|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 2, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through March 2, 1999
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 01:34 pm |        | Hi all,
I believe this could deserve a new topic.
Having properly finished Shirley Harris's 'The diary of Jack the Ripper' at last, and researching a few relevant sections, I am still of the opinion that Maybrick has no chance of being Jack, unless he had learnt to travel in time and a few other tricks as well.
I refute the rest of the diary for reasons that are, I believe, shared by some others of us. The main reason for me is that the diary has been almost certainly written for an audience. Explanations of why he did what, when he did it and how, just to explain some evident curiosity without doing that which Jack would have done all along. He would have written words of hard fact that were absolutely unknown and unsuspected until the diary was found, but could then be proved beyond all doubt as being true.
The opposite is true. Everything in the book had been either elsewhere already stated, claimed, known or written or it cannot ever be proved. (Example, the farthings story)
Except one, maybe. A point that does interest me in the story of the gold watch with engravings purporting (or purported) to have been done by Jack/Maybrick. I hold this information to as suspect as anything else to do with the diary, except that a statement in the book seems to me to perhaps be true, namely that diary opponents have kept quite about this factor. If there is a hair of truth in the engravings story, and they are really as old as is maintained, is that not a pretty big chunk of evidence for Maybrick?
Does anyone know the facts about this 'Evidence', important as it is should it be true? Or is it just another piece of cocked-up twaddle?
Regards
Bob |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 04:01 pm | | Hi, Bob:
I am not an authority on the age of the scratchings but as has been pointed out, these scratchings, apart from the apparent name "Maybrick" might just be jeweller's marks, and the initials of the victims may be in the eye of the beholder. What makes it absurd to think that this could be James Maybrick's watch is that it is a lady's watch not a man's watch, although a picture of James (although some say it is actually a photograph of Michael Maybrick) with a heavy gold watch chain looped in his waistcoat is placed in Harrison's hardback first edition next to a photograph of the watch as if they could be one and the same, which is patently absurd: James Maybrick would have used a man's watch. As for Harrison's assertion that there are scratchings in the inside cover of the watch, besides the scrawled name "J. (?) Maybrick" and the initials of the victims that also say "I am Jack," for the life of me, I cannot see it in the photograph, and have to think that this may also be a case of wishful thinking.
Chris George |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 12 February 1999 - 03:40 am | | Hi CG
Thanks for the reply. The bit about placing a photo of James+watch chain next to a picture of the watch is indeed typical evident misleading to be found in much of the book, e.g. a picture of the station where James used to travel from to Liverpool seeming to indicate his travels to London etc. etc.
I wonder why, when the watch be in the remotest a possible candidate for real, the pro-diaryists don't produce better evidence.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Karoline Leach
Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 08:49 am | | Dear All on the diary-page,
Re: this dating of the scratches on the watch. I read the relevant document some time ago, and I thought the writer was talking about the ENGRAVINGS on the watch front , and not the SCRATCHES, when they found the particle of engraving-tool lodged within, and estimated the date. Am I wrong ?
The engravings would presumably be expected to be old, and have no signficance to the JTR question at all. So, if the examiner was referring to them there is no mystery at all, is there?
Maybe it's important to be sure of whether the date refers to the scratches or the original engraving?
Are you?
Just a thought.
Karoline |
Author: Bob_c
Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 10:58 am | | Hi Karoline
Good point, I have read the book (Harrison) again and assume that the attempt to prove the age deals only with the scratches, otherwise, as you say, it would be nonsense.
The age of the watch itself is not disputed as being in 1847, which is given by manufacturer marks inside.
Chis George deals with this watch and the Maybrick connection above (Hi CG). Maybrick would hardly carry a watch chain like a battle-ship anchor, attached to which then a cute little Ladies watch, or can you believe such-like?
Regards
Bob |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 11:27 am | | Hello Bob and Karoline:
I am very glad we are able to keep the Maybrick strain going. It seemed to be gasping for breath for a while. In fact, I have been astounded to see that the Maybrick question has merited, for a few days at least recently, no postings whatsover when I called up the "Last Day" postings! After being for a vast number of months the board where most action took place it seemed that Maybrick at last was breathing its last gasp. Had everyone finally, I wondered, seen the light about the diary and the watch? Alas and alack, I fear that the latter is far from the case: there is a vast public out there that is daily being duped into believing that the diary and watch belonged to James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper. However, if one goes by the discussion on another board, Maybrick is not a suspect at all because he was not mentioned, as far as we know, in the contemporary police reports or near contemporary writings of policemen. James Maybrick was innocent, in my opinion, of being Jack the Ripper. However, as we are aware, there are books on the market that say he was Jack, including Harrison's "The Diary of Jack the Ripper," now in multiple editions, and Paul Feldman's "Jack the Ripper: the Final Chapter," also I believe coming out in paperback, if it has not already done so, and Anne Graham's book, which though reportedly about the Maybrick Case, is a direct outgrowth of the Maybrick-as-Jack industry. Perhaps it is time to throw the blame elsewhere and adopt a theory such as that expounded (tongue-in-cheek perhaps--though I fear not!!!!) by Alan Hayday in Ripperologist issue no. 18 (August 1998), who stated, "I believe it was JK [Stephen] who penned the infamous Maybrick Diary to throw the blame onto James Maybrick." Since J. K. Stephen was unlikely to have known James Maybrick, Hayday's assertion is just as fanciful as anything else that has been written by modern writers about James Maybrick in connection with the Whitechapel murders.
Chris George |
Author: Kevin
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 12:47 am | | A reply to Bob's excellent message of Feb. 11.
Absolutely correct, the Maybrook Diary is a forgery, in my opinion modern, opportunistic, mercenary, and for the reason you state: it's written for an audience, it seeks to explain, justify, and prove its own veracity.
Is this the diary that a true killer would have written? NO. It's too neat. For a comparison people should check out the explenations that OJ Simpson gave to the police, the letter he left for his children, etc. Rational? Well-argued? No, a rambling assemblage of feelings, impressions, evasions, grasps at reality. One doesn't even have to argue that Simpson was guilty of the murders to know that here was a man in the midsts of a traumatic event.
Any genuine Jack the Ripper diary should not read like a literary recreation, there should be no hint of a reflective and educated man calmly sorting through last night's events, dispassionately recreating a crime scene so he can prove his legitimacy to future generations.
This is idiocy. A genuine diary would read like the collected letters of Charles Manson. Those who suggest the diary provides insight into the "mind of a serial killer" couldn't be more wrong. It provides insight into what an educated writer who had studied the whitechapel murders and the voluminous academic literature on serial killers might concoct in an attempt to pass off his effort as legitimate.
The fraud here is obvious. One can list facts, supply motives, even suggest information which can be corroborated by amateur researchers, in sum play to an audience, but this cool rationality is precisely what an authentic diary would NOT contain at all. People who are in the midsts of trauma don't write for an audience. There is no authenticity of spirit.
Mr. Bob suggests that a genuine diarist would have "written words of hard fact that were absolutely unknown and unsuspected until the diary was found, but could then be proved beyond all doubt as being true."
My only quibble with an otherwise excellent contribution. NO, that is not what an authentic diarist would have done.
Chances are overwhelming that he would have stayed away from hard fact altogether. What interest would be have in communicating a detailed description of a crime scene to himself? How much time would a real killer have to take in the details of such a scene?
Think about events in your own life which fall well short of that extreme of emotion. What do you notice? Could you provide a detailed description of the restaurant where you had your last great date (assuming for the example that you're single). Even the night after it happened?
Probably not. The things you'd notice would be subjective. What did you think about when she came in, what did the waiter look like, how he snarled when you left a small tip.
There is an enormous difference between someone who has experienced an event and is trying to recount it, factual information gets left out, impressions get thrown in, small uncorroborated facts stay in one's imagination, and the more immediate the event the more this is true--and someone who is reconstructing an event off of second hand information.
The Maybrook diaries are an obvious fabrication. Forget about the dating of the paper, the ink, who found them, all of the rest. The account just reads false.
A more talented forger would have included details and impressions which were uncorroboratable, "this is what it felt like when I slashed off Mary Kelly's breasts, oh my god, did I really do that, it doesn't seem real now but I know I did, please let this image go away, I'll never forget the smell of..."
I can't do a good job. One needs some experience of that kind of event, I suspect, before it becomes real.
Serial killers are not self-aware people who understand their motivations while events are unfolding and then try to communicate their intentions to posterity.
The idea is ludicrous. Any genuine diary would read like a rant, significant information would be left out, the writer would be attempting to articulate what professional writers couldn't. And he'd probably fail.
Hannibal Lector was a fictional character.
So why hasn't such a diary turned up? It most likely doesn't exist. |
Author: Rico (spider-tj014.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.179)
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 01:31 am | | Hi everybody,
I've just read the diary that incriminates James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper. I'm not a fan, in fact, but this book, given by a friend, interested me a lot. When I finally read it, I felt frustrated. First -and without any evidences- I felt like the book sounded facked, unreal. A real fiction for an appropriate audience, but also for people like me, who could then be involved in this amazing history.
Let me explain : I did not have the slightest idea of anything about the Ripper, excepted he had murderer few hookers in the end of the 19th century. I easily could have been lost while reading the diary, but I've not been, of course ! For the simple reason that this story has been written for an audience, but also for people like me, it means eveybody, the largest audience possible!
Starting looking for details on the web, I found several things. But there's a question I'd like to ask to experts as you seem to be : what about Garret's confession. Isn't it THE evidence that prooves that all this story has been invented in a commercial purpose ?
Waiting for your answer(s).
Best ragards from Paris. |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 02:23 am | | H-e-l-l--o--o--o Kevin! Your post was like a breath of fresh air on this particular board. Haven't seen your posts before ... If you're new, welcome aboard -- if not welcome back.
You made some excellent observations. I have kept a journal off and on for many years. I skim read them sometimes for a variety of reasons. To settle an argument on what date such & such thing occurred, or recalling a stressful situation can help me deal with a present crisis, etc.
I put in more detail than necessary, especially in my early writing, otherwise I wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about when re-reading an entry 10 or 15 years later. Plus a diary isn't something I spend time editing & "making pretty" like I do on a manuscript intended for a publisher. My journals look kinda scraggly, like my posts here. But I never had a reason or need to elaborate to the extend of the quotes I've seen posted here. (I haven't read the book itself ... probably never will.)
Thirty years ago, I flew 400 hundred miles to spend Valentine's Day with my fiancee. He broke up with me a few hours after I got off the plane. Today I remember approximately how long I sat in the airport waiting for a connecting flight home ... because that's how many hours I held back my tears. I don't remember the name of the hotel where I had planned to stay, or the name of the airline I flew on. Remembering things like that wouldn't have made the experience better, or worse, nor serve any purpose in my future.
In Creative Writing class, my teacher urged us to let our characters converse with each other ... Instead of having the author make "speeches" to the Reader. So in looking for the real author of the "Maybrick" diary, perhaps the seekers should look for a second-rate Writer.
Ashling |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 05:10 am | | Hi all,
Hi Kevin,
I add first of all my greetings to those of Ashling, and voice as she does over your post. To be honest, I am mildly surprised at anyone believing that Maybrick could be the killer, at least on the basis of the diary. You, in your own excellent post, and that is no flattery, say clearly what I wanted to say, namely that the very things thrown into the diary to make it sound true are those that make it sound as false as it almost certainly is.
Your one 'quibble', as you put it, about 'hard facts' has prompted me to rethink what I really wanted to say there, although I believe you may have interpreted it a bit differently as to how it was meant. By 'hard facts' I had intended to convey to the reader that the diary, if it were real, would contain, for example, descriptions of Jack's actions or impressions that would be known and provable after the diary was found, but not before. I agree that the words 'hard facts' do not correctly convey what I had intended.
Now, if we assume that Jack would write a diary which is intended for posthumous 'publication', he wants to boast of his deeds and to give his identity prize. Would he then not have put in more detail than, as example, Ashling in a normal personal diary? Is not his intention to let everyone know the facts? In this respect the actual diary writer seems to have relied on this as a support for his/her story telling, unfortunately for him/herself not very professionally. Therefore please allow me, in turn, a respectful quibble in your work. Jack, assuming the above be true, would indeed have had interest in communicating at least some details of the crimes, as it would be intended for other people to read about them after his death.
That doesn't alter the fact that the diary is almost certainly nonsense, and your other points are just as valid as the diary false. If Jack would write such details, then not as in the diary, as you say 'a reflective and educated man calmly sorting through last night's events'.
I did, some time ago, amuse myself by writing 'The genuine false diary', a persiflage over the 'real diary' and even posted a part of it on the board. The result was a (deserved) deafening silence. I mention it only because the writing of it gave me insight into how a non-proffesional would try to make a forgery sound true. Even I didn't fall into such a trap as the underlined HA HA'S all over the place, just because some of the 'letters' purporting to come from Jack contained such.
Best regards to you, and please have no fear of uttering critic over my work,
Bob Court
Hi Rico,
Greeting to you and Paris and welcome to you. I intend to visit the City of Paris again this spring, let's hope the weather will be good.
About your question: Mike Barrett (not Garret) did indeed claim to having authored the diary, although it is not clear if it is true, some insist that Anne Barrett wrote it. This claim (some will say 'admission') was taken back later, possibly under pressure. If he did or if he didn't, it doesn't change the fights between those having interest in the diary being believed and those, like I, who tend to pooh-pooh it.
Best regards
Bob
Hi Ashling,
To be honest, you are new to me too, but I don't look all over the board, or read every topic, the time is just not there, although politeness really demands that I should. I share your views over Kevin's post, however.
As I have written above to Rico, Mike Barrett is a candidate for this exhalted position, but so is Anne and maybe a dozen others. Unfortunantly for the writer, he/she has not exactly won trainloads of 'Con Laudum' for this work, which really does seem to be the work of some ham writer.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 05:56 am | | Hi all.
BOB --- I've been around less than a month ... Spent a week reading the Casebook before I started posting. Most of my posts are on the Suspects > George Chapman/ Klosowski board. I've studied serial killers for about 25 years, but only recently began an in-depth evaluation of JtR. I appreciate yours & everyone else's patience ... letting me learn as I go along.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela) (orion.mel.ipax.com.au - 203.29.72.219)
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 08:43 am | | Hi all,
I'm going to make a few points on the last 5-6 very good postings. For the newcomers, I'm a little less reluctant to merely dismiss the diary without further evidence that it's a hoax.
Kevin: I think it's somewhat dangerous to be making comparisons between the author of the diary and OJ. For one, if the diary is authentic (or made to look authentic) then I don't necessarily agree that the author should be suffering any trauma in the same way as OJ would. OJ's was forced into explanations with the pressure of a trial and possibly the electric chair. The diarist is sitting back in his home - if the Ripper then some days after the event. What's more the Ripper was a serial killer - OJ, if guilty, only killed on the one occasion - and we can't say for sure he was in complete control of his senses. The Ripper, for all his madness, probably had quite good control over his emotions - he needed to in order to avoid being seen/captured. He's more likely to have acted calmly in the aftermath than a one-time killer. Look at some of the more famous serial killers - I bet that many of them were shown to be carrying on as normal within hours of the killing. The diary suggests that the entries are not made for a couple of days, at least, after the killings (eg., Nichols - after newspaper reports, double event - the diarist said it took him three days to recover), back in the relative comfort of Liverpool.
I don't think that merely because the diary is written by an educated hand that you conclude that it couldn't have been the work of the Ripper. Many serial killers are educated men - and seemingly normal, when all around them they've created a scene which should invite hysteria.
As for what the diarist should write: a diary is a collection of thoughts. It sometimes includes facts, others feelings. I didn't see this diary as going overboard in mentioning facts - Kelly is the only victim named, none of the murder locations are described or named. In fact I thought that the descriptions of the murders lacked detail (some of that was made up for in the poems). Even so, I don't agree that when writing in a diary you wouldn't remember a certain amount of fact - let's remember a murder would be a major event for the murderer - like all things you remember things which aren't usual practice. Also, in keeping with a serial killer, attention to detail is probably a hallmark of someone in that mould. Further, the murderer could use the newspapers assist him in recalling the detail.
In my opinion the text of the diary isn't particularly neat - on many pages it becomes quite messy, varies in size, has crossings out, etc.
I agree (with your posting on another board) that the burden is on those who believe it to be authentic to prove it such. But when they put up an argument then it needs to be rebutted with good points. It will only be proved on way or another when all the possibilities are eliminated - not just dismissed as unlikely - that's why the diary issue hasn't gone away after 8 years (if it's a forgery then surely someone can tell us who the forger is). Good debate on the issues on these message boards is what will help settle the issue - although I suppose many people make up their minds one way or the other and that's it.
Rico : some of Barrett's affidavits are on the Casebook - have a look at them. Personally, I have a great deal of trouble with them. I can't see how the author of the original affidavit can be the same as the author of the diary. And most of the points he makes don't hold much water.
Bob: Why would Jack necessarily want the diary to be seen by all the world? After all a diary is personal - most people don't want the diary to be seen by anyone - but they still keep one. I'm not convinced that, if authentic, it was meant to be for the world at large. Only on the last page does it give this suggestion - when Maybrick is close to death.
Dela |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 11:29 am | | Hi Dela,
That is exactly the point. If the writer wants a diary just for himself alone, he doesn't go to the trouble of more or less 'writing for an audience' which I believe is pretty apparent here.
If Jack wrote it only for himself, changing only as he felt death near, the type of chronicle he wrote would have changed, but it doesn't. To be honest I am sometimes tempted to be unkind and make a remark like 'the end of the diary needs only the curtain calls and applause to be perfect'.
I am sorry but I just cannot believe in it. That does not mean that I am right and others are wrong. Of course the diary COULD be genuine, but you'd have to bring a lot better evidence than what is available at the moment to make me believe it.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: Caroline (webcache24b.cache.pol.co.uk - 195.92.194.44)
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 04:20 am | | Hi Bob,
I'm still waiting for Little Caz to emerge from her bedroom and it's 09.20 here now!
You are so right about the 'curtain calls and applause'. Trouble is, the real author was so torn between trying to make the thing sound genuine, and his own over-inflated ego as a writer, that his aim to nail Maybrick has gone way clear of the mark. Now, if the diary had been found on the very day it was completed, we might have had a very different story to relate.
I don't believe in astrology (we Aquarians aren't so easily fooled!), but I feel instinctively that, like Robbie Williams, 'we've got stars directing our fate'. Robbie is having his night at The Brits tonight. I am hoping to do my bit for the Brits soon too, in a small way.
I hope to echo the words of my favourite Hardy heroine, Bathsheba Everdene: 'in short, I shall astonish you all!'
And if I can drag the good eggs with me, kicking and screaming if need be, who fancies coming along for the ride? Should be some beano!
Lots of love to all,
Caroline |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 07:10 am | | Hi Caroline,
I'm your man! Just say when.
Yes, I think so too. About the author trying too hard, like a German saying, roughly translated, don't try too hard, it can land up in your trousers.
Was Sooty white, or yellow? We only had steam telly as I was a kid (when we had it at all) and this vicious little criminal appeared white.
Love,
Bob
Love to little Caz too, and regards to Hubby |
Author: Caroline
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 06:07 am | | Hi Bob,
I can post today because Little Caz is staying with a schoolchum.
My first memories of Sooty would naturally have been white ones circa late fifties. Think he might be turning yellow now we are so close to nabbing the little bugger.
Little Caz is more into Beanie Babies now, particularly the ‘retired’ ones which are currently selling for up to 4 figures in some locations. There is a Germania Bear, apparently, available in your neck of the woods, but you need to spend serious dosh to acquire it. I bought a pink flamingo yesterday, birthday 13th Feb (same as me and Robbie W.), for £4.99, and was told it had only just got its bus pass, so it may turn out to be rather a smart investment!
Back to basics:
I saw Jack’s face yesterday for the first time; I picked up one of my successful library ‘searches’. I’m still fighting the nausea I have been feeling on and off since Boxing Day (the first murder date?), but I know I can cope now with the likes of you behind me (go on, make something of it!)
I am beginning to realise that the evil that was Jack is in and around us, then and now. He is part of our human experience.
More particularly, though, ‘he’ will be on stage on 20th inst. at 7.30pm, as he is going to Surrey.
Never fear. I will be a spectator there along with Hubby, Little Caz and friends, 111 years and 11 deaths (I think, in total) down the line. I am doing my level best to make sure the public is never gulled again by the poor misunderstood soul that was Jack. His remaining days of freedom are numbered. Maybe the next part of my mission will be to work on trying to accept him as one of us.
I’ve never been afraid of hard work, only boredom!
Wanna hear another spooky anecdote?
Yesterday, while making steam come out of my credit card in town with Little Caz, I was accosted by two purveyors of lucky white heather on separate occasions (I usually walk briskly by). This time they would not take no for an answer, and began babbling about auras surrounding me, and the fact that I had recently conjured up one heck of a spirit (I was hoping for a large Bacardi at that point, but, sceptic as I am, it failed to materialise!). They both asked me what fate had in store for them! Good grief! Just shows you, though, how some people could get quite freaked out by this sort of stuff?
Still want to come along for the ride? I won’t take no for an answer either!
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 09:36 am | | I have been out of action for a while with a cold/flu and now I come back to so many posts that my head continues to spin! And Caroline is still teasing us. I just can't take it anymore! I don't even know what the heck Sooty is. I feel like I'm still having Benadryl visions. And the ghost of JTR still stalks the world like a revenant, thumbing his bloody nose at us. Ah, worra worra!
Edana |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 11:52 am | | Hi Caroline, Hi Edana,
Oh Woe Betide! Edana, we must warn you of one of the most beastial, cunning, vicious little monsters of all time, Sooty, against whom Jack is a gentle praying old Granny stroking her grandchildren. Together with his perverted pals, he made children's television to hell on sunday afternoons in the UK in the late fifties.
As a foaming-at-the-mouth, brutal glove-puppet bear, he used a probably harmless old twit, Harry Corbett, to terrorise the child population.
Caroline, me'dear, I will try to locate one of the aforementioned Germania Bears and will return information. Are you sure that the aurora the Gypos referred to did not come from the strong spirit (+ice+orangejuice with a touch of...yum) from yesterday?
In any case, I will of course stand behind you as long as it is your will, or come alongside and join you in a couple of those strong spirits (+ice+orangejuice with a touch of...yum)at the bar. A double-barrelled aurora keeps better and is a lot of fun.
Love,
Bob |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 12:17 pm | | Hi Caroline,
Just to be sure, I hope you got my good wishes to the 13th on the 13th. I waited until midnight GMT before sending it. If not, a very happy birthday again.
Where in Surrey? My maternal Granny, Barbara Hutton (no relation, but genuine name), lived in Morden, Hillcross Avenue, until her death in 1955. I can remember our visits as children as vividly as then.
The daily milk float was horse-drawn and we used to give it (the horse, not the float) biscuits pinched from Gran. She was a young lady in 1888. What could she have told us about that time!
Love,
Bob |
Author: Karoline
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 01:25 pm | | From Karoline (with a 'K') to Caroline (with a 'C'):
Dear C:
When you say that 'he' (ie JTR) will be on stage soon, I trust you mean Sooty (the one, the only JTR, as my book makes clear). Any suggestion that the murderer has any other 20th century incarnation is nothing short of the purest madness.
And to Bob C. - Yes, JTR is yellow: about 8 ins tall, with black (fluffy) ears. See the cover of my newest book 'The Sooty Files, from the Templars to Monica Lewinsky' (foreword by Peter Birchwood).
Karoline (with a 'K') |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 02:08 pm | | Hi Karoline,
So, the bounder is also mixed up in Bill's troubles, what? Or had Lewinsky a ....hand in play...
Regards
Bob |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 08:43 am | | I think most people know my stance on this bloody diary, and it hasn't changed, I still think it's real. Whose ever post it was about how the diary explains things too much etc etc...I'd just like to answer that.
I used to keep a diary (I don't anymore, I kept forgetting to write in it) but the couple of years I did write in it I read back on every now and then, just to see what I was up to and I have to say, I explained things in full as best I could, sometimes (lets face it, frequently, who am I kidding) it didn't make sense, sometimes what I wrote was utter crap. Just like the diary. I mean I literally wrote down everything that i did during a day (if it was significant)just for future reference, so in my opinion, I don't think it's so farfetched to think that such a diary as JtR's is a fake because of this fact (although I understand that your reasons go far beyond this).
Also, not meaning to start another war, but Chris George, on your valentines day posting, well, I resent the word duped. Sorry, I'm not being rude, really.
Nikki. |
Author: Caroline
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 09:29 am | | Hi all,
Edana, so glad to see you back. We women are not supposed to get sick!
Did you post those two anon. messages about knowing the name of my suspect?
I am sure my JtR1 and Frank Miles (FM!) would have at least known of each other’s existence, and shared some of the pleasures of the arty-farty society queen set of the 1880s, no doubt. I know of no definite links.
BTW, I couldn’t pronounce Sooty when I was tiny, so he was forever known as ‘Looty’ in our Wimbledon Park home. Hope it turns out to be a Freudian slip!
Bob, dear man, thanks regarding Germania. I will owe you one. Talking of drinks (we were, weren’t we?), you are no doubt correct about those Harvey Wallbangers I’ve grown partial to of late. Galliano is in short supply at my local Off Licences, as Hubby keeps buying up their stock for me. If I have to make do with sloe gin and Southern Comfort, it will be Sloe Comfortable Screws all round, with the inevitable fire-engine impressions thrown in for good measure!
My paternal Grandad lived in Wandsworth most of his life. He was born in 1878 and died in 1962. I remember vividly being introduced to the pleasures of marsala wine, sitting on his knee. I noticed once that he had a hole in the knee of his trousers, and I saw something white beneath, which I asked him about. I nearly died of embarrassment when he chuckled and told me he had long pants on underneath!
I must have been about seven at the time.
I did get your birthday greetings, thank-you very much, and have them printed out as a souvenir (I still don’t feel totally confident that this new-fangled technical stuff will survive intact beyond 31.12.99!)
Hi Karoline, what I meant was that the character I believe my Jack took turns in playing back in the bad old days is appearing in Surrey this weekend, and I shall be there, can’t say more than that for now, sorry.
I have been necessarily criptic, for reasons which will become apparent soon, hope you will trust me, thousands don’t! But I’m hugging it all to myself until the right moment.
At some point I shall be roping in 12 not-so-angry men and women (and a few on stand-by) from the Casebook to act as jury in the case of Crown v Jacks 1 and 2.
At present I have shortlisted: CM as foreman (if we can find him!), Edana, Bob, Karoline, Paul Begg, Yaz, Jeff D, Jules, Peter Birchwood, Chris George, David R, Dela, Rotter and Nikki. Sorry for any I’ve missed. Stephen Ryder could be Clerk of the Court, and I guess I’ll have to be old Abberline or preferably John Stalker. Margaret Rutherford does not appeal, bless her.
Sorry for the long post,
Must dash and do that ironing, though I prefer this board.
Caroline |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 10:55 am | | Hi, Nikki:
Believe me my Valentine comment that people are being daily "duped" by the Maybrick Diary was not aimed at you personally. If I fling slings and arrows at anyone, they are aimed at whomever wrote the diary.
I certainly do not wish to demean anyone who believes in the diary. As you know, I do not believe in its genuineness, for the reasons I have stated at various times. However, it is certainly your privilege to believe it to be authentic.
I yesterday received a review copy of Anne Graham's book, "The Last Victim" about Florence Maybrick as the supposed final victim of Jack the Ripper. I will have more to say about this book in an upcoming issue of "Ripper Notes," the new quarterly newsletter of Casebook Productions, Inc.
*************************************************
To Caroline:
I would be delighted to serve on a jury with the persons you named. We are going to be assembled, I take it, to look at your theory of how the Whitechapel Murders were carried out. Most interesting. I cannot wait. Especially if the liquid refreshment includes Harvey Wallbangers, one of my favorite drinks!
*************************************************
To Nikki again:
To show there are no hard feelings, I would be glad to buy you a glass of your favorite tipple if we encounter each other either at a Cloak and Dagger Club meeting or at our upcoming US conference on Jack, scheduled for New Jersey April 8-9, 2000 (see front page of the Casebook, anyone who is interested, and follow the link to the Casebook Productions, Inc., site).
Chris George
Treasurer, Casebook Productions, Inc.
Vice (ha ha) Editor, Ripper Notes |
Author: Caroline
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 12:00 pm | | Dear Chris,
In the words of Benny Hill: 'Why you no risten?'
No one is going to look at 'theories' at all!
We could not bring the case to court on such a basis (though doubtless England has been guilty of doing just that before now).
If and when I feel I have enough 'evidence', we can then begin prosecution proceedings. Even then, we will have to go some, considering that some members of my jury already have their own suspects and 'theories' firmly entrenched! I think I acted quite fairly in choosing a handful of you, do you get my drift? (I should have been a lawyer!)
And, incidentally, if Robert is listening, I do not go in for 'fantasising' about JtR on these boards. My fantasies are my own affair, and have nothing to do with cut-throats!
If my 'evidence' bears fruit, you may all be invited to the world's biggest ripper piss-up (sorry, soiree) and the drinks (first round anyway) will be on me, so sort yourselves out!
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 12:40 pm | | | Regarding the "Diary", Nikki, and whether or not it would contain this or that or whatever, I think things are hardly ever what we expect them to be. The mundane turns out to be exciting, the thrill turns out to be dull. I think we should always be wary of dismissing something because it doesn't fit a preconception or accepting it because it does. Who was it who said: "Things are seldom what they seem; Skimmed Milk masquerades as Cream"? |
Author: Caroline
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 01:32 pm | | Hi Nikki and Paul,
We always end up talking food these days! Hope you are sticking to skimmed, Paul. I drink gallons of tea with the stuff, and I could not go back to full cream or even semi now.
Hubby taught me the smiley face but I've forgotten it, so you'll have to imagine it.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 18 February 1999 - 02:37 pm | | Paul -
it was Little Buttercup ( in 'HMS Pinafore'), who said 'Things are seldom what they seem/Skimmed milk masquerades as cream'.
And this of course, must be seen as conclusive proof.
Afrer all, didn't Gilbert and Sullivan write their only London-based operetta (the Yeoman of the Guard), in 1888, and wasn't it set in the East End?
I trust I make myself clear. What, after all, is a little buttercup, if not small and yellow?
And what other small yellow suspect can anyone think of?
As you say Paul - things are seldom what they seem.
Caroline -
Can't wait to be on the jury. My publishers (Slime and Wormcast Inc.), would also like to buy up the book, tv, video and movie rights to your suspect for a very handsome sum - particularly if you happen to be related to the person in any way, or happen to find their diary somewhere - say, underneath the floorboards in your dining room.
Something to think about anyway.
Karoline |
Author: Caroline
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 01:58 am | | Karoline,
You do not know how close you are!
Your tongue needs to be prised from your cheek, my dear.
The Yeomen (plural) was set in the Tower of London, but played to packed houses at The Savoy Theatre from 3rd October,1888. The jester's name was Jack Point. He died on stage of a broken heart, wriggling his toes at the end for comic effect to show he was only acting.
My 10 year-old Grandad was among the audience as a regular devotee, probably along with his 'sisters and his cousins and his aunts'!
But no, my suspect is not W S Gilbert!
Hope Slime and Wormcast Inc. are taking note of this tale of c... and bull.
(Unbelievable, I just got the censor's red pen when I typed in the full word beginning with c. Only in America.....)
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 12:36 pm | | Foreword to: "The Sooty Files..."
"If this Diary is a modern forgery - which I am sure it is not - and if I were the faker, then I would consider it to have been the summit of my literary achievement."
PS: Please send my cheque for the above to the Karoline Leach Home for Retired Literary Entrepreneurs.
Caroline:
I'm very good at tracing the next of kin of deranged mass murderers but I'm going to need his name first. Now if the Croydon Roxy is putting on "the Yeoman of the Guard" then we know where we are except I think you might have troubles with him. Maybe you should give a prize for whoever guesses the name of your french-speaking theatrical person with initial JN WG or RC. Aha! Hammersmith!
And it's Psyche in Princess Ida, Act 2.
Paul:
HMS PInafore Act 2: Little Buttercup and the Captain. WS Gilbert and I refuse to believe he was Jack. He's older even than Tumblety!
Peter. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 12:56 pm | | Caroline:
There's a nice town on the GUC chosen by George 3rd as a fortress in case of French invasion because it was the furthest place in England from the sea. But you shouldn't go there if you happen to be an enormously large worker in metal.
Regards, Pooter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 01:05 pm | | "If this Diary is a modern forgery - which I am sure it is not - and if I were the faker, then I would consider it to have been the summit of my literary achievement."
And on the subject of the above quote by Bruce Robinson, speaking of the "Diary", you may care to note that currently in all good bookshops and W.H. Smith you can purchase for £6.99 Bruce's debut novel, The Peculiar Memories of Thomas Penman, (London: Bloomsbury, 1999), which contains two pages of high praise from numerous reviewers, most of whom single out the quality of the prose. It should give you some guidance to whether or not the quote about the "Diary" comes from somebody capable of making an informed judgement or not. I, of course, refrain from comment, merely drawing the book to the attention of such members of this Parish as may be interested. |
Author: Karoline
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 01:27 pm | | Peter - thanks for the plug for my new book, and the quote from your foreword. - Buy it people!! (for every copy sold, 5p goes to the Feldman Trust for Employing Huge Numbers of Researchers to Find Out What Everyone Already Knows).
Re; G&S: I think the implications are truly terrifying. - OCTOBER 1888: Jack POINT! Who DIES at the end of the opera! Has Paul stumbled on Sooty's right hand man? None other than William Schwenk Gilbert? (if that middle name isn't an acronym for something then what is?)
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 02:20 pm | | | Listen lady, I know nuffink about nuffink, see. An I particularly know nuffink about Billy Gilbert. I ain't no nark, neffer ave bin and neffer will be. An I ain't neffer pointed no finger at nobody, eiver. Raised a finger or two, yes, but neffer pointed. So if Billy boy ever gets his coller felt by any ripperphile, it ain't me what said a word. Right! |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 02:13 am | | Do I take it you will all be doing jury service for me?
When you swear your oaths I hope you will be able to do so audibly, with all the cackling going on and all the attempts to talk with tongues in cheeks!
I'm looking forward to it enormously.
And I don't think there is a Roxy in Croydon, but the lawcourts are quait naice.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 10:48 am | | Okay Karoline and Paula,
So I'm a bit slow on the uptake today. I was up at 4am, the central heating failed, I've been serving up cat's meat for Yaz, and I've got my face to put on in about 5 minutes flat (even my brother would sympathise!)
Are we talking some sort of 'fil' rouge here or am I grasping at the wrong Jack straws again?
And Karoline, baby, are you still gonna be in (not like Flynn!) on this?
Love to All (oh well, and Sundry too I suppose, to give my solicitors a plug)
Caroline |
Author: Bob_c
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 07:52 am | | Hi Caroline,
Tell your central heating I say thanks to it for going bust when you could still get bits for it.
My bloody-minded system would have waited until my bank account was at an all-time low on a saturday the 23 rd of December after 5 pm with a house full of far-traveled relatives in the coldest christmas for centuries.
Love,
Bob |
Author: Caroline
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 08:34 am | | We thanked our lucky stars, Bob, that it failed when it did. During the week, with Hubby in Worthing, I would have had to get a man in! As it was, about £70 and a lot of swearing and bucket-wielding was all it took.
Everything seems last minute these days, and yesterday this was certainly the case.
Our evening was superb, our good friend wielded his wok to great effect, then it was off to The Yeomen in time for a swift drink before The Tower swept majestically into view. God knows how, but we had the best seats in the house too.
Wilfred Shadbolt was played to perfection by one, Hammy Sparks, maths teacher at Charterhouse no less! (I'm sure he won't mind a mention here)
Jonathan Hutchins was brill as Jack Point. According to the programme, he has also played King Gama, Bunthorne, and also 'enry 'iggins from My Fair Lady. (OOOOUUUUW, I'm a good girl, I am!)
He has always longed to play Hamlet. I'd love to make his dream come true, as long as he does not have a brother who fancies himself as Ophelia or the gravedigger!
Cheers and lots of luck (which I'm sure you will have soon),
Caroline |
Author: Bob_c
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 09:34 am | | Hi Caroline,
Thanks. And cheers, at least this evening. I will be adding a pound bodyweight or so at the 'Quelle', my watering point.
I have cleaned (at last) all the windows at midday and now it's raining. (*#!!??*')
Love,
Bob |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 06:25 pm | | Hello all!
I know that I've been away for awhile, but i have been trying to get caught up on the boards. Unfortunately, the boards are still a cluster of conversation, so i had some trouble following. Please let me know what we are discussing. I was on a school trip to New York to have a sort of apprenticeship there.
Hi Nikki, Yaz, and Caz. Tell Little Caz I said Hi! |
Author: Caroline
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 07:28 pm | | Hi Shelly!
Great to see you. I'll tell Little Caz you said Hi. She is starting the sequel to her first book for teenagers, and I've yet to be allowed to read the original!
How do you feel about a spot of jury service? If you haven't caught up with all the messages yet, I'll explain soon. Must go to bed, I've been a pumpkin for 45 minutes!
Lots of love,
Caroline |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 07:44 pm | | Good Morning Everyone,
Well it's my first day back at university for the year and I'm dreading it. This is my way of keeping my mind off it.
CG - thanks for the offer of the drink...unfortunately I'm a poor student therefore I'm lucky if I can find enough money to leave the house, never mind the country!!!
Caroline - I would be delighted and honoured to be on your jury - how exiting!! Do we get to ask questions, or is that honour merely bestowed upon the foreman and/or the judge? Really, I'm thrilled.
love Nikki. |
Author: Caroline
Monday, 22 February 1999 - 04:51 am | | Hi Nikki,
I believe it is the custom to be able to pass handwritten questions from jury member direct to judge. I'm sure my brother has done so, with no one even aware that he was poking gentle fun at the system. We have yet to find out who the judge might be. Stephen Fry would be my choice.
However, in the light of recent media shenanigans in England, I am wondering if I could dispense with my jury and invite JtR's mumsy to testify instead.
Imagine the two scenarios:
1. "My Jacky's orlways bin a good boy, 'e 'as, never a moment's trubble, 'e ain't, an' 'e's orlways bin good to 'is muvva."
Prosecution: "Do you know what he was up to with his mates at the time of the murder?"
Defence: "Objection, your HHonour, that's hearsay."
Verdict: Innocent, obviously.
2. "Come to think of it, our Jack did once tie a firework to the cat's tail and laughed until Christmas when Tiddles went 'woof!'"
Verdict: Guilty, hang the bastard.
Conclusion: You'd be better off asking the cat.
I rest my case (I must get some lighter briefs).
I'll have my jury back now please, including you, Nikki.
Love,
Caz |
Author: fKaroline Leach
Monday, 22 February 1999 - 01:21 pm | | Caroline -
of course I'm on your jury, and desperately curious to know where all this is going. Take no notice of my Sooty fixation. the girl can't help it. But I can be serious too. (really,), and wouldn't dream of being facetious in court. (I might be suppressed). Looking forward to the trial, but when do we begin?
Karoline |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Monday, 22 February 1999 - 04:06 pm | | Jury?
I've always wanted to be on a jury.
Nikki: Good luck with school. I too just started my hopefully final master's program.
Hopefully your classes aren't nearly as boring as mine.
Shelly |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 22 February 1999 - 04:14 pm | | Well, this is what I get for not visiting the Maybrick boards! Caroline, I should be honoured to be the foreman of your jury - my eyes are tearing up at the thought anyone thinks that much of my power to discern gold from dross (had to say it that way; stronger stuff not allowed on this website, you know). Hope you see this in time, and you can always get in touch with me through my e-mail, you know.
HOWEVER - I love you, Karoline, but when you toss about the names of Gilbert & Sullivan, you're talking to a fanatic here. Yes, Jack Point does die at the end of "Yeomen," but that wasn't Gilbert's original idea. The fact is that different actors have interpreted Gilbert's stage direction of "Point falls insensible" in different ways, and the librettist seems to have been content to leave Point's fate to the audience to decide as they wished.
Sir Henry Lytton tells us that the creator of the role, George Grossmith, always played the scene for laughs, and it is said Gilbert was oblique in his terminology because Grossmith was incapable of real pathos. He also tells us that Gilbert himself said "Jack Point should die and the end of the opera should be a tragedy." Unfortunately, despite Lytton's recollections almost 44 years after the opera's premiere, the fact remains that Gilbert had plenty of opportunities to change the word 'insensible' to 'dead' if he really wanted to. He never did.
The closest he ever came to a comment on Point's death is when, after seeing Lytton play it as a tragedy, he said "The fate of Jack Point is in the hands of the audience, who may please themselves whether he lives or dies."
Of course, I feel strongly about this, because when I played Point, the director was so averse to tragedy, she altered the ending so that Kate comes over to Point and sings the final verse of "I have a song to sing, O" to him! I swore I could hear the angry shade of Gilbert growling at us every night.
Oh, and "Schwenck?" That was the surname of his godmother, and WSG heartily despised it - just as Sullivan disliked the use of the initials in his Arthur Seymour Sullivan.
Hum. . .think I'll go off and listen to "Princess Ida" now. I love that opera.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Monday, 22 February 1999 - 07:41 pm | | Good Morning again people!!
Hey Shelly!! Haven't heard from you in a while.
Thanks for the boost of confidence for uni...so far so good!!
Caroline...when do we start procedings, I'm really looking forward to this!! Good to hear I can indirectly ask question...very helpful. One question I have now...is yours a known suspect or an unknown one...or aren't you at liberty to say?? (hehehe)
Love Nikki. |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 03:54 am | | Caroline:
Yes, do tell us who we will be judging!
I do hope that it is someone very challenging.
Why did you not ask Anonymous to join?
;o)
Shelly |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 09:00 am | | Caroline, I would love to be on your jury. I can't wait to hear about everything you've been researching!
Gilbert & Sullivan...the only thing I've ever seen by those two is 'Patience" because of my Oscar Wilde obsession. Oh, by the way, Oscar was not JTR, even though he did know how to gut a fish. If your suspect knew Frank Miles, then he must have known Oscar too.
Edana (utterly too too!) |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 10:26 am | | Hi all,
I have been hogging this inappropriate board far too long. Perhaps we should have a separate board for all things Sooty and G & S.
Can I take you all over to a new conversation entitled Twelve Angry Persons?
Ta everso.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 04:15 pm | | Hi All,
Edana asks:
I don't even know what the heck Sooty is.
And BobC answered:
Oh Woe Betide! Edana, we must warn you of one of the most beastial, cunning, vicious little monsters of all time, Sooty, against whom Jack is a gentle praying old Granny stroking her
grandchildren. Together with his perverted pals, he made children's television to hell on
sunday afternoons in the UK in the late fifties.
Sorry folks, but that's the mundane answer. In the interest of getting the historical context correct, please allow me to explain.
Veteran readers will recall the time on the old message boards when a sort of informal contest took place, the object of which was to put forward as JTR the most absurd suspect imaginable, for the most ridiculous, illogical reasons. Appropriately enough, that discussion took place on the Maybrick Diary board.
It was a heady few weeks of inspired silliness, during which a series of outrageous suspects were proposed, each less likely than the last. The culmination came when I posted the seminal work "The Agony of Howdy Doody". However, not to be out-sillied, Karoline had put forth Sooty, offering Puccini's underpants with extant 1888 stains as evidence in support of her theory.
Faced with such irrefutable physical evidence, I was forced to modify my own theory somewhat. Given the obvious phonetic similarity of their names (Sooty/Howdy Doody), and the fact that the two were never seen together, I am now convinced that they were in fact one and the same! The ability to morph between a small hand puppet and a wooden ventriloquist's dummy neatly explains why the witness descriptions were often so contradictory, and why JTR was never caught.
Cheers,
Jim
PS - I told you it was very silly. |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 05:27 pm | | Sorry, you are wrong about Sooty. But some of you will see that I have adopted to Two Jacks Theory. I present my culprits:
 |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 05:49 pm | | Hi Rotter,
Slobodob and Weeeeeeeed is all I can say to that.
I still think Sooty is in there as JtR1, but JtR2 is no longer Corbet or Sweep. My suspect shares his birthday with Cole Porter (obviously the Coal Man, or Sooty) and Donald Duck.
I knew there was something unpleasant about Disney, most of the villains being English!
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 09:09 am | | I feel like I'm in an episode of The Twilight Zone. Caroline, you are asolutely correct. Everything that has to do with Disney is evil incarnate, only the forces of Darkness could conjure a talking duck who shamelessly parades about without any trousers. American morals have suffered long enough from this insidious tripe. Thanks for setting me straight about this Sooty menace. Jim, I am filled with horror, but I see the logic in your theory. Howdy Doody always scared the bejeebles out of me when I was a kid. Rotter, I think I've seen those two culprits hanging around the Mary Poppins ride at Disneyland offering to 'give an 'and up' to middle aged ladies. It is all falling into place.
Edana |
Author: Caroline
Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 10:01 am | | I must admit to feeling certain reservations when a huge pink bunny sidled up to me at Cypress Gardens in 1981 and offered me a juicy carrot so I'd have my photo taken with him. You just don't know who is lurking inside these costumes do you?
Again, we have to have a lot of faith when we take the kids to DisneyWorld etc!
Love,
Caroline |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 07:54 pm | | Caroline,
I have just this minute figured out that you penciled my name in for your jury. How obtuse of me. I would be happy to serve if you like, otherwise fine as well.
David |
Author: Caroline
Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 08:47 pm | | I wouldn't start without you, David old bean.
I wasn't kidding anyone about Cole Porter and Donald Duck sharing birthdays with my very real suspect for JtR1. One of our Christmas pressies was a Monet-inspired birthday book which tells you when famous people were born. I found my suspect's d.o.b. elsewhere.
Also listed together are W.S.Gilbert and Mickey Mouse--I kid you not!
Well, David, if you let me know your birthday, I will reveal all. I share mine with Kim Novak, Peter Tork of Monkee fame (I remember being in row 11 at Wembley in 1967--sigh!) and Robbie Williams.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 12:24 am | | Caroline,
I share my birth day with Mary Jane's death day.
David |
Author: Caroline
Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 04:50 am | | 9th November, eh? I'll have to wait until tonight, 'someone' has borrowed the book for school art class re. the Monet pictures it contains. I share my birth day with Frances Cole's death day.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Caroline
Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 12:06 pm | | Hi David,
You are in illustrious company. you share your birthday with Katharine Hepburn and Carl Sagan.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 01:04 pm | | Dear all -
Sooty is dead - as a suspect at last. For the last eight months , and two books (at least), I have been wrong.
Of course Sooty was not JTR.
As my my newest work (co-written with Peter Birchwood and A. Graham), will reveal, he was a Small Grey alien from the star system Vega, who abducted Florie Maybrick, her husband and the REAL Ripper, and inserted mind-controlling devices into their nasal passages.
The rest is history, and will be revealed when my book is serialised in the Times Literary Supplement next autumn .Until then - I have to declare the reign of Sooty as JTR formally at an end. The debate is over.
Thank you for your attention, and apologies to all those I have unintentionally misled.
Karoline
By the way - the suggestion about Bill and Ben is grotesque, and in the worst possible taste. Let us confine ourselves to reason, or this entire board will degenerate into a farce. |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 26 February 1999 - 03:43 am | | how depressing!!! i go away for a time and
upon my return i find that sooty has been
declared dead and karoline fears this
board will degenerate into farce-dom!!
nothing could be further from the truth.
in actuality, jack was howdy doody in a
sooty suit. this, of course, explains a great deal: why the GSG was written so low
on the wall, why no one was ever caught
(doody is far too short to be noticed by
adults of average height, and children
would not be believed), and the final bit
which stands alone as primary evidence---
i saw doody writing graffiti (does one
WRITE graffiti?) on the wall of the men's
loo at lord's cricket ground (don't ask)
AND what he wrote was this "for a ripping
good time call 1-800-967-JACK".
stephanie's daughter is in the final stages of lego and play-doh testing,
karoline has the underpants--the answers
to all the questions are just around the
corner--wait for them a short time more.
does this sound like someone who ought to
be a jury member to you? |
Author: Caroline
Friday, 26 February 1999 - 04:16 am | | Yeah, Judith, why not? The point about juries is you don't know who you are getting. It doesn't matter who I summons, because I don't know any of them from Adam.
What did the schoolgirl reply when asked what were Eve's first words to Adam?
"Ooh, that's a hard one".
She got a gold star for getting the correct answer.
Can I count on you, Judith, to sail through the more cryptic bits of my evidence, or should I ask steph's daughter when she's finished watching the Exorcist?
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 26 February 1999 - 01:18 pm | | You'll recognise Adam soon enough, Caroline. He's the tall one, usually to be noted holding a pint, and more often than not either thinking about eating a curry, is eating a curry, or has recently eaten a curry. I didn't know that long-time C&D member Eve Gardiner had ever said anything so personal to Adam.
And hiya Judy. All is well, I hope. Do you plan to attend the US JtR convention next year? |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 27 February 1999 - 04:35 am | | Hello back, Caroline and Paul,
I wasn't necessarily asking for jury duty; i've done that four times and it is
a job I do not relish. I was really just
asking the question.
I'll probably run up to see you, Paul,
and buy you a "light" pint--is that an
oxymoron?? But most likely won't stay for any of the seminars (would be glad
to say why in an e-mail, Paul) I hear
you will be there. With bells on? And
VERY healthy??
When does Ross get married? And will you
be there, as well? Give him my regards
and best wishes--and wish his new wife
"good luck"!!! |
Author: Karoline Leach
Saturday, 27 February 1999 - 05:59 am | | Paul - a big 'hiya'! for Judy when she comes back, but nothing for me!. Shame on you. And us jury members together and everything.
You know you love me really, and if you ask nice I might even send you a copy of my book (the one that isn't about Sooty).
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 27 February 1999 - 07:32 am | | Hi Karoline - I wasn't ignoring you or your return, honest! It's just that I have kept quiet about having a Soo soft toy perched on my Ripper bookshelves (Soo being Sooty's girlfriend, for our American bretheren), which some might take as an indication of where my suspicions rest. But Soo hasn't been mentioned by anyone, not even during "Jill the Ripper" discussions, so I thought it best to keep a low profile on anything Sooty. And I said hiya to Judy because, well, you see we've actually met, so I sort of know the face behind the cyber-persona. Judith's really Fred Smith from Billingsgate and is a useful contact if you ever want some cheap rock salmon. And I'd love a copy of your book - when is it out; already isn't it?
Paul |
Author: Caroline
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 05:47 am | | Hi Paul, Judy (where's that Punch these days? Minding the baby? Hope not!) and Kaz,
I trust there will be plenty of 'soft' in the washroom facilities at the C & D for Adam after the curry session.
Er, 'fraid Soo was alluded to by yours truly (see Son of Handwriting board, 16.2.99--03:55am ). Just call me pedantic Polly, everyone else does.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 06:21 am | | Hi all,
Just got back. Will write something when I've had a chance to read new input.
Best greetings, love, and you me too according to character type and gender of all on the board,
Bob |
Author: adam
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 12:20 pm | | Hiya Caz
Nothing that's on offer in Brick Lane can scare a hardened Vindaloo eater like me - apart from that large lady with the white boots. Know the one I mean, Paul?
And answering your question from another board: family from mother; sorry to have burst that particular theory.
Adam |
Author: adam
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 12:22 pm | | Caz - sorry, mother from Manchester. Freudian slip.
adam |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 12:56 pm | | RE; Sooty/Sweep/ Soo. Judy will tell you, they were ALL introduced to these boards last summer by various dedicated researchers into the field of puppet-crime. So Peter and Caroline - you're just runners up.
Pay ATTENTION Peter. Caroline, we'll let you off, since I don't think you were around back then.
(By the way, Caroline I'm NOT 'Kaz'.. It's just a personal thing, but I do hate that name. It's just not my style, darling, though I know it's yours).
Re; your investigations: Have I got this wrong, or did I read somewhere on these boards that you think your to-be-named suspect wrote the Maybrick Diary? Or is this another area of your research altogether?
Liked your comments on another board about the antiquity of our coarse expressions. People do have a tough time believing the Victorians said rude words, don't they. When my play (set in 1910), was in the West End last years one critic had a go at me for using the word 'shag' in the script. He said it was too modern. Of course it was in everyday use in the 19th century.
You're right , they used 'gay', but didn't it mean a female prostitute? I don't think it acquired its present meaning until quite recently.
Did theyreally use 'give him/her one' in the way we do? Interesting if they did. Lends a whole new meaning to one of Lewis Carroll's 'nonsense' poems.
Karoline |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 02:34 pm | | Will someone please tell me who Sooty is?????
Shelly |
Author: Anonymous
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 02:37 pm | | A stupid kids' glove puppet from Brit TV, which shouldn't really be discussed on these boards.
See you lot - it confuses newcomers. |
Author: Caroline
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 03:04 pm | | Sorry Kaz er Karoline,
Henceforth, Strephon, cast away
Crooks and pipes and ribbons so gay
(Just one of the many lines about Iolanthe's son, who is said to be 'half a fairy'.)
I heard the minx remark,
She'd meet him after dark,
Inside St. James's Park,
And give him one!
(Message misheard by Lord Tolloller.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 12:14 pm | | Karoline,
Just a quickie here. Before arriving on these boards, I have only ever been called Caroline, which I prefer really. Caz was convenient because Carly made herself Little Caz, it rhymed with Yaz, for whom I have the greatest respect, and it's a lot quicker for people to type, if they do me the great honour of replying to any of my off-the-wall posts.
Love,
Caroline |
|
|
|
|
