|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through April 14, 2000
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 10:36 am |        | Hiya Caz ( again )! You know something about the Cloak and Dagger don't you ? I am trying to contact Melvyn Fairclough and Lindsey Siviter in relation to talking to Joe Sickert , I've tried contacting him directly but have had no joy. If you can contact either ( via Keith Skinner via Paul Begg ) it would be most helpful to me. Thanks ! My e-mail adress is on the Chapman board , my last post. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 08:29 pm | | Hi Peter,
After giving up on you guys , I was very suprised to hear a faint echo on some of the suggestions i made a week or 2 ago.
I dont know if you managed to read all of what i wrote over that period of 2 or 3 days, but i feel you are missing the point i was trying to say.
I was asking you who else other than Maybrick had such a strong motive to kill people the way he did?
What other suspect matches match to a Psychopath of this nature.
Like I was trying to say, who else was THAT bent on killing and ripping up victims the way he did?
The other suspects I keep seeing popping up can be called Killers,murderers stc blah blah blah.
People like Kürten,nilsen,Chase,Sutcliff,,....
The list is long.
Some of them could be called Psychopaths.
Some of them are sexual Psychopaths.
Or how about this:Paranoid schizophrenic sexual psycchopath.
none of them used the same furiosity and cunning the way jack the ripper did.
That doesnt make sutcliff any better.
His murders were as bad and disgusting as any other murder.
but something stands out in the way the Whitechapel girls were killed.
Strangled, stabbed, cut opened and dissembowelled.
And all this AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME???????
in autumn 1888?
With thousends of uniformed and ununiformed police running about?
People starring out there windows?
He had to make some noise
Be honest, at least a little bit of noise.
Dont forget how quite it must of been then.
No cars,buses,taxis,trucks, planes etc etc
Other than, how many people were running through the streets of whitechapel then, knowing what kind of killer was running about?
Yet he managed all of this without making 1 ounze of noise.
Who could have been that twisted and bent ( and clever) to still take such a risk and still manage to take all the time in the world to do what he did?
Thats where the "other" killers went wrong.
well, to be honest, they did get caught.
The ripper didnt care and wasnt too fussed about being caught or not.
His hatred couldnt be contained.
He wasnt scared either.
In other words, His own life was worthles to him.
He also knew he would die.
Nothing could have stopped him.
He killed untill he ran out of strength.
HE DIDNT KILL HIMSELF.
Thats not the way these people work.
Killers who kill themselves do it all for the same reason.
The reason is obvious.
If they knew they were going to die, the still would kill themselves.
The ripper couldnt have killed himself.
That doesnt fit.
And I think that most of the Ripper suspects dont match with the Kilers profile.
Especially druitt!!!!
You can rule him out together.
the only thing connecting him to the Ripper are the Naughten files and the fact that his body was found "soon" after kellys murder.
At that time he couldnt have been a serious suspect to anyone.
I mean, as far as the police knew then, the rippper was stil at large.
So anyway, all I really wanted to suggest was, that I feel there must be more In-depth work to be done at the other end of the stick; namely....
The pschology and social background of the ripper.
What made him do it?
What lead him to do it?
He DID have a reason?
Just how sick and depraved was he?
The more research into this field is done , the closer you will be to finding the truth.
If you stop and really think about who this guy could have been, the less likely it will be any
"of the other guys"
Given ALL the suspects ever questioned, who other than Maybrick ,fits the profile of the killer based on what we all know about the pyschology of this breed of pschopath?
If you read carefuly between the lines, you will detect his pure hatred for woman OTHER than his own wife.
Bent jealousy drove his fantasy into a world of obsession and deception.
How mad to YOU have to be to be able to even hurt someone?
Mark Goeder |
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 02:54 am | | Hi Peter again,
oops, I missed a few points.
yes peter, I am in Germany. does it make a diference?
I am a british passport holder you know, and I grew up in england.
And no, Im not trying to "PROVE" the book real based on evidence in the book alone as you suggest.
I do hope that I am allowed to make these comments even if I do live in germany :o)
You are wrong Peter. No one has to prove the diary is real.its not my job.
Thats your job.
The jack the ripper case has been closed for 100 years.
You are all opening the story up again, thats why this web-site is around.
Thats why its your job to prove it a fake.
I only look at the facts and compare then to every thing else available.
It seems as if the topic "the diary" is being turned into a daily soap opera by most of the people writing here.
Instead of digging in to the Barrets marriage life, try digging into why the diary was written in the first place.
To be honest,I thought that anyone was allowed to voice his opinion on this web-site.
I thought the idea was to discuss peoples ideas and thoughts.
But I must say there is a little arrogance present in some of the people who are anti- diary.
Every one is entitled to his opinion.
So are you.
But when you weigh it all up,do you realy have a leg to stand on?
No more than I do.
Even If i am the only person who seems to see the diary as something genuine.
Do you take anyone seriously who believes the diary is not a fake?
Or is it common,to push people aside who dont share your opinion?
I was not trying to "PROVE" the diary real.
I am only weighing up the evidence from another angle.
I hope you understand.
From sunny old Frankfurt
Mark Goeder :o)
The diary has surfaced like most of the other evidence.
It still has to be taken seriously. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 06:17 am | | Hiya Simon!
Just sneaked in while my little gal is enjoying a lie-in. I’m slowly getting used to my laptop while our usual computer is off sick, but I have no email access and everything is ten times slower.
Of course the Maybrick Diary author is meant to be the eponymous Jim. I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I was just looking beyond the usual fraud v genuine debate, wondering if there was not a third quite innocent path we could follow, where someone (other than the usual suspects) was simply experimenting with a work of fiction, never intending it to be taken literally, let alone taken to be published by a bemused Mike Barrett.
I think we have to be very careful before we speculate on the reasons for Anne and Mike’s marriage break-up. Page 281 of Shirley Harrison’s updated paperback tells us that Anne left Mike, taking her daughter Caroline, on January 2nd, 1994, because she could no longer cope with her husband’s drinking. He was ‘lonely, hurt and desperate to see his daughter.’ Peter Birchwood suggests drink and violence had been factors for some years. The diary stuff no doubt didn’t help matters. However, unless you have had experience of living with a heavy drinker, it is sometimes difficult to understand the sustained effort to keep the marriage going, often for the children’s sake, the gradual wearing-down process, and terrible crisis points, any of which can lead to one partner calling it a day. There are no simple answers and the subject should not be treated superficially by the likes of us on a public website IMHO.
I agree that money did not seem to be Mike’s primary concern by mid 1994. Confessing to forging the diary, as I said before, seems like a crazy move if it led to fewer book sales and smaller royalty cheques. But you really can’t write things like ‘…the urge to disassociate himself [Mike] from the Diary is almost certainly his primary concern in the matter’, when we just don’t know what concerned him most! And I still have a huge problem with your logic that someone who claims to have created the diary, ‘the world’s greatest forger’ no less, is disassociating himself in any way, shape or form! Sorry, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I agree about the handwriting checks. Perhaps we can find out if these were done on all the people you mention, and what conclusions were drawn. I managed to find, on page 154 of Feldman’s book, that Devereux’s daughter Nancy Steele confirmed the diary was not in her father’s hand, and that his will supported that. Peter tells us there are plenty of examples of Mike’s writing floating about, but he is still being coy about Anne’s, and is not giving us any opinion of how either compares with that in the diary. Even a layperson’s view would be something! They express it often enough when it comes to Maybrick’s writing, but appear to fall back on a ‘not qualified’ stance when it comes to their little bunch of ‘accused’. Perhaps I’m being unfair, we’ll see if we can winkle an objective opinion or two out of ‘em.
But I have a feeling that if Anne, Mike, Billy (or even Albert’s) normal handwriting resembled that of the diary to the untrained eye, we would not still be asking these questions.
You can contact Paul Begg, as the current editor of The Ripperologist, who may be able to put you in touch with Melvyn or Lindsey. His email address is editor_ripperologist@yahoo.com
Delightful to find we have something else in common. Not only do we both think the diary is not Maybrick’s, we’ve both quoted from Dr Hook and Viz! Finbarr Saunders and his double entendres is right up my alley.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 06:58 am | | Being a country lad , Falmer Palmer was my favourite character ( ' Get orff moi land ! ) but I also liked Student Grant and the adventures of Black Bag , the most wonderful parody of 1960's comic stories ever. Viz must be a cultural institution now , having been going for over 20 years. Wow ! We'd better stop talking about Viz now because US posters will have no idea what we are going on about ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 07:27 am | | Hiya again Caz ! I agree with you that I probably speculated wrongly about the break-up of the Barrett's marriage , if drink and violence were involved then we shouldn't go into it any further. The problems over the Diary probably exacerbated matters and brought everything to a head , best let it rest at that. The Diary could be a third-person work of fiction but it seems very unlikely that someone would pick James Maybrick as the Ripper for that work. Why not one of the better known characters ? Its possible that it could have been created as inspiration by a novelist , a sort of prop like Walter Sickert's red handkerchief , but I don't know of any novel which features Maybrick so I think it unlikely. Didn't McCormick write a book on Florrie Maybrick ? Perhaps he used his research to create the Diary in the hope of one day peddling it as genuine , but he never got around to it : who knows what else could be floating around out there then ? But then Billy Graham must have been lying about recieving the book from the solicitor in 1943... I agree its confusing about Mike and his confessions to forgery. Personally , I'm totally confused about most things ! I suppose he did forge it then along with Anne , however I think there is some room for doubt that he was involved. Finally , I must apologise to everyone for making so many mistakes and stupid assertions recently , its the end of term and I'm really tired so perhaps I should go and have a rest. Only two months ago I was convinced the case was solved in ' The Ripper and the Royals '. Ha! What a fool I was ! Now I really don't know what to think anymore , but I shall keep trying to post interesting ideas on these boards : following Sturgeon's law 90% of it will be crap but I hope the remaining 10% will be of use to people. Bye for now then and love and peace to everyone , Simon |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 11:53 am | | Mark:
"I was asking you who else other than Maybrick had such a strong motive to kill people the way he did?"
I'm assuming you mean JtR when you say "he." The answer is simply that Maybrick had no motive. The only thing that says that he did is the diary. Like I said earlier, you can't prove that the diary is true by relying on statements within it. Also you can't accuse JM of being a psychopath: there is absolutely no evidence for it. You are also making too much of the comments concerning the noise factor in the streets of Whitechapel. We simply do not know how quiet or noisy it was then except from all written descriptions, there seem to have been a number of people milling about, community singing, deliveries etc. Perhaps Jon or some of our other experts could give us an idea of the sound of metal hitting bone.
"Given ALL the suspects ever questioned, who other than Maybrick ,fits the profile of the killer based on what we all know about the pyschology of this breed of pschopath? If you read carefuly between the lines, you will detect his pure hatred for woman OTHER than his own wife. Bent jealousy drove his fantasy into a world of obsession and deception."
And here you go again. Only if you assume that the diary is the true voice of James Maybrick can you make these judgements. Please see what I wrote above. All we know of the historical James Maybrick is what came out during and shortly after his wife's trial for his murder and none of that information gives any clue whatsoever to him being a deranged serial killer rather than a rather commonplace late Victorian business-man whose only claim to fame was the nature of his death. Please remember that the diary can reliably be traced back less than ten years. The chances of it being anything other than a recent forgery are vanishing small.
And Mark, please forgive me if I have misunderstood you in anything. If I have, please point it out. I was assuming from your details that English might not be your first language. The situation on these boards is of course that most people believe that the diary is forged. The main interest is finding out who forged it and if possible proving it.
"To be honest,I thought that anyone was allowed to voice his opinion on this web-site"
Of course it is. That's why I have written many words on why I believe the diary to be a fake. You can disagree with them (as I suspect you do) and I'm sure that you don't object to me disagreeing with you in similar circumstances. Maybe we are both a little arrogant.
Peter |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 11:54 am | | Caroline Anne:
"Handwriting: well there are in existence plenty of samples of both Barrett's handwriting in the form of contracts, letters etc"
Coy? I think the above says exactly what I meant. And in this laymans opinion, neither Barretts handwriting looks like the diarists. And the Devereux holographic will also doesn't look like it.
Peter. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 01:20 pm | | hi there again Peter,
wow!, you realy like quoting.
Let me please put one little thing right.
I ve been in Germany now since 1978.
thats when I left school.
that was also the last time I wrote anything in English.
After speaking and writing german for the last 22 years, My english grammar leaves a lot to be desired.So please try to overlook my terrible spelling.
I have just read your Profile and I am baffled.
I would realy love to know the reason why you list poor old Druitt as yourmain suspect.
Please do me the favour and leave me a few hints.
I dont think I am as qualified as you on the matter of forensic science, but I would realy like to learn your views on the psychology of people like the ripper( or Maybrick...he he he)or Sutcliff.What makes the Druitt case so strong to you?
By the way, if we are both arrogant, thats fine with me.Have a beer on me.
you said that not much was known about maybrick at the time, other than the details given at his murder trial.
Dont forget what you are saying here.
He was murdered by his wife.
He loved his wife.
he was obsessed by her.
Why would she kill him?
I would like some answers to this one.
The fact that the handwriting doesnt match does not prove a thing.
If you want more prove, I will be glad to show you something that might just make you think.
And the noise in the streets?
how sure can you be that there were people having a good old sing song in the streets of Whitechapel knowing that that there was a maniac stalking the streets at night.
To be honest, I bet you the streets were empty!
Please read my first message again from yesterday evening.
I asked may questions as to who could of been in such a state of mind to perform such a gross act whilst risking his identity at the scene of the crime.
I am trying to put this puzzle together.
I am currantly reading some info on Peter Sutcliff.
What made this guy tick?
I cant get to the bottom of it.
I am sorry if I am getting on your nerves, but I am pretty hard guy to convince.
I dont even think you are trying to convince me that the diary is a fake
Thats your opinion, and I realy do respect it.
thanx for taking the time Peter
have a good one
Mark |
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 01:28 pm | | Hi again Peter
PS.
I know im a bit out of my depth here.thats because I design Industrial kitchens,, so go easy on me please
Mark |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 02:37 pm | | Caz,
Do you still believe that Weedon Grossmith was Jack the Ripper and forged the 'diary' to frame Maybrick?
Mark,
Are you saying there was only one man in the whole of Britain in late 1888 who had a motive for killing prostitutes?
How do you know? |
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 04:43 pm | | caz.
no I am not.
If you read what I said, I was only saying that he is the most likely to fit the profile as opposed to people like druitt, etc.
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 04:19 am | | Hi Mark,
Karoline is not caz!
I read something about Peter Sutcliffe, don't know if it was part fact, part speculation. But the gist of it was that he once caught his wife (Sonya-sp?), before they were 'an item', in a car smooching with a boyfriend, and this made him extremely jealous. Obviously the speculation part would be concerned with whether this gave Sutcliffe a motive to kill women who often get into cars with strange men.
Hi Simon,
Wish I could get around to reading the latest Viz. :-)
I don't recall Billy saying he got the diary from a solicitor, I'm sure it was supposed to have been given him directly by his step-mother, because his step-grandmother (Elizabeth Formby) wanted him to have it, along with some other bits and bobs.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your opinion regarding the Barretts' handwriting! Phew, we got there in the end, didn't we, and no bones broken, eh? :-)
Hi Karoline,
I haven't been able to find much more on old Weedon yet, I'm still waiting for the results of a couple of book searches, but probably won't get enough to take this one further for now.
Weedon's brother George spent part of his honeymoon in Aigburth, but I know where that sort of coincidence gets me, not very far! :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 04:57 am | | Caz-
Quote:Mick Sutcliffe [Peter's elder brother - GH] was working in a trench with a pickaxe one day that year [1969, two to three years after Peter and Sonia became an item], widening the main road on the southern perimeter of Bingley, when a white sportscar with a flamboyent young couple in it caught his eye. "There were a scarf blowin' off of bird in passenger seat, a sort of silk job blowin' over top, an' I just fuckin' realised who it were when she got level. It were her."
"I don't like sayin' owt" he said to Peter as soon as he got in, grinning from ear to ear, "but I don't like her anyway so I'm goin' to tell you: Sonia were in a fuckin' sportscar with a feller this afternoon, coming down Cottingley Bridge. Likely they'd been to Morcambe for the day." He continued in this vein for some time, "niggling" his brother, until something about the look on Peter's face told him he had better stop. It was an episode that was never mentioned again.
Gordon Burn, Somebody's Husband, Somebody's Son, p.103
After this, Sutcliffe apparently confronted Sonia, who confirmed that she had been seeing the Italian owner of the sportscar. To "level the score", Sutcliffe picked up a prostitute in Lumb Lane, Bradford, who cheated him out of money. When he challenged her about this again later, she ridiculed him in public, and later again, became the victim of the so-called "rock-in-the-sock" attack - Sutcliffe's first documented attack on a woman.
Off-topic, I know, but you asked!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 05:55 am | | I read the Diary in its entirety last night and found it (again) singularly lame. All the 'event dropping'. The underscored "ha ha"s that are supposed to bring the "Dear Boss" letter to mind. The cheesey bit about forgetting the chalk and the rough drafts of the (what? as if they were needed!) Goulston Street Graffiti. The melodramatic signing of "Jack the Ripper". The name dropping of the children. The stupid extemporaneous references. The throwing in of everything but the kitchen sink...
What about the nights the Ripper didn't find a victim? Why aren't there incoherent ramblings about the "going home empty handed" nights in October?
The Diary simply doesn't have the ring of truth to it. This was a hack hoax by someone with a cursory knowledge of the Ripper murders. I approached it with an open mind, but this is bad bad bad literature..... Really the only mystery left is to find the forgers and to expose them.
(sorry for the spleen)
RJP |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 06:59 am | | Spleen taken without offence, RJ.
Sorry to drag things off topic again, but I just spotted an error in my previous message. Apparently, the "cheating" prostitute was not the same one attacked with the loaded sock. By this point, it seems, any woman who could be construed as a prostitute was seen as a fitting target for Sutcliffe. And with that, I hand back the board to its proper purpose. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 05:32 pm | | | Its disgusting that RJP and Guy are passing bodily organs around on these boards ; could anyone out there stop this dreadful behaviour ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 05:32 pm | | | Its disgusting that RJP and Guy are passing bodily organs around on these boards ; could anyone out there stop this dreadful behaviour ? |
Author: Mark Goeder
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 08:34 am | | hallo K(c)aroline,
sorry for the mix up.
If the diary is true(and I still think it is), there are more parallels linking the Sutcliff story to Maybrick then we all think.
Bent jealousy and voyeurism put together with a sick mind can create a monster.
Its not been proved that Maybrick wasnt a very sick man.
Its not been proved that he wasnt jealous.
Am I realy the only one who at least haf believes the Diary can give us a lot of answers.
If Sutcliff hadnt been caught and 20 years later his diary was to surface, how many people would try to tear the story into pieces?
Would anyone believe it?
Mark |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 09:18 am | | Hi Caz,
thanks for the background info. I am a little out of touch with all this.
What you're saying basically is -
could the diary have been forged by the _real_ ripper in an effort to frame Maybrick.
Does the date of the ink support this idea?
When did Weedon Grossmith die?
Can anyone prove he wasn't in Whitechapel at the time?
By the way - have you seen 'Topsy Turvy?' It has your guy in it I believe. I haven't seen it - the idea of one of Mike Leigh's improvs surrounding Gilbert and Sullivan's music is just too much for me.
Mark,
apologies. I guess you are right, there's no proof that James Maybrick didn't hate whores more than anyone else alive in the country at the time.
But how do you know Caz isn't right - that the _real_ ripper forged the diary and then hid it somewhere - to implicate Maybrick and get himself off the hook?
Can you prove it didn't happen?
I think we all have to be open-minded.
Karoline |
|
|
|
|
