|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 11, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through May 11, 2000
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 11:55 pm |        | Simon,
This is the very reason that I usually avoid getting involved in the long drawn-out debates on these boards.
First off may I say, as far as the 'diary' discussion goes, I agree with many of the points you have made, and your idea that it is a modern forgery. I certainly do not agree with your reasoning over the 'Sickert theory.'
Now let's get this recent statement of mine into proper context. What I am saying is that both you and Mr. Goeder have relatively recently 'invaded' these boards, both propounding theories that are patent nonsense. In some ways Sickert's nonsense is worse than that of the 'diary.' In propounding these theories you have both criticised others whilst not fully understanding the basics of the case.
In this discussion you joined in saying let's have freedom of speech, as if I was against such freedom, and then made your comment, "Your truth is different to mine, that's okay." whatever that is supposed to mean. I thought that there was only one sort of truth.
To move on, the basic point I was trying to make (in both your case, and Mark's) was that before you spout off quite so liberally on your theories, perhaps you should both read up a bit more on the subject before being critical of others or making allegations.
An example of this is to be found on April 18, when you allege, "And serious researchers are still claiming it [the 'diary'] is genuine..." Who are these 'serious researchers' then?
To use your own words (April 13) "...I must apologise to everyone for making so many mistakes and stupid assertions recently..."
Surely this merely confirms what I have said? I was not speaking in terms of only this topic, but of the similarity of the 'overkill' methods exhibited by both of you when you appeared on these boards. Others have commented on it, and it leaves a very puzzled audience.
Respect, I think, has to be earned and not assumed as a right. All people have to judge you on is what you say here, unless they know you. So, I apologise if I have upset you, but that is how I see it. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 06:57 am | | Stewart Evans,
I have never seen so much bickering in my whole life!
What, and who gives you the right to judge character based only on what you have read here over in the laste few days?
Simon was only telling the truth in his message from Friday 5 May, 6.13pm.
His message was clear and not directed at anyone particular.
What was the response?
Your responded as if he was trying to shoot your Grandmother.
Why do you take every message so personaly?
Maybe because deep down you know he is right.
You have a lot of work to do.
All I hear from you guys is a load of moaning and groaning about lack of respect from people like me who obviously have no idea about what we are talking about:
Obviously, I have "relatively recently invaded these boards both propounding theories that are patent nonsense".
I dont know who you are Stewart, but if you want to be taken seriously by your opponents, you will have to be more liberal.
You expect everyone to accept your views as if they were reading the bible.
Your theories and views are as good as mine.
Unlike myself, you have many people backing you up which makes your arguements seem more valid.
That doesnt give you the right to be so arrogant.
If you have any hard evidence to back up your views, then please use it.
Otherwise sit back and enjoy the converstaion like I am doing and try not to preach whats right and whats wrong.
Looking back on some of the messages i have written in the past month, I cant find one message that attacks you or any of your disciples.
This board is open to anyone at anytime.
Its not up to you to decide what is or isnt nonsense.
Even if Simon believes the Sickert theory holds some truth, thats no reason to stamp his message as pure nonsense.
Whatever he believes, he has the right to believe it.
Old Peter Birchwood made a very intelligent remark in his last post.
" I have given up on responding to Mark Goeders points which are beginning to be repetetive"
or
"´criticising people like Melvin Harris and Stewart Evans is petty silly".
Not only are my points repetetive
As no one is able to give me any good solid arguements, I will sit back and watch you guys for a while.
Maybe it would be better if there were no "MAYBRICKITES" around, to disturb your attempts to downplay the diary.
I rest my case
Mark |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 08:12 am | | | I can't argue with that sort of logic, I'm gone. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 08:20 am | | Stewart , without getting into a long , drawn out argument I will admit I have made mistakes here , but I am only human and I am not the only one to have made mistakes either. So ? I don't claim to be perfect. There ARE still people such as Professor Rubinstein , Feldman and Fairclough who believe the Diary to be genuine. Its all very well for you to criticise others when half of the known authors on the case are your personal friends , I only have the books on the Diary to go on and no insider knowledge. If you do have inside information you should reveal it , to help others make a better judgement on the case. The point about differing truths is obvious : you believe the Sickert theory to be nonsense , I believe there to be a factual basis to it. And I have tried to show that as best I can too. I have now read over 25 books on this case , how many am I supposed to read before I become ' an expert ' and am allowed to post an opinion ? I have even gone back to primary sources to find data , such as Kelly's Directories and newspaper archives. As for number of postings , please excuse my enthusiasm. No-one , at least to me , has said they were left puzzled by my number of submissions - it is not my intent to bludgeon anyone over to my side. You have spoken to Keith Skinner and he has said he can't get the Diary back before 1920 ; I presume this is due to linguistic content. So why not print this evidence on these boards ? Otherwise we only have the printed material to go on. I personally admit that I failed to convince Mark that the Diary was not genuine , there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is not , but people expect even more than what we have said to convince them. Its unlikely , but I am open-minded enough to admit the Diary may be true , just as I believe the Sickert theory is true. Just as , unlikely as it is , the theory that Tumblety was Jack is true ( too old and too gay ). Your beliefs are not gospel Stewart and it is very narrowminded to assume that they are. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 08:42 am | | | I didnt think you could Stewart! |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 10:46 am | | Caroline Anne:
It's one of your points that the diarist tries out words before inserting them in the subsequent rhyme. Therefore when you say:
"You left out (I won't say ignored) the previous lines:
Sir Jim trip over
fear
have it near
redeem it near
case
poste haste "
You're ignoring that the same words are used in the rhyme and my point is clear: that "case" in particular has no reference to the cigarette case and given the length between the "inventory list" and this rhyme cannot possibly be construed to be so.
By the way, I wonder whether it's significant that the first mention of the Abberline diaries was in 1988, their first publication was in 1991 and the first appearance of the Maybrick Diary was in March 1992? A progression? Meanwhile, best of luck to you in your retirement.
Peter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 12:20 pm | | Thanks Peter.
Only fourteen years 'til I get my free bus pass! :-)
Hi Stewart,
Thanks so much for responding to my last post.
I was not in any way suggesting Melvin Harris did not know about the cartoon connecting the Maybrick and Ripper cases.
Of course one can speculate on the likelihood that our forgers used the more recent asserted linking of the two cases to feed their fantasy of JM as Jack. But short of asking the ‘culprits’ themselves (assuming any of 'em will know what the hell we are on about :-)), we cannot be absolutely sure this is what they actually did. It is not yet a definitely ascertained fact is all I'm saying.
I can totally understand the position you are in, Stewart, regarding confidential 'inside' information and your respect for your fellow authors. You were not the one who came to these boards in January leaking snippets of inside info, which would supposedly help us lesser mortals conclusively identify the forgers and finally put the poor beast of a diary to rest. I chose my words carefully to reflect that, but I apologise if you thought I was including you when I more or less asked "why bring up the subject again in a public forum if some of the information is too sensitive/too abridged/too hard for the public to see/get the full story/grasp?" I was not including you because you clearly would never bring this subject up willingly on your own and have only intervened to make some objective observations.
It just seemed like we were being told “We know what we know, we can’t or won’t tell you what we know, but rest assured you can take it from us that what we know proves the identities of the forgers.” And I felt we had every right to ask for clarification, especially if it would help put a stop to endless and pointless debates about diary content and JM as a JtR suspect. Isn’t that what practically everyone here would like to see?
I can only comment on what is in the public domain. Peter Birchwood’s resurrected diary discussions at the beginning of the year included an analysis of Feldy’s genealogical info as per The Final Chapter, together with his own researches into Anne’s story about a supposed link between Formby and Yapp. This was gratefully received (by me at least :-)), and rightly tackled whether Feldy’s team had been competent in their own research and had been asking all the right questions. Why, for example, didn’t anyone look into the Formby family background, as Peter did, and establish 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?
I do respect that your decision not to reveal certain details about the inside diary story is for honourable reasons (though I’d still love to know IF they really would help us with the forgers’ identities, just call me Mrs Persistent).
But as I have already said in earlier posts, Peter’s ‘snippets’ of inside info have left question marks regarding Keith Skinner’s role in the diary investigation and his involvement with Anne Graham who, after all, is well in the ‘frame’ as a forger along with Mike Barrett.
Thanks for taking the trouble to confirm that Keith is one of the Ripper authorities who does not believe the diary is genuine, and for establishing with him last night what he feels about the diary.
Keith wanted an explanation of my comment about ‘…his involvement with Anne’.
Well, this goes full circle to Peter’s observations, which he brought to the casebook, regarding Keith’s letter and telephone conversation with Anne, at a time when the diary project was in jeopardy.
I presume, since Keith believes the diary is old, that he accepts Anne’s story? But how does this square with the strong case he must be aware has been made against her and her testimony, and the flimsy case for the diary being anything other than a recent hoax? What is it that makes Keith accept the word of someone Melvin Harris describes as ‘duplicitous’ and ‘has told at least three different stories about the history of this Diary’?
Does this go some way to explain my confusion? Anyone?
Perhaps, Stewart, you’d be kind enough to bring this post to Keith’s attention for me. I trust you agree with me that it is only fair he knows what is being said. Thanks again for your time and trouble with this pesky subject.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 03:02 pm | | One more post, just for Caroline,
Many thanks for the sympathetic response. I agree that it is rather frustrating as to the origins of the 'diary,' perhaps this is much of the appeal it holds for some. I have to agree with you that it's not a definitely ascertained fact as to who was involved in the hoax 'diary,' that is if you don't believe what Mike Barrett has said. Certainly his track record on this point is rather chequered.
I can see now that I really shouldn't have become embroiled in this one, it really is the wrong thing for me to do. I don't think it's a question of "lesser mortals" as we are, as far as I am concerned, all equals. Degrees of knowledge, however, do vary and are important in this context. I cannot blame you for asking for clarification, I should not have made the comment in the first place.
Your persistence is understandable as you, like many others, want to put an end to the ongoing speculation. A favourite comment of the 'diary' supporters is to query why, if it is a modern hoax, hasn't it been shown as such by now. Well an interesting parallel may be drawn here with the famous 'surgeon's photo' of the 'Loch Ness Monster' taken in 1933. Hailed by many 'Nessie' supporters as a genuine photograph, the hoaxers were not revealed until over 40 years later, and not fully confessed to until the 1990's. So there may be a long wait ahead for those who are hoping for a full documented confession revealing all involved.
I have just spoken with Keith again and made him aware of your response. I will be seeing him on Friday and will give him a hard copy of the discussion which he will consider and respond to, probably over the weekend. I can tell you that Keith has met Anne many times and in his opinion she is telling him the truth.
I understand your frustrations.
All the best,
Stewart |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 03:08 am | | I had wished to hold my tongue after seeing some of the bickering lately posted here, but I must confess to being astonished at Mark's post of 6.57am, in which he wrties:
"I don't know who you are, Stewart, but if you want to be taken seriously by your opponents, you will have to be more liberal."
Stewart is, of course, well able to defend himself from the arrant nonsense you have been posting, Mark, but I suggest that if you really do not know who Stewart Evans is, then you certainly should not be commenting on the Maybrick Diary or any other aspect of Ripperology.
Exactly why must he be more liberal, Mark? To grant that you might have some legitimate points to make concerning the Diary? So far as I can see, you do not. You slavishly repeat whatever you find in a book that supports your position as truth (all the while incensed that anyone other than yourself can claim to delineate what constitutes "fact" in the Ripper case), conclude the Diary is real because it "feels" real to you and airily dismiss any critique of specific items in the Diary by asserting that we can't really trust what it says as Maybrick was hopelessly delusional from his arsenic intake.
You seem absolutely unwilling or unable to accept the premise that a document which challenges traditional historic viewpoints must be proven real by its proponents and not disproven by its opponents. You constantly retreat to the fallback position of "no one is able to give me any good, solid arguments." It is because you refuse to accept that there is such a thing as accepted Ripper fact, that there are people whose experience makes them more qualified than others to debate and consider any attempt to disprove your theories a knee-jerk response from blind Diary haters that you do not find the "arguments" you claim to want.
You have as much right to post here as Stewart, but your theories and views are not as good as Stewart's. You appear to have no grasp of historical provenance and no critical ability to argue beyond tossing out random statements picked from a rag-bag of sources, many of which are discredited.
If you truly believe the Diary is genuine, that is your prerogative and you have every right to say such a thing here. But you do yourself no favor when you buttress that belief with postings which are in error. You do yourself no favor when you refuse to accept you may be in error. You certainly do yourself no favor with flippant, cavlier responses to gentlemen who have contributed more to the study of the Whitechapel Murders than you or I ever shall.
I am sure this post sounds intemperate, Mark. That is because it is. I do not believe a word Simon has to say about the Sickert theory, but to his credit he is at least willing to debate and accept he may be wrong as well as realising he may not posess all the knowledge he needs to make an informed judgement on certain matters relating to the Ripper. I find, unfortunately, that you bring nothing substantial to this discussion other than a dogged insistence that since everyone has a right to post here, everyone's interpretations and views should be accorded equal weight. Not so.
I will, however, take your advice and "sit back and watch." No doubt you will consider this post more evidence that we who disbelieve in the Diary are arrogant and intolerant. I don't care. I have no intention of being sucked into this morass any longer.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 05:06 am | | Christopher,
You have only repeated what Stewart Evans has already said.That doesnt suprise me at all.
Everyone seems to be "not wanting to get involved" but most of are because you keep writing the same comments.
Try to get your story right please.
Looking back over the last few weeks, you ll see that I tried to state ONLY what I believed in.
That is the idea of this website, to be able to voice an opinion.
I also know that there are a lot of people who dont share my opinion.Thats fair.
It seems that when someone new to the scene turns up (like I did) and treads on delicate ground, he is in for a toasting.
I was bombarded with postings from people (who I dont even know)demanding respect from me.
It was to be made clear that people (Maybrickites) who have a sound opinion about the diary dont have the right to voice it as most of it is NONSENSE anyway.
Every word written by Maybrick has been dissected and weighed.
When he talked about Kelly s breasts, it dosnt seem important where he put them in the end.
Under the pillow or next to the bed.
Kelly was killed, disemboweled and mutilated beyond recognition.
Even if he did write write some of it down , do you really think he knew what he was doing.
Why take his words so seriously?
To be honest, I think he forgot most of what happened in Kelly room, but he was compelled to add something to his diary.So he did.
He has been accused of writing too many details as a forger would probably do anyway.
If you look at how many words he actually devoted to the mutilations, you ll see he decribed little of what happened.
Too much is missing for the diary to be called a forgery.
Why didnt he write any dates down?
Why didnt he include any of the other Victims?
Why didnt he include more names?
Why was the diary written AS a diary and not as a report?
Why try verse? ( would a forger be so stupid?)
I dont want to be old fashioned Christopher, but to be able too demand respect you have to be able to give some too, and if that only means listening to people who seem to believe in nonsense(LIKE ME).
If you read any of my postings you will see that it was never my intention to deliberatly offend anyone here.
Please dont forget that I am out numbered here
1000/ 1 and that fact alone is bound to heat up any discussion.
I do wonder sometimes why i seem to be the only person posting Pro Diary messages here although I know there are more clowns like me around.
I will say no more on this matter and hope that some peace may return and that some answers may be found.
Thats more important than these pointless arguements.
Mark
Mark |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 07:23 am | | Hi Crusader,
I believe we do more here than just airing our opinion ('My favourite colour is black!''Well, mine is Red'). We try to look at every detail at every angel, to find if that can bring any more clues. We discuss possibilities, witness statements, medical reports, MO, relevancy of known statements or facts, ... We try to make a solid base, although I admit many subjects boil down to opinion, especially when discussing suspects.
Discussions about opinions are the most heated. Since you have aired nothing but opinion, and submissed any material given to you to base your opinion more than just your belief, you indirectly insult everyone who searches long hours for this base. You are giving no more than 'My favourite colour is black '. If a scientist then comes with the fact that black isn't a colour at all, you dispense it with 'Whatever you say about it, it will stay my favourite. It is just a manner of speech.' It is no surprise this has turned ugly.
Greetings,
Jill
PS. I will mail you a part of what is finished for the moment.
I notice you have not yet answered to my request of the supposed M in Eddowes face. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 07:38 am | | | I think I got such a bad reception from Stewart because he really does think the Sickert theory is nonsense , and that that sort of incredible theory is damaging the serious reputation of Ripperologists in the eyes of other serious criminologists. I'm sorry about that , but sometimes weird stuff does happen , ' There is more in this world than in your philosophy Horatio ' sort of stuff. Every angle needs to be checked out. |
Author: Lisa Muir
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 10:56 am | | | Mark, You dismiss Christopher-Michael and Stewart Evans, and yet, we're supposed to listen to you? I squirm every time I read one of your posts because you continue to say things like: "Every word written by Maybrick...", and "Who else but Maybrick...", when you know nothing about James Maybrick and his family life, and his temper, and his drug use except for what the diary tells you. And you see, most of us who believe the diary to be a hoax don't just think that Maybrick wasn't the Ripper, we don't think Maybrick had anything to do with the writing of the diary at all. I read these boards because of all the facts and details that are given. I would welcome any facts and details on the life of James Maybrick. The problem is you get your facts from a dubious source. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 11:57 am | | Hi lisa,
I havent dismissed anyone yet, I just dont agree with them.
If you dont agree with me, thats ok.
Im afraid you will have to keep squirming the way I do.
I dont know how sure you are about where I get my facts from,but Im sure you ll tell me when you find out.
Dont forget, Im not the only person alive who takes the diary seriously.
There are people round with access to information I ll never have, but that doesnt change anything.
I am amazed at the attention I am getting from people who read through the letters as you do.
Im not sure what to think, but the amount of aggression being generated here is starting to make me suspicious.
Even Mr Harris woke up and gave me a grilling.
After Harris came Stewart, Christopher,Peter and Simon to make sure the grilling was complete.
I know I shouldnt be here disturbing the peace but I feel its important that the Maybrick Diary should be defended and if I am to be the only one posting messages of this sort then be it.
To me the only other person around who dares to speek his voice is Simon Owen.He too recieved a grilling for only half agreeing that the diary has not YET been proved to be a forgery and it was about time something was done.
You state " most of US who believe the diary to be a hoax dont just think that Maybrick wasnt the Ripper, we dont think maybrick had anything to do with the writing of the diary at all"
Has anyone given you a roasting for believing what you feel?
Why do you write most of " US " ?
Just who is "US" ?
I have no problems discussing my views on why I think Mayrick was the Ripper.
Its hard to discuss anything with all the aggression around.
I spent all night reading through this website and I noticed that I am not alone when it comes to noticing the amount of aggression being used sometimes
Read articles by Melvin Harris - " Myopia again "
The discussion between Melvin Harris, Paul Begg and Yazoo underlines what I am trying to say
Mark |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 05:33 pm | | | Mark has a point here. I only said something which didn't completely damn the Diary and I got stomped on ! |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 05:56 pm | | Hi Jill,
I am writing ths message now for the third time because Ive crashed 3 times in the last 3 hours.
Just to clear up a few things,I will underline the base of all my assumptions and opinions.
WHY I BELIEVE THE DIARY WAS WRITTEN BY MAYBRICK:
I have thought a lot about Maybricks motives.
I believe that jealousy was birth of his deep hatred at Women.
His jealousy must have been incurable.
He deeply loved his wife even knowing of her affair.
His business was running out of air.
He now had financial problems.
He was a hypochondriac.
He was using drugs ( we know that is is fact)
He was also probably impotent too.
His self esteem and his self confidence were both at a high time low.
For a man with an inferiority complex the size of Maybricks, all this added up to total and utter confusion and in the end all reality escaped him.
With all this hate inside he went about his daily routine of keeping it locked away.
Eventualy, he had to break I suppose.
If you put that all together, you end up with a big bomb with an extreme short fuse.
He watched Flories affair unfold before his eyes and he knew he couldnt do anything about it.
He didnt want to loose his wife.
WHY I DONT BELIEVE THE DIARY IS A FORGERY:
I feel its safe to believe that Barrett didnt write it.
If its a modern forgery, why hasnt the writer at least claimed a small cut of the money or fame?
Why spend the time and money collecting so much material on Maybrick?
What made the forger so sure that maybrick would be the right person?
Why collect all this information on Maybrick , (some of it being very personal information) and then forget to match his handwriting?
Does that make sense?
Why didnt the forger incluse Tabram, Smith or McKenzie in the murder list(providing the forgery is old)?
Since this was to be a "RIPPER" diary , why not include dates, names of victims(except kellys), places,times ,and why not go more into detail about the method he used to kill the women?
If it is a modern hoax, why include a murder in Manchester. Wouldnt this be a bit careless?
The forger must have known that a Woman killed in Manchester could be traced back.Why mention it?
Why shouldnt there be a few missing pages?
If the diary is over 100 years old, I would expect the book to be missing a few pages.
Isnt that normal for a book that age?
If it is a forgery and Anne is lying, where the hell did it come from if we assume that Mike is also a liar?
These are only my opinions and they dont sound like nonsense to me.
I have been accused of using only facts from the diary.
I have also used facts from the diary, thats true, but I need more than only facts to voice an opinion.
I believe that Maybrick had a very good motive to kill these women.
I think his hatred towards women was probably undefinable.
So Jill, this is the third time Ive tried to post this , so I hope it works.
bye
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 04:09 am | | Hi Mark,
You wrote:
'Why collect all this information on Maybrick , (some of it being very personal information) and then forget to match his handwriting?'
In April 1999, Mike Barrett was asked at the Cloak & Dagger Club about the diary writing not matching that of James Maybrick. I'm afraid I can't recall Mike's exact words (perhaps someone else can help here), but I'm fairly sure his reply was along the following lines:
Mike said that there was no point making the handwriting like James's because his will was in the handwriting, not of James, but of one of his brothers (not sure which one, but I don't think he said it was Michael's).
He is therefore saying that he knew a will was in existence before the diary was forged, that he had seen this will and somehow come to the conclusion that it was useless for his creation because it was a forgery.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 05:04 am | | Caz -
Of course, by April '99, the fact of the handwriting discrepancy had become familiar to everybody involved in the Diary affair, whether as researcher or mere observer. Furthermore, Barrett appears to have seized upon the desperate claims of Harrison and Feldman regarding the will (subsequently rebutted very effectively, IMO, by Melvin Harris) and, if your report of his words is at least broadly accurate, chosen to claim the "forged will" as his own finding. As with so much else that he says, this carries little conviction.
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 (vide Nickell) - without even getting on to lack of independently verifiable provenance, internal evidence of modern composition, and ink and paper tests which can at best be said to be inconclusive.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 06:13 am | | Hi Mark,
WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IN THE DIARY
A serial killer has no motive. So to search for one and use one is unusefull.
Jealousy then is no motive, but I agree it is a symptom of low self esteem. But remember that not everybody with a low self esteem is a serial killer.
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 because your wife is cheating on you. If the last jealousy, it is directed to a person itself, it is personal. So if you feel pain, outing it as jealousy and thus turning into hate, the hate is towards the person inflicting the pain. How then could he still love his wife?
You do not know for a fact that Maybrick was impotent, and thus cannot base your belief on it.
Thus the character of Maybrick exists of being jealous, hate, hypochondric and drug abuse. He was jealous with a reason.
The hypochondric character and drug abuse are strong symptoms of low self esteem, of living in a fantasy world and wanting to stay in it. These particular symptoms together show that this poverty in self esteem goes way back, probably childhood trauma. As I have explained to you in my mail, people want to relieve themselves from pain caused by trauma in a fantasy world. Most men have the tendency to pain others then. But hypochondrical behaviour and drug abuse actualy show that the direction of his pain relieve was TOWARDS HIMSELF, NOT OTHERS. He was slowly killing himself or let himself be killed. He did not show any tendency to kill others. The only thing that says so is the diary, which is not reliable for use of objectively based research or opinion.
WHY YOU CAN'T USE THESE ARGUMENTS TO NOT BELIEVE THE DIARY IS A FORGERY:
"If its a modern forgery, why hasn't the writer at least claimed a small cut of the money or fame?"
-> Why should he, he gloats on the fact the forgery is believed.
"Why spend the time and money collecting so much material on Maybrick?"
-> If you want to make a forgery that will last a while, you should try the utmost to make it as real as possible. Why make a bad forgery?
"What made the forger so sure that maybrick would be the right person?"
-> I believe I responded to that already in another post.
"Why collect all this information on Maybrick , (some of it being very personal information) and then forget to match his handwriting?"
-> I repeat that the will and other handwritings have surfaced only after the coming of the diary. There was no material to match. So the forger thought he could write any style he wanted.
"Why didnt the forger incluse Tabram, Smith or McKenzie in the murder list(providing the forgery is old)?"
-> Because Tabram and the others were in those times already doubted victims. To include them then would already have been very suspicious.
"Since this was to be a "RIPPER" diary , why not include dates, names of victims(except kellys), places,times ,and why not go more into detail about the method he used to kill the women?"
->Because any mistake in it would surely be traceable. JtR’s MO was and is so heavily discussed, it would be attacked first. Keep it general and you stay out of trouble.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 07:52 am | | Reasons to be Cheerful: Mark Goeder's "Just to clear up a few things,I will underline the base of all my assumptions and opinions."
WHY I BELIEVE THE DIARY WAS WRITTEN BY MAYBRICK:
As all his assumptions and opinions here are based on the Diary being written by James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper, there's no point in disputing them for reasons mentioned by several people.
WHY I DONT BELIEVE THE DIARY IS A FORGERY:
"If its a modern forgery, why hasnt the writer at least claimed a small cut of the money or fame?" How does Mark know they haven't?
"What made the forger so sure that maybrick would be the right person?" As Melvin Harris and others have mentioned, the Maybrick case was the next big crime after JtR: it comes right after Jack in Gordon Honeycombe's Black Museum book. Also, Maybrick was a Liverpudlian and convenient for a forger working in that area. He died at the right time: a logical cessation to the Whitechapel murders.
"Why collect all this information on Maybrick , (some of it being very personal information) and then forget to match his handwriting?" It's my opinion that the diary was written very quickly with research done in only easily findable books ( don't forget that the valuable "A to Z" was first published in 1991) and it's not widely known that original wills (such as Maybricks') are available from the Principal Probate Registry for reading. It might have been assumed that Maybrick's handwriting would be difficult or impossible to find.
"Why didnt the forger incluse Tabram, Smith or McKenzie in the murder list(providing the forgery is old)?" Although these three might have been popularly thought to have been victims at the time and perhaps for many years after, there have been grave doubts about at least two of them in recent times. The diary, being a modern forgery, reflects this belief and, with the exception of the "Manchester victim" who has never been identified, only lists victims who would be acceptable to modern readers. And of course Mark should have realised that Maybrick died before McKenzie: even an incompetent forger wouldn't have included her.
"The forger must have known that a Woman killed in Manchester could be traced back.Why mention it?" To add a little versimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative?
"If the diary is over 100 years old, I would expect the book to be missing a few pages.Isnt that normal for a book that age?" No.
"If it is a forgery and Anne is lying, where the hell did it come from if we assume that Mike is also a liar?" Anne says that it was in her father's possession from the 1960's on. If she's lying about that, then there's strong grounds for assuming it to be a modern forgery. |
|
|
|
|
