|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Diary Publicity
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Diary Publicity
Author: Diarist
Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 02:34 pm |        |  |
Author: anon
Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 04:19 pm | | | The 'flies in amber' named? |
Author: anon
Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 05:33 pm | | | Buzz Off! :-) |
Author: anon
Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 05:37 pm | | | BZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................... |
Author: JackisBack
Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 06:42 pm | | | SPLATTTTTT!!!!! |
Author: Erick Vaughan Zippity
Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 06:52 pm | | | YESSSSSSSSSsssssss..... |
Author: Diarist
Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 01:10 am | |  |
Author: Reader
Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 01:24 am | | 
P Begg (introduction to Feldman book). |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 04:52 am | | Something obviously happened to me as a result of reading the 'Let's Preserve The Evidence' board. I get the distinct impression from reading this board that I have just been transported back in time. Anyone else share the feeling?
Love,
Caz |
Author: anon
Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 05:58 pm | | | I wish you were transported back in time - perhaps we would hear less from you. |
Author: Calogridis
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 09:47 pm | | Anon,
On the contrary. It's YOU we need to hear less of! Isn't it easy to take a free shot at people when your an invisible coward? |
Author: Brad Dalquist
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 12:02 am | | | anon has not contributed one iota of useful informarion to any JtR board. His/her hateful put-downs are a deterrent to postings on this site; lets purge the tyrant. |
Author: Alan Fleming
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 01:48 pm | | Let me first point out that I fall very much within the "Amatuer status" of Ripperologists. But a keen amateur none the less. I have been a police officer for twenty years now in Liverpool,England and interested in Ripper fact, myth and mayhem even longer.
When the diary came out it was subject to the closest scrutiny by a battalion of "EXPERTS". I distrust experts of any nature until a firm consensus forms. When I read the diary of Jack the Ripper, out of "local interest" as much as anything I considered it to be both an intriuging and somewhat attractive propositon.
Of course the publishers found their experts who endorsed it and the expert Ripperologists, with their own theories, found other experts refute it. Quickly a situation arose where one expert cancelled out another ad infinitum.
The anti's were greatly boosted when the "finder" of the diary, Mike Barrett, through his solicitor made an admission that the diary was forged by him! What a genious. An expert(there's that word again) in inks, forgery, etamology to get a victorian feel to his writing, the Ripper story in depth, the Maybrick story in depth and so on (Step aside Moriarty-we have found the true Napoleon of crime!Mike Barrett!). The anti's jumped on this as proof of a forgery and from things I have read recently, still do.
The later book on the investigation into the diary"The final solution" went some way to countering his rediculous claim. I say rediculous because sometime ago I had reason to come into contact with Barrett, shall we say professionally. And I have to say that the man IS NOT CAPABLE OF FORGING HIS OWN SIGNATURE let alone a work of this calibre(if it is a forgery.) I form this opinion from years of Police experience and the fact that the figure before me was a sad broken shell of an individual who had seen his life wrecked by contact with that book.
Is it a forgery? I don't know, ask an expert! The point I'm trying to make is that these experts,instead of using their own pet theories to hammer away at possible solutions, such as the Maybrick diary should take a more pragmatic view and accept that when something looks like an elephant, smell like an elephant, walks like an elephant and gives birth to baby elephants then it is more likely that it might just be an elephant rather than a lame duck they think it is. |
Author: anon
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 03:02 pm | | | As a police officer I would have thought that you would have more savvy than that and be less gullible. Stick with what you're good at. |
Author: Ian Pritchard
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 06:13 pm | | Having recently read Feldman's "Final Chapter" (and being a Liverpudlian!) and in the absence of convincing argument from the hoax camp I believe the Maybrick diary to be genuine.
One thing puzzles me though: I could find no mention of Maybrick having any kind of medical background, yet to perform the mutilations in extremely poorly lit conditions surely must have required the perpetrator to be pretty adept with a surgeon's knife to remove kidneys, hearts and intestines etc.
Has there been any thought given to this? |
Author: anon
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 11:43 pm | | | Oh dear, another misguided diary convert, and just when we thought it had almost fizzled out. Still there's always another gullible reader out there. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 01:53 pm | | Hello Mr Pritchard:
As a Liverpudlian you might ask yourself why Maybrick had to travel 200 miles to London to carry out the murders to "punish" his unfaithful wife, when there were perfectly good prostitutes in Liverpool who could be victims for his campaign of ripping. In addition to your query about there being no absolutely no evidence of surgical training, you might also question yourself whether Maybrick was youthful enough and agile enough to carry out the killing and mutilation in Mitre Square within a matter of minutes and make his escape before being detected by the next bobby patroling through that square.
Chris George |
Author: Alan Fleming
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 03:17 pm | | Dear Anon
If you read what I said yesterday(I presume you can read,can you?) nowhere did I say that I thought the diary to be genuine. The point I was trying to make (obviusly too subtely for you anon)was that the diary puts forward some attractive propositions that should not be condemned out of hand just because a partisan expert says it is or isn't genuine or because the sad man who brought the diary to light cannot cope with the thought that someone else(his wife) might reap the benefits IF the diary is proved real. He therefore resorts to smear tactics and rediculous stories about her in the hope of further discredit.
I do stick to what I know, anon, and one of the things that I know is that people who haven't got the courage of their convictions to give their name, like obscene telephone callers, stalkers and perverts are usually sad hollow shells passed off as human beings. DO YOU GET MY DRIFT "ANON"
I have to leave it at that for now because I have a LIFE to lead. I leave you to your poor imitation of an existence, you sarcastic,little bore.
Alan Fleming
Have you read any Rudyard Kipling? In his biography he wrote of famous men that: those who think themselves wise believe nothing until it is proven. Thoes who ARE wise believe everything until it is disproven. |
Author: anon
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 04:21 pm | | Dear Mr Fleming,
Assuming that you will read this, after all you do have a LIFE to lead, I would make the following observations.
The whole of your post showed that you have been totally gulled by the diary nonsense. Surprising, I would say, for a police officer. My advice was simple, you obviously are a capable officer with 20 years service, therefore you must be better at policing than you are at assessing the merits of the diary argument - stick to policework.
What is an expert, what is an amateur? I really don't know in the context you use the words.
Since when was I obliged to give my name in order to voice an opinion? I prefer to use 'anon', which is not a lot different to the users of pseudonyms on these boards such as 'Merry Christmas.'
Now, in using 'anon' I accept and will not retaliate to, your hysterical response, nor repudiate the names you call me. After all, you do claim to know these things as a fact. A police officer is deemed to be an expert in knowing these things, therefore who am I to argue with that?
I presume that you are using your own name and are therefore identifiable, and I would caution you to the fact that you are subject to the disciplinary code of your job. Should I, or Mr Barrett, choose to complain about your comments on these boards (a public forum) you may have some awkward questions to answer with your Chief Constable.
Yes I can read, possibly I'm boring, and yes, I'm sarcastic. Wisdom? It is he who thinks before making comment that is truly wise. |
Author: Ian
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 05:36 pm | | Dear Anon, ChrisGeorge etc
I do not claim to be a "Ripperologist" and have no aspirations to be one (I have too many other worthwhile pursuits competing for my precious time). I was stating that with the limited scope of the literature I have read on the subject, (Begg, Fido, Skinner, Harrison and Feldman), Feldman seems to present a convincing and apparently well researched argument. Granted, these pieces of literature do present a possibly one-sided point of view.
Having been born and bred in Liverpool less than a mile from the Saddle pub where Barrett apparently drank with Devereux, I was familiar with the Florrie Maybrick case from an early age. I was also aware of an elderly uncle telling me "stories" of how JtH was connected with Liverpool - an old Liverpool dockers' rumour maybe, but one which I was being told thirty-odd years ago, lost in the back of my mind until the diary came to light in the last few years.
As regards Barrett's "confessions" and numerous withdrawals of those "confessions", I would give no more credence to him or them as I would to a claim that JtR was an alien from outer space.
I have my own personal and family reasons for not attaching too much weight to any of Barrett's claims, which I do not wish to go into.
As to why Maybrick committed those crimes 200 miles away instead of on his doorstep - who knows the workings of the criminal mind, but according to Feldman, Maybrick did have an office nearby.
I will stick by my belief because I have not read any evidence that the diary in conclusively false, either from a forensic perspective, or from the perspective of Maybrick having an "alibi" when each of the murders occurred. If such evidence exists, please point me in its direction.
The one thing still puzzling me is how anybody whether medically trained or not, could execute those acts of mutilation with great skill and dexterity under less than favourable conditions and not be detected. Perhaps there were 2 JtR, one to keep watch and one to mutilate? Perhaps Michael Maybrick was the accomplice? |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 06:55 pm | | Ian:
The Diary is written in what appears to be modern handwriting not in the style of handwriting one would expect in a document written in 1888-1889. Neither does the handwriting match that of James Maybrick's known hand. Feldman publishes several examples of Maybrick's writing which do not match the writing in the diary. So in publishing those samples, Feldman actually damaged the case for Maybrick being the Ripper. I have mentioned here before that I believe the Diary was meant to be read and was not a private document as it purports to be. This is shown by the fact that although there are pages missing from the beginning of the scrapbook/photograph album in which the Diary is written, nothing appears to be lost from the story, and it makes sense right from the opening existing entries. Also, even though a number of the lines of entries have been deleted in various places, often where "Maybrick" is composing his "funny little rhymes," the line that has been deleted in a clean single crossing out stroke that renders the deleted words still readable. I have also discussed the fact that it was usual Victorian practice in writing verse to capitalize the first letter of a word beginning a line of poetry, but the Diary does not follow this convention. Ian, even if we do not have the "smoking gun" that the Diary is a hoax, there are enough indications that it is not the real McCoy. Incidentally, I am a Liverpudlian from Mossley Hill, but now live in the United States (Baltimore).
Chris George |
Author: anon
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 11:56 pm | | Mr George,
It's this sort of post by Ian which goes to show how badly the diary nonsense has affected serious Ripper research. The backing the diary has received from so-called Ripper experts in the past only serves to show how serious their duplicity has been. Thanks for the honest assessment, and for trying to put Ian onto the right course.
No one is telling Ian what to believe, merely warning him of the dangerous hoax that has been invented in this instance, much like the Royal/Masonic nonsense which, even after all the years and having been proved a hoax, still has its ardent followers. |
Author: Ian
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 12:26 am | | I'm willing to read counter-Feldman arguments as to the diary's veracity. Is there such a recommended text post-Feldman's "Final Chapter"?
I don't feel that such arguments as "not in the style of 1888 handwriting" or "pages torn from the journal" are helping the cause of the false argument.
If I wanted to create a contemporary forgery of a late C19 document, surely I could find sufficient examples of such work to be able to replicate the style. Likewise, a hundred years hence what would be considered to be the "correct" style of late C20 handwriting?
As regards the torn out pages, I have used (in the past)old exercise books, ledger books etc as notebooks etc. I could have bought a new book, but had something suitable hanging around, so why not use that? (Perhaps the author was environmentally conscious and was recycling an old book ;)).
The issue of the difference in handwriting is harder for a believer to dispell. However, Feldman does cast doubt on what was believed to be Maybrick's handwriting (in his will for example) may have belonged to somebody else ("he would, wouldn't he" I hear you say!
However, if the case of a schizophrenia, there are many documented cases (I am led to believe by my learned colleague) of ostensibly different writing being produced by the same person.
I guess I am still maintaining a standpoint within the believers' camp, but can be coaxed into ambivalence (I'm quite close now), or even total conversion! I just need reasoned and logical argument! |
Author: Wolf
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 01:49 am | | Ian, the "diary" offers us a first hand account of the murder and mutilation of Mary Kelly. It states:
"I thought it a joke when I cut her breasts off, kissed them for awhile...Left them on the table with some other stuff. Thought they belonged there."
Indeed, this placing of the breasts on the side table was a well known fact mentioned by every author at the time. For example, here's the caption for the picture of Kelly's body in Donald Rumbelow's excellent book, The Complete Jack the Ripper,(1975): Mary Kelly as she was discovered in Miller's Court. Her leg was slashed to the bone, and her breasts and kidneys removed and placed on the table.
In 1987, the original notes and autopsy reports of Dr. thomas Bond were re discovered. Notes that pertained to the Kelly murder. Dr. Bond's notes told us, for the first time in almost 100 years, what he saw in that room in Miller's Court.
Dr. Bond:
"The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot..."
Two things are now apparent, 1) The "diary was dead wrong about where the breasts were left even though it states that the writer had purposefully placed them on the table because he thought that they belonged there. 2) The knowledge displayed in the "diary" about the Kelly murder could obviously be obtained from any book on the Ripper, pre 1988, but not from any first hand experience. This,then, new piece of evidence came out after the forgers had finished.
Wolf |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 03:43 am | | Hi all,
There are so many points in the diary story that heavily indicate that it be an 'impudent fake', I do understand some people being exasperated when someone else still believes there may be something in it, but the ripper board at least lives from such differences, or what would we all write about if we all agreed about everything?
I state my opinion about the diary here, clearly and open; it is a forgery, a bad forgery, written by someone who isn't a qualified historian and contains too many errors, both factual and temporal, to stand any serious scrutiny. Others can, may, and should express other opinions, when they have them, and welcome.
My reasons for doubting the diary are at least the following;
1) The pedigree is doubtful in the extreme. Some ca. Edwardian scrapbook, pages torn out, the first diary paragraphs a la "Now is the winter of our discontent.. etc." to set the scene.
2) The whole tenor of the diary is one of writing to an audience. We should all look over Jack's shoulder as he kills and mutilates, while he explains to us why he does it and how.
3) The many errors of time, place and act are, to put it mildly, an insult to the intelligence of those who are well versed in JtR lore and fact.
4) The handwriting alone belies the diary, and that proven. Such nonsense as forged wills claims need not disturb us further, but when absolute official documents, stamped, embossed and recorded, are claimed to be forged in order to try to support the tatty, unproven, non-pedigree diary, I expect to be forgiven when I say 'Poppycock!'
5) One of the main reasons for me in believing it a fake, however, lies in the very humman response by the forger and/or owner to accusations, it be a forgery. The forgery has been admitted as being a fake, then the admission retracted, then again admitted etc. etc. etc. If the diary were, to the best belief of this person, real, he would never have even suggested that it be forged. He would have demanded it's acceptance as real because for him, it were real and he would not allow himself to be falsly called a liar. He would never suggest that he 'may' have written, or known who wrote it, or offered any such excuses.
I am sorry to be so blunt, but if such shakey evidence as surrounds the diary could prove it's validity, it would be just as little a problem to prove that Jack was one of the triplets from Duckville.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 06:07 am | | Hi Bob,
I am in the strange position of believing the diary to be a fake, yet remaining totally unconvinced that Mike Barrett could have had much of a hand in it. Your point 5) sounds logical enough from a logical person's point of view, but I have yet to see much logic in any of Mike's actions to date.
You say that Mike would never have admitted forging the diary if he truly believed it to be genuine. I agree with you there. That wouldn't make a lot of sense. But we still don't know for sure what Mike really does know or believe about the diary. He has felt deceived by his ex-wife Anne who deliberately either lied or kept information about the diary's origins from him. He certainly didn't believe that Anne could have kept him in the dark out of any good intentions. This attitude would not make any sense if they had sat down and created the diary together. I get the impression that he really hadn't got a clue how she got hold of it and that, for all he knew, she could have been involved in the forgery herself without telling him. At the time of his 'confession' he felt confused and thoroughly deprived of the glory he felt should have been his.
In saying that I'm sure Mike did not fake the diary, I'm NOT saying it could be genuine, before I have anon getting all worked up and calling me 'pro-diary'. I just think we have to look elsewhere for our mysterious three forgers.
I have also been shown examples of Mike's own handiwork which suggest that the only way you would ever get him to produce the diary content out of his own head would be to have an infinite number of Mike Barretts sitting at an infinite number of keyboards for rather more than a fortnight!
Love,
Caz
PS Hey Bob. I can't wait for anon to come up with something original for me but I'd better not hold my breath, eh? Shall I just open up another vein for him now? ;-) |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 06:30 am | | It's been said many times that Mike B. is too mentally disintegrated to have faked the diary, and I think that's true - now.
But around the time the diary is said to have been forged, Mike was writing articles for a magazine wasn't he? Which implies a reasonably high standard of mental function and literacy. Surely, if he was up to doing that he was well up to forging the diary.
Karoline |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 07:00 am | | Ian -
A couple of quick points to help you on your way to ambivalence :-)
You miss the point of Chris George's comment about the completeness of the story as it appears in the "Diary". It is not the case that the text starts completely from scratch after the excised pages. On the contrary, it starts, Finnigan's Wake-like, in mid-sentence. The intention, I suggest, is to give the impression that the missing pages also contained text, whereas forensic evidence points to the content having been entirely different. And yet, despite the beginning supposedly being absent, the story itself is, as Chris says, apparently not compromised. I take this as a sign of a forger wrongly believing themselves to have found a solution to the problem of the early pages.
Secondly, Feldman's claim that Maybrick had an office close to the murder area is based on a unsupportable interpretation of evidence. It relies on the words of Gustave Witt, who states that he and Maybrick were business partners in Liverpool up to 1875. He goes on to say that Maybrick "continued to do my London firm's business up to the time of his death". Witt's letter is from his business address at 4 Cullum Street London EC. Feldman's claim that this proves Maybrick to have worked close to Whitechapel at the time of the murders makes no sense. A more reasonable interpretation is this: that Witt, having relocated to London, dealt with his new company's business in London himself, while Maybrick acted as his representative in Liverpool. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this site, Maybrick may never have needed to set foot in Witt's London office to be able to carry out the business of Witt's London company.
This is not the only example of Feldman apparently failing to comprehend the information gathered by his researchers. See Peter Birchwood's criticisms of the spin put on the genealogical research, for instance. Or read the (disputed) "Eight Little Whores" poem carefully, then ask yourself if Feldman is right in his estimation of the number left living.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 09:11 am | | Bob, bud....well said. Always good to see you on the boards. I'm beginning, thanks to all contributers great and small, misguided and well informed, to actually form an opinion on this subject. Oh horror of horrors!
Caz...thanks too for keeping things clear for me..(and thanks for the surprise....I lost your email address like a dummy)
Cudos all,
Edana |
Author: Bob_C
Friday, 17 December 1999 - 05:06 am | | Hi all, Hi Edana, long time no hear, pal!
Hi Caz, your thoughts on Barret maybe not having written the diary are of course quite valid. He may have not been capable of doing it, although, as Karoline says, he could have still have done it earlier. By his own admissions (later retracted or not), he seems to know that the thing is a fake, if he happens to know who wrote it or not.
Guy, your points are fully correct IMHO. There is no indication that Maybrick had anything to do in London. Even according to the diary he lived in Liverpool, at Battlecrease House. I just don't believe that he would travel all the way down to London, stroll around the streets all night, chop someone up, then return all the way back to Liverpool, dead-tired, bloodstained and carrying bits of whore in his pockets and then to scrawl in his diary. I don't know how long the train journey took, but it would have been many hours in those days. To suggest he would do the journey by horse is nonsense, and he didn't have a Jaguar or a Posche to belt down some Victorian M1.
I (am obliged to) keep a duty diary. The entrys are in different pen or pencil, the writing changes with mood, tiredness, temper. Even the 'feel' of the sentences change from time to time, so that you could think that a number of different persons could have written it (Maybe I'm just as mad as a hatter).
The 'Maybrick' diary has been written 'in one go', same pen, same time, same type, same temper, same mood. And that allegedly by some raging nutcase, spending his time not only splattering bits of female all over the place hundreds of miles from home but guzzling arsenic by the sack-full at the same period. I wonder where he got the time to carry out his sucessful business!
Best regards
Bob |
|
|
|
|
