Archive through 31 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 31 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Maybrick, James: Archive through 31 January 2002

Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:20 am
Hi, Vaughan: To be pedantic about it, the ha ha is a direct cadge off the Jack the Ripper letters just as the signoff on the final page "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper" is cadged off the letters. Got it, Boss? There is really nothing original or surprising in the Diary barring possibly the Crashaw quote. Otherwise all is borrowed from popularly accepted lore about Jack and recently published books about the Ripper and Maybrick cases. Best regards Chris George
Author: Vaughan Allen Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:38 am
uhhr, I was trying to make a joke...'ha ha'...a sunken ditch used in English and Scottish stately homes to keep deer in the deerpark away from the formal gardens... Though I wonder if, if we ever find the hoaxer, he'll have a strong Wearside accent? Vaughan
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 01:14 pm
Hi Vaughan: Yes I knew you were making a joke. I know what a ha ha is. . . there is a ha ha bordering the lawn of the mansion in Calderstones Park, Liverpool, that I remember from when I grew up in the 'Pool and attended nearby Quarry Bank High School, Allerton. Also I do believe there is a good probability that the hoaxer has/had a distinct working class Scouse accent. "Yer wha', Wack? Jack the Whosit?" Although I suppose Peter W. is still going to ask, "Wear's the proof?" Best regards Chris George
Author: david rhea Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:09 pm
Thanks;I needed that word this morning in the crossword puzzle.
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 06:16 pm
Vaughan,Most people are not true crime buffs so most people in the general public would not know who Maybrick was in recent times before the diary came out. Most people dont live in Liverpool or the area around it either.Even now with the diary many people have never heard of Maybrick.
Author: Peter Wood Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 06:54 pm
Otherwise all is borrowed from popularly accepted lore about Jack and recently published books about the Ripper and Maybrick cases. By that Chris, I suppose you mean the reference to Mrs Hammersmith. No? Well what about the reference to the two murders in Manchester? What, not that either? Well blow me down with a feather! So all we can safely conclude from Chris's post is that the parts of the diary that can be confirmed by reference to accepted lore about Jack and recently published books about the Ripper and Maybrick cases must have been culled from those sources. There simply isn't another answer, right? And as for Mrs Hammersmith, the Manchester murders, Lowry etc etc - well they must be an invention by the forger because they simply can't be confirmed anywhere. Umm, what's that phrase that John Omlor is so fond of using? Something to do with 'wish fulfillment' ... The suspects and what we have against them: Druitt - a second or third hand copy of Mcnaghten's memo. Kosminski - Ditto. Ostrog - Ditto. Tumblety - The Littlechild Letter. George Chapman - He lived in Whitechapel at the time of the murders and murdered his wife with an entirely different M.O. to that used by Jack the Ripper. But never mind, throw him in as a suspect anyway. Duke of Clarence - Not very much at all. D'Onston - Ahem. Maybrick - The diary. And that's pretty much about the size of it. The Mcnaghten Memo is spoken of as a genuine document. No it's not. It's not even the original. And even if it were the original it's just the opinion of one man, an opinion that differed considerably from those of his contemporaries. Tumblety - yes, Stewart and Paul have uncovered 'evidence' against Tumblety, but they wouldn't have even dreamed of looking for it without the 'Littlechild' letter. Maybrick - The diary? Well John says it's a found 20th century artefact and repeats that old chestnut about me using it to prove Maybrick was the ripper. What nonsense. John knows full well that I am saying - investigate the diary, prove it one way or the other. If, by analysing the scientific evidence, you can prove it was composed around 1888 then you have to accept the strong probability that Maybrick was the ripper. Conversely, show that the ink wasn't made before 1975 and you have knocked it on the head and it would be doubtful whether anyone would continue to champion Maybrick for the ripper. So, for Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski one person wrote a few words in a memo, accusing them. For Tumblety one person wrote a few lines in a letter accusing him. For Maybrick? Somebody (one person?) wrote 63 pages. And againt any other suspect there is no evidence whatsoever, just speculation and opinion. No forensics. No damning photographic evidence. Nothing. Likewise against Maybrick. Nothing. Just the writings of one person accusing him of the Whitechapel murders. Get this John, investigate the diary independently (if you can manage it) of the Maybrick for Ripper theory. Just investigate it. If the diary was a modern artefact then the scientific evidence would have shown so by now. But it hasn't. It is more likely to be genuine. Vaughan, Monty - are you guys in the cup this weekend? Peter.
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 09:12 pm
Stop being bloody minded Peter. Now try again!!! D'Onston, Was in the area.Gave inside information about certain details of the murders.At least 4 people who were known to him thought he was Jack the Ripper.Known to have associated with prostitutes since his youth.Caught VD from a prostitute and lost his job because of his association with them.Had the medical experience which was shown by the killer. Moved into the area a few weeks before the first murder.Moved out of the area a few weeks after the last murder.Was a two minute walk from the first murder.Wife went missing just prior to the murders and was never heard of again. No record of her death ever found. Murdered headless woman found answering her description cut up by man with medical experience.Parts dumped in canal near to where D'Onston lived.Known to have stayed in an Inn which was well known as a prostitutes haunt before moving into Whitechapel.I could go on but I wont.I know enough about this subject to know that this man is as good a suspect as any if not better. In fact not one suspect named comes near to having all the above points and more to go againest him. PS. Forgot to mention the fact that D'Onston was also arrested by the police because they thought he was the killer.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 09:39 pm
Dear Peter, You have a clear and logical grasp of the presentation of secondary and tertiary source material...so far so good. Rosey :-)
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:09 pm
Peter, Let's be clear, once again: Here are your words: "So, for Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski one person wrote a few words in a memo, accusing them. "For Tumblety one person wrote a few lines in a letter accusing him. "For Maybrick? Somebody (one person?) wrote 63 pages." Now, pay attention: "So, for Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski one person wrote a few words in a memo, accusing them." Yes, and we know who that person was and we know when he wrote it and we know he was involved in the investigation and lived during the time of the crimes in the proper place. "For Tumblety one person wrote a few lines in a letter accusing him." Yes, and we know who that person was and we know when he wrote it and we know he was involved in the investigation and lived during the time of the crimes in the proper place. "For Maybrick? Somebody (one person?) wrote 63 pages." Yes, and we have no idea who that somebody was and we have no idea where or when they wrote those pages and there is no evidence whatsoever anywhere in the world that even suggests that that person was the real James Maybrick or that the people who wrote those pages were even alive in the proper century. See the difference? Consequently, the first two documents are properly considered evidence in the case. The last one is not. Period. Therefore, there is no "tangible evidence" against the real James Maybrick whatsoever. There is "tangible evidence," albeit slight, against several other people. Those are simply the facts. Then you offer this absurdity: "If the diary was a modern artefact then the scientific evidence would have shown so by now." Nonsense. It is perfectly possible that the diary is a modern artifact and that the scientific tests have not been able to pin down the precise time of composition. But, it should be noted that every single scientific test ever performed on the diary places it in the 20th Century. Not one has ever placed it in the 19th. That's simply a fact. And the diary is not even in the handwriting of its supposed 19th Century author. And there has never been a single piece of reliable or material evidence offered anywhere in support of the diary being authentic. Never. Not one piece. And there has never been a single piece of evidence discovered anywhere by anyone that has ever linked the real James Maybrick to this book in any way. Never. Not one piece. So any talk about James Maybrick being a serious Ripper suspect is utterly premature and assumes a conclusion that has not begun to be established and is, quite patently at this point, nonsense. When you or Paul or Shirley find any evidence at all that places this book in the proper century or that tangibly links it in any way to its supposed author, you can let us know. Then, it might properly be considered evidence against him. But as of now, it's not and therefore there is no case. That doesn't seem very complicated. But maybe it's just me. All the best, --John
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 25 January 2002 - 04:07 am
Vaughan, Ask any of the citizens of Gloucester to tell you about the Haw Bridge torso mystery,and very few could.Ask about Fred West and almost to a man they would all be aware of his crimes,yet the torso mystery was to the people of that district,at that time,every bit as mysterious as the Maybrick death. I too think the Maybrick saga would have been long forgotten by the majority of folk in Liverpool,and only recent crimes remembered. A further comment on the torso mystery.It did make the front page of the nationel papers,but how many nationly remember it.
Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 25 January 2002 - 04:52 am
Harry - Well put. I reckon that the "man in the street" in Liverpool nowadays would remember James Bulger far more readily than James Maybrick. Cheers Guy
Author: Monty Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:20 am
Harry, Guy, Peter The majority may have forgotten it but not all. You remembered it. You would also remember it if it was a family story, passed down from generation to generation. Peter, We got Boing-boing Baggies. A difficult one.
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 25 January 2002 - 09:29 am
Hi, Guy: You wrote to Harry: "Well put. I reckon that the 'man in the street' in Liverpool nowadays would remember James Bulger far more readily than James Maybrick." But, Guy, there's a distinct difference here, isn't there? The average man in the street in Liverpool lived through the trauma of the 1993 Bulger child murder and the subsequent trial, plus the case has been kept in the news because of the controversy about letting out the boy's young killers, Venables and Thompson, hasn't it? By contrast, there is no one alive who lived through the Maybrick murder and trial, who read in the newspapers at the time about the murder, Florence Maybrick's trial, and the debate about whether Florie was wrongly convicted. So these two Liverpool cases are vastly different in terms of how people on Merseyside might remember them, aren't they? The Maybrick case is too long ago to live in the current memory of most people on Merseyside unlike the Bulger Case which occurred less than a decade ago and is very fresh in people's minds. If Maybrick is known at all it is because of the controversy over the Diary which has been discussed in Liverpool newspapers and periodicals and on Radio Merseyside. Best regards Chris George
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 25 January 2002 - 10:58 am
Dear John, You have a clear and logical grasp of the secondary and tertiary source material. So far so good. Rosey :-)
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 03:36 am
Chris, But is'nt that what Guy and I are really saying.That before the Diary, Maybrick would have long been forgotten,and in all of Liverpool there would have been but few who retained enough memory and information to link him with a proposed confession. It only took one person to visualise the idea of a written record to identify the killer,and just a very few more to carry the project through. Maybe three or four out of the many thousands that inhabit Liverpool. H.Mann.
Author: Guy Hatton Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 04:38 am
Chris - I agree entirely with you about why the Bulger case would be better remembered than Maybrick. But I thought the question was more along the lines of what would be remembered, regardless of why. Yes, some people will obviously have family stories about Maybrick, but they will probably be in a very small minority. Monty - Actually, prior to seeing The Diary of Jack the Ripper on TV in 1996, I had no idea who James Maybrick was either! Cheers Guy
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 05:33 am
Hi All, My first encounter with the Maybricks was 'In Suspicious Circumstances' with Edward Woodward. Almost no one I talk to (apart from you lot and the C&D people of course) have heard of the name Maybrick in either context, trial or diary, even today. And before anyone says it, no, the people I talk to are not all uneducated twits. Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 03:13 pm
Hi, Guy, Harry, and Caz: Okay fair enough. Thanks, Guy, for clarifying your point about Maybrick not being generally known today before the appearance of the Diary. Glad we agree about this. All the best Chris
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 10:39 am
Hi Chris et al Just to clarify - my understanding was that Maybrick was spoken of in at least one book on Jack the Ripper well before the diary came out, primarily because of the judge at his wife's trial being the father of a friend of one of the suspects ...and also something of a suspect in his own right (Druitt and J.K.) That is why, when the diary was published, I knew that I had seen the name 'Maybrick' somewhere before - I just couldn't remember where. Unfortunately I still can't. But I am convinced that at least one ripper author had written of his "connection" to the case well before 1992. Err ...I'm not quite sure where Rosemary is coming from with the posts to John and myself, can anyone enlighten me? Ivor offers these gems regarding D'Onston: Caught VD from a prostitute and lost his job because of his association with them.Had the medical experience which was shown by the killer. Moved into the area a few weeks before the first murder.Moved out of the area a few weeks after the last murder. Caught V.D. from a prostitute? That would put him at the back of a long line of "suspects" that must number about a million or so, not very unique as evidence - but clearly neither John nor anybody else saw fit to jump on this. Had the medical experience which was shown by the killer? Medical experience? Umm, no, I don't think so. No 'medical experience' was evidenced at all. It was suggested at one time or another that the ripper may have been a butcher or a slaughterer, but nowhere has it been shown that he was used to dispensing pills. Again, you all remain quiet. Moved into the area a few weeks before the first murder.Moved out of the area a few weeks after the last murder? Now just how many doss houses were there in Whitechapel? In London. So basically we are looking at something of a transient population, and the 'fact' that somebody moved in and moved out at certain times proves nothing. Again silence from the moral majority. Sorry for picking on you Ivor, but I just thought it was someone else's turn to be the whipping boy. Forgot to mention the fact that D'Onston was also arrested by the police because they thought he was the killer. Forgot to mention also that they released him (and several dozens of others they arrested for the Whitechapel murders) because they had absolutely no evidence against him. D'Onston was a strange man. A fantasist? Probably. The ripper? Definitely not. John offers: "Yes, and we know who that person was and we know when he wrote it and we know he was involved in the investigation and lived during the time of the crimes in the proper place, regarding Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog, Tumblety. So let's get this straight, John. If somebody had just written a one page letter voicing their own opinion that Maybrick could have been the ripper, then he would right up there alongside Tumblety, Ostrog et al, right? After all, that's all you can pin on the other "suspects", one person's opinion. And we know that the police officers of the time had differing opinions to a man. And we also know that some of them who were offering their opinions didn't even serve in London during the times of the murders. So the police officers' personal opinions are worth ....? What? Zip. They differ too widely for any consensus to be argued. But no, no-one wrote a 'one page letter' accusing Maybrick. Somebody wrote 63 pages accusing Maybrick. Somebody saw fit to do so. With or without the diary Maybrick remains as good a suspect as any of the others that have been offered so far. Yep John, that's what I'm saying - without the diary Maybrick is still as credible as suspect as Druitt, Ostrog, Kosminski, Duke of Clarence etc etc. And I'll admit that ain't saying much. 'Cos there is precious little 'evidence' against any of them. So go on, knock the diary on the head, but Maybrick will still be there, in the All time Top Ten ripper suspects list, along with Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck. And don't go repeating that other favourite chestnut of yours that without the diary we would not have Maybrick as a suspect, because watch: Without McNaghten we wouldn't have Druitt as a suspect. Without McNaghten we wouldn't have Ostrog as a suspect. Without McNaghten we wouldn't have Kosminski as a suspect. Without Littlechild we wouldn't have Tumblety as a suspect. Get the picture? Every single suspect that has ever been offered up for examination is either a suspect only in the mind of one man, OR is a flight of fancy as in Sickert, OR is guilty purely by association as in Nettley. We are very lucky with Maybrick. The diary has afforded us the opportunity to investigate history and challenge popular misconceptions. It has given those who would otherwise remain amateur students a glimpse into the lives of a celebrated Victorian couple. It has given Mike Barrett his fifteen minutes of fame. And ten years of infamy. Now, if the diary is a forgery, fine - go prove it. Then let us hear the story of the forgers and why they chose Maybrick as their number one suspect. How they composed their masterpiece knowing that they were taking the risk that in the social columns of the times one of Feldy's researchers may have turned up " ...30 September 1888, celebrated singer Michael Maybrick, along with his brother James, enjoyed dinner at the Duke of Clarence's retreat in Inverness last night, some 600 miles and 24 hours by rail from the scene of a crime that he (James) will be accused of committing one hundred years from now". The fact is John, that you do offer some very good arguments against the validity of the diary, but nowhere do you offer anything that shows Maybrick couldn't have been the ripper. The circumstantial evidence against him is every bit as good (at least) as that against any other candidate. So come on, go looking for that newspaper report, prove to me that Maybrick was in Scotland on the night of the double event and I'll gladly agree with you that the diary is a forgery. Until then ...it isn't. And Paul, Shirley, Robert and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Queen's counsel when someone puts Maybrick in the dock. Where he should be. Cheers Peter.
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 11:05 am
Ah, Peter, You've missed the point completely. Who were McNaughten and Littlechild? We know the answer to this question. We know when they lived. We know what they did for a living. We know that the answer to these questions are directly relevant to the actual Ripper case. Who wrote the diary pages? We have no idea. We have no idea when they lived. We have no idea what they did for a living. We have no evidence at all that the answer to these questions is in any way relevant to the actual Ripper case. Therefore, there is tangible, relevant historical evidence provided by Mcnaughten and Littlechild (albeit slight). There is none provided by the diarist. There can be none until (s)he is identified. I know you understand this difference. I don't know why you are unable to acknowledge it. You cannot compare the McNaughten or Littlechild documents with the diary. The first two have verified provenances and known authors who were relevant to the case in question. The last one does not. Therefore, the first two are properly considered evidence in this case. The last one is not. It can't be any simpler. And then you write this silliness: "It [the diary] has given those who would otherwise remain amateur students a glimpse into the lives of a celebrated Victorian couple." No, it hasn't. There is not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that links this diary in any way to any Victorian person whatsoever. There is not a single test ever done on it that places it outside of the 20th Century even. And there is no evidence against Maybrick whatsoever. None. Not a single piece. Anywhere. And your last line concerning the diary being authentic until it is proved a forgery demonstrates a stunning failure to grasp the concept of authentication. The diary was "discovered" in the late 20th Century. It has no established provenance, no evidence linking it to anyone in the 19th century, including its supposed author, and no scientific evidence placing it in the 19th century. Therefore, it has not been authenticated and it remains a 20th century artifact in search of authentication. The burden of proof remains on you -- not those who argue it is a forgery. If you can't authenticate it, it will remain forever only a 20th century artifact. And right now, Peter, you can't authenticate it. You can't even come close. You can't even begin. You can't match the writing, you can't link it to its supposed author in any way, you can't date it to the proper century, nothing. That is the state of this diary at the present time. All the best, --John
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 05:21 pm
And then you write this silliness: "It [the diary] has given those who would otherwise remain amateur students a glimpse into the lives of a celebrated Victorian couple." No, it hasn't. There is not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that links this diary in any way to any Victorian person whatsoever. To clarify (I should have known John would pick up on this anomaly in my grammar) - The diary has afforded those who would otherwise remain amateur students an opportunity to do some research into the lives of a celebrated Victorian couple. And celebrated they were. The books (Shirley and Paul), shorter articles (three in the Mammoth book of Jack the Ripper) and the various opinions expressed in books on other subjects has given an insight into that couple and {has} motivated people to do more research on the couple. As a for instance John, I've been to see both Battlecrease and James' grave - I wouldn't have even known they existed without the diary. But you are right. We do know who McNaghten and Littlechild are/were. We also know that their opinions were at odds with each other and at odds with the opinions of just about every other police officer who remotely had a connection with the ripper murders. And by the way, Montague was clearly not the ripper, so old Melvin either didn't know what he was talking about or was just spinning us a line. Why does nobody offer Cutbush up as a suspect anymore? Again you are right John, we can't be certain at the moment who the author of the diary is. O.K. let us pretend that it's Mike Barrett (it ain't though). Therefore Mike Barrett is of the opinion that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. And as we know that McNaghten and Littlechild were most likely wrong (sorry Stewart) then Mike's opinion is just as valid as those of any of the writers who have offered their own candidate for inspection. Or maybe James Maybrick wrote it. And then his opinion really would be valid. Cheers Peter.
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 07:52 pm
Hi Peter, I see now what you meant in your original sentence. Fair enough. But then there is this beauty. "And as we know that McNaghten and Littlechild were most likely wrong (sorry Stewart) then Mike's opinion is just as valid as those of any of the writers who have offered their own candidate for inspection." So there it is, folks. Mike Barrett's ideas on James Maybrick being Jack, as expressed in a document written deceptively in first person and peddled as a forgery (if Mike wrote it, it must be one) are "just as valid" as MacNaughten's or Littlechild's. They are just as properly considered evidence as the two documents contemporary with the time by noted people involved with the case itself. Let's get this straight for everyone to see. If Mike Barrett wrote the diary, his fiction about James Maybrick killing women to get some sort of weird revenge against his wife for her supposed infidelity is "just as valid" and just as properly considered evidence in the Ripper case as the historical documents written by MacNaughten and Littlechild. Does everyone see where we are? Does everyone see how completely this misunderstands the concept of history? The concept of "evidence?" If I sit down and scratch out a forged confession by a known ladies' maid of Queen Victoria's where she describes wandering into Whitechapel late at night dressed as a toff and slaughtering prostitutes because her father had a secret affair with one once, that is just as properly considered evidence in the Ripper case as the authentic documents that are linked to the historical investigation. That is the argument those trying to convince you of the diary's authenticity are now forced to use. That is where we have come. That is why there is no reason to take seriously any claims to authenticity whatsoever for this book until at least a single piece of evidence is offered by someone at some time. And since there is no evidence that links this book in any way even to the proper century or to its supposed author, that is why this book is evidence of NOTHING AT ALL. This is getting silly, --John
Author: John Hacker Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:05 pm
All, The 100th anniversary of the Maybrick trial would have been just a few short years before the "diary" appeared, and would have turned up on the heels of the anniversary of the JtR killings. It seems like that both of these crimes would have received at least some press notices as their anniversary approached. If only in a "this day in history" piece in the newspaper. It's possible that our forger had the two crimes linked in his mind in this way. John Hacker
Author: R.J. Palmer Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 10:18 pm
John--Maybe Chris George or Caz could refresh my memory, but I believe a year or so ago a woman from the Liverpool area posted that a 'Maybrick exhibit' was on display at the court-house [or at a museum?] in Liverpool around 1989. Cheers, RP
Author: Harry Mann Monday, 28 January 2002 - 05:31 am
Peter, I am impressed by your arguement,as I am impressed by John's rebuttal. Just a little point.Mike doesn't have to be of the opinion that Maybrick was the Ripper even if he(Mike)were the author of the diary.All that has to be shown,regardless of the authors opinion of the guilt or innocence of Maybrick,is that the diary shows Maybrick guilty. Regards,H.Mann.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 28 January 2002 - 07:06 am
Hi RJ, Judge Richard Hamilton presented a re-creation of The Maybrick Trial, at St George�s Hall Liverpool, between July and September 1989. Interestingly, this was just a couple of months after the Hillsborough disaster, on April 15th that year, which resulted in Mike Barrett acquiring the Sphere book containing the obscure Crashaw quote found in the diary. Assuming the diary is a modern forgery, if it was influenced by both events, the window available for its creation, from conception to finishing flourish, giving the ink time to dry sufficiently for the scientists to be unable to date it (ie the last ink stroke had to be made no later than the summer of 1989 because it was first subjected to tests in the summer of 1992 - and according to Dr. Eastaugh the ink becomes undatable after between three and five years, the implication being that such time had already passed) becomes vanishingly small. Hi John, You're doing a Monty on us now. 'That is the argument those trying to convince you of the diary's authenticity are now forced to use.' How many are doing this? Peter Wood and, er, who else? Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Monday, 28 January 2002 - 07:26 am
Hi Caz, Quite right. It was the rhetorical "those trying to convince us..." -- an unfortunate flourish. I meant Peter. Hi Harry, Of course, the diary does not show Maybrick to be guilty. In fact, it offers no reviewable evidence at all, anywhere in it, of Maybrick's guilt. It is simply rambling thoughts, bad poetry, a rehash of commonly known details and a few unconfirmable stories. Add to that the fact that it cannot be linked in any way to its supposed author or even to the proper century and it becomes worthless in terms of real evidentiary value. Onward, --John
Author: Vaughan Allen Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 06:45 am
Harry, sorry, but Haw Bridge wasn't anywhere near as famous as the Maybrick case. Ask many (most?) inhabitants of the Wye Valley about the Hay poisoner case and many (most?) will be able to tell you... And, Guy, there were tens, if not hundreds of articles in the 'pool press about the case at the Centenary, it's featured again and again on miscarriage programmes, it even featured in the Cobb series in the 70s/80s IIRC. It's in no way obscure... Peter, strangely, I almost agree with you. I don't think there is much to be chosen between Maybrick and Onston or Tumblety. But there is still a definite gap.. and that gap is substantial. It's the gap between being associated with the case at the time, and being associated with the case in a document that didn't appear until over a hundred years later. However, you do make good points. The wonders of the Sugden/Fido/Begg academic era have brought to light and analysed properly POlice documentation. But that, unfortunately, doesn't mean we're any closer to finding the 'real' WM. All of Fido's work, trying to find who McNaghten meant by 'Kosminski' is academic as there's STILL nothing to tie Cohen/Kosminski to the crime. McNaughten wasn't even employed in the Met at the time of the case, so what we have here is the Victorian equivalent of canteen talk. The connections between the beliefs of McNaghten and those of Anderson and Swanson (who we know were friends and would have discussed the case) do not amount to cumulative evidence. As I've said before, I find 'The Final Chapter' to be the worst book on the case, but neither 'The Bloody Truth' nor 'First American Serial Killer' are far behind. The former presents third-hand evidence against Onston, and, though we know he took an interest in the case, the same could be said of Sickert and no serious researcher countenances his involvement. As for Tumblety, there is simply no evidence beyond some putative Police interest at the time, as Curtis points out in 'JtR and the London Press', there's more coverage of his time in New York in the Stewart/Gainey book than of his time in London. Vaughan Still sulking after Sunday...ouch...
Author: Vaughan Allen Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 07:34 am
and yes, I meant 'the True face' not 'the Bloody Truth'... Ho hum... Vaughan
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 08:35 am
Hi Vaughan, We're not in serious disagreement here. I too believe there is not much of a case against any of the subjects currently under consideration. But Martin's book and Stewart's book and a few others at least offer new information and evidence in the case and at least try to comprehensively account for its details. The diary does neither, of course, and is not in any way a serious advancement of knowledge or properly considered as new evidence in this case, especially since it remains completely unlinked to its supposed author, completely without a verifiable provenance, not in its supposed author's handwriting, and has never been placed even in the proper century. So as speculative and sketchy as those other books are, and as problematic as the contemporary documents like those of Littlechild and MacNaughten might be, they are at least part of the case history. The diary cannot be in any way established as that and remains an utterly unauthenticated fiction. And that's the point. Because as slight of a case as we have against Tumblety or D'Onston or Druitt or Ostrog or Kosminski or any of the others, we have absolutely no case against the real James Maybrick whatsoever, nothing at all to link him to the crimes or to this goofy diary. I have always said that Jack is likely to be someone we've never even heard of. But there is certainly no reason to think it was poor James Maybrick -- and this fairy tale of a book which remains absolutely unlinked to him in any way certainly does not offer us one. Bye for now, --John
Author: Guy Hatton Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 09:50 am
Vaughan - I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that the centenary of the Maybrick trial had received that much attention. Cheers Guy
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 02:30 pm
"So as speculative and sketchy as those other books are, and as problematic as the contemporary documents like those of Littlechild and MacNaughten might be, they are at least part of the case history. The diary cannot be in any way established as that and remains an utterly unauthenticated fiction". AND "If I sit down and scratch out a forged confession by a known ladies' maid of Queen Victoria's where she describes wandering into Whitechapel late at night dressed as a toff and slaughtering prostitutes because her father had a secret affair with one once, that is just as properly considered evidence in the Ripper case as the authentic documents that are linked to the historical investigation". But John, what if you'd scratched out your supposed confession in 1888? Or 1889? Would it then be considered 'part of the case history'? Therein lies the problem with McNaghten, Anderson etc. Some people are just too scared that they will be accused of disrespecting the memories and opinions of former police officers, not least because some respected ripperologists have based their own books and careers on McNaghten's flimsy opinions and Anderson/Swanson. MacNaghten should not be considered as a witness. He was trying to grab a share of the glory by association. The reason that so much has been made of the "MacNaghten Memoranda" is that it gave us three names of supposed "suspects" - and so people jumped on it! Then good old Don the Swan confirms Kosminski as a suspect, but gets a lot of the known factual detail wrong, so Martin Fido opts for David Cohen. It's a great book, a thoroughly good read, but ultimately devoid of any logical conclusions and built purely on speculation. And before Martin Fido's fans leap for my throat let me state I love Martin Fido! I love his theories, I love his whole contribution to the ripper debate. I couldn't think of a better dinner guest - but that still leaves us with the 'fact' that his arguments are built on speculation. I'm not just picking on Martin, others have built their careers by jumping on a passing bandwagon. Martin's theory was the first to spring to mind because, for all it's faults, it's the one I turn to when in my darkest moments I abandon the diary for a few hours. You see, everyone has a second and third football team (like I have a soft spot for Leicester, don't ask why), well I have second and third favourite ripper suspects. Kosminski/Cohen, Tumblety. I can't remember who said it - but I must take issue, Stewart and Paul have brought forward remarkable evidence against Tumblety. The police were looking for an American with Liverpool connections - that was Tumblety - and don't forget Maybrick was a Liverpudlian with an American connection. If it wasn't for the matter of his arrest on 7 November (2 days before MJK met her maker) and subsequent court appearance (a week later?) he would be the best thought out and the best researched suspect. Stewart makes a very good point for insisting that the police had to give Tumblety bail because of the nature of the offence for which he had been arrested. That I don't have a problem with. And the fact that the bail record hasn't survived isn't a problem either, let's face it, how many records have survived? But I do have a problem with him sticking around for his court appearance after slaughtering MJK. Anyway off I must go. Vaughan You weren't the only one to be disappointed at the weekend. Peter.
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 04:14 pm
Peter, You ask me: "But John, what if you'd scratched out your supposed confession in 1888? Or 1889? Would it then be considered 'part of the case history'?" When and if you can ever, in any way whatsoever, place the diary in the 19th century or even find a single piece of real evidence that links it in any way whatsoever to anyone living in the 19th century, that question will become relevant. All the best, --John
Author: Harry Mann Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 04:39 am
Vaughan, You miss the point.I did not say it was as well known or as famous as the Maybrick case.I was drawing a comparison between an old and a recent crime,and how it would be remembered by the local population.It did make front page news in the national papers. It was notable for several reasons,the first being that despite the amount of blood present on the bridge,a crime was not considered,as the blood was thought to be animal.Not untill the torso was found in the river was a crime known to have taken place.The head was never found,but the body was identified.The chief suspect commited suicide. There were other features of the case concerning victim and suspect,which I am sure would have made it more notorious than the Maybrick trial,if the whole story had been presented at court. Again the point was that while the West case is of recent times,the former was pre World War2,and had faded from memory,as had Maybrick. Except of course in the minds of a few,or those engaged in the study of crime,and Maybrick would have stayed that way if the forgers had found a more suitable candidate. H.Mann.
Author: Vaughan Allen Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 05:27 am
Harry, me missing the point on these boards is, uhhr, fairly frequent. I dunno, a decade of Usenet attendance and never have I been misunderstood (and any flame wars were someone else's bloody-mindedness). But I still think I'm missing the point of why you even brought that case into the conversation. There seems a fairly obvious connection between JtR and Maybrick: in their centenaries, in their close association in various compilations of crime. If we assume that someone got interested in JtR, started speculating about it then came up with Maybrick (through coverage in the press (and, yes, Guy, I'm sure I was exaggerating...)or association in compilations), through the co-incidence of dates, there is a fairly logical progression. It's something we've all done I'm sure...find out Bram Stoker started writing Dracula in the winter of 1889/90, he was in London in the crucial period, and it's not hard to have an idle fantasy about how one could construct the relevant case! Peter, some agreement and some disagreement...while I think the Fido/Begg/Evans legacy is important in bringing forward and properly researching all the Police material, it now is probably time to turn aside from that, as ripperology has become too weighted down with a particular spin on the crimes. It's just no-one currently knows where to go next. The scenario of the maid sitting down and writing AT THE TIME would, of course, be better than the case with the Maybrick Diary. If, say, Brierley had kept a Diary...it had been found in the early 1990s, had been authenticated as being in his handwriting, and had a fairly good provenance, if in that he talked of Maybrick as potentially being the Ripper, THEN you have some connection that brings Maybrick into the case. Not a very strong one, but one perhaps near to the level of Onston. As to Tumblety...did Evans really bring forward that evidence? The Police were searching for an American? But they were also searching for a London Doctor, a Russian lunatic, a Polish Jew. To refer back to my 'Bram Stoker theory', they also brought in 'Jeckyl and Hyde'. They were inundated with theories and checked many of them out. The Tumblety theory basically rests on the Coroner Wynne Baxter's notion that the Ripper was looking for the wombs of the women murdered, but this theory was roundly discredited at the time, because it doesn't fit the facts of the majority of the murders. Evans/Gainey produced a classic of disingenuous writing, starting off with that ridiculous Abraham Lincoln chapter, and making the usual (il)logical leaps from the little they could find out (Tumblety was a bit odd...) to produce a theory. The imprisonment of Tumblety during the period covering the murder of MJK (RIP) means that they have to then abandon her as a potential victim; a classic case of the facts being made to fit the theory (sound familiar?). It also has to be remembered that the Littlechild letter was written in 1913, LONG after the event. But all that's for another board.. Vaughan great result last night BTW...can't see us doing the same against Fulham...
Author: Peter Wood Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 03:20 pm
Aah Dear John! You say: "Peter, You ask me: "But John, what if you'd scratched out your supposed confession in 1888? Or 1889? Would it then be considered 'part of the case history'?" When and if you can ever, in any way whatsoever, place the diary in the 19th century or even find a single piece of real evidence that links it in any way whatsoever to anyone living in the 19th century, that question will become relevant". But John, you missed the point. I was making the point that the McNaghten memoranda and associated documents have only become important because of when they were written. And Vaughan has kindly pointed out to us when the Littlechild letter was written. So would your 'scratched out' confession be any more important had it been done in 1888 rather than 1988? Now, I am quite aware that no amount of circumstantial evidence will convince you that the diary even could be genuine, but perhaps you might want to remember the "Maybrick Diary" that was being touted around the newspapers in 1889 - and was quite probably bought by Florie's mother. Isn't that even worth a consideration? Vaughan Great game. Great goals. Fulham aren't what I expected this season, you should do well. Peter
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 04:12 pm
Dear Peter, Are you now seriously suggesting that the discussions of a "diary" mentioned in the papers in 1889 were referring to this one, the Maybrick Diary that Mike Barrett brought to the public's attention? I want to give you a chance to confirm that this is really your current argument before I respond here. All the best, --John PS: "Quite probably?" A delightful Feldmanism.
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 05:55 pm
Vaughn-- Hello. Well, I have to say that I disagree with much of what you write about the case against Tumblety. "The Tumblety theory basically rests on the Coroner Wynne Baxter's notion that the Ripper was looking for the wombs of the women murdered, but this theory was roundly discredited at the time, because it doesn't fit the facts of the majority of the murders." Which murders? And how exactly are you determining which ones are 'Ripper' murders, and which one's aren't? And roundly discreditted by whom? By the police? Are you entirely sure on this point? Abberline mentions the story as late as 1903 and finds it credible. It looks to me as though the police took it very seriously. Not that I would argue that the case against Tumblety basically rest on this point, anyway. Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. At the moment we don't know why, and it might have nothing whatsoever to do with the American doctor story. I also don't think it is even slightly accurate to say that that Evans and Gainey "abandoned Kelly as a victim" to fit their interpretation. Where are you finding this? The argument is made [and with a great deal of legitimacy, I believe] that Tumblety was not being detained on 9th of November. But the facts surrounding his arrest are far from crystal clear. Tumblety was evidently arrested on the 7th. But another warrant for his arrest was issued on the 14th. He was bailed on the 16th. As far as I am concerned, there is also an excellent chance that he was the Birmingham doctor arrested at Euston station on the 18th., [some American papers list his arrest as happening on this day, as does a private letter found in Canada that claims that he was the man arrested at Euston]. At any rate, it's very possible that Tumblety was bailed within 24 hours and was at large on the 9th. And, besides, I don't recall Evans & Gainey arguing one way or the other about Kelly being a Ripper victim, but looked at both sides of the issue in a fair way. There is no doubt whatsoever that Tumblety has some very odd antecedents. He was a woman-hater, a dealer in pornography, and a 'slummer'. He killed a man through malpractice but this didn't stop him from continuing his quack practices; an amoral bastard at the very least. I personally think there is an excellent chance that he was the man that was being sought by the police as far back in the beginning of October 1888. Does any of this prove that Tumblety was the Whitechapel murderer? Of course not. Quite possibly he wasn't. There will never be any proof against anyone, because the case against the Whitechapel murderer is necessarily a circumstantial one. He was never caught hovering over a dead body holding a bloody knife. The case against any specific suspect must be based on circumstances and probabilities. My opinion? I think Tumblety is a good suspect, and I have a sneaking suspicion he will be a better one before it's all over. But the main concern I have about all those who dismiss the police suspects in a cavalier manner is that they do so without knowing the evidence against them. It's somewht different with George Chapman, because we have a good idea of why Abberline suspected him. But we have no idea why Littlechild suspected Tumblety, Anderson suspected Kosminski, or Macnaghten suspected Druitt. Some proclaim a candidate is 'guilty' with very little evidence; others proclaim a candidate 'innocent' without hearing the case. Regards, RJ Palmer
Author: Harry Mann Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 04:27 am
Vaughan, Silly me,I knew I should never have referred to another case to draw a comparison,people might not understand it. I didn't know Maybrick compiled any crimes,I thought he ws a victim. And how stupid of me not to know of Hay on Wye and Armstrong.Could be him being hanged at Gloucester prison led me astray. Now there I go again with useless information,must be irritating to you posters.
Author: Peter Wood Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 05:30 pm
Hi John I'm keeping my options open on that one. Strangely enough nobody has cited the 1889 Maybrick Diary as being in any way a motivator for the 1992 Maybrick Diary. I feel they could be one and the same. More than that, I won't be drawn on. PHF makes good arguments that you really should read John, the ones where Florie's solicitor makes claim to be in possession of new evidence, and also where Florie's mother claims to have evidence which, it is intimated, the Queen would rather have kept as a secret. Sure it is speculation. But let's face it, that diary was around in 1889. The inference is there. See You Peter.