|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 24, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through May 24, 2000
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 11:16 am |        | Reasons for me to be cheerful:
I am still waiting for my daily " grilling". |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 12:43 pm | | | How would you like it, medium or well done? |
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 01:17 pm | | I would like it rare!!
:-) |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 01:17 pm | | | I believe we are out of stock today. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 04:14 am | | Hi Guy,
Yeah, it does look like Mike was taking Feldy's ideas about the will, getting them slightly arse about face, and weaving them back into his own story of how he wrote the diary. I was simply reporting my recollection of the conversation on that unilluminating evening.
Perhaps all the interested attendees, including myself, should have taken Mike to one side after the interview to ask our own questions and seek more information. Oh well, an opportunity missed, though I must admit I probably bottled out for good reason. :-)
You wrote:
'The fact remains that the failure to match known examples of Maybrick's handwriting (other than the will) would be enough on its own to convince most document examiners that the document was a forgery...'
For 'a forgery' I would prefer 'not the genuine article'. Isn't a 'forgery' usually defined as an attempt to pass something off as the work of someone else? The handwriting issue by itself does not support this.
Just a small observation.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 04:47 am | | Caz -
you wrote:
Isn't a 'forgery' usually defined as an
attempt to pass something off as the work of someone else?
Isn't that exactly what the "Diary" is? An attempt to pass off a recently-composed (by which I mean post-1987, but which would still be a valid term even if it could be dated back to to 1920s - a good 30 years or more after Maybrick's death) document as the work of someone else, ie. James Maybrick? All my reading on the matter suggests that "forgery" is an appropriate term for this kind of item.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 05:16 am | | Hi Guy,
I was simply picking up on your specific point that the handwriting would be enough 'ON ITS OWN' to convince document examiners it was a forgery.
I think you are agreeing with me now, that the rest of the picture is needed for anyone to come to such a conclusion.
Sorry for being pedantic. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Susan Neuroth
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 11:36 am | | Pardon me, everyone , for intruding on your conversation. I have been following all of this for a few months, and am compelled to say a few things.
Please forgive any ignorance which might show.
Jill, in your answer to Mark on May 11, you discount jealousy as a motive. You stated "I also cannot see the link between being jealous and because of it hate women in general. You can have two reasons of being jealous. You are jealous in general because of low self esteem created by trauma. Or you are jealous becuase your wife is cheating on you."
Surely, you can't believe that that is all there is to jealousy......like most things in life, it is not nearly that simple. (I'm sorry, but Im not a person who believes that everything a person does can be explained by their childhood and upbringing....that is a cop-out.)
You are discussing a human emotion, and to believe you can classify it, and how it will or won't make you react, is a bit unrealistic. When it comes to any human emotion, if it is felt strongly enough,,,you cannot predict it.
It is perfectly possible for a man...and possible that Maybrick was one of them... to hurt people because of it.
Just think for a moment that Maybrick was JTR,,that he did have a hand in killing those women...you asked how he could still love his wife if he was so full of jealousy and hate that he would hurt someone else....and that is a point that Mark was trying to make( I think,,correct me if Im wrong, please, Mark).... notice that his wife was the one person whom he didn't harm. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 02:02 pm | | Hi, Susan:
Guy Hatton, who has studied the Yorkshire Ripper case, may wish to comment upon this, but there is a strong theory that Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, committed his murders because of hatred of his wife, Sonia. Look at http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk/lifewithsonia.htm
I am not a believer in the Maybrick-as-Jack the Ripper scenario and do not believe the Diary is a genuine document, but we should be aware that the serial killer's attitude toward his spouse might be a factor in that killer's serial murders.
Chris George |
Author: Keith Skinner
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 05:10 am | | Sunday May 14th 2000
Response To Caroline Morris
Dear Caroline,
Am I right in thinking that you and I briefly met at the 'Smoke & Stagger' last year - and that you are the 'Gilbert & Sullivan' lady?
I saw Stewart (Evans) in London on Friday (May 12th) and he very kindly gave me some material from the Casebook Message Boards which had recently been 'posted' (I believe that's the correct term?).
Let me first of all confirm my position over the alleged Maybrick Journal. I firmly do not believe it to be a modern hoax, neither am I persuaded that it was written by James Maybrick, or that Maybrick was the Ripper. Very simply, I believe it to be an old document, in need of explanation, because if it did exist prior to 1987 - and I do believe Anne Graham's testimony - then it intrigues and worries me. I'm puzzled as to where the internal content (Maybrick and Ripper) has been obtained, when set in historical context, because I do not think some of the source material was in the public domain. So, for me, Paul Begg's three important questions remain unanswered; who wrote it? why was it written? when was it written?
That said, I recognise this overview puts me in an impossible position. On both sides of the Atlantic I have the combined weight of expert opinion from Ripper authorities gainst me, (and quite probably the majority of contributors to this board), all telling me I am mistaken and that the Journal is patently and obviously a modern, amateurish fake. One of my colleagues goes further and states "it is impossible for the document to have existed prior to 1987. For it to have done so means it is genuine." This is a powerful statement to make and rests on informed analysis. It would be foolish and arrogant of me to dismiss all of this contra-opinion, but something is wrong somewhere. I cannot go the distance Mark Goeder (or indeed Professor Rubinstein) do in their beliefs, but I can say to Mark that I know what it feels like to fighting a lone crusade! Essentially, if it is a modern hoax, then my whole assessment of Mike Barrett, Anne Graham, Billy Graham, Caroline Graham and Albert Johnson (which I am constantly testing, in terms of their human behaviour pattern) crumbles and I am looking at people who have, effortlessly, sustained a conspiracy for nigh on eight years. There is nobody else in the frame (that I am aware of) and so the accusation of a modern hoax is synonymous with saying, these people are responsible for both the Journal and the Watch.
To underscore the point: I cannot debate this document on historical grounds whilst its status remains undetermined. To do so, I believe, is irresponsible as it undermines our primary sources. But I consider it equally irresponsible to leave the Journal hanging around in limbo whilst there are people still alive who can provide us with answers. This, I think, is where the focus of any investigation should centre itself - and it is what I have been concerned with since August 1994.
From what I have read, (Stewart's material commences from May 6th 2000), I am at a loss to understand what you mean by "Keith's letter and telephone conversation with Anne, at a time when the diary project was in jeopardy." I note this information appears to originate from Peter Birchwood which has "left question marks regarding [my] role in the diary investigation and [my] involvement with Anne Graham..." This would be completely consistent with Mr Birchwood inferring last year that I condoned the practice of working with a birth certificate, in Paul Feldman's possession, which had been altered. Well, there is no suspicious letter or telephone call to Anne Graham, just as there is no tampered document. If Mr Birchwood can substantiate any of his innuendo, which I suspect is calculated to raise suspicion about me, then I invite him to submit it to the board.
To Peter Birchwood I would say - by all means criticize me for mistakes I have made. By all means expose errors for which I have been responsible. We learn from this and all of us, I think, would wish to have accurate information and facts, upon which we can construct our theories.
On which note, I see that Peter Birchwood has apparently established that "Elizabeth (Granny) Formby lived in Everton in 1881, making it unlikely that she would have known Alice Yappity Yapp, the Battlecrease nurse who attended Florie's trial?"
This seriously conflicts with my own research which places the Formby family at the same address in 1881 and 1891. Moreover, between circa 1881 and circa 1884, Elizabeth (Granny) Formby and Alice Yapp lived just under half a mile from each other for a period of two years.
Now, Mr Birchwood is a professional genealogist (I am not) and it is therefore possible the basic information given to me by Anne Graham about her family - from which we traced back her ancestral line - was suspect, or I have identified the wrong family. It is incumbent on me to check and if I am in error the board will be the first to know.
Caroline, I haven't really answered any of your questions, but as you presumably live in London, would you like to contact me and I'll be more than happy to talk with you about my part in the investigation? I'm afraid I cannot spare the time to participate in lengthy written exchanges - and it would also mean that Stewart would have to act as postman. You can obtain my details from the Ripperologist office, via Paul Begg.
All good wishes,
Keith Skinner |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 05:25 am | | Chris, Susan et al. -
I would hardly class myself as an authority on the Yorkshire Ripper case - my interest in it has only recently been re-kindled (after living in Leeds during the last two-and-a-half years of Sutcliffe's "reign of terror") - but I may be able to help out with the odd detail gleaned from my reading on the matter.
With regard to Sutcliffe's alleged hatred of his wife, Sonia, a few couple of can be "definitely ascertained":
Firstly, it is known that prior to their marriage, Sonia had an affair with an Italian man, to Peter's obvious displeasure. Nonetheless, it is self-evident that any jealousy engendered by this affair was sufficiently overcome to allow them to move forward to a full marriage partnership.
Secondly, it is often reported that Sonia's domestic fastidiousness and cleanliness approached obsession, and that Peter was nagged or henpecked as a result.
In the first instance, a common response from the man might be to have sex with another woman in retaliation; this apparently is what Sutcliffe intended to do with the prostitute who cheated him out of five pounds. The claim that is usually made is that it was this humiliation, rather than the jealousy caused by Sonia's affair, which sowed the seeds of his hatred of prostitutes (or any woman he could construe as a prostitute). However, as I have pointed out above, Sutcliffe's choice of early victims does not square easily with the concept of a "prostitute killer". The attack on Tracy Browne in particular militates against it - a schoolgirl attacked in Silsden, a small rural town well away from any known red-light area. Later attacks also deviate considerably from the "prostitute killer" pattern; eg. Josephine Whittaker, Marguerite Walls, Upadhya Bandara, Jaqueline Hill, not only in choice of victim, but also in locale.
In the second instance, I would suggest that the usual response (if there is one at all - often there is not) is domestic violence; and yet there is no evidence (to my knowledge) of this ever having happened.
Chris recommends reading the material at yorkshireripper.co.uk. I would have to qualify this by pointing out that this site is run by Noel O'Gara, the author of a book, The Real Yorkshire Ripper, which expounds a markedly renegade theory of the murders, in which Sutcliffe is a copycat, and the bulk of the killings and other attacks are the work of a former employee of O'Gara by the name of William Tracey. The version of events given by O'Gara should therefore be approached with EXTREME CAUTION. Many of his claims do not square with documented facts, he is inconsistent and self-contradictory, and apparently impervious to correction (see postings by myself and a very well-informed Canadian gentleman, Keith Brannen, and O'Gara's replies, on the message board). A better introduction to the case can be foud at crimelibrary.com. Generally speaking, O'Gara occupies a similar position in relation to Yorkshire Ripper studies to that of Paul Feldman in our own circle, except that Feldman at least must be given credit for employing respected researchers and advisors, even if he appears to ignore/misinterpret what they tell him very often.
Susan makes a good point that most serial killers of women very noticeably do not harm their own spouse or partner (it is for this reason amongst others that I do not consider Joseph Barnett a good candidate for the Whitechapel Murderer). It can be seen in Sutcliffe, Peter Kurten, and many others. It seems, on the other hand, that Maybrick may have vented his frustration on Florence on occasion (though the evidence is not particularly well supported).
You will notice that I have stopped short of attempting to draw conclusions from the above. I leave that in the hands of someone with a better grounding in psychology than myself.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 05:37 am | | Keith -
Many thanks for your valuable clarification above. As the primary "respected researcher" referred to in my post above, your contributions (as and when you are able to make them) are very welcome indeed.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 06:26 am | | Hello Susan,
I must admit I'm not an expert on jealousy: I can recall only a few instances of jealousy, once on my second birthday (because of feelings of injustice together of feeling guilty about being jealous I still remember it) and when I was a teenager I was jealous of my best friends that attracted so much attention of guys, whie I thought I was not (not 'I thought'). I am now a person devoid of jealousy.
But I can speak of what I observe. There are people who are constantly jealous for their partner, only talking with somebody else can set them of. This is what I would call unreasonable jealousy, instanced from feeling unsafe within the relationship. They either have a just reason for it, because the actual partner had deceived them in the past, or they do not when it stems from being deceived in a former relationship or by feelings of inferiority (aka "Yeez, I'm so lucky to be with this person, how in the h**l did I get him/her to notice and love me, since I'm not that beatiful/nice/good/smart/..."). You certainly must admit that in all three, the jealousy stems from experiences in those persons history in life. Also feelings of inferiority are only the perception of yourself. How one looks at himself originates of past experiences with the interaction with other people. Bad ones, when you have low self-esteem.
In all three occasions, the general direction of the reaction is the partner. I admit there can be exceptions, but there is need of more for the make up of a SK.
What you didn't know was what I wrote in my mail to Mark and it greatly explained how the mind is affected by bad experiences, especially when they occurred at a young age. Their is a difference on how the mind reacts to trauma (even little ones) at certain ripement of the mind. Childrens first defence is a dissociate reaction, which can result in severe damage (either to others or to oneself). A grown-up on the other hand who had a rather smooth youth (note 'rather') has learned other defense techniques to handle trauma. Both can get a low self-esteem by trauma. For an SK their is need of dissociative behaviour, thus repeated trauma at young age, and thus a very low sefl-esteem plus trying to manipulate the outward world (imposing ones fantasies on to others).
Maybrick's jealousy according to the diary is a very reasonable one, therefor not usable as solely reason to turn into a SK, we need a long term low self-esteem for that and dissociative behaviour.
There are such indications of low self-esteem relating to a young age because of the fantasy world he lives and wants to live in via his being hypochondric and the drug abuse. Thus we have low self esteem, and indicatives of dissociative behaviour. But those indicatives are not related to wanting to hurt others, but himself. And such he is not an SK, but a masochist.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 07:58 am | | I would say the following things stand in Maybrick's favour as being a SK : Although he was around 50 at the time of the crimes , and does not fit the FBI profile , this does not preclude Maybrick being a serial killer. Rememer John Reginald Christie. My hypothesis then : Maybrick's young wife is having an affair and he has no sexual relationship with her. He thus feels a sexual failure. Thus he is consumed by anger and humiliation , leading him to rely further on the arsenic. He wants to kill his wife but he cannot , thus he takes his revenge on the class of woman he feels she belongs to. The writing of the ' F.M. ' on the wall of the final victim stops the killings ; with the final victim he has named her as his wife and somehow he believes he really has killed his wife. This gets it out of his system ( although if he had lived longer he may have started killing again ). Secondly , as I have tried to show elsewhere , I believe the patterns of the killings show a killer who initially did not know Whitechapel that well , hence the Nichols murder being found well away from the other killings. Maybrick might have restricted his activities in the North because ' a dog doesn't poo on its own doorstep ' Thirdly , the imbibing of the arsenic gave Maybrick the stamina and daring he needed to commit the crimes. I have another theory about the Diary as well. The Diary was faked yes , but it could have been faked by someone to deliberately incriminate Maybrick. This was either someone who knew that Maybrick had commited the crimes but had no evidence to prove he did it , thus faked the Diary to ensure justice would be done years later. Or it was faked to throw suspicion on another candidate by someone involved in the crimes. The crucifix suggests this may be so , with its skull and crossbones. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 01:36 pm | | Hi Jill,
I ve just finnished writing the base of my theory in more detail and have posted it to you direct as a file attachment, so dont be worried about the virus thing :o)
Mark |
Author: Mark Goeder
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 01:54 pm | | Jill,
The mail returned as your mail server coulnt be found, do I have the right E Mail adr. ?
Mark |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 02:50 pm | | Good-day Keith:
Now a conspiracy means that you have more than one person involved. You have mentioned a list of persons: "Mike Barrett, Anne Graham, Billy Graham,Caroline Graham and Albert Johnson" who you believe in and whose characters you cannot doubt. That's very loyal of you but we do not have to believe that they combined in a plot to foist the diary and the watch on us. And why don't you include Albert's brother Robbie in the list? If you want to investigate whether any of the above had hands in the diary or watch affair, then you have to check everybody's character.
Now you should not make too much of Caroline Anne Morris' statements. I don't think I have questioned your role in Diary research, understanding, as you have explained to us before, that you were paid by Paul Feldman and thus did what research he wanted whether you believed in its likelihood or not, and if this, plus your work with various authors and your specialist work in Police archives does not make you a professional genealogist, then what does? Really, Keith when you say: "Now, Mr Birchwood is a professional genealogist (I am not)" this is really sophistry of some degree of magnitude.
And your statement: "This would be completely consistent with Mr Birchwood inferring last year that I condoned the practice of working with a birth certificate, in Paul Feldman's possession, which had been altered" is nonsense as I have in the past that it was you that queried the certificate and brought it to the attention of the people at the meeting. I would have thought that this is hardly condoning the odd affair. I do not criticise your professional genealogical work: you have made errors but those errors are of the sort that anybody handling a large number of genealogical investigations as you and I both do in our professional work can make. If we're lucky, we pick up on our mistakes later: if we're not, someone else points them out to us!
I thank you for giving me permission to publish your letter of the 11th May 1994 addressed to Mrs Anne E. Barrett under your stamped letterhead of "Causeway Resources (Historical Research.) Your 1998 letterhead with its sub: "Genealogical and Historical Research," is much nicer. Provided I can work out how to place this letter on the Casebook message board, it should accompany this. If it doesn't appear, I do appologise; I'll get it on sometime in the next day or so.
I can of course put the 1881 Formby census here which I'm sure you will recognise:
Dwelling: 38 Lundie St
Census Place: Everton, Lancashire, England
Source: FHL Film 1341879 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 3668 Folio 61 Page 24
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Donald FORMBY M 35 M Liverpool
Rel: Head
Occ: Cook (N D)
Elizabeth FORMBY M 27 F Kidderminster
Rel: Wife
Edith FORMBY 4 F Liverpool
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Donald FORMBY 3 M Liverpool
Rel: Son
Alic FORMBY 8 m F Liverpool
Rel: Daur
Seems to agree with the details given, doesn't it? As I have said in the past, the family story about Elizabeth Formby knowing Alice Yapp may be correct: I don't think that we can say one way or another at the moment. If it is a Graham family story then you should consider that that might be what suggested the idea of putting Maybrick in the frame for the Whitechapel murders. What you really need to prove that the diary is old is some document provably earlier than the date the diary first reliably appeared which confirms some part of Anne Graham's story. I would suggest you interview other members of the Graham family but you've probably done that, haven't you? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 02:55 pm | |  |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 23 May 2000 - 12:49 pm | | Keith Skinner has requested that I post the following on his behalf, as he is not on the Internet:
To Guy Hatton
Guy – Thank you very much for your kind comments. As with Stewart (Evans), “I’ll try to drop in when I can”, providing Caroline doesn’t get fed up with being a relay service!
Best Wishes
Keith Skinner
To Simon Owen
Simon – I’ve read with interest your various theories and observations about the ‘Diary’. Remember, the moment you start to try and explain this document in terms of an old fake or, as Mark Goeder, the authentic journal of James Maybrick, that is the moment when you are challenged with the crucial question of how it came into Mike Barrett’s possession. As I explained to Caroline, acceptance of Anne Graham’s testimony immediately puts you into the firing line and you will have the combined weight of expert opinion telling you, with one voice, the document is an amateurish modern fake.
It is only by concentrating on the modern story, (ie provenance), that the deadlock has any possibility of being broken. Otherwise, as I think Mark pointed out, the ‘Diary’ will still be there in the morning!
But I firmly believe that it is actually the responsibility of those of us, who consider the journal to be old, (as I do), to try and prove it is a modern fake – and in proving it, expose the hoaxers, irrespective of the consequences.
Best Wishes
Keith Skinner
To Peter Birchwood
I’ve now spoken with Caroline Morris who has very kindly printed off for me the entire discussion on this board, from your initial posting of January 5th 2000 thru’ to May 6th 2000, which is where Stewart alerted me to the debate. I have, of course, read your response to my posting and Caroline has generously offered to relieve Stewart of acting as my courier.
You advise me not to “make too much of Caroline Anne Morris’ statements.” I tell you now that I pay a great deal of attention to what Caroline has written, (as I do to other contributors), especially as Caroline’s observations seem to rest on selective snippets of inside information, which you have brought to the board. I do not dispute your right – or anybody’s right – to make public, information which you feel should be in the open. I do question your motive though, especially as you consistently fail to directly answer Caroline’s reasonable and pertinent queries, choosing rather to employ diversionary tactics, shift the focus of the issue and slide away from confrontation.
Which brings me to the 1881 Formby family census that you have posted on this board. I do not recognize your family unit and it does not agree with any of the details I possess about the Formby family. Certainly this Everton household, which you have picked out from the 1881 surname index, includes an Elizabeth Formby with a daughter named Edith. But you need a little more than that, don’t you, before you can confidently assert, as you have suggested by inference, that this 19th Century family has anything remotely to do with Anne Graham’s paternal ancestors? No doubt you will have the supporting evidence and documents to conclusively prove you have identified the correct family.
These I await with interest, for I have an Elizabeth Formby at a completely different address in Liverpool in 1881. Edith’s name does not appear because she had not yet been born, at least according to the birth certificate I hold, which ties in with the age on her marriage and death certificate. So one of us is clearly wrong – and I remain conscious of the fact that you are a professional investigator with 30 years experience in the missing heir field – and that you have already brought to the board’s attention my track record for “the slip shod research work that went into both Maybrick books”, ignoring the reality of my professional relationship with Paul Feldman, as explained to you in my 5 page fax of August 30th 1998.
As for your protestations of indignant denial, that you have never inferred I would condone the practice of working with doctored documents, let me remind you of what you publicly wrote to Paul Begg on June 3rd 1999...
“Keith will know what I mean when I mention the birth certificate that had been obviously altered.”
Well, Keith did not know, and had Paul Begg not alerted me to your remark, there it would have hung, unchallenged, unaccounted for and damning.
By June 25th 1999 this “obviously altered” birth certificate has become…
“…birth certificate shows her year of birth as 1870. A copy presented at this meeting by Feldman shows the year as 1876. You, Keith noticed this and that the date had been highlighted on the certificate and asked why this had been done but Feldman said he didn’t know.”
But, by implication, I am still associated with something that is underhand – and I continue working for Paul Feldman.
And by July 9th 1999 you finally concede that what we are talking about is a birth certificate which gives the year of birth as 1870, the year of registration as 1876, and this is the inconsistency which has been highlighted.
Which is a long way off from what you originally wrote about an “obviously altered” birth certificate.
Keith Skinner |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 09:16 am | | | Thank you for your comments Keith ! |
|
|
|
|
