|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 24 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Maybrick, James:
Archive through 24 January 2002
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 01:02 pm |        | Hi Peter R.A.,
only going by the content of the diary will not give us a 100% solution. There has been a lot written on what is in the diary (not much if you ask me) and how it can be combined with J.M.'s and F.M.'s life. But going through the books you don't find a lot on the testing of the diary. Bits and pieces here and there which when added up leave you with a funny feeling.
As I hardly know anything on the testing of ink and paper I have spent time with my dad (chemist) and an ink maker on the phone to try and find out if I had missed something. Both are of the opinion that ink and paper can be dated into a ten year window. More later.
Yours Philip |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 01:03 pm | | Mick,
it would more likely be that live recording with Carlos Santana "Love Devotion Surrender".
Philip |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 03:01 pm | | Mick (Arfa)
You don't want to set my nighty on fire ...you want to set ME on fire!
Peter |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 03:03 pm | | Phil
The tests you refer to that could be done on the ink and the paper - would that prove anything? Surely the important thing is when the two were combined to create the diary?
Regards
Peter |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 03:27 pm | | John/Peter B
Fact: Maybrick both lived AND worked in Whitechapel. Many years before the ripper murders he worked in London. His first "wife" lived in Whitechapel.
The point of this is it was not a well known fact that Maybrick knew Whitechapel well before the diary became public property, so Whitechapel Liverpool/Whitechapel London has a lot of relevance.
But continue to delude yourselves if you must, argue that Maybrick only went to see Witt "occasionally" if you have to. The associations of Maybrick with Whitechapel that have been proven by Paul and Shirley may have been known to the few, the serious researchers, Maybrick experts (if there is such a thing), but were not common knowledge.
Enough of that.
And just one more point to Peter B. - I wouldn't dream of checking your research, I'd expect you to do that yourself, dear God - I don't even do research! But you are right about the two books I have read ...plus the literally dozens of others over the years. I would love to read another book arguing AGAINST the diary being genuine if anyone could pull their finger out and write one ...and not just relegate it to the few lines that Phil Sugden assigns it in his book. It deserves more than that.
Phil
Please please please don't fall into the trap of believing everything John Omlor writes! I have never never never tried to use the diary text to prove itself. But the fact is that it exists and it must be investigated - and it has been, and yes, we have all given our opinions on it.
I do not, for instance, say the diary says Maybrick killed two whores in Manchester in 1888 therefore he must have done. I simply haven't said that. You see, that particular "event" or "events" so far cannot be found in newspapers, books or records. And as I have said before and at risk of repeating myself - And as I have said before and at risk of repeating myself - And as I have ....oh, never mind - if the murders were discovered, perhaps in a tatty old copy of the Manchester Evening Guardian (or whatever they called it back then) you would simply state that that is where the forger must have looked for the reference.
Ask yourself: Why would a 'forger' invent two murders? Why would he fly against popular opinion on the subject of Mary Kelly's breasts?
Just questions John, just questions.
Anyway Phil, I look forward to reading your list of points when you retrieve it, but for now - how about arguing Druitt, Ostrog, Kosminsky without the McNaghten Memorandum? How about arguing Tumblety without the Littlechild letter? How about arguing D'Onston without Ivor's book?
James Maybrick is the only ripper suspect against whom a tangible piece of evidence exists - i.e. the diary. Tap Tap Tap, John. Yes, we need to investigate it before it can be pronounced genuine/forgery - and that is what is happening.
Against the others listed above (and many others) there is not a single jot of evidence, not one, just someone's opinion. And the "case" against Druitt is the most laughable of all. He was found dead in the Thames - errrmmm ...
Caz - 
Depends what religion you follow, but I subscribe to the "theory" that 'there is no God, so pray to me'. Arfa, if you get that reference I'll pay your mortgage off!
Vaughan - Leeds? That's where Carps is. Are you sure you're not Carps? Has anyone ever seen Carps and Vaughan on the same board at the same time ...? Conspiracy Theory forming ...
We'll struggle to get tickets at (G)Old Trafford that close to the end of the season, how about a few pints and a curry instead? And by the way, I used to have a friend who lived in some flats near the Royal Armoury, went there often.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 04:27 pm | | | What's wrong with Ivor's book? Have you seen it? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:01 pm | | | Hi David I think he is paying me a compliment.He has not read my book yet. In actual fact David you bought the last copy of my book I cannot sell anymore. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:08 pm | | Ah, Peter,
First of all, you are changing your story again. Please cite, for Peter Birchwood and my information, when and exactly where James Maybrick actually, personally "lived in Whitechapel." Clearly, he never officially worked there, as Peter B. has ably demonstrated.
The fact that Maybrick had long standing London connections was of course known and was easily available to all in several Maybrick books, including Ryan's.
And then there is this nonsense:
"James Maybrick is the only ripper suspect against whom a tangible piece of evidence exists - i.e. the diary."
Once more, and with feeling (all together now):
The diary is not evidence against James Maybrick. The diary cannot be considered "tangible evidence" of anything at all precisely because there is still no established or supported reason whatsoever to think it was written by James Maybrick or even in the proper century. No one has offered even a single piece of evidence that links this diary in any way to the real James Maybrick or even to the nineteenth century. Therefore: the diary is not evidence of anything.
Once again, the diary is not evidence, tangible or otherwise.
Let's be clear.
There is not a single piece of evidence of any sort against James Maybrick. There is not a single piece of real evidence that suggests in any way that James Maybrick had anything to do with committing these murders. None. Not one.
Likewise, there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere that suggests in any way that James Maybrick had anything to do with this diary. None. Not one.
Therefore there is no evidence against James Maybrick and the diary cannot be considered evidence of anything according to any rules of evidence or even according to simple, reasonable, logical methodology.
Claiming that the diary is somehow "tangible evidence" against James Maybrick is either being ignorant of or deliberately ignoring the facts (especially the fact that there has still never been offered even a single reliable reason, supported by any evidence at all, to think that this book is or was ever in any way linked to the real Maybrick or the proper century) or else it is simply lying for the sake of the argument.
There is no tangible evidence against James Maybrick.
The diary is by no means evidence of anything nor can it be considered to be such until it is at least linked somehow to its supposed author or at least to the proper century. Since it hasn't been, it's not evidence.
I don't think it can be any clearer than that.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:24 pm | | Peter, Now I know what your game is, you are only out for a laugh. Never again will I take you seriously on the subject of Maybrick. From here on in it is laughs all the way. You have been jesting with us. Do you know Ed Carter?
PS. And you have got the neck to write that you dont believe what John Omlor says!!!!! Youre having a laugh Peter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 06:58 am | | Hi All,
Hi Peter (Birchwood),
No problem with the retraction. I agree that we have to be careful about what we write here and that it can be very confusing, not only for new readers! I am extremely pleased to hear you confirm that you do check everything I say for untruths or mistakes and that I can expect to be reminded of any. What better endorsement could I possibly have that it doesn't happen very often?
The only reason I think that the 'very small print' issue may not be quite as cut and dried as you make it appear, is that having talked to others, I find opinion is divided over whether someone of Billy's generation might not refer to any writing in any book as 'print', as a matter of course, including handwriting. And small handwriting is more of a struggle to read than small print, and the diary writing is certainly not large or easy going, particularly if you take the first entry as an example. You conclude that Billy could not have been talking about the diary, but he only uses the words 'very small print' to explain, in 1994, why he just put the book down and didn't want to know all those years before. If he paid so little attention to it because basically it would have been a pain to read and he wasn't that much of a reader anyway, are his words really so telling and meaningful?
Possibly, but not without doubt.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 07:53 am | | Hi there
John, if we go at it that way we might as pack up and go home because there is NO evidence against any of the suspects. All suspects brought forward are based on theories and "what if - could - might have been". Peter is right, leaving the MM aside, nobody would argue for Druitt being Jack, because nobody would have heard of him.
The diary is there and we must look at it from all sides. We would be wrong in throwing it out of the window and we would be wrong in embracing it without asking questions.
I have my doubts concerning the diary. But the person who wrote it had an amazing insight in the workings of somebody who killed. The first time I read it I believed it, because it sent shivers down my spine. A butcher, an enigineer or an accountant may not see it that way, but a psychologist does.
I don't believe that Mike and Anne have told the whole story, but the truth is out there somewhere and there are certain aspects which have not been explained:
1) The ink
Victorian ink which could have been found in the 1980s/90s would have dried up and not been usable. Which leaves two possibilities 1) the ink was used in 1888 or the ink is of modern production. Tests could answer this question.
2) The book
You can find old ledgers or diaries in antique shops and on fairs, but they had hardley ever empty on in good condition.
3) James Maybrick
Why pick somebody like Maybrick? There may not be a lot of information on him in the book but before writing the author had to find this information. Checking on the internet a lot of information has been posted post 1993. So where could you find it before 1993? I had never even heard of Maybrick before the diary was published. Nobody has so far come up with anything concerning Maybrick which proves that he could not have been Jack.
Remember the Duke of Clarence? Dates were found that could prove that he was not in London on the nights of the murders. There are people on this board who keep rambling on, but Eddy could not have been Jack. Maybrick on the other hand could have been.
Until somebody comes up with proof that either the diary is a forgery or Maybrick could not have been Jack, we should stay open-minded.
Peter Wood has admitted that the diary could be a forgery, but would you admit that the diary could be genuine?
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 08:07 am | | Philip C
Thats the problem isnt it mate. Gathering the proof. You hit the nail on the head when you stated that we have a shed load of info regarding Jim and Florrie but begger all on the science bit.
In the diary its all there, the who and the how and even the why.
So I ask you as a professional, Would the percentage of serial murderers lay out there motives, for all to read, in such a way?
And from what info you have got on Sir Jim, does he fit your profile you made last year?
Monty
|
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 08:12 am | | Hi Monty,
wrong conception - he (I'm playing the Devil's Advocate now) did not lay it out for all to read. He wrote it for himself.
He is not so far from my profile as you might expect. Certain aspects can be found in there.
Philip |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 08:53 am | | Like ??
Monty
|
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 10:20 am | | | What evidence is there outside of the Diary to implicate James Maybrick as JTR, and what evidence is there that he really had no motive? Is there any evidence that he was insane or that he had a pattern of violence that went back to his youth.Really JM might have been considered by his peers as a man's man. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 11:20 am | | I think it's clear that a person of Billy's generation seeing the scrapbook/album and looking inside at the contents would call it "writing" rather than "print." I believe that a young man with normal eyesight who was either on leave or had come out of the army could hardly have referred to this as either very small writing or very small print.
His words are both telling and meaningful. Perhaps those who saw it at Bournemouth could report their opinion of its appearance. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 12:07 pm | | Hi, Peter B:
I am not sure the distinction you are making between whether Billy Graham said small "print" or "writing" is particularly helpful. We surely know that the man knew the document was handwritten, so what does it matter whether he said "print" or "writing"? We are dealing with a not particularly well educated working class Liverpudlian, a worker at Dunlop's in Speke, Liverpool (sorry if I sound condescending!!!) who might not have known that the care with which his wording would be parsed by us Diary sleuths.
What I think happened is that possibly Billy only saw the printed facsimile of the Diary in Shirley Harrison's book The Diary of Jack the Ripper and assumed that the writing was small, having only seen the pages in her first edition hardback published in 1993 by Smith Gryphon Limited. What he did not realize though is that the pages reproduced in Shirley's book, at 6 1/2 by 9 1/2 inches in size, are smaller than the ledger (or more correctly scrapbook or commonplace book) size pages in the actual Diary, the images of the pages having been reduced to fit the size of a regular size hardback book. This indicates to me that, whether Billy Graham said "small print" or "small writing" he never saw the original Diary when he and his daughter Anne claimed he did circa 1943, nor probably at any other time.
Best regards
Chris George
P.S. To Peter W -- now that your team has sunk to defeat again at the hands of Liverpool maybe you will give up your contention that the Diary is genuine and the idea that Man U will win the league. The truth will out!  |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 01:03 pm | | Hi Monty
"+" points:
- male
- white caucasian
- skilled and intelligent but not studied
- was mentally unstable and/or a drug abuser
- dressed normally
- around 1.80 m
- physically strong but not muscular
- had NO connection to the royal family or freemasonry
- had no practical experience in removing human organs
:-) Philip
PS I am very sorry about that result, but will admit to being a "Red", even if the result of the ODI in India was mor to my liking |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 01:24 pm | | Hi, Philip:
I think you are wrong in saying the killer "had no practical experience in removing human organs" since this is exactly what he was doing, wasn't he? The very fact that this is what he did shows, I think, that he had such experience.
Chris |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 02:45 pm | | Hi Chris,
what I mean is - he wasn't a surgeon, a butcher or any type of doctor who had "practical experience" before he committed the murders.
Philip
PS Who knows he may have been an author? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 02:51 pm | | | I would like to see ANYBODY on these boards with no experience do what Jack the Ripper did. And do it IN THE TIME HE HAD IN THE DARK. 95% of people would throw up straight away they would not hack it.I would like to see ANYBODY on these boards with no experience do it to a pig in a slaughter house let alone a woman in the street.Having worked as a gutman in a slaughter gang for some time I speak with experience in gutting. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 03:10 pm | | Phil
Thanks for the support, even if you aren't as convinced as I am.
John. Some people get killed. Somebody writes a letter to the police saying "I did it". The police - now what are they supposed to do? Investigate the "evidence", or just say "Well, actually we can't use this letter because there is no reliable tangible point that proves the letter was written by the murderer".
Umm, that's what 'detective' work is all about. Yes, Yes, Yes - the diary IS evidence, whether or not it is genuine. The whole point of an investigation is to establish the authenticity (or not) of evidence.
If the diary was "proven" beyond all doubt to be genuine then it would not be evidence John, it would be fact.
But it ain't fact (yet). It's evidence.
Caz
Print? Handwriting? I don't see the problem with it myself. I've always referred to handwriting as 'print' and so has just about anybody I've ever met (I'll save you the task of even taking the dust cover off your keyboard John - "Peter, you've not met many people then").
But I haven't seen the diary "in the flesh", so I can't comment on the size of the handwriting in it. Unfortunately.
Chris - Fantastic goal, stunning. If Van Nist had scored that they'd be calling it the goal of the season. But let's put things in perspective, we are top of the league. We went into that game on the back of eight straight wins. We are two points clear of your team after once being eleven points (and a game) behind. And it is a sad sign of the times when the people of Liverpool are more excited about beating Manchester United than they are about winning the league. To win the league you have to beat teams like ...erm, Southampton. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 05:10 pm | | Hi All,
First, back to Phil, since there are a number of problems in his initial post.
"The diary is there and we must look at it from all sides. We would be wrong in throwing it out of the window and we would be wrong in embracing it without asking questions."
Yes. But, as of now, the diary is absolutely not evidence against the real James Maybrick, since it has not yet been linked in any way to the real James Maybrick or even the proper century. We know the McN. Mem. is authentic. We know who wrote it and when and who Druitt was and who Ostrog was, etc. It is a document which has a provenance going back to the proper century and which can be established as referring to people that actually existed.
The diary has no provenance; it cannot be linked in any way to any real person who ever existed, including the real James Maybrick; we do not know who wrote it or whether the person who wrote was even living in the proper century. Therefore, unlike the McN. Mem., it cannot be treated as or considered evidence in any case against the real James Maybrick, since it is a document which is still completely unlinked to him in any way.
This should not be that difficult of a difference to understand.
The McN. Mem. is evidence because it has been established as authentic.
The diary cannot yet properly be considered as evidence of anything having to do with the Ripper murders or with the real James Maybrick, because there has never been a single piece of evidence ever discovered anywhere that suggests it is authentic or in any way linked to either of these things.
Consequently, neither Peter nor anyone else is entitled to list it as "tangible evidence" against the real James Maybrick. It is an invalid leap which assumes an unestablished conclusion. It can't be any simpler than that.
Concerning your three items of doubt.
The ink question is more complicated than you express it. A bottle of ink from the proper time, or at least ink which would have been available at that time would certainly be acquirable. It would not have all dried up or anything of the sort. Likewise, certain modern inks would also be consistent with inks of the proper time to a great degree. As of now, the science remains unable to say anything for sure about precisely how old this ink is or how long it has been on this paper. But there is not a single result of all the tests done that has ever placed this ink on this paper in anything but the 20th century. No scientific test or result has ever said this ink or book dates to the nineteenth. That should tell you something.
You write this about the book:
"You can find old ledgers or diaries in antique shops and on fairs, but they had hardley ever empty on in good condition."
Good point. This one wasn't empty either. There are pages torn out from the front of it and impressions left where there were postcard sized items mounted in it. That should tell you something, as well.
Finally, you're quite wrong about Maybrick's renown as a historical figure. His "murder" was the next most celebrated crime after Jack's. In Liverpool, I am told, the story was well-known. Florie's trial is an important historical moment, since she is the first American woman ever given the death sentence in an English court. I knew of it because of that. And there were already plenty of books available on the subject from the same sort of places one would find books about Jack.
Ultimately, all this talk about "may" and "could" is irrelevant.
Once again -- there is not a single piece of evidence of any sort that supports the diary's claim to authenticity or that links this book in any way to the real James Maybrick or to the nineteenth century. None. Not one piece. Anywhere in the world. NO one has ever found one simple piece of evidence -- no document, no testimony -- nothing that supports the diary's claim to authenticity. The diary has no supported or established provenance, it has in no way ever been linked to its supposed author or the proper century and no one has ever found any reliable evidence that suggests it even might be authentic.
It's not a case of a closed or open mind or what could or may be. It's simply the facts. A case for the authenticity of the diary, which uses real evidence in its support, has never begun.
And neither Peter Wood nor Paul Feldman nor Shirley Harrison nor anyone can offer just one little piece of solid evidence which links this book in any way to the real James Maybrick or the right century or which is "tangible evidence" of this book's authenticity. They never have. That, too, should tell you something.
And Peter,
Yes, the diary is "evidence." It is evidence in the case of the diary question. It is evidence in a possible case of forgery. It is even evidence in a case of authentication.
But as of now, it is by no means and under no circumstances evidence against the real James Maybrick. Because it is still only a found 20th Century artifact that has no legitimate provenance and no legitimate claim to authenticity. There is still not a single solid reason or a single, solitary piece of evidence that suggests that this book had anything whatsoever to do with the real James Maybrick or the 19th Century. Therefore, it cannot be legitimately considered as tangible evidence" against the real James Maybrick. You're wrong about this.
There simply is no case against the real James Maybrick because the diary has not even begun to be linked to him in any way, shape, or form.
The diary might be evidence in a number of cases (surrounding itself and its production and claims to authenticity, mostly). But is not evidence in any case against the real James Maybrick, since we have no logical reason whatsoever (and no there is no evidence whatsoever) to think it even existed in Maybrick's own time. It cannot properly be considered as evidence in any case against the real James Maybrick since there is no evidence at all that he even appears in this book.
Until you can offer at least a single piece of evidence that indicates he does, this book cannot be used as evidence against him.
The fact that you listed it as evidence against him reveals either a simple misunderstanding of the laws of evidence or a deliberate desire to mislead and to assume a clearly unestablished conclusion.
Well, that's enough for now.
All the best,
--John |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 06:15 pm | | | Beside the Diary and the sensational trial of his wife for his death, where else does his name appear?I seeme to remember somewhere that his name was mentioned in the Steven and Clarence thing.I can't remember nor can I find it.Where outside the Diary would you find James Maybrick in any context that would relate to Jack The Ripper? Maybe some of you know.Somewhere you are going to have to associate James Maybrick with his so called Diary. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 06:16 pm | | | P.SI mean in the context of others who are associated JTR? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 07:10 pm | | | David,Until the diary hoax came about most people had never heard of Maybrick.Those that did got his name from his wifes murder trial in Liverpool.I believe that it was from this trial that the forger first obtained Maybrick's name and the reason why he/she decided to put him in the frame as the ripper. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 07:20 pm | | | He was not then mentioned in some way with the Royal's Conspiracy?-Druitt-Steven-Clarence-that bunch. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 07:47 pm | | | Not that I am aware of David I have never heard of his name in such a context. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 08:17 pm | | | In 'The Poisoned Life Of Mrs Maybrick' Ryan says that Brierly took Florie to meet the Prince of Wales at the Grand National,and was 'scolded for being away so long'.This was the event that erupted in an altercation between the Mabricks .Maybrick, according to Nurse Yapp, was saying loudly 'Such a scandal will be all over town tomorrow. Florie, I never thought it of you'. |
Author: Chris Livesey
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 09:14 pm | | | to me maybrick is a complete non-starter. Scotland yard say the ink is fairly recent and that's good enough for me. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 09:47 pm | | | O that others thought so too. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:19 am | | Hi Peter (B), Chris, All,
I did of course see the diary in the 'flesh', as it were, back in the autumn. So my thoughts about Billy's recollections are based on the actual size, not what we see in any of the books.
As I said, the writing is neither large nor particularly easy to decipher, so it's easy to see why someone like Billy might not have bothered trying at the time. And as Chris says, Billy would surely have been aware in 1994 of the basic fact that the document they were supposed to be talking about was hand-written. And however the subject was introduced, he was reported as using the word 'diary' just before talking about it having 'very small print'.
Chris may well be right. Billy's recollection in 1994 may have been influenced by having seen the facsimile, or transcription, of the diary in Shirley's book. But that in itself doesn't necessarily indicate that he never saw the original. If he did hand it over to Anne in the late 1980s, there's no reason to think he'd have looked inside then. Do we know if he is supposed to have seen it again between Mike getting it and going public? If not, and Billy’s most recent recollection was seeing it in Shirley's book, it's at least possible that he mis-remembered the real reason why he put the diary down all those years before – saying it was due to the 'very small print' when the lettering was simply 'hard-to-read'.
Not too far removed from Kelly's breasts and the idea (yes, I know, I know ) that 'Maybrick' might have mis-remembered where he put them because he read in the papers that Jack had left them on the table, and automatically assumed he must have done, even though he remembered later that he had thought of putting them elsewhere.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:28 am | | Ivor,
sorry, but 'until the Diary most people had never heard of Maybrick'?? Rubbish, any true-crime buff (and there are thousands of those) would have done, a high %age of people living in Liverpool and surrounding areas would, the Maybrick trial is a great example of a miscarriage of justice that is mentioned in books on that subject (Paul Foot certainly does in his Hanratty book). He was VERY well known.
David,
of course there's no evidence outside of the Diary that JM was JtR. But there's no evidence outside of third hand reports of reminiscences that Stephenson was either, and absolutely no evidence that Tumblety was (though at least he's mentioned in Police despatches).
Vaughan |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:31 am | | Peter,
and of course Witt wasn't even based in The Minories, he was based in Cullum St (interestingly at the same address as the Fuller's Earth Company, but that's BTB), which is even further into the City, off Farringdon St. Nowhere near Whitechapel AT ALL.
Bad result last night, unfortunately, probably means George will get Manager of the Month, and we'll be relegated inside two weeks!
Vaughan |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:35 am | | Hi John,
I never said that the diary is evidence. Until the time it is cleary dated it will not be. Using the MM was wrong example, because as you said it is evidence. Not for or against any of the suspects but as we know a real valid genuine document.
But let us - just for the fun of it - compare two suspects: Maybrick and D'Onston (or whatever name you chose for him). Forget about the diary for one minute. How much can bring you bring foward for and against D'Onston? And how much can you bring forward for and against Maybrick? As I said forget the diary and go through his life, his descriptions and his background. Maybrick may not be a great suspect but a lot better than others.
I will argue till I am blue in the face against the Duke of Clarence being Jack because we have facts that speak against it. But where are the facts speaking against Maybrick? Where?
The problem is: the diary. Ivor said (on another thread) that I am sitting on a fence. I may very be. You demand that facts are brought forward that show that the diary is genuine. But where are the facts that show to be a forgery. The missing pages of the ledger are used. The ink is used. The handwriting is used. But none of these are facts. We don't know what was on the first pages. No ink test has exactly dated the ink to a certain period. Nobody has a 100% certain example of Maybricks handwriting.
Don't get me wrong - I am not a believer in the diary and my honest opinion is closer to yours than to Peter Woods, but I will gladly listen to his arguments, because we have this book and in dubio pro res.
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:57 am | | Phillip C,
Where did you get the info on the '+' points?
And the '-' ?
Peter,
Its not evidence, its circumstantial evidence.
Evidence is the providing of proof of the definite or strong possibility.
Circumstantial evidence is showing only probability not proof of the definite or strong possibility.
Proof is an act or process of showing that statement is true or conclusive evidence.
Its circumstantial.
Sir Humphrey Monty
PS Sorry we couldn't do you a favour last night.
We did ok 2nd half, we only had 10 men !!! |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 08:07 am | | and Caz,
(yes I know that should all be one message, but...uhhr, no, I don't really have any excuse..)
yes, sorry to disappoint...but going through the diary, aren't there a lot of entries that just don't make sense, or are just there for effect?
But, of course, if 'no heart' is there for a reason, it means the diary must be a forgery, as it's not something that the murderer (whether he took the heart away or burnt it) would say is it?
So, to adapt my position, mostly inspired by orthodox readings of the myth, with a quick flick through Fido as an aide??
That's a funny image...
Vaughan |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 08:16 am | | Hi Vaughan,
I'm not arguing for the diary not being a forgery.
Just exploring whether lines were put in for effect, for no purpose at all, and which sources the author may have used (or needed to use) for certain phrases or passages.
That's all really.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 08:29 am | | I know petal....
I think we've argued this one into the ground...sometimes the words start to spin in front of my eyes!
So let's come to the agreement that if these words were put in for effect (which they might not have been), it suggests a knowledge of the Bond report which puts us post-88 and therefore brings with it a whole host of problems vis a vis the Anne Graham story?
Is that a fair summation?
And, now, "'Maybrick's' constant use of the word 'Ha'...was he a sunken ditch builder?"
Vaughan |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 10:37 am | | No, the forger was practising his laughter in case Mike Barrett was ever suspected of writing the diary.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
