|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Son of Handwriting
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Handwriting:
Son of Handwriting
Author: Peter Birchwood
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 12:21 pm |        | After waiting ten minutes for this to load I thought I'd start off a part two:
Matthew:
I think that you might find bits and pieces of the watch reports dotted around the casebook. Problem is that full copies might be considered confidential information. And take no notice of any information that might come from Spain.
Hamersmiths? Well according to Mike he put the name there to correspond with the area where Druitt's body was found. Complicated yes but after all Mike did construct crossword puzzles.
According to the 1881 census Benjamin and his wife were indeed the only persons of that name in Lancashire. Benjamin was born in St. Helens about 15 miles east of Liverpool and in 1881 lived at Eccleston just outside St Helens town centre. It'd take a bit of time to sort out Benjamin's family and I don't think it's worth but if you want it done my rates are reasonable. If you want a print-out of the full residents of Aigburth, Grassendale and Wood End Park that'd be a bit priceier.
Morse's law has been attacked by Sgt. (Shortly Insp.) Lewis at least twice. To make my point a little plainer, when you investigate the diary and the watch, a major part of the research must go into checking whether the Barretts, Grahams, Devereux, Johnsons etc. might have falsified them. The diary (and the watch) do not stand on their own, proven as true by their internal logic. Incidentally, don't be too surprised if one or two of your list of murderers not counting Barnett is not put forward fairly soon as JTR. And I have to take issue with you on the point that Feldy etc. were the only ones to do an investigation into the sources and their associates. Very little if any investigation was done because it was assumed that nice people don't make up stories.
Peter. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 11:45 pm | | Hi Caroline, Chris and Peter,
Caroline - From what I've read of you postings you're no more off your rocker than anyone else on these boards. And I agree, whether you believe in the diary or not, it's very worthwhile getting to the bottom of who did it and why?
Peter and Chris - I'm not doubting Peter's expertise in the subject. I'm most grateful for this little bit of knowledge - it's certainly persuasive. Both you're ideas on how Hammersmith came to be get into the diary are interesting. Peter I take it you believe that Mike Barrett and his wife are no.1 suspects as forgers. I don't hold that opinion on the evidence that I have read so far. The two affidavits that appear on this Casebook are just not convincing to me - any lawyer would have a field day cross-examing him. I'm not saying he didn't do it - I just don't think it's likely on what I've read so far. And Peter, I knew what you were saying about Morse's law and I do think that some of the sources need further investigation - and I'm not saying that Feldman's was altogether satisfactory. As I've said before - someone should get copies of Anne Barrett's handwriting and let us compare. At least that would probably assist in proving or ruling out our most likely forgers.
And to anyone else out there who may want to contribute - I would still like opinions on the capital K issue. Peter has kindly provided his - I'd like a few others to let me know if this sort of thing was common in writings of the time (see other discussion).
Dela |
Author: Caroline
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 05:34 am | | Sorry Peter and all,
I've just posted under 'handwriting 1', not having noticed this sequel at the time, you have to give my poor little female brain a chance to catch up!
Peter,
I may commission you at some stage to find some gaps in my own family tree, as you sound like the perfect 'tree' surgeon, unlike Feldy who specialises in transplants--tee-hee! God knows what he would make of my ancestors, a stranger-sounding bunch one could ill imagine!
I have also addressed a question about Frances Cole's aliases on the Victims board and have yet to hear from anyone. It is more of a personal interest really because I happen to share my maiden name with one of her 'handles' and she lost her fight for life on my birthday (or rather, as Little Caz pointed out, my birthday coincides with the 63rd anniversary of Frances' demise!). These bits of information I was able to glean from my newly-acquired copy of the JtR A-Z (quick plug!).
I would endorse your warning to Dela about Spain, and I'm not talking the inquisition either. And, by the way, isn't Shirley Harrison a diamond?
Anyway, apologies for straying a little from the topic.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 06:50 am | | Hi Peter
You say that Hammersmith was put in because this was where Druitt drowned. What is your source for this information? Mike himself?
And if I understand you aright, you seem to be saying that very little investigation was done into the background of the Barratts et al. If that is what you are saying, it simply isn't true. Even from Feldy's book, let alone Shirley's, it is clear that an enormous amount of effort was put into looking into their background, right down to hiring private inquiry agents (whose report in part sent Feldy off on his 'Mike's not Mike, Anne's not Anne' theorising, which led to Anne's confession.
Agreed, too, that information about the watch from a particular source in Spain should be treated with extraordinarilly extreme caution. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 11:23 am | | Hi, folks:
The only reason to think that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper is the (in my opinion) bogus Maybrick diary and the equally bogus Maybrick watch. Other than that we have no reason to connect Maybrick to Whitechapel. Yes, certainly we know from Shirley Harrison's research that Maybrick had a commonlaw wife, Sarah Robertson, who lived in the East End. But the diary does not say this. Instead, it is implied that he took lodgings in Middlesex Street. The reasoning within the diary to link Maybrick with Whitechapel is creaky at best. On diary page 2, he says he sees his wife and her lover in Whitechapel, Liverpool. He takes refreshment at the "Poste House" (which provably was not called by that name in 1888) and "finally decided London it shall be. And why not, is it not an ideal location? Indeed do I not frequently visit the Capital and indeed do I not have a legitimate reason for doing so." Ideal location? No here again the reasoning is creaky -- Maybrick has no legitimate reason to go to Whitechapel to slaughter prostitutes. The hoaxer is trying his/her level best to make it sound reasonable and to my mind even the pseudo-Victorian language is unconvincing, "Indeed do I not. . . and indeed do I not. . ." No, I say, you do not, what you have concocted is a bogus transcript of the thoughts of, as I think Caroline stated, a wrongly framed man.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 02:50 am | | Hi Chris,
We can go on like this until the cows come home!
If you spend some time, like I have, interpreting the diary as I think the author really intended, all your arguments above can be turned on their head. Trouble is, this still does not make Maybrick the author. It does, however, give me the idea that the diary could turn out to be even more exciting!
There, I'm obviously ga-ga.
Love, Caroline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 08:28 am | | Hi Chris,
I suppose it's all a matter of interpretation. I read the "legitimate reason" line (whether for Maybrick as author or forger as author) as Maybrick having to travel to London to conduct his business affairs, hence nobody being able to suspect that his primary motive was to be his alter ego Jack the Ripper. The Poste House argument is valid but at the same time the diary is vague enough that the reference to it could be legitimate. I've kept a diary myself at times and there were things in it that only I would've understood. If only life was as vague as the diary (sometimes I get the feeling it is)
Dela |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 09:17 pm | | Dela:
Not to sound smug, though I suspect I will nevertheless, although Shirley Harrison may have been wrong in interpreting a "MF" on Mary Jane Kelly's room, or in seeing an "M" on the face of Catherine Eddowes, I believe she was absolutely correct in thinking that the narrator of the diary meant the Poste House situated near Whitechapel, Liverpool, when he spoke of taking refreshment at the Poste House. Whomever wrote the diary, which was NOT, I believe, James Maybrick writing in 1888, smugly believed, possibly based on the Olde Worlde name the "Poste House" that that drinking hole existed under that name in 1888. The proximity of the one to the other, Poste House pub to Whitechapel, is persuasive, and plainly Liverpool is meant not London, so for Paul Feldman or anyone else to claim that Maybrick may have meant a Poste Restante address in Charing Cross, as he does, is sheer prevarication to cover up a goof made by the forger.
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 02:09 am | | Am I wrong in thinking that James Maybrick's connection with Whitechapel was unknown until that information was uncovered by post-"Diary" research?
Within the context of the narrative, Maybrick would have made a connection between Whitechapel, Liverpool, and Whitechapel, London, wouldn't he? He knew that Florence had arranged to meet her lover in the former, while Maybrick himself had his own mistress in the latter. But if this had been spelled out in the "Diary", wouldn't it have looked rather more contrived and thus more immediately raised suspicions of fake! And some might find it utterly remarkable it is that post"Diary" research revealed that Maybrick not only had the knowledge to make such a connection, but had actually lived in Whitchapel, London. And even if the info was available before the post-"Diary" research and could have been used by the forger, why didn't the forger use it? Or was the discovery that Maybrick knew Whitechapel just a stroke of luck for the forger? It's just one of the itchy little questions one wonders about.
It was interesting, too, that Maybrick was provided with lodgings in Middlesex Street. A problem is posed by PC Long, who passed down Goulston Street at 2.20, at which time, he said, the piece of apron was not there. Passing through the street again at 2.55 he found the apron. Eddowes body had been discovered at 1.45. So, the murderer left the scene at 1.45 and by 2.20 he had not yet reached Goulston Street (less than a five minute walk away) to drop the apron. Where had he been for 35-minutes or more? This question is generally answered with the assumption that Long simply didn't see the apron at 2.20. But what if PC Long was actually correct? It is interesting that the "Diary" provides Maybrick with lodgings between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, thus giving him somewhere to which he could have returned to clean up and change clothes after killing Eddowes, then leaving to vacate the area altogether, disposing of the incriminating bit of apron in Goulston Street en-route. The diarist does this, but makes no use of it at all.
As for the Poste House, I agree with you, Chris, that Feldy's explanation doesn't hold water. But I am less inclined to so speedily dismiss the Poste House as proof that the "Diary" is a post-1987 forgery. There were post houses and the author of the "Diary" could have been referring to one of these. Of course, the problem presented by the Poste House falls into the category of "how sophisticated was the forger'? The pro-"Diarists" have made the point that the forger was either very, very lucky, or did homework to produce a Victorian ink, learn the psychopathology of a serial killer and so on and so on. If the latter, wouldn't the forger - who apparently went so far as to research that the Grand National in 1889 was a fast race - have undertaken such a basic step as to confirm that the Poste House as so named in 1888? Or was that the little slip that criminals traditionally always make? |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 07:26 am | | Hi Chris and Paul,
As I said in my previous post I agree with the problem about the Poste House and I admit it's a big obstacle. I think Paul has pretty much summed up my feelings. It is obviously not a totally uncommon name and there could've been a Poste House somewhere other than the one which people have taken it to mean. I just have to look around my home town of Melbourne to see how many pubs share common names.
The Goulston street graffito is indeed an interesting thought, Paul. Why would a forger go to the trouble of saying that Maybrick had taken lodgings in Middlesex St? I've often wondered where the author's address in the street was and I'd come to the conclusion that the positioning of the graffito was probably in a spot from which the author could view it and see the fuss it caused.
Equally, a Middlesex Street address could provide the killer no only with a chance to clean up after Eddowes murder before writing his message, but also between the murder of Stride and Eddowes. I had a discussion with Julian on another board about the time between the two murders and how Jack probably retreated to his lair rather than stay out on the streets with the prospect of being caught. Further, retreating to his hideout would've given him the opportunity to change his dress/appearance to create conflicting witness accounts. Anyhow, I've digressed a bit, but the Middlesex lodgings point shows a good deal of thought from a forger's point of view.
Dela |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 07:28 am | | Paul:
I am convinced that the forger meant the Poste House that still exists in Liverpool, but that was not known by that name in 1888. Although you seem to hold out for the possibility that there may have been some other post house meant by the writer--against the odds, in my opinion--I think this is proof that the forger was careful about some things and sloppy about others. While it is true that he/she has got it right in saying that the Grand National of 1889 was one of the fastest on record, not much is revealed by what is said about the race since this knowledge could have been obtained readily by someone in our day. Of course also Spring is famously the time of the Grand National in Liverpool, so the forger, whom I am assuming is a Liverpudlian, would have known this, and would have made sure to mention it in connection to Maybrick in the Spring of 1889. I really think that the mistake by the forger in mention of the Poste House is consistent with the blatant slip in not attempting to make the handwriting match James Maybrick's handwriting.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 09:15 am | | Hi all,
As Paul points out, and others have mentioned before, certain bits of the diary show knowledge that the author had, on which, for some strange reason he/she/the cat failed to capitalise. Individually these could be explained away by the author being careful one moment, maybe first thing in the morning, sober, with thoughts collected, as opposed to careless late at night with one too many glasses of wine inside them (I know the feeling when I post here!)
However, the two 'threads' and various other bits of diary content that I have discovered, have convinced me that the author must have had a good deal of specialist knowledge in creating it which was so well hidden as to be rendered absolutely pointless to include!
I can't, at this stage, explain fully my own version of the 'poste house' and 'ideal location' without giving away one of my 'threads' so I apologise to all. I am not prepared to offer you certain theories until my facts can back them up.
Like Chris, I'm still a little puzzled by the obvious lack of trying to copy Maybrick's handwriting, whenever the thing was written. But surely this is only important when making sense of the whole story. It is not the best thing to be looking at in isolation in my humble opinion.
All the best,
Caroline |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 09:48 am | | This is actually covering ground already well trod, but for Matthew the point is not that there would be more than one pub called the Poste House in 1888, but that there wouldn't have been any so named establishment anywhere in 1888 - the use of the 'e' in 'Poste'is a modernish invention intended to convey a spurious antiquity on the establishment, as when people use 'Olde Worlde'. However, a Post House without the 'e' was the name given to any premises where mail was deposited or collected. Such establishments were often inns and provided accomodation for passengers aboard the post coach. An inn, though known officially as, say, the Park Gate, would be referred to as the Post House and the Oxford English Dictionary provides many examples of such a usage. Therefore the diarist could be referring to almost any inn or coffee shop in Liverpool where mail was left or collected and which might locally be known as the "Post House" (much as a pub near where I lived for decades was locally known as "The Friendly" because a frmer landlord had been so miserable).
The problem with this suggestion is the diarists application of the modernish 'e', though elsewhere in the "Diary" the diarist writes 'poste restante'. This is spelt correctly, of course, but there is an outside possibility that the diarist whoever the diarist was, Maybrick or forger old or new made the habitual error of adding an 'e' when spelling the word 'post'. Without more examples of Maybrick's writing, we can't tell.
I don't really hold out anything for the 'another Poste House' argument, Chris. I was simply pointing out that a post house was, I think, a fairly common establishment and there would therefore have been several establishments in Liverpool, any one of which could have commonly been known by that name. Unless such a possibility was negated in some way, I didn't feel inclined to accept a dating for composition on the Poste House issue alone.
As for the forger not bothering to copy Maybrick's handwriting, the only then known example of his handwiting was his Will. Maybe the forger didn't think of Wills when looking for an example of Maybrick's hand. Or maybe he lacked the ability to copy the formal hand of the Will or thought a formal hand inappropriate for the "Diary" or couldn't think how to forge an informal hand which an expert would confirm as by the same person as the formal hand. Or, as we have discussed widely in the past, maybe handwriting experts aren't really that good at identifying a hand, especially when the comparison documents are so different. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 08:17 am | | Hi all,
Thanks for the little history lesson, Paul, on the Poste House issue. I was really just trying to make the point that pubs come and go all the time and get known by all sorts of common names, and the one pub may have a dozen names in its lifetime. Obviously this name isn't that common.
As to your last point on the handwriting, I believe that my post on this about a week ago was what got this discussion reignited. I made the point that although the diary doesn't match the handwriting in the will, the "signature" of Maybrick's in the back of the watch bears some similarities to Maybrick's writing style, most notably that Maybrick's signature (on all known examples of his handwriting) ends with a capital K (or at least that's what it looks like). Nobody so far has been able to tell me whether it was commonplace for people to write k's in this manner in that era or not (Michael and Thomas also had this characteristic K). The watch "signature" has this characteristic K and is also written as Ja Maybrick, which is how several known examples of Maybrick's signature are written (the Freeman declaration and the 1881 memo which are in Feldman's book). Now, assuming the diary and watch are forgeries and were both the work of the same forger, then it follows that the forger did know what Maybrick's handwriting looked like and deliberately didn't copy it in the forging of the diary. It would also follow that the forger had an example of Maybrick's handwriting other than the will.
There are also other examples of Maybrick's handwriting in Feldy's book which don't resemble that in the will (although they are too short to make any conclusions). These are the Bible inscription and the writing (other than the signature) on the Freeman of Liverpool Declaration. |
Author: Caroline
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 10:21 am | | If my memory serves, the diary author also writes 'poste-haste' a couple of times, which may be a better example than 'poste restante, as the former 'e' shows the same error as in poste house.
Added to the hilarious spelling of rendezvous as 'rondaveau' (did I get that right, my 'diary' is downstairs as I write), it all fits with my suspect for the real author, who, again if memory serves, was capable of writing in French very well, and may have been ridiculing Maybrick's gaucherie in the literary department.
Just my little musings again.
Sorry to be a nuisance.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 11:29 am | | | Thank you, Caroline, I meant 'poste-haste'. At least I think I did, but I can't be bothered to trawl back through all my posts to check. The point is very well made, however, that the diarist wrote post with an 'e' throughout, so the addition of an 'e' to 'Poste House' was in keeping with his habitual error and should not be taken as a cutesy modern affectation to imply antiquity. And, of course, this habitual error belonged to the author whoever it was, Maybrick or modern forger. How do Mike and Anne spell 'post'? |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 12:44 pm | | Hi Paul:
Information about Mike and Hammersmith is from another source who spoke to Mike. Accurate? It's not documented and I haven't yet interviewed Mike so there you are. As for background research I have read both books in their numerous editions and base my opinions on what is printed there. If someone has done the sort of research that I have started on, then I haven't so far seen any sign of it. Not having the resources of a major newspaper behind me, I have to do this as time from the day job allows. Concerning Anne Graham's "lies" I think on another occasion we did agree that she had lied in the past. The question is: is she lieing about the family heirloom diary? If she has lied about that then I would suggest that as well as the noble motives you suggest, there may have been other, more concrete motives that may well have contributed to her stories. On other things, I laud Chris George's 2nd Feb. posting but would just add that as far as we know Sarah Robertson didn't live in the East End for that long as she pops up in South London between 1871 and 1881. About the only thing that might link James to the East End was his work with Gustavus Witt and it is clear that James worked with Witt in Liverpool rather than London although he may have of course visited Witt from time to time.(must check Witt's various addresses.) Now let me get to your 7th Feb. posting. (My ISP went down for a few days and I'm working gradually through 137 e-mails.) JM's connection with Whitechapel. I don't remember any of the Trial books putting JM in Whitechapel but can you say that he actually had a connection there? Sarah Robertson's Aunt lived at Mark Lane around 1847 but was Sarak living there. I haven't seen the 1851 census so can't say but Whitechapel is not "across the road from Mark Lane." (SH) and Bromley street in Stepney is a lot farther away from Whitechapel than Shirley's "brisk ten-minute walk." Do we know where JM met Sarah? No. It could have been in London, Liverpool or anywhere between. Maybe JM visited Gustavus Witt who was his London partner but again we don't have proof of this. Indeed when the diary's JM gets his rooms in Middlesex street the implication is that he is a stranger there and has to familiarise himself with them. As far as the real-life JM goes we don't have any concrete reason to put him in Whitechapel London at any time of his life. Now the diary JM supposedly sees his wife and her lover in Whitechapel Liverpool, a street close to Lime Street and decides for no good reason to murder unfortunates in Whitechapel London. He says he has "legitimate reason" for visiting London but does he and is there any proof of it outside the diary? And he did not have his mistress in 1888 or at any other time in Whitechapel. In 1888 she was in South London and had been for some time. Now answer me this Paul: do we know from sources outside the diary that JM saw Florie with her lover in Whitechapel Lpl? If neither of the above are true then we are again trying to prove the reality of the diary by taking what the diary says for truth. The diary does not I believe state that Maybrick lived in Whitechapel. Research doesn't state this either. Links between the two places are based on the coincidence of the name: nothing more. All this shows I believe that JM didn't know Whitechapel in real life and didn't know it in the diary until he lodges in Middlesex street. As to the apron surely it's more likely that the killer dumped it on the way to a refuge rather than holding on to it while he cleaned himself up and then going out later deliberately to drop it. Poste Houses I suspect were not called as such during the railway years. The name belongs to the years of mail coaches and Dr. Syn and Jimmy Bone. Have you checked the 1880-1890 Liverpool city directories? Incidentally, the Middlesex Road in Orrell near Bootle is across Fernhill road from Tumilty avenue! PS Any of you Australians able to check for Australian birth records and anyone going to the Fortean Times convention April 24/25?
Peter |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 05:30 pm | | Hi Peter
You ask: "Now answer me this Paul: do we know from sources outside the diary that JM saw Florie with her lover in Whitechapel Lpl?"
The answer is, no, we don't. I didn't suggest otherwise either. I said that 'within the context of the narrative' we knew this. In other words, that this was something known to the character in the story. I didn't say that the 'Diary' said that Maybrick had a link with Whitechapel, London, either. Indeed, quite the contrary. But I did observe James Maybrick would have been in a position to make a connection between Whitchapel, Liverpool, and Whitechapel, London, because he had (or is supposed to have had) an association with the East End. I wasn't in this least trying to support the "Diary" by using the content.
I don't know what kind of reasearch you have embarked on, but I suggest that you ask Keith about how much research was done. My impression, even from the books, is that a considerable amount of time and effort went into establishing background. As said, this is evident from the digging into the background of both Mike and Anne, even unto the hiring of private detectives. That act alone is surely in itself sufficient evidence to suggest that the story told by Mike and Anne was uncritically accepted because they were nice people.
I entirely agree about the apron, but the fact is that PC Long did state on oath that the apron was not there when he first passed through the street. If he was telling the truth then the Ripper must have been somewhere. Where? And if one were to suppose a lodging in Middlesex Street, I merely suggested that when he left his lodging he took incriminating evidence with him.
When a poste house ceased to be called a poste house is indeed the question. Maybrick was 50-years old, maybe able to look back over thirty years experience of drinking establishments. Could the reference to 'The Poste House' have been a throwback to the one-time use of a favoured watering hole. I never really got used to calling the White Heart by its name Clutterbucks.
And I agree with your point about Anne too. Indeed, it was kind of the point I was making myself. And, of course, the all-round crunch question, the very focal point of all "Diary" discussion is whether or not Anne is telling the truth about the "Diary" being a family heirloom. If she is lying about that then her book takes that lie into another dimension. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 07:36 am | | Hi Peter,
You made the point, "And he did not have his mistress in 1888 or at any other time in Whitechapel."
If the diary is to be believed then Maybrick wasn't seeing a mistress in Whitechapel. In fact he states several times "Tonight I shall see mine" when the entry in the diary clearly indicates he is in Liverpool.
If nobody is going to comment on my capital K idea then it's about time I released step 2 of my wild theory - stay tuned!
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 07:49 am | | Hi Caroline,
I suggest that the spelling of "rondaveau" is not so hilarious. It may be hard for us intelligent folk to imagine but I would think that a large number of the world's English speaking population would not know how to spell "rendezvous". The author (whether Maybrick or forger) has merely spelt it as best they can.
As to spelling, one of the points that would lead me away from the conclusion that Mike and Anne wrote the diary and that Anne wrote what Mike said is the fact that Anne is a secretary. I would've thought she'd be a reasonable speller and not incorrectly spell a some of the mispelt words. For example, "she rip[p]ed like a ripe peach" - if Mike had been dictating that line to Anne I don't think she would've made a mistake like that. Still, I may just be overestimating her - I suppose I'll have a more informed view of her abilities when I read her book (if it ever comes to Australia).
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 08:36 am | | Hi Peter,
You asked about checking birth records. I don't pretend to know anything about searching birth records but I'd say the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages is pretty close to the mark. However, I'd say you'd have to know in which State you're looking for it (although I'd imagine they'd have electronic databases now allowing say the Victorian register to obtain info from the NSW one). If you want to find someone in Victoria then I suppose I could pay the Register a visit. If it's elsewhere then you may have to find someone else. Let me know over the board and I'll provide you with my email address for further details.
As for the Fortean Times - I get enough paranormal stuff on this board without going to any convention. Anyway, it interferes with a rather big football match in Melbourne (but I suppose nobody cares about that!)
Dela |
Author: Leachy
Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 10:19 am | | Dear All -
Probably most of you are too young to remember the great Puccini's underpants debate that rocked these boards in the burning heart of last summer.
For those who are here is a brief summary:
I have in my possession the diary of the great composer Puccini, in which he claims to have been instrumental (along with the Duke of Clarence, Francis Tumblety, James Maybrick and Nelson Eddy's father) in foiling the machinations of the real JTR, who was, of course, Sooty.
The integirity of this diary has been called into question. Some have even suggested it is a clumsy modern forgery created in an attempt to extract money from the confused and gullible. Ha! I am now in a position to prove the falsity of this once and for all.
A few months ago I gave the diary to an independent assesor to have the ink dated. Extraordinarily the initial result seemed to suggest that it was written in biro, in about 1991.
This apparent proof that it was not what it seemed was of course greeted with delight by all the rabid sceptics out there determined never to believe that Puccini had anything to do with JTR at all. But what, after all, do these tests prove? After all - no one has yet proved that Puccini didn't invent the biro and privately patent it (under an assumed name), in the late 1870s!
So much for the sceptics in-depth research!
As for all the fuss that has been made about the supposedly anachronistic reference on p.220 - please let's get real!
I quote the significant reference in full:
'Tuesday October 16 1888: bad day. Still no more murders, but we are all becoming increasingly nervous, waiting for him to strike again...If only we could tell the police the truth - that we have sworn a pact to hunt the fiend of Whitechapel to his doom, even if it means our deaths! But one day, one day, the world will know. I will place this diary where it will be found (perhaps in about 1991), and then they will understand.
Rain to-night. The mist making strange shadows in the gas-lit gloom. Nearly run over by a horse-drawn hansom cab. Called in at Domino's and took a pizza home...'
Now a great deal has been made of this small sentence 'called in at Domino's'. It has been pointed out - and rightly so - that it appears to be a reference to a modern takeaway establishment that didn't, in fact, exist in Puccini's time. But is this the only explanation?
An examination of the facts shows that it is not.
After all, a glance at the census form for 1881 shows that there were several people resident in London at that time with names nearly quite like 'Domino'. There were two 'Domingos' and a whole family called 'Dominico'. Now, you don't need to be terribly clever to see that any one of these people could have owned a pizza-parlour, and that Puccini could have been referring to this in his diary.
The sceptics point out that no such establishment is recorded on the census forms, either in london or anywhere else in the British isles. But, if we suppose that the Italian-immigrant family of Domino (or something like it), ran their small pizzeria as an informal side-line, then you wouldn't expect it to show up on a census form, would you? And it doesn't. So, the evidence supports my case so far.
And any way, there is nothing in the diary to suggest that Puccini was in London at the time. Granted he woke up in London, and went to bed in London,. But there is nothing to show that he didn't go back to Rome for a bit of supper in between.
And what about the extraordinary knowledge of Victorian life displayed in the rest of that sentence?
A check at the Meteorological Office shows that it did indeed rain several times during 1888, and almost incredibly, it rained no less than nine times - in OCTOBER itself!
And my researchers have also scoured obscure documents to discover that the streets were indeed 'gas-lit' just as the diary says.
But what about the amazing revelation of the 'horse-drawn hansom cab'. For, unbelievably enough, a check with the Transport Museum in London does confirm that there were cabs then, called 'hansoms', (after the man who invented them), and they were PULLED BY HORSES!!!
You would surely have to be a novelist of Pulitzer-prize dimensions to be able to fake something like that.
So - I challenge anyone who believes the Domino's Pizza reference proves the diary to be a forgery, to explain how someone as ordinary as my father (who gave me the diary to give to my ex-husband on the understanding that we all pretended it came from a man in a pub who has since died), could possibly invent something as wildly imaginative and brilliantly researched as this diary?
They must show how such unbelievably unimaginative and ordinary people could possibly know obscure and highly scienticfic details about the weather, the sociological conditions and the transport system of the day. They must provide absolute proof that there was not a Domino's Pizza parlour anywhere in the western world in the last 2 decades of the 19th century.
Until then, there is only one choice for the open-minded - buy my book and believe what I tell you.
ADDENDUM BY PAULA BUGG WHO DOESN'T THINK THE DIARY IS REAL , BUT WHO THINKS THERE ARE THINGS TO BE DISCUSSED
'Hi, I'm Paula, Leachy's friend: personally I think the diary is a forgery, but I can't for the life of me think of a single reason why anyone else should. I mean there are so many unanswered questions, which I'd like to see answered, but they won't be because no one has any proof, so all we can do is keep talking about it, and pointing out that no theory, however irresistibly rational, is ever finally proved, and therefore people can keep buying Leachy'ds book and talking about the diary, which I believe to be a forgery, although I can't think of a single good reason why...'
NB - thist statement is entirely circular and can be re-read as often as desired. |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 11:45 am | | | :-) |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 11:31 am | | Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here today...
to investigate the diary of the aforesaid cabal known as the Puce Group. There is of course one additional point that proves the bona fides of this diary beyong peradventure and that is the undeniable fact that in the year 1888 October 16th was actually on a Tuesday! Now if this had not been writtent on or around this date how would some present day forger know that? Of all the days in this month how could anyone have picked on this particular day without first having experienced it? There are however some problems.
1/ During the month of October James Maybrick was fully employed day and night in planning Ladies Night (Oct.31) at his local lodge. 2/ Investigation of passenger lists for the entire months show no one of the name Puccini travelling Italy-London 3/ Tumblety was occupied with setting up the Liverpool YMCA.
Regarding the yellow fiend Sooty (and for those living in the ice-bound US please note this this is not derogatory to chinese, Tibetans or Homer J. Simpson) consultation with that well-known faith-healer and psychic Mr. G. Hoddle has now proved that in his previous incarnation Sooty was employed as knitted bed-socks to Mr. Edward Knight Larkins from whom he learned the real identity of JtR. Therefore based on this obviously unimpeachable evidence I must proclaim "Sooty is innocent!" |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 11:56 am | | Hi all,
Peter, don't forget that Sooty let himself be controlled (in a disgusting manner) by Harry Corbert, possessing the cheek to appear regularly on Sunday children's television in an attempt to debauch and revile us children by openly letting Corbert put his hand under the Bear's lower apparel, evidently letting Corbert play with the fingers on very personal body parts.
That Sooty had a violent character is clear, he almost always had a cudgel or stock with him camouflaged as a magic wand, but couldn't it be that the evil mastermind was Corbert, and Sooty was just the demented hand that did the deed? Could it be that the 'magic wand' was The Knife in disguise?
I do tend, however, not to set all my bets on this Puppet, evil though he may have been. I see difficulties with Sooty getting high enough to reach the women's throats and his reach being maybe just a little to short to rip the victim from breastbone to pubes.
Is the little blighter yellow? I always thought he was white(ish)
Regards,
Bob |
Author: Leachy (spider-to012.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.204.47)
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 02:20 pm | | Dear Bob -
For all questions of Sooty's capacity to do the deeds, please see my book 'Sooty: a century of crime from Whitechapel to the Grassy Knoll'. (Peter will be able to fill you in on the details). It's all a question of how tall his 'handler' happened to be. Your point about the sexual implications of all such associations (Corbett etc), is noted, and I think you have uncovered something important. I wonder if you would consider submitting an article about this to my new publication 'Where there's a Wand there's a Way; the psycho-pathology of puppet-crime'
Paula has abandoned JTR and is currently researching Alien Abductions, because she doesn't believe in them either, and is just hoping someone will be able to disprove them, so she can stop talking about them all the time.
Karoline 'Leachy' Leach |
Author: Caroline (webcache24b.cache.pol.co.uk - 195.92.194.44)
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 03:55 am | | Hi Peter (may I call you starfish?), Bob and Leachy (love the name Karoline, natch!)
Corbet and Sooty sound perfect to me. Sweep even helped to sweep everything nicely under the carpet, and sweet Soo batted her eyelashes at every little boy the while.
Can't you just see Sooty whispering sweet nuffings to all the girls, like, "Would you like to play with my magic wand, it will transport you to heaven, and no mistake", while Corbet is simultaneously giving Sooty his own jollies in dextrous (or sinister) manner!
Back to half-term,
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 10:23 am | | Hi Karoline,
Pleased to contribute, but don't you worry about the subsequent loss of readership? For real sensual input, look at Caroline's last contribution... I'm going home for a cold shower.
Hi Caroline,
We'll get the dirty buggers yet!
Love,
Bob |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 10:28 am | | Hi Bob:
You are maligning Harry Corbett who was one of the whitest men I knew (especially if you only saw him in B/W and that's why you remember Sooty as whiteish) and was but a tool in the hand (or possibly vice-versa) of the arch-fiend. But although the evil little fellow was undoubtedly innocent of the ripper crimes his penchant for violence is, as you say, well known. Indeed he did at one point assault Prince Charles with a water pistol.
No, for the real author of the WM you have to look at one piece of evidence: the marks on Eddowes' face. Obviously meant to represent the face-painting of a clown I suggest that as Grimaldi had the perfect alibi by being dead the real ripper was one Charlie Caroli a personage who at one point was indeed a confident and known associate of the aforesaid Bear.
QED.
Peter |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 01:20 pm | | Hi Peter,
Indeed Sooty did attack Prince Charles, all that one forgets with the years. Maybe because of Charles's ears. Is there no depravity to which this villainous rogue is not capable of? (Sooty, I mean).
Don't forget, however, that there was also an individual called Sweep, a revolting, cringing little creature who was also wont to allow himself to grasped around by Corbett. He was a crony, when a grovelling boot-licker, of Sooty's. This raging criminal mastermind could well have got the aforesaid Sweep to do the dirty work, saving the best bits for himself. That could let Charlie off the hook.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 08:06 am | | Sorry, everyone, to change the subject from the Adventures of Sooty, but I do have a bit of a query which I'd like some help on. It doesn't really fit into any category on the boards but here is good enough becuase it vaguely has something to do with Maybrick.
Can anyone tell me who or what was located at 29 Fleet Street, London in 1888?
Dela |
Author: Rotter
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 04:45 am | | | To avoid the problem that arose with the confusion of the two Joseph Barnetts I would like to point out that there were two Harry Corbetts. The lesser of the two was in "Steptoe and Son" and interestingly enough played a lady-killing madman on the loose in London in "Cover Girl Killers." |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 09:45 am | | | Harry Corbett played a lady-killing madman on the loose in London! What, with that yellow glove-puppet on his hand! What was he trying to do, take Sooty into the X-certificate bracket? |
Author: Rotter
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 04:44 pm | | | But there is no truth the the rumor that he had one hand up Wilfrid Brambell on "Steptoe and Son." |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 06:29 am | | Hi all,
The mystery deepens. Poor Harry (Steptoe) Corbett having his hand up Willi Brambell while killing London Ladies? What is the world comming to? What does Willi say?
Just to give Dela an unusual bit of my backing, I do wonder what all this has to do with Son of Handwriting. Is the title or the contents wrong?
Sooty is still my suspect no. 1, damn it.
Regards
Bob |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 08:37 am | | 29 Fleet St......(Just putting it here so everyone can see it on the "last day" messages.)
Thanks Bob,
I was sort of wondering when this message board will return to the realms of the sane - or at least discussion on the diary.
Another appeal - has anyone been able to find out about 29 Fleet St yet?
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 08:41 am | | Oh, Bob - if Sooty's your number one suspect then does that make Sweep (or whatever his sidekick was called - forgive me, I never really paid much attention to the show apart from knowing my youngest brother used to watch it) was the apprentice?
Now returning to the diary (I hope).....
Dela |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 09:09 am | | Hi Dela,
Taking the 'many a true word spoken in jest' saying at face value, even these unserious postings have a great value. I can understand the real profis like Paul Begg et.al grinding their teeth over such friviolity, but some of my better ideas started as a joke.
It is a good point to remember that these 'Fun-posts' also have a serious side to them. They remind us who we are and stop us getting too big for our boots. The poster who wrote about Puccini's diary and it being written in Biro etc. and Puccini under another name invented Biro in 18 hundred something so the diary must be genuine etc. etc. knew well what they were writing.
He he, all you diary fans.
O.K. I know it does geat a bit out of hand at times, but that is part of the fun.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 09:10 am | | Hi Dela,
Taking the 'many a true word spoken in jest' saying at face value, even these unserious postings have a great value. I can understand the real profis like Paul Begg et.al grinding their teeth over such friviolity, but some of my better ideas started as a joke.
It is a good point to remember that these 'Fun-posts' also have a serious side to them. They remind us who we are and stop us getting too big for our boots. The poster who wrote about Puccini's diary and it being written in Biro etc. and Puccini under another name invented Biro in 18 hundred something so the diary must be genuine etc. etc. knew well what they were writing.
He he, all you diary fans.
O.K. I know it does get a bit out of hand at times, but that is part of the fun.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 09:15 am | | Hi Dela,
I don't know why this got sent twice, I wasn't screaming at you.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 09:29 am | | It's o.k Bob, I don't mind a little non-Ripper banter now and then. I wasn't complaining - just trying to do a bit of coaxing back to the subject. But you're all welcome to return to it when you're good and ready. Sometimes the discussion gets intense and even the most ardent followers take a bit of a break.
Dela |
Author: Bob_c
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 07:57 am | | Hi Dela,
I hope you don't feel as if I was waving my finger under your nose, you have just as much right to an opinion as I have.
About the fleet street address, I havn't been able to find anything over the week-end because most of my stuff is elsewhere. I don't know, but I'll have a try later if no one else does.
Best regards
Bob |
|
|
|
|
