|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Admissable as evidence or not
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Admissable as evidence or not
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 08:47 am |        | Hi, Bez:
There is no proof that the Dear Boss letters were genuine. In fact, after the initial Dear Boss letter of September 25, 1888 and the follow-up "Saucy Jacky" postcard received by the Central News Agency on October 1, 1888, a large number of communications addressed "Dear Boss" continued to pour into the authorities, all written in different hands. The implication in the Diary that Maybrick wrote such communications is thus a strike against the Diary rather than evidence arguing for its genuineness.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 10:02 am | | Hi Chris,
What is your opinion of the Dear Boss letter dated 17th October 1888 which was found in 1988 by Peter McClelland? Do you think it was inserted into the records by a forger?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caz
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 10:07 am | | Sorry Chris, I meant 17th September 1888, not October. Presumably it has already been discounted as a modern hoax because it predates the 'initial' 25th September letter.
Any thoughts? |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 12:09 pm | | Hi, Caz:
The September 17, 1888 letter found late in 1988 by Peter McClelland is almost undoubtedly a fake. Paul Feldman ("Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter," first edition, p. 372) hypothesizes that after the writer sent this September 17 letter "in blue ink. . . . believing he made no impact on the Home Office, [he] sent his next letters in red ink to the news agency." However, such a scenario is plainly absurd. The handwriting in the Dear Boss letter of September 25 and the Saucy Jacky postcard received October 1 is plainly different to that in the probably forged September 17 missive. The two "later" communications are much more carefully written compared to the scruffy, disordered penmanship of the supposed September 17 effort, which appears to derive its wording from the later letter and postcard and the Lusk letter (which exhibits yet a third different penmanship and the wording "Catch me when you can" compared with "Catch me if you can" in the September 17 "communiqué")--although Feldman himself publishes photographs of the alleged September 17 letter and the police broadside showing the authentic Dear Boss communications side by side!
Chris George |
Author: S P Evans
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 12:57 pm | | I have to agree with what Chris says here. I have examined the absurd 17 September letter. It was 'found' in the Home Office files (HO 144/221/A49301C) allegedly inserted between a file cover page that was stuck together, and opened by the 'finder.' It is not referenced nor stamped.
The letter is on very poor quality, dirty, paper, single-sheet, and is in blue ink, possibly ball-point. As Chris has pointed out it includes wording form the later 'Dear Boss' and 'Lusk' correspondence.
The letter is treated with the utmost suspicion at the PRO, and will hopefully be tested. Although as this could be expensive it may not be done.
Here is a photograph of the letter in question, that may interest readers.
 |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 01:01 am | | Hi All,
Thanks for the information guys. Ball-point pen? Aaaagh!
I don't know about anyone else, but this seems to me to be an extremely serious offence, mucking about with PRO records, inserting fake documents willy-nilly. While I can understand that the expense could have put anyone off testing an obvious fake (and no doubt the cost rises with each year that goes by), surely Mr McClelland would have been questioned pretty closely about his 'find', and if not why not? Would it not also be possible through readers' cards to track down all the people who would have accessed those particular Home Office files?
It just seems incredible if someone could get away with such a potentially serious offence with no questions asked. It makes me wonder how many other documents could have been 'inserted' into official records when security was even more lax in the 'good old days', and been accepted as genuine.
Love,
Caz
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 01:04 am | | | One sign-off genuine, the second a slip of the typing digit. :-) |
Author: S P Evans
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 03:02 am | | Oh, and I thought that one was for me and the other was for Chris!
As regards the 'planting' of documents into archives, it is nothing new, and has been done in the past to help authenticate modern forgeries.
I am not sure that any offence has been committed here if it was done merely as a 'prank,' even if a rather stupid one. Certainly if it was part of a forgery plan then there would be an offence.
No one is identifying an 'offender' here as it is not known, if it was planted as believed, who did it. It is known that Mr. McClelland found it, and he merely told the PRO staff just that and gave them the document. Subsequent efforts by Keith Skinner to trace Mr. McClelland have failed.
There are much stricter rules as to viewing original documents in this case now, and it is done, if allowed, under constant supervision.
Stewart |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 06:31 am | | Thanks Stewart. I'm glad to hear about the stricter rules now in force. I wonder exactly what seeds the 'planter' was hoping to sow by introducing this rather obvious mixture of Boss and Lusk? Seems a lot of trouble to go to just for jolly! Perhaps it WAS intended as part of a larger plan.
Another question for ya. How many missives were actually written in red ink and/or red crayon? And was the emotive colour made public at the very first opportunity? And what about the facsimile posters? Were they in colour? Sorry if we are going over and over old ground here.
Love,
Caz
(Just the one this time :-)) |
Author: S P Evans
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 07:11 am | | Caz,
Who knows indeed? Needless to say the old saying that there is 'nowt so strange as folk' holds true, and the reason could be quite mundane.
There are hundreds of extant missives, and I have never attempted a numerical breakdown. But a large number, possibly as many as 25 per cent are in red, as the papers at the time published the fact it was written in red ink. The fad caught on in October 1888, and a great many contained 'Boss,' 'Jack the Ripper,' and other phrases from the published letters. The below example is typical, and was sent from New Cross on October 13, 1888.
As regards the Metropolitan Police poster bearing the facsimiles of the 'Dear Boss' letter and postcard, it is many years since I saw an original, but I believe that the letter and card were in red.
Hope this is of interest to you.
Stewart |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 02:26 am | | Thanks Stewart.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 04:15 am | | Since the conversation has turned to the letters - can't it be said that the letters which have been published loosely fall into 2 groups - those that are almost copybook perfect & those that are messy & incoherent by comparason. If we are to believe that both styles could come from the same source then style ceases to be a problem for the Diary.
Interestingly the Dear Boss letter has always been associated with the postcard without too much thought.
Where is the proof that the 25/9 letter is the first JtR letter? If it was why would the police allow its publication? Surely the police had some reason to believe it was genuine? A logical reason would be previous correspondence. In Feldmans book he claims the 25/9 letters are marked 2 & 3 by the police implying the existence of a "1" . Is this true?
Further, what is to be made of the Woodhall claim that the ditty using JtR was recieved "soon after 9/9"?
The letters as a whole are central to the puzzle.
Especially the debate about the which letters were on display at various times. If we could settle which letters are real then we would be a lot better off.
A small aside - for those debating the "FM" above kelly's body - S Knight's "Final Solution" shows the lettering even more clearly then the enhanced photo in the diary books. Just an observation.
John |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 05:19 am | | Hello, John Dixon:
The first letter received in the Whitechapel murders is dated September 24. It is by a writer who does not term himself Jack the Ripper but instead uses the silhouetted shape of a coffin to identify himself. He also provides the silhouette of the knife he supposedly used. As for the Dear Boss communications, I do not think there is any doubt that the September 25 letter and Saucy Jacky postcard were from the person, and the writing contrasts with the writing of the September 24 missive, with its bad spelling -- the writer of that letter terms himself a "slauterer."
The initial Dear Boss letter and postcard were probably mistakenly taken seriously by the police because of the unfortunate but possibly nontenable theory that the writer of the postcard had predicted the "double event." However, he or she could have learned of the double murder on the streets on Sunday, September 30 and then mailed the card. In a letter of October 5, the same Dear Boss letter writer predicted a "treble event" which nevertheless did not occur.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 08:52 am | | Hi John,
The 'Woodhall ditty' is curious. Woodhall's work is said by Melvin Harris to be 'ludicrous and nonsensical' so it looks like the postcard containing the ditty written in red ink and sent 'soon after September the ninth' never actually existed, except in Woodhall's imagination. But a further similar ditty was apparently quoted in MacNaghten's memoirs. The two are as follows:
Woodhall's:
I'm not an alien maniac
Nor yet a foreign tripper
I'm just your jolly, lively friend,
Yours truly-Jack the Ripper.
MacNaghten's:
I'm not a butcher, I'm not a Yid,
Nor yet a foreign Skipper,
But I'm your own light-hearted friend, in
Yours truly, Jack the Ripper.
Now these two put me in mind of a third more famous ditty from W.S. Gilbert's immortal pen back in 1878 from HMS Pinafore, which had a re-run at the Savoy in the Strand from November 1887 to March 1888 (don't groan everyone :-))
It reads as follows:
For he might have been a Roosian,
A French or Turk or Proosian,
Or perhaps Ital-ian!
But in spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman!
Did Gilbert's pen launch a thousand other quips? :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 09:04 am | | Caz --
You are indeed prophetic! That very extract from the H.M.S. Pinafore was quoted in the Pall Mall Gazette (or one of those newspapers, I don't have my collection at hand, though I'm fairly sure it was PMG in Sept/Oct. 88), as a response to the "ridiculous assumption" that the Ripper murders must have been committed by a foreigner. The connection is indeed there (Ripper & Pinafore quote), so who knows, perhaps whoever wrote the ditty/ditties was indeed inspired by those words.
I'll try to rummage up the article in which it is mentioned.... if anyone has PMG on hand and would like to check, it is almost certainly in late September, early October. |
Author: S P Evans
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 10:02 am | | Well done Caz
Stewart |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 10:14 am | | Hi, Caz, Stewart, Spry, et al.:
While Melvin Harris has rightly decried much of the hokum that has appeared under the guise of Ripperology over the decades, the rhyme quoted by MacNaghten would appear to come from an authentic "Ripper" communication now lost, albeit most probably another of the hoax letters purportedly from the killer.
Chris George |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 11:02 am | | I havent been dipping in here too much lately, so I am slightly out of touch. But this does look so interesting.
So, we would seem to be looking for some fan or afficionado of G&S, would we, who was also au fait with female anatomy?
Did Tumblety like G&S? Was Weedon Grossmith familiar with how to extract a uterus?
Or, God forbid does this bring my poor Lewis Carroll back into the frame?
He LOVED G&S, was a brilliant poet and puzzler, had dozens of books on female anatomy,had the speech impediment AND the hearing problem suggested by the FBI, and most astonishingly of all, in a move that can only be described as uncanny or prophetic, Richard Wallace used the last line of the above rhyme 'light-hearted friend' as the title of his book that named Carroll as JTR!
'Think on this, my brethren, and be stilled'
Karoline |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 11:29 am | | | Macnaghten's "I'm not a butcher, I'm not a Yid..." was, undoubtedly just another hoax communication, and not from the killer. Albeit near contemporary. So I for one am not getting excited as to whether the scribe was a G&S fan or not as it would have no real relevance. However, it is an interesting connection to make. |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 04:32 am | | Hi All,
I should think G&S would have been on rather a lot of lips in 1888. No surprise there. Ruddigore had recently been produced. Re-runs of HMS Pinafore, The Pirates of Penzance and The Mikado were going on until 3rd October 1888, when The Yeomen of the Guard began its run at the Savoy, starring George Grossmith as Jack Point, the jester, destined to die from a broken heart.
So contemporary hoaxers with penchants for funny little rhymes would have had a great deal of material to choose from.
A postcard, signed 'Yours truly, Jack the Ripper (Genuine.)', which appeared in the Liverpool Echo on 10th October 1888, includes the enigmatic lines: 'On 13th, at 3pm., will be on Stage, as am going to New York.' I just wondered if the hoaxer on this occasion was imagining himself to be going on the theatrical stage with a parallel run of the Yeomen in America. He must have meant SOMETHING by those words. If there WAS a matinee performance in New York on 13th October 1888 at 3pm, it would narrow down the author of this one communication to those few insiders who knew the details of these highly secret G&S parallel runs.
Walter Weedon Grossmith, George's less famous younger brother, had a pad in Harley Street, studied female anatomy at night school, played practical jokes like extracting teeth while pretending to be a dentist, produced plays in various locations including Liverpool, Whitechapel and America, and had two uncles who were child prodigies in the acting world, one of whom went on to write a book called 'Amputations and Artificial Limbs'. Both his brother and Father had worked as police court reporters at Bow Street for The Times. He was a competent artist and illustrator but turned to acting when he failed to make a good living from his art. He was approached by D'Oyly Carte about the possibility of joining his brother in doing some G&S stuff, but there is no evidence that this ever came to anything. Weedon's favourite hobby was fishing but he also enjoyed hunting and had a penchant for fireworks. The notorious blackmailer, Tottie Fay, who had several aliases, unsuccessfully tried her tricks on him at one time, though the date is not specified.
None of this may be relevant, or all of it could be. I have yet to find out.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 05:49 am | | Hi, Caz:
You wrote:
"A postcard, signed 'Yours truly, Jack the Ripper (Genuine.)', which appeared in the Liverpool Echo on 10th October 1888, includes the enigmatic lines: 'On 13th, at 3pm., will be on Stage, as am going to New York.' I just wondered if the hoaxer on this occasion was imagining himself to be going on the theatrical stage with a parallel run of the Yeomen in America."
Speaking here as a Liverpudlian, I have to agree with Paul Feldman, that what is meant by "on Stage" is the Landing Stage at Liverpool NOT a theatrical stage.
Chris George |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 06:11 am | | I agree with Chris. The very next letter which Feldman discusses is written by the same man from New York and sent in October 1888 (although we don't know exactly when). In my opinion this is possibly the most interesting letter in Ripper studies. If anyone has a copy of the actual letter I would be interested if you are able to email me a scan. Please let me know below.
Dela |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 07:04 am | | Hi, Dela:
You might be right that these two letters were from the same individual, but somehow I doubt it. Feldman only says, "In all probability it was sent by the writer of the letter to the Liverpool Echo." Since we do not have the two letters to compare the handwriting it is impossible to know if they were from the same person. But internally they are different. The first is addressed, "Dear Sir," the second "Honorable Sir"; the first signed "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper," the second "Yours lovingly 'Jack' the ripper"; and the first written in short, staccato sentences, while the second is written in long, full sentences. Almost certainly there were two writers at work here, I believe. We have to remember that dozens, maybe hundreds of people posing as Jack were jumping into the act of writing letters to the authorities. These are probably two more of these hoax communications from two different would-be troublemakers or Jack the Ripper wannabes (in their own mind!).
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 10:27 am | | Hi Chris and Dela,
The author of the 'Staged' postcard could have been deliberately cryptic using a possible double meaning. The cast for the secretly-organised parallel runs of the G & S operas left under assumed names on Cunard liners from the Liverpool Landing 'Stage', to arrive on the New York theatrical 'Stage' several days later. Oh well, blame it on my Times crossword brain. I don't always get 'em right :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 18 August 1999 - 04:48 am | | I am amazed at what I have learnt in 1 easy lesson. Ok. Thanks Caz I never thought I'd be interested in G&S!
The diary lays claim to the Name JtR that would require either the Dear Boss letter to be genuine (Paley) or there to be previous JtR letters , perhaps the ditty or the disputed 17/9 letter.
As to that letter (& much of the against the Diary), I find the argument rather cart before the horse stuff. Because it echoes the Dear Boss & Lusk letter it must be a fake. Without getting worked up about it ; Who questions the Bond post-mortem report which contradicted known information & which had worse providence than the diary? Has anyone checked its paper, ink & handwriting? I am only trying to make a quick point about how our attitude to evidence has changed since the diary. We are all working to a far higher standard of EVIDENCE thanks to the Diary
I am crushed that current opinion is that the Ripper didn't write any letters. He sinks into a horrible mire of serial killers without the letters! Now to carry on the Diary theme is it possible (as the diary suggests) that the Ripper used the ditty as a kind of authication? Interestingly the diary refers to letters to the police yet all the letters seem to have gone to the press. I have read writting to the press not the police is unusual(Honeycombe).
The diary specifically accepts the Goulston st. writting & gives it its most logical meaning - blaming the jews for the murders.
The link to the Lusk letter is inferental but probably stronger than the link to the Dear Boss letter. & with a wave of my Harris like pen I refer you to the words of the text!
Enough with the pointless opinion!
I have a question! Who has looked at the 8 Little Whores poem? At first I thought that it must have been a variant of the "10 little niggers" ( 10 Little Indians") perhaps brought into Maybricks home by the Plantation owning Florence. I duely discovered that that rythme has been around from at least the 1850's. The diary refers to the children & the childrens game " Find the thimble". So I thought that the counting game was as simple as that. But I have recently found something a little different. Has anyone an interest or conclusion of their own?
ps I'm still exporing the site & coming up to speed. Is there space here for a board about the good things in the story? I love the story about Eddowes impersonating a fire engine ... & I can tell normal people that one! |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 18 August 1999 - 08:37 am | | Hi John,
'One whore in heaven,
two whores SIDE BY SIDE,
three whores ALL have died
four....
.....damn Michael for being so clever the art of verse is far from simple. I curse him so....'
Nothing much there IMHO to compare with the 8 little Whores poem. May as well be 3 little maids!
'One little maid is a bride, Yum Yum,
two little maids IN ATTENDANCE come,
three little maids is the TOTAL SUM....'
Well, it sounds equally plausible to me. Just waiting to be put on the Lord High Executioner's list of society's dispensables :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 18 August 1999 - 05:28 pm | | Hi John, Caz,
Melvin Harris obtained somewhat of a confession from the late Donald McCormick that HE (McCormick) had in fact invented the Eight Little Whores poem. It first appeared unsourced in his "The Identity of JTR" (1959) and is unknown prior to this. |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 18 August 1999 - 07:14 pm | | Dear John,
Think you're "coming up to speed," eh? Jack the Ripper is going at warp factor nine.
David |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 11:06 am | | Getting back to the title of this conversation, the correct answer to the question of admissibility is as follows.
The diary itself does not contravene any rule of evidence relating to admissibility and could therefore be used in evidence against Maybrick.
However, if Maybrick were tried and pleaded not guilty, it would be open to be challenged by his defence on two bases, first that it tends to be unreliable (using arguments such as the handwriting, the uncertain provenance and the fact that it is unsigned by Maybrick). The stricter evidential controls on confessions in the modern era mean that this challenge would almost certainly succeed, and the diary would be excluded as evidence.
If the evidence convinces the trial judge that the diary tends to be unreliable, he MUST exclude it as evidence.
In the unlikely event that a judge was not convinced of its unreliability the second method of challenge, a modern preservation of law that has existed for decades, comes into play.
The trial judge MAY in his discretion exclude evidence which may have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings. Allowing into evidence an unsigned document fingering Maybrick as the Ripper with the attendant credibility problems we know the diary has would certainly seem to me to be somewhat unfair to our Jimmy. As this is at the discretion of the judge it is a fall-back position in case the unreliability argument fails, and we all know from an earlier Maybrick trial what can happen at the discretion of the trial judge :-)
In summary, while the diary would be ADMISSIBLE as evidence against Sir Jim, it is enormously unlikely that it would be ADMITTED as evidence. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 07:55 pm | | The diary itself does not contravene any rule of evidence relating to admissibility and could therefore be used in evidence against Maybrick
The provenance of an article must be established, must it not, for it to be admissable as evidence?
How could anyone tie it to Maybrick?
- was it seen in his posession?
- is it his handwriting?
- is he known to have bought it?
.....is there ANY tangible connection to the man at all?
Regards, Jon
(I would suggest 'unlikely' on both counts) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 08:47 pm | | Dear Jon,
Sir Jim told me on the Exercise Yard, "That damnable Diary is MINE" and "I am Jack the Ripper".
I am serving a sentence of 30 years. Could you have a quiet word with the CPS on my behalf.Ta.
Loveable (and reformed),
Rosemary |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 06:21 am | | Furthermore my Lord,
This Diary, by itself,in isolation from the other known facts of the case, tells us nothing. But once submitted into evidence, it merely corroberates other known facts of this... I submit...murderous drug addict's deviance.
That, my Lord, is the case for the defence!
Love :-)
Rosemary. |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 07:03 am | | Jon,
The points you raise are correct but as I implied earlier, these count against the likelihood of the Diary being ADMITTED but not its ADMISSIBILITY.
The rules for admissibility of a confession are actually quite simple, the simple reason being to make as many kinds of confession admissible as possible, from a verbal slip of the tongue to a lengthy and detailed document describing how a crime was committed.
The prosecution need only turn up with the diary, and show things like who lived in a place called Battlecrease and had brothers called Michael and Edwin and the document would be admissible.
However, the points you raise as well as the other ones I mentioned earlier, would form the basis of the defence's challenge.
Many cases get to court in which a confession is brought forward only for the defendant to deny all knowledge of the confession and say he doesn't know how the police got hold of it.
In normal cases, the police will play the tape of the interview in which the confession was made or have any people who saw or heard the suspect confess give evidence. This should clear up the argument and the evidence will be admitted.
With the diary the prosecution could not do this and so the defence challenge would succeed and the diary would not be admitted.
The point I was trying to make was that there is nothing about the format of the diary or the words contained therein which would impede its admissibility.
It is the problems with how it came to be found and questions as to whether it is what it purports to be which would make it unreliable. It would not be admitted becuase it is unreliable, not because it is inadmissible.
Matt |
|
|
|
|
