|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 18, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through April 18, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 10:29 am |        | Hi again Simon,
About those pesky bosoms, the diarist also goes on to say, 'I thought of leaving them by the whore's feet...', so although he/she would appear to have boobed big-time by relying on an outdated source which placed the titties on the table, the idea somehow came to him/her to introduce an intriguing 'titties by the toe-toes' tit-bit....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 10:30 am | | Mark, about the FM: take a look at the FM-discussion under 'specific victims -> Mary Jane Kelly'.
Here is one of the arguments of Wolf, couldn't say it any better:
"It could be argued that nobody paid much attention to the wall and therefore they were missed, but we know for a fact that at least one person did study the wall.Dr. Bond's report on Kelly,shows the observations of a trained forensic scientist,one whom Scotland Yard had absolute trust in as evidenced by Andersons request that he review the murders and submit a report.
Dr. Bond states "The wall by the right side of the bed and in line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of seperate splashes" Not even a remote hint of initials daubed in blood.
In 1892,when Kit Coleman,the reporter for the Toronto newspaper,The Mail,visited Millers Court,she entered a room little changed from the night of the murder,four years previous. She described gruesome "black stains" on the wall,again no initials or even a mention of them from the women that she interviewed there."
Mark, always be very careful how you look at situations. People with a certain suspect in mind go looking for anything that can incriminate them, which is as it should be, but at the same time everything else is overlooked and manipulated to support your suspect. In Belgium they invented a television program about it, called 'de Mol'(infiltrator who sabotages). A group of 10 persons have to aquire money by succeeding in some projects. After 2 days, all of them have to guess who is the infiltrator. The one who makes the most mistakes has to go home. This goes on for about 20 days, until 3 people are left (a winner who gets the money, a loser and the infiltrator). Out whole nation has big discussions about who the bad guy is every week. And there are always things to be found to support anyone to be the saboteur. Especially when you are manipulated by media, who will show you what they want and hide away what you shouldn't see. At the end of the series, the majority answered: him, that old sweet grandfather?!? |
Author: Mark Goeder
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 11:18 am | | hi Jill
I appreciate your in depth answer to the FM thing.
I think you are missing the point im trying to make.
How the hell did barrett see the "M" on the wall, also the "M" written in Eddowes face(or inverted
V s).
What made him Make the connection to Maybrick?
Why didnt somone try to use it before Barrett?
I mean, there are enough hoaxers around to have seen that too.
Im sorry Jill, I dont think barrett was intelligent enough to hoax something on this scale.
Its just too big.
The big difference between the MAybrick diary and the Hitler diary is the fact that the Hitler diary was proved very quickly to be a fake.
and that was written by someone who knew how to fake.
Who is going to prove the maybrick diary is a fake?
It leaves too many questions unanswered.
like I said before, I am not 100 % sure that the diary was written by maybrick himself.
If not, then it was written by someone who knew about Maybrick.
Maybe, just maybe , Mabrick wasnt alone in this thing.
Its only a possibility.
I have no proof and nothing to back it up with.
But it is open.
The other problem is the handwriting thing.
Why should someone go to all that trouble getting the right paper, ink, facts etc etc, but forget to at least try to make his handwriting look like Maybricks.
It just doesnt make sense!!
It defies all logic.
Im not scared to say it Jill, but unless someone comes up with 100% proof that the diary is a fake
(like the hitler diary) there is a lot of work to be done.
I dont know who mentioned the "face on mars", but it is a bad example.
I think the face is Maybricks face.....( he he)
Only joking.
The "Mars face" is in no way connected to a fraud or a so called hoax!!
Its irrelevant
Mark |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 12:44 pm | | Hi Mark,
I didn't mention that the diary was a hoax. So I'm sure I never implied that it was Barret who saw the FM for the first time. As a hoax it should not have necessarily have been Barret who forged the diary, und thus seen the FM.
The face on mars isn't a bad example, because it is an example of how our brains prefer to find patterns in what we see (remember the times as a child lying in bed, and finding the most scary things on the wall, shadows that become monsters in a closet, ...). An extra scribble on a photograph, some scratch on a plate, ... well after a while you can let appear everything with superior enhancement. I know, I manipulate pictures weekly.
Sorry, but within the pictures I have from Eddowes face, I cannot really discern 'M' carved, unless much fantasy is used. I admit some fantasy and visualisation can have it's advantage. I have learned to use it as creative means of problem solving. But in this case it would be badly applied.
Why go to all that trouble of faking things:
Well all the trouble of faking this diary, results in a lot of money to be earned.
Why didn't they take the time to compare the handwriting? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the testament with Maybrick's writing has reemerged to the surface AFTER the diary was already written. There wasn't a document available to compare the handwriting with as a hoaxer.
I'm glad you are not scared to defend your opinion. But actually Mark, IMHO it's the other way around: the diary needs to be proved 100% real. As I perceive the way of the world, the standards of proof depend where the money is. When pharmaceutical companies or agriculture industry market products we always get the message that it is safe to use or eat anything, until proven otherwise (duh?). With the exception of Marihuana, which has to be proven safe. Because this simple plant if proven of pharmaceutical worth, could shake up the world of tranquilizers.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 01:27 pm | | Alex and all,
actually there really _is_ going to be an article called 'Jack the Ripper exposed' in the May issue of 'History Today', and there really was a negative of the Maybrick photo accompanying the ad.
In all seriousness, it looks as if this mag is truly running a story advocating JM as the ripper.
It isn't my professional area - but if it was I'd be pretty keen to know who is behind the piece, and how on earth they managed to revive this dead old horse and get a big ad featured in a Sunday paper.
It has to be worth a few book sales. How did they pull it off?
Does anyone know anything about 'History Today'?
what sort of market is it aimed at?
Karoline |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 01:41 pm | | Another quickie for Simon about 'stuff' and nonsense:
'Left them on the table with some of the other stuff.' I guess the diarist means 'stuff' as in blood and guts, yeah?
So 'stuff' was not used in that context in Victorian times eh Simon my dear? What about the 'Dear Boss' letter of 25th September 1888, which includes the immortal words, 'I saved some of the proper red stuff...', meaning blood? Sounds like the naughty faker was just using another well-worn ripper phrase to help him with his creation. :-)
(Back to Viz and Tinribs: 'Hi I'm Barbie I love you very much'. :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 03:06 pm | | Hi, all:
Yes, as Karoline says, there is an article upcoming in the May issue of "History Today" by Professor William Rubinstein of the University of Aberystwyth in which the professor avers that he is personally more than 90 percent certain that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. Professor Rubinstein kindly sent me a full version of the article which will appear in edited form in next month's issue of "History Today."
Rubinstein makes his personal claim that Maybrick was the Ripper, mind you, while admitting that the provenance of the diary is extremely shaky. The types of things that he uses to back up his assertion, moreover, in my view, are questionable. For example, he points to letters sent from Liverpool allegedly by Jack the Ripper. He may not be aware that as I pointed out in my presentation on the letters at Park Ridge, there were upwards of 2,000 letters sent to the authorities from all over the British Isles, and there is no reason to think that the Liverpool letters are any more authentic than most of the others. He also, while praising Paul Feldman for his "herculean" research, repeats the alleged tradition (told by Anne Graham's father Billy to Feldman) that children hastened past the Maybricks' residence, Battlecrease House, because Jack the Ripper lived there. Such rumors are no more evidence that rumors that Clarence or some other member of the Royal household was the Ripper. In fact, because the Ripper case was such a high profile case, all and sundry were said to be the murderer. I shall have more to say about Rubinstein's article in due course after I have read his published paper.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 05:19 pm | | And the road goes ever on -
Despite what seems to be the opinion of some people here, the Hitler diaries were an amateurish fake by an inept forger. Konrad Kujau's extent of finding "authentic" paper was to cart over some old school exercise books from East Germany and toss them round the room a bit (he didn't even bother to slow bake them, as per Rosa and Amalia Panvini). The text of the diaries was drawn from an easily available collection of Hitler's speeches and proclamations (by Domarus, I beleive), and where Kujau departed from the text, his prose bore no relation to what AH might logically have written.
As well, the ink was modern, the typewritten labels (supposedly spanning over 15 years) were all typed up en masse on one machine, and - most delicious of all - the forger who had the talent to write in an arcane German script and do a passable fac-simile of Hitler's handwriting capped the forgery by placing the PLASTIC letters "FH" on the cover of each volume, as he was apparently unable to distinguish a Gothic type "A" from "F"."
In short, the Hitler diaries were a ridiculous forgery which could have been blown out of the water immediately had 10 minutes' sober thought been given to them.
So why did they fool so many people, not least (initially) Regius Professor of History Hugh Trevor-Roper? Because people WANTED to believe Hitler kept a diary and that there was a source document allowing us unfettered examination into his mind. People WANT there to be a Ripper diary, so that the ravening Victorian monster can be identified and understood. Unlike the Hitler fiasco, IF it is a forgery, it is MUCH more complex and professional than Kujau's scribblings. This is obvious from the fact that though it has yet to be absolutely proven as fake, it has yet to be completely proven as fact. In fact, it may never be proven either way, as each side is now so emotionally invested in their opinion, that claims of "fraud" and "scientific incompetence" will come after any pronouncement of the journal's age.
Wanting is wonderful. But we cannot allow wants to blind us to the truth - or even to ambiguity. And there is a great deal more ambiguity about the Diary, Mark, than you seem willing to admit. Even the "facts" you throw out as proof are an exemplar of this. There is a very good possibility the "farthings" and such at Annie Chapman's feet never existed. Please look under the discussion labelled "fabled farthings" for a full discussion. Simon has addressed the breasts passage, and Wolf the supposed "FM."
The only "evidence" we have proving any of those points to be true is the text of the Diary. As the Diary is a suspect document, we cannot use it as confirmation of those points; indeed, most Ripper scholars, I think, would take exception to all 3 points, asserting that there is no conclusive contemporary evidence that any of them are true.
You asked earlier if I could not accept the Diary on its own, how could I accept any document claiming to come from the pen of the Ripper? My friend Peter answered this quite well with his example of the Littlechild letter, and I must agree with him. We can trace the LL through all its points; from its present owner, Stewart Evans, back through book dealer Eric Barton, back to the estate of George Sims and at last to the writer, Inspector Littlechild.
As well, the LL references people and facts which can be independently corroborated; Arthur Griffiths, Dr Tumblety, Oscar Wilde (though the Wilde reference seems to be more Littlechild's own opinion than an actual perversion of Wilde). All these people existed. Tumblety was a police suspect (though he may not have been the Ripper). The LL must therefore be regarded as an important, factual document.
Contrariwise, the Diary has no provenance. We can barely trace it from the hands of Mike Barrett to the mysterious Tony Devereaux. Despite Anne Graham's constantly changing stories, we still cannot trace it from its supposed creation by Maybrick until at least 40 years later, IF we can believe the stories at all!
As well, the Diary occupies its own little world. We have no evidence outside it that James Maybrick was ever in Whitechapel at the requisite times. We have no evidence outside it that Maybrock was insanely jealous. We have no evidence outside it that Maybrick had a knowledge of Whitechapel or a hatred of prostitutes. If any one of these suppositions could be proven WITHOUT reference to the Diary, then we would be forced to take its claims more seriously. As it is, it asks too much of us to be taken at its word.
That is why I feel it cannot be used as proof against Maybrick while its origin and age are in dispute. If the Diary can eventually be placed around the year 1888 - or even within 10 years of that date - it would behoove me to take a second look at it. As it stands, I consider the thing a forgery. I would like to know who forged it, when and what for, but I don't consider it real.
I have an open mind on the subject, and can certainly change my opinion, but nothing you've said so far, Mark, has made me do so. You bring to bear a great deal of "feelings" and "circumstance" and "coincidence;" all very well in their way, and your enthusiasm is commendable. . .but it's not the same as fact. I'm sorry.
As well, I was the one who said I had heard of Maybrick before the Diary. You did not, however, ask "who heard of him as a Ripper suspect before the Diary?" but rather "who had heard the name of Maybrick before the Diary?" And as I said, anyone with more than a passing interest in true crime knew about Florence and James Maybrick.
Why choose "Sir Jim" as a Ripper suspect? I have no idea. It is one of the great imponderables of the mystery.
Alex - my illustrious reputation is in tatters anyway after the US Conference, but I'll always be happy to serve on any intellectual ship Peter is captaining!
As ever,
CMD |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 09:36 pm | | I want to know what these men look like:
Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
David Lee Yost
Christopher T. George
Jonathan Smythe
Sam Gafford
I want photographs.
David |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 02:25 am | | hi CMD.
Thanx very much for your detailed answer.
If i boil it down,it is only a repeat to most of the other leters i ve read in the past week.
thanx anyway.
As much as I want to beleive the diaray is real, you dont want to.
There is a simple reason; you want more proof.
thing is, you wont find it.
The ONLY person who could prove its real would be James Maybrick himself.
And he is not around.The same applies to me CMD.
I cant prove its real after.
The diary was proved a fake because the guy who wrote it said so.
Its as easy as that.
There are too many ananswered questions though.
By the way ,YOU and all the other " non-believers" have to prove its a fake.
Not the diary itself.
You see, the book has surfaced and its here with us.
And it wont go alone.
If you dont manage to prove its a fake, it will still be there in the morning.
Its not up to me to prove its real.
Thats your job.
Thats probably why a few people get exited when they find out that the maybrick Diary is going to be the subject in a MAG called "HISTORY TODAY".
Somepeople dont like the idea.
I wonder why?
Im afraid cant all steer the way people think or what they read.
If a mag wants to publish a story about James Maybrick, let them, without getting upset about it.
I for myself am going to try to get the Maybrick story published in a German Magazine.
Most people dont even know the background to the Ripper story.
It sure is interesting though.
Without talking to anyone in particular,you have all failed so far in trying to prove its a fake.
Untill that is done. Im afraid you are a minority.
For me its pretty easy you see, Ive read it and also the countless stories over the past years.
To me , Maybrick was the Ripper.
At least MORE than any suspect to date.
There is more linking Maybrick to the murders than people like Druitt + Co.
There are also too loose ends.
Going beyond Maybricks death for example, how the Hell did his son James Fuller manage to poison himself with cyanide?
What about George Davidson?
This poor guy was found drowned.
The wind probably blew him off the clifftop in 1893.
By the way, what did his cousin die of?
I mean William Maybrick.
My last question would have to refer to the hoaxer himself.
WHY PICK MAYBRICK?.
Why him?
Why not pick someone who was allready suspicious.
Why not forge a "Druitt diary"?
Or Ostrog, or Stephen, or Deeming, or Kosminski, or Stanley ( Jesus! , I could on for ever ).
why pick someone so hard to prove.
It just defies all logic.
Well, im 39 now and I dont think the diary will be proved a fake in my life time.
We better hurry up eh?
By the way, I did ask who could have connected him to the ripper PRIOR to the diarys release.
The only answer came from you I think.
You only said you were familiar with the name.
Sorry about that.
One more thing: you said you needed proof without reference to the diary.
The diary is all I ve got, but you see CMD, its all I need.
Look at some of the answers people have been giving me over the past 2 weeks,
Strange when you consider that all I ve done is to read the diary with an open mind.
I have nothing to gain my stating my opinion.
I will not make a penny, even if i COULD prove it was real.
Im not too fussed.
I didnt expect to learn anything new here either.
People came and go around here, like me I suppose, but it was fun anyway.
have to go to work now
bye
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 03:10 am | | Hi Christopher-Michael,
You wrote:
'Despite Anne Graham's constantly changing stories...'
Could you explain exactly how you see her stories 'constantly' changing from 1992 to date? And how many different versions does she tell about the diary's origins from 1968/9 to when Mike eventually took the diary to be published in 1992?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 04:59 am | | Okay , ' stuff ' was a Victorian word as in ' stuff and nonsense '. Sorry everyone. Got carried away again. Actually , I'm really glad there are people out there to prove me wrong when I go over the top a bit. But the point about the breasts is still correct , and I can't understand why Mark doesn't believe Maybrick didn't kiss them , since thats what Maybrick wrote in his Diary. There are other mistakes too Mark. Maybrick steals the rings from Chapman - two of them. But Chapman wore three rings and all were missing from the corpse. Secondly , Liz Stride was not a redhead as Maybrick describes her but had dark brown/black curly hair and a pale complexion ( see Sugden p.190 if you don't believe me ). Since its possible Stride's killer spent more than an hour in her company on the night of her death , you would think he would get the colour of her hair right wouldn't you. The truth is , the Diary is a poor forgery. And what makes it worse is that before the Diary appeared , we know that Mike and Anne were trying to buy an authentic period diary for reasons unknown. Hmmm , would make a nice address book...NOT ! |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 06:28 am | | Hi all.
For anyone who's interested in evaluating the accuracy of the British magazine, History Today-- and the quality of their articles, try:
http://www.historytoday.com
"About us" gives their intended market, plus names of editors and writers. "Articles> Index of Articles" pulls up 160 or so articles online from previous issues. Some interesting topics were dead links, but I read a few. The Wax Museum one goes a bit over the top with sensationalism. The other one I read covers a topic several folks here are knowledgable on ... so maybe they can determine what standard of accuracy this magazine usually strives for ---
Times and Tides by Edward Pearce, October 1997, Pages: 6-8, Cross Current
Anglo-Irish affairs between the bid for Irish Home Rule in 1886 and the outbreak of civil war.
Gladstone is mentioned several times in the article, and of course, the Phoenix Park murder.
Happy Researching,
Ashling |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 06:42 am | | Mark Goeder wrote:
"I for myself am going to try to get the Maybrick story published in a German Magazine."
and
"I have nothing to gain my(sic) stating my opinion. I will not make a penny, even if i COULD prove it was real."
So, if a magazine publisher offers Mark money for writing a Maybrick as Ripper story--Mark will turn the money down and give them his article for free?
Don't see that kind of generosity too often in the Diary World.
Ashling |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 07:00 am | | I wish I could have got a real ' loony toon ' to contribute when I was writing all that stuff about the Conspiracy theory , someone who wouldn't bother about the facts ( or even the suppositions ) in their support of Stephen Knight ; it would have taken a lot of the flak off me and I could have just trundled out the odd suggestion now and again. You'd think an oddball theory like that would attract at least some crackpots to comment , but not one - it was all very reasoned.Yet the Diary gets people who will support it fanatically despite the fact that its full of mistakes , not in Maybrick's handwriting , not in Victorian style handwriting and so on ' ad nauseum '. It all seems very unfair somehow. And serious researchers are still claiming it is genuine , and now Professor Rubinstein has written an article about Maybrick...its all too much ! If you had read the Diary with an open mind Mark , you would have seen it to be a load of old male cow droppings. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 07:19 am | | Hello Mark, All
All- What I will use as an argument now, I do not use to hurt peoples religious feelings.
Mark - If I can take the liberty of making a parallel with the reasons of your accepting the diary, it is the same as saying "everything said in the bible is true, it says so. The evolution theory is not true, because it goes against what the bible says. So much proof can be pro-evolution, it still never happened because the bible is rigth. The bible does not have to be 'historically' proven right. It does not need outside proof, because it stands 'historically' on its own. Why say something like 'Eva was created from a rib of Adam' when it wasn't true?"
There is a big difference, between the religious (belief) and historical content of the bible. You do not need facts for belief, but you do need them to record history.
The only arguments against the falsehood of the diary is your 'belief' that it is true (Your belief is not fact; Belief of majority is not fact (Darwin was a laughing stock in his time)). When we show you some facts, you simply dismiss them with 'the diary is more fact', while this isn't so, just as the bible is not fact, but a wonderful book of cultural ethics and belief. I admire your belief, but please don't make the mistake to call it fact and go on a crusade.
Jill |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 07:42 am | | Well said Jill. I'm sorry I'm getting a bit sarcastic about all this now , but it isn't up to the critics to prove the Diary is genuine , its up to those who believe it is true to do so. And as yet they have not done so conclusively. We , the critics , have rightfully raised questions about the accuracy of the information in the Diary , things the author of the Diary would have known if it had been genuine. But to ignore these questions and simply re-emphasise the point about the 'M' on the wall will do the Diary's cause no good at all. That is simply sticking one's head in the sand , as mentioned before. Give us one good reason why we the sceptics should believe the Diary is really by Maybrick and not simply a forgery. For all we know James Maybrick could have been the Ripper - but then so could anyone else alive at the time. Actually , Maybrick was far too old to be the Ripper - he was 50 - according to witness sightings and the FBI profile so he is less likely to be the killer than many others. All you have is the Diary. And the ' FM ' , if it is indeed that and not just mere bloodstains , could stand for anything. What about ' For MCarthy ' for instance , painted onto the partition in the woodyard before it was even delivered to 26 Dorset Street ? |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 09:36 am | | Hi everyone,(and Simon)
Sorry Ashling!!
Of course Im not goint to try to publish my opinions althought he idea is tempting.
To be really honest, I was expecting this kind of reaction, thats the reason I said it......sorry.
Simon, I wont keep repeating myself.you see this is getting us nowhere.
Its not my job to prove anything about the diary.
Thats your job!!
So far Simon, you have failed badly.
The diary is there and neither I or you will change it.
Its here and its going to stay.
And it will never be proved a fake.
If thats your opinion, then i have to respect it, the same way you will have to respect my opinion.
The only difference is that I am only stating facts made by the diary because it is all I have to go on.
You are making up facts.
You have a great imagination, I ll give you that.
Even the drumroll had something speciall to it.
Anyone could have been the ripper.
Jesus Simon, any fool can see that.
Id love to know YOUR story.
Tell me who you think the ripper was.
I repeat again, ITS YOUR JOB ONLY TO PROOVE THE DIARY A HOAX, NOT MINE:
I am willing to bet you a crate of champagne that you ll never even come close to proving it a hoax.
If anyone can produce ANYTHING to proving it a hoax, I ll eat my words.
Hi Jill,
I dont believe in the Bible anyway,but what diffence does it make.
I would like to know how many people believe in God and still believe in the evolution theory.
I think this is the main problem.
All the anti diary people ont his site are looking for a logical theory.
There wont be a logical theory.
I ll admitt one thing though.
IF it wasnt Maybrick, then it certainly wasnt any of the other guys you all seem to know.
Why?
Because if it was, we would know it ba now.
Now back to Simon again,
So you ve found a few mistakes in the diary huh?
Well good, because so did I
I found an old diary I wrote when I was 14 not too long ago.
know what?
I couldnt understand half of it.
It was full of mistakes.
And Simon, I DID write it.
It made me think how the (my) diary would seem to me in another 50 years.
When you write anything down, it will depend on your state of mind you are in Whilst writing it.
If you had a bad day at work( if you do work )and you had to write down the days events, how would you write it down?
If you looked at what youd written a few day later(maybe on a good day)what would you see?
You would see a reflection of your own feelings regardless of what day it was.
Dont take the "words" used in the Maybrick diary
too seriously.
I think Maybrick was the killer.
I have the right to think that.
I am not trying to prove you wrong Simon.
You are trying to prove me wrong.
I am only defending the diary because I believe whats written is mostly true.
Your sarcasm is almost as bad as mine
LMAO
Mark |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 10:17 am | | This is the last post I am going to write on this subject for a while, as the subject has rapidly progressed ad nauseam to ad absurdum.
Mark - you write "Don't take the 'words' used in the Maybrick Diary too seriously." Now, I submit, if that is what you really think, there is absolutely no purpose in debating it with you, as you have adopted the perfect fall-back position. If someone such as Simon or myself points out "errors" in the Diary (meaning events or persons mentioned in the Diary that contradict known and accepted Ripper fact), your response has now become
- well, perhaps he was mad.
- or confused.
- or it's a reflection of his feelings and not to be taken seriously.
- in any event, you can't use the Diary's words to prove it's a fake.
I'm sorry, Mark, but that is an absolutely untenable position. It goes beyond the boundaries of serious scholarship and into willful belief, and there are no longer any grounds for debating the authenticity of the Diary in the face of such disregard for forensic standards.
I am troubled at your constant refrain that we, the critics of the Diary, are required to prove it a fake, wheras those who believe in it have to do nothing more than state that belief. You are wrong. Allow me an example:
Caz goes to Hyperion Books with a document which she says is a "lost" log of Christopher Columbus, proving that before his voyage to Hispaniola in 1492, he went to the North Pole first. For some reason (perhaps the editors are all off on Bank Holiday), the log is published.
You believe it is real. I do not. Which of us has to do more than simply believe?
You do. Why? The only "evidence" telling us of Columbus' arctic voyage is this new log. Opposed to it is Columbus' private journal, his ship's log, the statements of his crew and the report he made back to Isabella and Ferdinand. All of these are authentic source documents with clear provenance and historical confirmation. I have the weight of history on my side.
You, by contrast, have only this one "log" which sprang full-blown from Caz' hands and whose content is in direct opposition to all known historical fact. It is up to YOU to prove this new document real. How? Any number of ways; scientific tests to check the age of the document, handwriting tests to check against known examples of Columbus' script, trips to the Pole to see if any evidence is left of the supposed voyage, a search through the historical account to see if there are any unexplained gaps in Columbus' voyages which could account for a trip north, and so on.
In other words, you are required to do a great deal more than state "well, you can't prove he didn't go," or, "well, I feel that he might have gone." No, I can't prove he didn't go. As I stated on another board, that is trying to logically prove a negative, which cannot be done. All I can do is point out alternate explanations which make your belief in a Columbian arctic voyage unlikely.
I do not know how to make this any clearer - when a document comes on the scene that challenges traditional historical interpretation, the onus is on its discoverers and believers to prove both that the document is real and that its version of history is the correct one. It is NOT up to me to prove the Diary fake; the historical record has done that. It is up to YOU to prove the Diary's version of events is correct, and without resorting to the sophistry of your last post.
I do not wish to make an enemy of you, Mark. As I have said, I admire your enthusiasm, and I wish you well. If you want to believe James Maybrick is Jack the Ripper, that is your right and no-one will deny it! But I cannot debate the Diary in the face of such a blatant disregard of logic and fact as your last note displays. If you truly believe that any passage in the Diary is open to multiple interpretation depending on what you wish to explain away, I am afraid we have no common ground to debate.
Caz - I hope you do not mind me using you as a cast member in my little drama above, as your name was on my mind. You ask what I mean by "constantly changing stories." Bearing in mind that I am saying this off the top of my head (hence my bald spot), I was referring to what I recall as the different versions of the Diary's origins. It came from Tony Devereaux. It came from Anne, who gave it to Tony who gave to Mike. It was a family heirloom.
Who knows? Next month, Joe Sickert might say it was stolen from him by Peter Sutcliffe.
If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.
Apologies for the rant, good people. I now leave this discussion.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 10:34 am | | hi CMD
You said it.
You just said what i wanted to hear.
You dont want your so valueble "TRADITIONAL HISTORICAL VALUE" scratched off.
Thats what you are scared of
With a view like that,I cant debate anyway.
By the way, who defines "ACCEPTED RIPPER FACT" ?
You?
What errors did Simon point out?
Admit that you dont want the Ripper mystery to be solved and I ll rest ma case
Please dont answer, just think about what you would say if you could.
bye
Mark |
|
|
|
|
