Author: Caroline
Monday, 08 March 1999 - 10:02 pm |        |
You are dead right Chris. Someone can afford to have a huge laugh over the diary hoax. I hope to show who soon.
David, Hi!
Adam Faith? Dave Clark Five? You are talking my era now, although the first record I bought was Connie Francis belting out Lipstick on your Collar!
Nowadays, I like Eagle Eye Cherry and R. Kelly, among several thousand others!
Love,
Caroline |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 08 March 1999 - 11:11 pm | |
Along the lines of "the proper red stuff"...
How would the murderer obtain a bottle of blood from a victim? I would think the body cavity would be merely moist with blood by the time he got to it, there wouldn't be a pool into which to dip the bottle. When he cut the carotid artery, the blood spurted out forcibly, draining most of the body right before death. With respect to scooping it up from the ground, this could only be possible if there were a pot hole or other depression of sufficient depth to pool the blood--which is unlikely. Therefore it seems the whole matter of the ginger beer bottle of blood is another (ho-hum) fabrication of the popular imagination, having nothing to do with the crimes.
Why do people believe in garbage, when they can believe in the truth instead?
David |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 03:13 am | |
Hey, David:
The point you make is very well taken. How could the murderer have practically collected sufficient blood to carry it away in a ginger beer bottle? Good work, David.
The writer of the September 25, 1888 Dear Boss letter wrote, "I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to did write but it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope. ha. ha."
This is a graphic little detail fit enough to shock the public, but it does not make sense. The killer was busy ripping his victim not draining off blood to transport it from the scene.
The illogicality of the statement even seems to have eluded the police who were convinced enough by the September 25 Dear Boss letter and the Saucy Jack postcard postmarked October 1 to print them up on broadsides. Yet, this statement by the supposed "killer" is a serious strike against the letter's authenticity. Good thinking, David.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 03:41 am | |
I don't know for sure about the authenticity of any of the letters, but I can't quite get my head round one bit of reasoning.
Why, if even one of the letters turned out to be by a serial killer, does everyone suppose he would try to tell the truth about the blood, or anything else for that matter. Wouldn't he just as likely be trying to hoodwink the authorities with little games, in his missives, as any enterprising journalist? What would set the real killer apart from a prankster? Does anyone know? The killer would certainly have a good, the best, line in lies, and deception. He may even want the police to believe his letters were hoaxes for reasons best known to himself. How can anyone delve inside his head and find these things out? We can only guess, and decide which guesses fit best. I can't imagine what goes on inside the head of an 'enterprising journalist' either, trying to hinder the police in their well-meaning search for an evil killer. I could think of several worse names to describe such animals of the press, but there we are.
For what it's worth, the ginger beer bottle was a joke, and a red herring in relation to the murder, but whose joke and why is what we may have to try to establish.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 02:42 pm | |
Caroline:
Very good points. Of course, you are quite right, the killer might be trying to deceive. However, the Dear Boss letter is also boastful and promises things he does not deliver. What would "an enterprising London journalist" get out of it? Keeping the story going, and giving a name to the killer, a name that would live down through the centuries: Jack the Ripper.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 05:56 pm | |
Hi Chris,
Yes, you have a good point too, about the journalists. Nothing much changes does it?
Great discussion, I love delving into meanings behind the written word. It really is one of my favourite things to do, and I'm so glad you are one of the many posters who make this amateur feel comfortable indulging my hobby here.
Best wishes,
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 05:16 pm | |
In Chapter 18 in Feldy's book he reveals a letter published in the Liverpool Echo under the heading "Liverpool Fanatic". The letter is seemingly signed DIEGO LAURENZ. Is this correct or is this the author of the newspaper article, not the letter? Feldman thinks it might be a clue. Has anybody found an answer? Interestingly both Diego and James are derived from the Hebrew word for Jacob and both mean "supplanter"
Dela |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 07:17 pm | |
Hi, Dela:
Looking at the letter as printed in Feldman's book (1st edition, p. 265), it looks as if the name Diego Laurenz was appended in the newspaper office by someone of that name who worked for the Liverpool Echo. This of course was one of the hundreds of letters received by the authorities either directly or through newspapers who received them and passed them on to the police. The text of the newspaper article as given by Feldman runs as follows. This gives the complete wording of the communication received by the Echo on October 10, 1888.
A LIVERPOOL FANATIC
The subjoined communication was addressed to the Liverpool Echo office yesterday on an ordinary postcard:
Stafford-street
Dear Sir,
I beg to state that the letters published in yours of yesterday are lies. It is somebody gulling the public. I am the Whitechapel purger. On the 13th, at 3 p.m., will be on Stage, as am going to New York. But will have some business before I go. Yours truly,
Jack the Ripper
(Genuine.)
DIEGO LAURENZ
For my money, as printed in the newspaper, the written postcard probably ends with the word "(Genuine.)" whereby the writer was trying establish his bona fides as the Whitechapel murderer. In a footnote, Feldman indicates that the supposedly bogus Ripper letters that the writer is objecting to evidently were mentioned in an article of October 9 in the Echo: "On 9 October 1888 the Liverpool Echo published the following: 'THE DUBLIN POLICE AND THE CRIMES: The Irish Times says a number of constables have been sent to London on detective duty in connection with the Whitechapel murders. The Dublin police have received a letter purporting to be from 'Jack the Ripper' stating that he intends visiting Dublin this week."
Chris George |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Monday, 15 March 1999 - 06:44 am | |
I myself am doubtful that the letter is referring to what appeared in the Echo on the 9th - it's more likely that it was referring to something on the 8th (if there was anything printed on the 8th) - otherwise the Liverpool mail service in 1888 was lightning fast.
Dela |
Author: Caroline
Monday, 15 March 1999 - 07:17 pm | |
Hi Dela,
I believe you can add 'follower' and 'deceiver' to your 'supplanter', for Jacob, and therefore James and Diego. I have a wonderful book in front of me which gives the meanings of the more common English Christian Names. Very revealing. I'm a bit peeved that Caroline is from Charles and means manly!
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 03:52 pm | |
| While we're on the subject of this 10 Oct (??) letter, can anybody tell me how long it would've taken to travel from the UK to the USA in 1888? Some things I read are beginning to convince me that the Ripper may actually have travelled to the US in October. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 09:39 pm | |
Hi, Dela:
I believe a fast mail packet or liner could accomplish the trip from Liverpool to New York in about seven days. If the Ripper went to New York, he would have had to have been gone at least two weeks or more probably three to four weeks if he were to spend any time stateside and not come back on the very first fast steamer headed back to the United Kingdom. If the killer did depart the country for the United States, it could explain why there were no killings in October and the murders resumed with the slaughter of Mary Jane Kelly on Friday, November 9. On the other hand, the United States connection might be illusory. The notion that there was an American connection comes largely from the supposed Americanisms in the orignal Dear Boss letters which may or may not have been from the hand of the killer.
Chris George |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 03:54 pm | |
Hi Chris,
My suspicion about the Ripper travelling to the US comes from the letter we've been talking about and the one after in Feldy's book, sent from Philadelphia. I'm also interested in several sent from Scotland the previous week. Before stating my reasons for why I believe that the Ripper may have travelled to the US I want to do some more research. Ideally I'd like to get my hands on a few of the letters to have a look at the handwriting and the style. If anyone has some scans of any letters written between the 5th Oct and 10 Oct. (especially the Philadelphia one, and one sent on the 8th Oct threatening a murder in Blackfriars) which you could email me I'd like to know. Just post a message.
Dela |
Author: Michael D. Allen
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 12:35 am | |
I notice that a photograph of James Maybrick in Paul Feldmans "Final Chapter" is also in the book "The Last Victim" by Anne Graham and Carol Emmas. The only difference is that it is reversed and stated to be James's brother Michael?! It of course may be a printers error.
Mike Allen |
Author: RED DEMON
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 12:47 am | |
MIKE,
Could you please tell me how I might get a copy of 'The Last Victim'? I'd appreciate any help I could get. Please e-mail me.
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 12:57 am | |
"The Last Victim" can be purchased on Amazon.Co.UK for L13.59 by following this link:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747223351/casebojacktherip
(you'll also earn us a small commission by purchasing books from that link!)
Copies in the US are selling at $29.95 and upward last I checked, so this seems to be the best deal in town. |
Author: Christopher George
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 02:27 am | |
Hi, Mike:
The picture caption on the picture showing Michael Maybrick in "The Last Victim" by Anne Graham and Carol Emmas is probably correct. Look at the engraving of Michael Maybrick that was published in Harrison's original edition and at the photograph of James in Feldman's first edition and you will see they are almost identical--so I think it is Michael not James. This picture, which was printed with a red background on the dustcover of Shirley Harrison's book and inside next to a suspect picture of a man with a fair moustache and in Feldman's "Jack the Ripper: the Final Chapter," was I think incorrectly designated in both those books. Compare the engraving of Michael in Harrison's hardback edition and the photograph in Feldman and you will see the same man with a cravat and a stickpin and a jacket with lapels with what looks like silk piping. That same photograph when published in Harrison's hardback first edition was cropped to only show the face, and printed backwards, but the head and shoulders view printed the right way round in Feldman shows it is the same view of the same man in the engraving. Michael has a slimmer face than James. In the paperback edition of Harrison's book, you will see that the author shows a different photograph of James Maybrick next to the suspect sketch not that photograph.
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 05:53 am | |
Hi y'all.
CHRIS & MIKE: The only Maybrick photos I have are in Harrison's book, "diary." The Top Hat dude, the Silk Piping Suit Man, and the guy featured both on the back cover and next to sketch of bowler hat/ mustache suspect --- All 3 look like 3 entirely different men to me, rather than 2 different men. Perhaps one of the 3 was baby brother Edwin ... wouldn't that be a laugh?!?
Errors happen sometimes, we're only human. As many here already know - Frank Spierling's PRINCE JACK photo array includes a pic purporting to be Police Commissioner Charles Warren ... which is really some other guy decked out in military garb. (His name escapes me at the moment.) However, Warren was just one of the many players on the Whitechapel Murders stage --- Certainly Not the main focus of Spierling's Prince-Eddy-dunnit book.
IMHO, these Maybrick photos are evidence of sloppy research.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 12 August 1999 - 02:49 pm | |
Hi All,
It certainly looks like there was a muck-up over the photos of James and Michael.
What surprises me slightly is how this could have come about.
James was only semi-famous after his death because of the murder case. He lived in Liverpool. Michael, on the other hand, lived in the West End of London and was a very well-known musician and composer. In fact, during 1892 he had had more music in print than Arthur Sullivan! He later moved to the Isle of Wight and was elected Mayor in Ryde in 1900. It strikes me as odd if there are not many more photos of him to compare with the ones the researchers thought they had of him and James. Michael is obviously a very important character to anyone interested in the diary content.
Also I find it odd that there is no mention of Michael Maybrick or his pen name, Stephen Adams, in the current Groves Encyclopaedia of Music. Groves himself, being a contemporary, could not possibly have been ignorant about Michael's fame and musical achievements, so why no entry? Maybe he WAS included in the original Groves before the reprints from 1890 onwards. Perhaps it would be worth checking this. It's a mystery either way. If he was never included, why not? And if he was mentioned in the early Groves but omitted later, it becomes even stranger.
Any thoughts?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 04:46 am | |
Hi, Caz:
I have no thoughts on Michael Maybrick's inclusion or non-inclusion in Grove's musical dictionary, but I would doubt there was a conspiracy to exclude him.
As for the mix-up over the photograph of Michael, designating it as a photograph of James for the purposes of publishing it next to a sketch of a suspect with a fair mustache, this is a surprising mistake to make, as you say. Shirley Harrison obviously needed a picture of her suspect with a fair mustache, and this photograph fitted the bill. However, as I have noted, the picture when published in Harrison's first edition was closely cropped to show just the man's head eliminating the cravat with stickpin and the distinctive suit jacket with the silk piping, and published in reverse, so that you could not see that it was the same person as in the engraving of Michael. Paul Feldman has actually done us a favor in publishing the whole photograph the right way round so that we can see it is Michael--though like Harrison he wrongly designated the person in the picture as James.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 04:08 pm | |
Hi Chris,
I wasn't really thinking along the lines of conspiracies to exclude Michael from Groves. It was most likely just an unfortunate oversight on Grove's part. But I would have expected most famous musicians to be rather miffed to find themselves missing, albeit accidentally, from this definitive roll-call. Wouldn't Michael have made a huge fuss? Or was he content to become a bit more anonymous after the family scandal?
Talking of conspiracies, you sure make it sound like you think Shirley knew the picture was of Michael all along :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 08:07 pm | |
If you all think the Michael/James thing is a bit confusing then you aren't the only ones. The Pall Mall Budget's depiction of the trial (and its participants), which can be found in Harrison's book, names Michael as James.
Dela |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 10:11 pm | |
Hi Dela,
A bit like the confusion over the two Grossmith brothers recently, when it was wrongly presumed that George was my suspect :-)
George was the famous one with considerable musical talent, while Walter Weedon was the envious nobody who wrote amusing fictitious diary entries with pages torn out! Like James in the diary story, I have a feeling Weedon was cursing his luck at having to live up to such a talented brother.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Wilf Blanchard
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 07:10 am | |
To Caroline & Chris,
Regarding the 'Dear Boss' letter; You might ask
why he wrote at all? He was bragging. Had to share
his success with the opposition and why not colour
it up a bit?
There are too many eye opening passages in that
Diary for it to be other than genuine. Feldman
points them out very well. His book is cumbersome
and difficult to read but then he is no great
author; is he?
I cannot find an answer to the surgical expertise
exhibited by Jack. Surely no Liverpool cotten
exchange buff would have been capable? Removing
kidneys IN THE DARK! Difficult in daylight I wo |
Author: Alan
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 12:41 pm | |
To Wilf,
The diary is a modern fraud - period. Money was the object, the object was achieved, and still is as long as people are gullible enough to buy books on this trash. |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 02:47 pm | |
Hi Wilf,
I think you are right about James Maybrick not having the wherewithal to commit Jack's terrible crimes. And I guess the diary author had to invent the idea that James used his arsenic to give him the great strength he needed to carry out his 'work'.
Alan, who EXACTLY has achieved 'the object' as you put it, and made so much money from the diary hoax? The diary author himself/herself? The various people who were finally entrusted with it and spent years working on it, believing it to be worthy of the investigation? Some of those most closely involved whose personal lives have been made a misery and wish to God they'd never seen the bloody thing? Or a combination of all of these? If you know something we don't, I wish you'd share it with us. But please don't anyone feel the need to envy these people their lives and 'riches' post-diary. I don't think they would find it appropriate somehow.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Mike Allen
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 12:32 am | |
Dear All
Regarding the confusion over the engravings of Michael/James Maybrick. I have just come across several engravings/photographs of Michael Maybrick. None of which really look like the ones in the books The Final Chapter and The Last Victim. They are in Volume two of the bound copies of The Strand Magazine, July to December 1891, on page 279. There are four engravings showing Michael from the age of 17 to one called present day, where he looks about 50 ish. There is also a short biography. The only problem is that this particular copy of The Strand has Sherlock Holmes stories in it so can be rather expensive!
It is amazing what turns up when you are least expecting it!
Mike. |
