doing a lot of riding with the result my calves feel like, uhhr, someone's injected them with arsenic... so first THANK YOU Peter, an excellent summary of your case. I have to say I disagree with a lot of it, but Mr Omlor is taking on board many of the points.. However, I want to quiz you at the very start. As I understand it there is a family connection to Whitechapel, which is not surprising given that Spitalfields was THE main cotton/linen merchant area of the country in the late 18th Century. What other evidence do we have for JM either living or working in Whitechapel? I might have missed something, but I'm assuming the 'lived' is the still-open-to-question Sarah Robertson connection? What about the worked? Have I missed that? I thought the only work connection (AIWTBC) was through the evidence given at trial that he had represented a firm ion the Minories. Now, you and Feldy both suggest that this means he has had an office there. Two points: the first is the letter PHF quotes clearly suggests JM represented the business IN LIVERPOOL, and not in London at all, and secondly that even if he had worked at an office in the Minories (something that's less than certain to say the least), that doesn't mean he went into Whitechapel. Hell, when I started my present job, I worked at the Tower of London for a year, and didn't once go 'right out of the entrance and up to Whitechapel', there is a very definite divide between the City end and the 'slum' end, just as there is in, say, Manchester, where friends of mine have lived in a house on the edge of Moss Side for years without ever setting foot within the estate. 'Mibrac' again...do we know that JM liked to play games with his name? Where does he do this outside of the Diary? Sure, he's known as M. in letters, but that's not the same thing. And doesn't this date to at least a couple of years before the murder, and Charing Cross is nowhere near the murder scene, and... So the case before you get to the Diary goes...'Maybrick's family came from Whitechapel, there is some evidence he had a mistress in the East End, and he represented a firm that was up the road...' You don't prove any more than that...even if 'Mibrac' was him (which we'll never know), it proves he stayed at the Charing X Hotel. But, as you say, he did have a reason for being in London. So, as with thousands of others, he had been to London, and possibly (though not definitely) to somewhere near the area of the murders. It's hardly the Simpson DNA evidence is it? Most everyone who has been selected as a candidate has SOME connection with the area, and this puts Maybrick way down the list compared to people who lived there... Then we have the matter of violence...for this to stick you'd have to prove that hitting one's wife when accusing her of infidelity was a very rare event in Victorian society, and often led to murder...which you can't do. Is there any evidence of systematic violence? No... And as a throw-away, Bill Waddell cannot possibly say that the hand-writing is 'one and the same'. Apart from the fact that they're patently not, as I'm sure you know, evidence of this sort cannot ever be 100% accurate. You can only say 'these appear to be similar in most respects'...just as DNA evidence can only give a tendency of linkage between alleged perpetrator and crime scene (and usually one that, thanks to the public's complete lack of understanding of statistics is mind-blowingly mis-interpreted!) But credit for you for putting that chain together...just there doesn't seem to be a lot there... Paul, I think I didn't make myself clear...I'm not one of the people suggesting that the 'by her feet' line was put in to nod towards the Bond report, just happen to think it's a moderately lucky piece of throw-away, so on that point my reading as early/mid-70s is fine. Unfortunately, the 'tin box empty' does move it forward! A few months ago I suggested that most of the writing seemed to have been done from books available in the seventies, and recently suggested a very orthodox reading of the myth of JtR. I hold to that, but in the same post I also said that anyone writing this would naturally look at other books that came out. I don't think it's unlikely that our writer could have got the book in question as it came out/flicked through it in a shop and picked out a 'helpful' reference (tin box empty). But much of the rest seems virtually written from memory...there isn't the detail to suggest that he used either Martin's or your books. Oh and as for Bond and the chemise. How was MJK (RIP) wearing this chemise? Surely she had it round her shoulders and then a waft of the material was at her legs (I can't remember and don't want to look at the horror this morning)...but her body was naked surely? It's not like she had the front of her body covered in any way?? Or am I wrong? And don't ever say your brain is dying on you! Where would we all be then? Caz, sorry, but as Peter says, Billy suggests no such thing...that interview is by far the worst thing in the PHF book. Any editor worth their salt would throw that (and probably the journalist responsible) out on their ear (or at least in the direction of NUJ guidelines). As to the heart, my point was that MJK WASN'T heartless...the murderer did something WITH the heart, so I don't see why he should use that terminology, and I certainly think it's wrong to use it (as you have) as evidence that he's being very clever and knowledgeable about the crime scene. Either the murderer took the heart with him, which we are explicitly told 'Maybrick' didn't, or it was burnt or scraped on the walls (both highly unlikely), in which case there was indeed a heart and the murderer used it in some way. OR we have mis-interpeted the various reports and the heart WAS left and so the Diary is wrong again. Any way you cut it, the Diary seems to be wrong?! John, loved the BwO joke! Don't have much time for theorising these days, now I'm becoming managerial...it's all business and strategic plans...still settle down with Baudrillard to relax once in a while, and have found myself often in pub conversations about Afghanistan quoting my early 90s thesis on Virilio, Deleuze and the twenty-first century war machine...it's all in the back of my head somewhere and often comes out at the most inappropriate moments... regards, Vaughan
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Monday, 21 January 2002 - 10:12 am
1/ Maybrick NEVER lived in Whitechapel 2/Maybrick never worked in Whitechapel 3/ Maybrick DID have a brother living in London 4/ Maybrick never did business from an office in Whitechaple, he had a business association with Gustavus Witt of 4 Cullum St. London EC up to 1875, representing that firm in Liverpool. 5/ Maybrick had no reason to be in Whitechapel in 1888 6/ The "Mibrac" entry has nothing to do with Maybrick or the Whitechapel murders and is only concerned with someone of that name leaving a bag in a hotel. 7/ Good grief; can this person be serious? 8/ Arsenic, strychnine and other drugs of this sort whether homeopathic or not are not mind-altering 9/Is there a technical expression for someone who trys to prove a conclusion by two dubious and unreliable points? Answers please, on a postcard. 10 ? 11/ Of course it places the diary in the past: around 1990-1993. And the rest is silence by which I mean that I can't be bothered with this sort of nonsense any more. Thanks, John for pointing out the wrong board. By the way, based on the research methods used in some posts your ending "...breeze...Gulf..." certainly implies a knowledge of assault by the grey Aliens. Are you trying to tell us that the abduction rumours are true?
Author: John Omlor Monday, 21 January 2002 - 10:51 am
Hi Peter, Although the aliens seem to love the deep south almost as much as they love anal probing drunken fishermen, I'm in a tourist beach-town, and for some reason the aliens apparently can't afford to visit here. Brits, however, are everywhere. Now it's off to the club for lunch, --John
Author: Philip C. Dowe Monday, 21 January 2002 - 01:23 pm
Hi All, lets face it - dealing with the diary is like dealing with God. There are three different groups of people: 1) The believers 2) The agnostics 3) The atheists Try proving to an extreme christian that God does not exist. You will fail! I have tried it and have given up. And - now dinner! Philip
Author: stephen miller Monday, 21 January 2002 - 01:27 pm
But Philip God does exist he played guitar in Led Zeppellin from steve
Author: Arfa Kidney Monday, 21 January 2002 - 02:36 pm
Jimmy Page? Jimmy Page? Shurely you are mistaking him for the real God... Andy Powell of Wishbone ash! The man with real musical tastes, Mick Lyden.
Author: Philip C. Dowe Monday, 21 January 2002 - 02:45 pm
Now then, God had a perm - JIMI HENDRIX! Philip
Author: Arfa Kidney Monday, 21 January 2002 - 02:49 pm
No Philip, God is definitely right handed! Mick
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 21 January 2002 - 05:10 pm
Aah, but the question is, Did his right hand know what his left hand was doing? Only true afficionados of 'Derek and Clive' will know the answer to that one. Well, it certainly seems like my off the cuff list of points has ruffled some feathers. But let's get some things straight: Shirley and Paul have uncovered evidence that James was working in Whitechapel well before the murders took place. And P. 40 of Shirley's book is unequivocal " ...Witt's main offices in London, which Maybrick visited from time to time ...". It is to be remembered that James' relationship with Witt wasn't a short term one, Shirley again, " ...1871 ...He was in business with G. A. Witt, commissioning agent, in Knowsley Buildings, Tithebarn Street, Off Old hall street ...two years later he was still working with Witt from the same, overcrowded premises ...". It is inconceivable that in 1888 James Maybrick was in business with Witt, had an office with him in London and didn't visit that office. Those that don't enjoy the discussion shouldn't enter into it. And for the second time in almost as many days I find myself rushing to Caz's rescue ...I find Caz's posts informative and enjoyable. "Mr" Birchwood's comments on Caz are beneath contempt. Vaughan. Ipswich fan? Good on yer! Old Marcus won't let the lads down ... and what's this about friends in Moss Side? Don't you know JM was supposed to have murdered a couple of whores there in 1888? I think it's about ten miles away from where I live. "The "Mibrac" entry has nothing to do with Maybrick or the Whitechapel murders and is only concerned with someone of that name leaving a bag in a hotel". Vaughan (again), I wouldn't want to dignify the opinions of the person who posted that, so I shall address my response to you - as you seem to enjoy the thrust of the debate without being at too much risk of a coronary. 'Mibrac' is a "name" that is not known to exist. Now without pulling apart my dog eared copy of Feldy's book (Shirley's is held together with sellotape) I seem to remember a telegram that came from Maybrick's office in Liverpool from someone called 'BrickMay' ...what's that all about? Variously he was termed by his family and friends as 'M' and 'May'. His servants referred to him as 'Sir Jim' (oh no they didn't, screams John Omlor, veins bulging at his shirt collar. Ha Ha! The thought of it!). The whole thrust of my argument is that the detractors attack the diary, NOT Maybrick per se, so it is only fair that my support should be FOR the diary. This one's to you, John. I DO NOT quote from the diary in order to prove it's own content, which is one of your favourite sleight of hand tricks - one you 'pull' quite often when you run out of things to do, I argue the scientific evidence, I argue Bill Waddell's opinion (and you haven't come up with a valid or reasonable argument against that), I argue the ink, I argue Alec Voller's opinion, I argue the facts that Shirley and Paul have uncovered, NOT the text to prove the text. Sometimes I just argue ...full stop. Anyway Vaughan, maybe you, me, Monty and Carps should get together and "do" a football match sometime. How easy is it to get tickets for Ipswich? Seeing as you have relatives in Manchester (shock horror, don't tell me you've NEVER been there!!!) and Carps is only a stone's throw away in Yorkshire - both you and Monty can hitch up here and take in a game. It's a date. Cheers Peter.
Author: Arfa Kidney Monday, 21 January 2002 - 05:29 pm
Peter, I've got an uncle Burt an he's worse.Do you now what he did to me?He came up to me in the middle of the night and said "I'd like to take your nighty and set it on fire"! Mick
Author: John Omlor Monday, 21 January 2002 - 05:49 pm
Hi Peter, There is quite a difference between saying that James Maybrick worked sometimes with a firm that had an office in Whitechapel and that he might have visited that office now and again, as you have said above, and saying "Maybrick lived in Whitechapel" and "Maybrick worked in Whitechapel." And as Peter Birchwood has correctly pointed out, this latter way of phrasing things is simply wrong. Maybrick never lived in Whitechapel and he didn't officially work in Whitechapel, except for the likely visits you yourself mention. So your points 1 and 2, as they are phrased, are misleading. And Peter Birchwood is also correct when he points out that the Mibrac silliness all referred to an advertisement concerning a lost bag and that there is no reason to think it had anything at all to do with James, and citing the fact that James was sometimes referred to as M. or May or whatever (never by "Sir Jim," of course), and then suggesting that this means that "Mibrac" must have been the Liverpool cotton merchant James Maybrick is wish-fulfillment at its very best -- especially since there is no evidence that links Maybrick to this place and time and name whatsoever. But that's Paul Feldman for you. Who needs evidence when we can dream? And Peter Birchwood's reading of the Billy Graham interview seems to be correct. Billy was just echoing Keith's "the diary?" comment. See page 198 of Paul's book. Finally Peter, you write: "I argue the scientific evidence, I argue Bill Waddell's opinion (and you haven't come up with a valid or reasonable argument against that), I argue the ink, I argue Alec Voller's opinion, I argue the facts that Shirley and Paul have uncovered, NOT the text to prove the text." Once more, for the people in the balcony: The scientific evidence is clearly contradictory but none of it places this book in the proper century. There is not a single scientific result of any test whatsoever that has ever concluded that this book was written in 1888. Bill Wadell has never said that this diary is in James Maybrick's handwriting, because it's not. He's never said this diary is authentic or that he believes that this diary is in any way whatsoever linked to James Maybrick. And you can't even cite him saying that he now believes that Maybrick definitely wrote a Ripper letter -- you cite only his reaction to being shown two documents, neither of which looked anything like this diary. And, as I've explained before, he's not a qualified handwriting expert in any case. The ink remains unidentified and there is not a single result from any of the ink tests which places this diary in the proper century. Finally, neither Paul nor Shirley have ever uncovered a single fact or a single piece of evidence that links this diary to the real James Maybrick in any way whatsoever or that reliably places this diary even in the proper century. So what is it you are arguing again, Peter? I see the words on the page now, the last letter trailing off in a line... "May God forgive me for the deeds I committed on Maybrick, no case, no case...." All the best, --John
Author: david rhea Monday, 21 January 2002 - 06:04 pm
I would like James Maybrick to be the Ripper.There he was in Whitechapel like some Victorian Zorro leaving his sign here and there.Much more colorful than most of the others.except maybe Tumblelty and D'Onston.Maybe he can become the Ripper in fact through sheer wish fulfillment on our part.What do the 'prosperity gospel' Gospellers say here in the USA-Apply the power of faith and anything you desire must come to pass- God is obligated to act in your favor because you have the power of faith.
Author: Philip C. Dowe Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 02:37 am
Hi Peter (Wood), the discussion is very interesting and has led me back to the diary. I spent yesterday evening on the sofa and made a list of facts in the diary (names, dates etc.) while my wife was ripping through Frodo and Gandalf. But damn - I forgot the list at home, so it will have to wait for tomorrow before I can get back to the points that are strange. There are certain points that I can say from memory: 1) Diary? The term diary seems wrong. A diary is used to keep track of time, people, places and todos and havedones. How many dates are mentioned in the diary? (I will use the term because everybody else uses it - I would prefer ledger as used by Harold Lauder in Stephen King's "The Stand"). 2) The author? If you were keeping a diary would you use it in the way the author has done it. Where are the bright sides of life? I think it was John who said that the diary is being used to prove that the diary is genuine. Good point! How about trying to prove that Maybrick was the Ripper without using the diary? 3) The ink / The paper Ink and paper can be dated into a window of +/- 5 years. It costs money. But why isn't it done? If both tests were done the age of the diary could be determined. As none of us own the diary we cannot test it - BUT - what if these tests have been done - AND - what if the results were that the diary is a modern forgery? Would you then go the press? Would you say that all the books written on the diary are wrong? No you would keep it yourself and hope that nobody finds out. Now this is a feeling, but, we haven't heard anything from Harrison/Feldman for a long time. What if they know? More tomorrow Yours, Philip
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 05:36 am
Hi Philip, You are teetering on the edge of making a very serious allegation there. I've never met Feldy, but I cannot believe that Shirley or Robert Smith would have done any such thing. And the tests would cost a whole lot of money that doesn't seem to be available anyway. Not to mention how the experts who conducted such tests could be kept quiet about them. Hi Peter (Birchwood), God, I can't believe I did that. When I read your post I assumed you had read the passage wrong because I was so certain Billy said "diary?" first. When I checked just now I was really embarrassed and I apologise unreservedly for the balls-up. I do hope you will accept that it was an honest mistake and that my intention was not to mislead anyone, let alone myself! You wrote: 'If of course Mrs. Morris has quite simply made a mistake in the quote...then I am sure that she will acknowledge this and apologise for her mistake. It might however be safest to check anything that she mentions most carefully in the future'. Pity you had to spoil what were otherwise reasonable observations by the last bit. As I have absolutely no doubt that you would check anything I mention carefully and report any errors of fact as swiftly as you did on this occasion, I would humbly suggest (and hope) there can't be too many of them. And this shouldn't really need saying as it applies across the board. We are all fallible so everyone's words should be checked against the facts before readers swallow them whole. I wouldn't expect to be an exception. And I trust you wouldn't either. I would still like to ask whether you think Billy ever told a deliberate lie to support his daughter's story, or whether you think Anne was confidently expecting him to come up with another book, like the one you mention, that would fit her tale (apart from your take on the 'very small print' issue, which is not quite as cut and dried as you think). Thanks Peter. Love, Caz PS And thanks Peter (Wood) for your kind words, on both boards - much appreciated. It's not easy trying to interpret other people's silence sometimes!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 05:39 am
And Eric Clapton is God. Jimmy Page comes close though.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 05:48 am
Hi Vaughan, Just a quickie about the heart again. So is your conclusion that 'Maybrick' means he has no heart for doing what he did to Kelly? I am guessing it must be, because why would the diarist even think to mention Kelly's heart if he had read nothing about it in his ripper sources? None of the other victims' hearts got a mention. Thanks. Love, Caz
Author: Philip C. Dowe Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 06:47 am
Hi Caz, I know - it just all seems to strange. The other day I had a talk on the telefon with an expert who has been in the ink making industry for years. He just could not understand why no one has had the tests done. They are simple - they deliver a conclusive answer - they are expensive. But why have they not been done? The results would end this discussion forever. Well maybe not, because there will be some who would argue that the diary is an old forgery. But for most of us it would end. Why? Why? Why? Yours, Philip PS Ok I can accept Clapton, but what about John McLaughlin?
Author: Monty Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 08:25 am
Philip, Here, here...well done..why have no tests been done? But wait, this has been asked time and time again. Who holds the diary? Your answer probably rests there. Monty Clapton?? Page??? McLaughlin?????? New victims??
Author: Vaughan Allen Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 08:43 am
HI Caz, no, my intepretation is that 'we don't know what the hoaxer meant by it, there are lots of elements of the Diary (most of it in fact) that are simply throwaway and the sort of critical exegesis you are engaged in is misplaced because, to put it simply, 'not everything has to mean anything'!'. The point I was making (and I wish I was as clear as some others on these boards!) was two-fold: one that interpetation of the Diary goes too far...much writing is throw-away, and maybe the 'Diarist' (whether Maybrick or 'Maybrick') didn't mean much except adding atmosphere. Secondly, if the diarist DID mean something specific, your interpretation (if I read right, this being 'the reference to no heart seems to be an attempt to cover the info in the Bond report that the heart was missing') doesn't seem to work, as 'no heart, no heart' doesn't mean, in any but the most tortuous readings, 'at the end of everything I did, she was left with no heart'. Hope that makes sense! I want to return to the Billy story at a later date...it's an interesting piece of text, and viewing it as a journo by training, I have to admit it's almost the best example of 'bad practice' I've ever seen. Peter, no point having a heart attack over this is there...like others on this board, my interest is in watching how individuals interact with different and differing texts, construct discourses out of them, and manage the nexus between interpretation of literary and 'historical' texts. Not to go too much over JO's points, but you must see the difference between representing a firm that has its main office in the Minories and 'working' in that office. Yes, he might have visited, but that doesn't even put him in Whitchapel. As I've pointed out, the Minories is NOT in Whitechapel. It might look like it on a map, but it's viewed as Tower Hill and as the eastern boundary of the City. And as the Tube reached Tower Hill in 1884, there was no reason to go into Whitechapel at all! Course, the office puts him near Mitre Square, but as the accepted notion is that he was heading west from the Stride scene (not a view I necessarily agree with), he'd have to be much further into Whitechapel, and then turn around and head back into the slums once more to visit Goulston St. My point about Moss Side was to show that, however close you may be to an area, you don't ever have to have visited it. More likely surely is that any visit would (knowing City businessmen then as now!) be done in a St James' Club! Yes, I realise 'Maybrick' is meant to have murdered two prostitutes in Manchester, but we're having a little difficulty tracking them down aren't we? Even note of their disappearance...and murders were far from common at this time, remember... And without screaming, you know very well that the Maybrick servants did not refer to him as 'Sir Jim'. The only evidence for anything similar is the Aunspaugh correspondence which refers to 'Sir James'. In the context, it's rather difficult to see whether this is a reference to.. a) what Aunspaugh called/remembered calling JM b) What Alice Yapp called JM If it's the former, we have no, none, not a whit of evidence that anything similar was used by anyone near JM himself... My only point on Bill Waddell, was that it is not possible, even if he was the finest handwriting expert in the world, to say '100% the same'. It's inaccurate statistically and shows a lack of understanding of scientific procedure. Yes, je suis un garcon de tracteure...off to see the cup on Sunday, not like the San Siro, but FPR is getting better (and the San Siro was a nice trip, but not a nice result!). I'm actually based in Leeds (work at the Royal Armouries here)...there's quite a community of ex-pat blues around...a match in Manc. is definitely possible...Think we've got you penultimate game of the season (our last three are Liverpool, Man U., Arsenal IIRC!!, but think it's at FPR. Vaughan
Author: Philip C. Dowe Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 09:45 am
Hi Monty, and so we come back to the question: "Why the &%$ don't the owners b**** well have the tests done to end the whole debate?" If it was my diary I would have had them done a long time ago BEFORE I wrote a book on the diary. Even though Caz called me back earlier I will step closer to the edge. I think somebody out there close to the diary knows the truth BUT just will not tell us. Proof none. Gut feeling for one reason: If I had proven that the diary was genuine which is possible I would have had done this and had it published in every newspaper from Dundee to Buenos Aires. Philip
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 11:17 am
Hi Philip, I'm confused. How do you think it's possible to prove the diary, as we know it, genuine? And could you try to find out a bit more from that expert who has been in the ink making industry for years? If he says there are tests which would be simple and deliver a conclusive answer, could you get him to explain how they differ from those already carried out? And would the diary people have known such tests were available before their books were published or before funds were swallowed up by other unavoidable expenses etc? I don't wish to be provocative, but there may be perfectly legitimate reasons why its not all as simple as you make it sound. And, while I agree that some would still argue that the diary is old even if new tests reliably showed the diary to be modern, I don't think it's remotely justified to suggest this would ever apply to Shirley or Robert, particularly if the tests were commissioned by either of them! Hi Vaughan, Yes, I had a sinking feeling it would all come down to the diarist putting meaningless phrases and lines in the diary, and those of us considering possible reasons and interpretations looking too deep. So 'no heart no heart' was written without even a passing thought about whose heart 'Maybrick' had in mind, either his own or his last victim's, and 'the whores feet' was written without the slightest knowledge of, or reference to, an actual alternative position for her breasts. Oh well. I tried. Love, Caz
Author: Philip C. Dowe Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 11:39 am
Hi Caz, will do. I have made copies of all the results I could find and the tests done. I will be meating him sometime in the next two weeks and will keep you informed. As far as I gathered yesterday it is simple - but then I was talking to an ink maker in Germany (as you know where I live), perhaps the difference lies in the place of origin. Concerning Shirley and Robert you are right. I would think both would be open about there results. There are a lot of maybes when dealing with the diary. I wonder if S & R would be prepared to have the diary tested in Germany, the person I spoke would love to have a look at the diary... Yours, Philip
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 12:13 pm
It really is very plain that Maybrick worked in association with Gustavus (Adolphus?) Witt as Liverpool agent and the address cited by Shirley (p40 Blake edn.) is in Liverpool not London. JM was not working in London but as Liverpool agent for a London firm. He probably visited Witt from time to time in the way that I might visit associates in Vancouver, Dusseldorf and New York. This doesn't mean that my business is situated in any of those towns. If Peter Woods finds my comments on Mrs Morris to be "beneath contempt" he obviously has no idea of what constitutes proper responsible research; something which perhaps is obvious from his past comments. If he would like to do something worth while which would go above and beyond reading two books and which would actually add something to the situation, perhaps he could identify the problem that MB had in 1974 and the similar problems that had Robbie Johnson banged-up somewhat later. "Brickmay" was simply JM's telegraphic address, possibly chosen because someone else had already got the address "Maybrick." Phillip: I try not to get involved directly in the diary forensics. It has been claimed that the album in which the diary is written may be Edwardian rather than Victorian. Some weeks ago Melvin Harris pointed out that that a label of some sort had been taken off the cover. If that's so, and it was done recently, that might point to there being a date or some other information on it that could point away from a pre-1889 date. Melvin also suggested that there might be a card or paper of some sort in the spine of the album, placed there to stiffen the spine which could be dated. I would be interested to hear Robert Smith's opinion on this. I'm not sure whether something like C14 analysis of the paper could be accurate to a ten-year period. Perhaps we could hear an opinion on that. Mrs. Morris: Thank you for the retraction. I believe that we have to be careful about what we write here. New people read these pages every day and it's possible to get very confused. I certainly do check everything that you say and I would expect that you do the same with my messages. When I say anything that's untrue or mistaken I expect to be reminded of it. You may (or may not) remember that some time ago you said much the same thing about me. The words of any of us who regularly post here are open to criticism and where that criticism is justified, I would hope that none of us would refuse to correct matters. Billy Graham's words fall into two categories: those which thanks to Keith Skinner have been preserved in the form of transcripts or tape copies or those which we only know about second hand. The latter we must ignore as reported speech and opinion means nothing unless backed-up by other evidence. The taped conversations (as far as they are preserved in the Feldman book) show much confusion and mishearing and Feldman's interviewing technique leaves much to be desired . The transcripts need to be examined in their entirety to determine whether there was any deliberate lying by Billy. "(apart from your take on the 'very small print' issue, which is not quite as cut and dried as you think)." Can you explain this please? Can anyone look at the diary today and say that it contains "very small print?" Is there any way to make this telling phrase into a support for Billy actually seeing the diary in 1943 or 1950? Paul: I think that the seance information comes from Tom Slemen's website.
Author: Arfa Kidney Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 12:13 pm
Philip, John(Mahavishnu)McLaughlin is more like it,but you'd better include partner in crime Billy Cobham! Mick