|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 January 4, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
No Hoax, this Diary must be real:
Archive through January 4, 1999
Author: Mota
Friday, 18 December 1998 - 03:22 pm |        | I got the Diary about a month ago, and I bought the Movie. The evidence that they have in the book, and movie (some parts) is outstanding. Afrer reading that, I have no doubt, that mister Maybrick is indeed Jack the Ripper .
-mota |
Author: Anonymous
Friday, 18 December 1998 - 05:21 pm | | | Think again sonny. |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Saturday, 19 December 1998 - 05:44 am | | I'm with you, Mota. I got the diary back in '95, and I got Paul Feldman's book last year (if you haven't got it, then you gotta read it!!) and I'm convinced too. As for you 'Anonymous', what makes you so smart that you think you know for sure that it isn't and what gives you the right to tell those of us who believe that it's real that we're wrong?????
Nikki |
Author: Guy Hatton
Saturday, 19 December 1998 - 09:59 am | | Hi Nikki!
I agree entirely with you that "Anonymous" should know better than to post such simplistic, smart-arse comments. Let's please keep these boards for serious, good-natured debate. If you have something to say (whatever your viewpoint), then say it, I reckon. But if you haven't, then you should keep your trap shut.
As regards Paul Feldman's book and video - well, it was, indirectly, the video that got me interested in the Whitechapel Murders in the first place, when it was first broadcast here in the UK. I say indirectly because it seemed very convincing at the time - I was prepared to say "OK, that solves that once and for all." But then, a mere 6 weeks later, I saw the "Secret History" programme dealing with Stewart Evans' investigation of Tumblety. I then started to suspect that things were not so clear-cut.
The Feldman material can seem very convincing if viewed in isolation, but I strongly suggest that you check out the counter arguments here on the Casebook and elsewhere before jumping to any hasty conclusions. Melvin Harris' "Guide Thruogh the Labyrinth" and other articles, including contributions by Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Stewart Evans, Peter Birchwood and others are, I would say, essential reading, as are Sugden's book and the A to Z. Then re-read Feldman's book very carefully. I think the holes in his argument will then become glaringly obvious.
No-one in their right mind should be sniping at anybody else on these boards just because they're (relatively) new to the subject, and maybe a little impressionable. (No criticism of you intended). But if we are serious about researching the subject, we owe it to ourselves to maintain a certain degree of scepticism, to check as much material as possible, and to beware of believing any particular theory too readily.
Regards
Guy |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 19 December 1998 - 12:07 pm | | To Mota & Nikki
I can only echo Guy's comments above, you are both obviously new to the study, as I was way back in 1970 and on reading my first ripper book, The identity of Jack the Ripper, I ALSO KNEW who the ripper was.
Having felt the mistery was solved, I looked on other books as 'silly idea's'.
It was only after leaving the study alone for a while that I came back to review all that I'd read, and in doing that I could see how easily I'd been taken in. A new perspective is what was needed, and an open mind.
There is no substitute for honest study, any one, two or three books is nothing like enough for you to form an opinion. This case is far too complex, due to the lack of sound evidence, almost every issue is debatable, and in order to form a logical opinion you must follow the 3R's
Research, Research, Research.
Remember this, books for the most part, are only published in order to promote someone's point of view, very few books are published as impartial sources of information, simply because 'the're a tuff sell' in order to capture the publics attention an author needs a 'theory' with IMPACT.
Paul Begg's A-Z is an exception, and unfortunatly the Ripper world is sadly lacking in similar inpartial informative books.
Having said that, I must strongly advise if you are seriously interested in studying the Ripper, you must be honest with yourself, and follow the 3R's.
Set the diary issue aside for a few months, and look into this case with an open mind, you can still obtain copies of original testimony, statements, newspaper accounts, etc. research the social conditions, public relations with Police and such.
Look into ALL the other suspects, (some silly one's too) and use sound judgement, and read my comment on Harrison's book listed under 'Original Ripper Fiction' - The Diary, ....see if it makes you smile.
Have an open mind, and have fun !! |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 11:24 am | | Hi Mota:
If you read Stephen Knight's "...the Final Solution" you might believe that Jack was the Duke of Clarence and Avondale. If you read William Stewart's "...a New Theory" you might believe Jack to be Jill, a midwife. There are plenty of books out there with theories which make sense as long as you only read that particular book. Either read them all and then make up your mind or go back to alien abductions, government conspiracies and animal mutilations. They have the same sense, logic and evidence as "The Diary of Jack the Ripper."
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 11:26 am | | Nicki:
You are wrong. The diary's a hoax (as was the story Joseph Gorman Sickert told Stephen Knight) and what you need to do is to read the books in conjunction with the admirable Phillip Sugden's work and use your common sense. Judging from what you and Mota have said (both self-confessed neophites at the Ripper game) it looks as if people are still buying the Diary books and still believing in them. And no doubt there'll be even more when Shirley Harrison's new addition is published in Australia and the US. Regarding that, I'll be filing a critique on Shirley's extra 100 pages over Christmas.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Cliff Babbs
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 12:55 am | | Peter,
Though I agree with what you wrote in your posting to Mota, I cannot agree with your quote "The Diary's a hoax" in your posting to Nikki. I am not stating that I think the diary is real, but after studying the evidence produced in Paul Feldman's book (Jack .... The Final Solution), I have to admit that Mr. Feldman does push James Maybrick up the ladder. However, like all documents of any nature that seem to pop up for lots of different subjects, I don't think anyone will ever know if the diary is real, unless of course the hoaxer (or hoaxers) admit their work and also prove how they did it.
I have read and own a large collection of books based on the subject of Jack the Ripper and, as in your posting to Mota, if I had read just one book based on just one suspect, I would think that the case is solved (except for Melvin Harris' book, "The True Face of Jack the Ripper" which reminds me a lot of Hitler's Mein Kampf ... dull and rambling and a total waste of money and time).
I must admit, however, that the diary does raise quite a few interesting points, and if it is a hoax, the hoaxer (or hoaxers) must have been studying the facts for years. The most disappointing aspect I found in Paul Feldman's book was the fact that no unsolved murders have ever been discovered in Manchester or alike-named places, as is claimed the Ripper Diary. It is this claim in the diary that makes me suspicious of its authenticy.
Regards,
Cliff |
Author: Cliff Babbs
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 12:58 am | | Whoops, just realised I wrote the wrong name for Mr. Feldman's book, it should be, as we all know, the Final Chapter, not Final Solution, Mr. Stephen Knight's book.
Regards,
Cliff |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 04:22 am | | Hi all,
It is human nature to believe more in that argument last heard or read as in in those preceeding, which is why the accused has the last word in court. The Maybrick diaries are full of things that, isolated, could prove something but if you start taking a look at the Maybrick will, which could not be shown to be falsified anywhere and is with very high probability genuine, then the diary collapses like a house of cards.
Melvin Harris has done a lot on this. I don't agree with everything he says, either, but he does seem to have a pretty solid case for the diary being a hoax. Even the type of book itself does not pass to a person like Maybrick, who was well-to-do and would tend, I believe, to have written something like a for him very important daily chronical in a real, for that purpose purchased, high quality diary and not some smeary, dog-eared, previously used album found lying around in the attic.
Other Harris points are many and good, including timing, etc. and there have even been dark mumblings in some corners that financial rather that historical gounds may have supported the diary more as it should. Those who suscribe to this view have as much right to as others who don't.
OK, boys. All those who are now after my blood, I'm on holiday for the next weeks in the wilds of Germany.
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 07:41 am | | At the risk of my opening my mouth causes somebody to yet again accuse me of being a 'diary apologist', I'd just like to say that the "Diary" is neither 'smeary' nor 'dog-eared'. It is and was used as a scrapbook for photographs and so forth. The point is that the "Diary" is not a conventional diary or even a journal, but a confessional which the author supposedly used initially to express his feelings about Florence's affair. As such, it is to be doubted that the author would have bought a book for the purpose, but would have written in whatever he had to hand when the urge to write gripped him. And, of course, if the book contained mementoes of Florence, then one could better understand why it would have been to hand.
As for the Will, whether it is genuine or not is an argument that only really exists between Paul Feldman and Melvin Harris. The real question is whether or not handwriting analysis is capable of determining with absolute certainty that the Will and the "Diary" are not by the same hand. I do attach weight to the handwriting analysis, but I am aware that handwriting experts have been wrong in high profile cases in the past and am equally aware that handwriting experts like the genuine document and the questioned document to be written in like circumstances, be like documents, penned with like pens, and so on. As discussed under the handwriting section on this topic, how accurate is a comparison of a formal, legal document like a Will and the (supposedly) emotional meanderings of the diarist? Mentioning this to Donald Rumbelow only last week, he remarked that Peter Kurten's wife didn't recognise any similarity between the handwriting on an anonymous letter sent to the police and Kurten's own handwriting, yet Kurten had written both. |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 09:00 am | | Hi Paul,
Good to hear from you.
If the description 'dog-eared' etc. doesn't apply as sharply as I wrote it, the fact is that it was an album, and used at that. Why did Maybrick then remove the ca. 20 first pages? Would he not have simply gone to the first unused pages (or have turned the book) if he just wanted to bring his meandering thoughts to paper? Or should we suppose that Maybrick intended at the time that he wrote it that his writing be read by the public? If he wanted to confess, why not to the police or others besides or instead of writing his diary?
If I want to confess something, even after my death, I write a letter of confession addressed to a definite party, even when without name, and don't write descriptive pose about my doings to have it known at some time, some when, by some one, just to say I was the guilty party. My signature is vital. Even Maybrick had periods of clear thought during the time he was supposed to have written the diary.
The answer 'He wanted it to be known after his death' leaves the question 'In who's hand did he give it then, knowing that person would read it and then know he was Jack? That was too dangerous.
If he just hid it, how could he know when it would be found, and if found, if the finder would have interest in publishing? It would have been a sensation shortly after Maybrick's death and presumably also lucrative. This did not occur however. So either there was no confident or the finder had grounds to keep silent. What grounds could there have been. Florence?
I do not refer to handwriting will/diary, it is true that handwriting can change dramatically with time and, far more important, mental condition, if poison-induced or not. The original will, however, shows an embossed stamp which was not available to the public, yet follows exactly that used for countless numbers of other wills etc. It does seem improbable that a forger could do all that, and get the forgery accepted into public records etc.
Further, the contents of the will seem to confirm the contents of Florence's letter to her mother on 3rd December 1888. James wrote a new will on 25th April, 1889, full 4 months after Florence wrote that he would now settle everything on the children alone. He did just that.
The handwriting does play a role, however. Even extreme changes cannot completely eradicate facets of handscript. If we were to compare mine to yours, we would see no simularities at all, no matter from which period of our lives. If we compare mine now to mine from 40 years ago, some things have not changed and a general build is still evident.
I have never thought of you as a 'diary apologist' and I don't recall you claiming the diary be real. I don't claim it to be 100% hoax either, because I can't prove it.
Just a little point:
If I write an anonymous letter to anyone, I don't use my usual handwriting. I try to disguise it as best I can. I wouldn't lay too much weight on the evidence of Peter Kurten's wife, although she would have been absolutely truthful. I would have had no problem disguising my hand to my wife or anybody else who isn't an expert.
In case we don't hear any more before Christmas, a very merry christmas to you and your family.
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 09:42 am | | Hi Bob
I think I didn't make myself clear. The "Diary" does not begin as an account of murders, but as a somewhat violent outburst about Florence's affair(s) - it is a man using paper to express and perhaps exorcise thoughts and emotions which cannot be verbalised. In this context I think it unlikely that the author would have bought a book specially for the purpose (for one thing he wouldn't have known that he would continue to write), but would have used whatever was to hand when overcome by the urge to write.I therefore don't find it particularly odd that a scrapbook was used.
As to why the first pages were torn out, who knows? Maybe the author intended to destroy the "Diary". But why didn't the forger tear all the pages from the book and simply present a would-be publisher with a sheaf of loose papers? We can ask question after question and guess answers.
On the question of the handwriting, I wasn't suggesting that he Will was a forgery and, as said, the possibility of a forged will is really only a matter of argument between Feldman and Harris.
I do appreciate the point about handwriting retaining identifiable characteristics - that's what the handwriting experts all say - but handwriting experts have all been dogmatic that the handwriting of the Hitler diaries, Mussolini diaries and Howard Hughes autobiography were genuine. I'm not saying that handwriting analysis is unreliable, but in light of mistakes made with almost every high profile case in recent decades, I wonder just how reliable handwriting analysis in the case of historical documents really is.
And may I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new Year - we have several new Ripper and related books to look forward to and no doubt provoke even further argument! |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 11:26 am | | Hi Cliff:
Thanks for your comments. In regard to Feldy (so-called so as not to confuse him with other Pauls in this business) you might bear in mind a few lines from the first edition of the JtR AtoZ, unacountably omitted from later editions. The lines are from the section on E.K. Larkins:
"Larkins is the first of many obsessed Ripper theorists, setting a lamentable pattern of modifying his theories forcefully to meet new data; resolutely ignoring overwhelming evidence against his views; obstinately contradicting his critics. He is an object lesson to all who are certain they know the identity of the Ripper."
There is no indication in the Diary that it is the product of someone studying the "facts" for years. With the aid of the A to Z (first published 1991) and a couple of other books to provide background the diary was probably written within a few weeks.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 24 December 1998 - 03:47 am | | Missing!!!
I wrote that and I must say I was rather proud of it. It'll go back in!
I have a sneaking liking for Mr Larkins and feel that he is a figure who should and, indeed, must be researched. A giant among mortals. A man whose tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds would have won him fame and fortune and the admiration of all - if only he'd been correct. But such is our sad lot. Some are chosen for greatness, others doomed to be forgotten. But we should not forget Mr Larkins. A Merry Christmas to him, wherever he is. And what a project for someone to grasp in 1999 - to put a face to this trail blazer, the first to tread the path of Ripperology, the man who laid down the path since followed by so many - alas, followed nowhere... |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Thursday, 24 December 1998 - 06:28 am | | Hi Paul:
EKL does indeed sound an interesting person and if he was around today (he'd be 159 next year) would undoubtadly be in the media industry. He lived at 154 Lewisham Road Deptford so probably knew Sarah Robertson and my Great-Grandfather. He married a lady (Isabella) about 5 years older than him but may not have had children. Was he Jack? Well he'd only have to travel a few miles up the road to meet up with Druitt. Maybe its all part of the conspiracy.
Funny isn't it how these names keep returning: Knight, Harris/son, Paul. Our fortean friends might have something to say about that. And what sort of format is that Kosminski stuff saved in? I get a lot of plain English but also a great deal of computer squiggle.
Regards and best wishes for Christmas and the New year to you and everyone else in DickensWorld.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Sean Miller
Thursday, 24 December 1998 - 04:29 pm | | Cliff,
I have avoided stating it until now, but I too would feel that the one book in my "Ripper" collection which I found difficult to read and which didn't influence/stimulate me at all was "The True Face of Jack the Ripper". I think what upset me about that volume was that so much of it was straight quotations from letters/publications and so on!! I must admit I never finished the book (the only one I have ever left) - got about 75% of the way through and felt there was no point!!
The other book that I didn't like was the Feldman diary book. I tend to buy these books when they come out in paperback, and so (as normal) I eagerly awaited the paperback release of this book which at the bookshop looked so great. Unfortunately, whilst Shirley Harrison's book had me captivated, Feldman's didn't. I didn't feel it really added anything to the original "Diary" book.
We can dismiss the diary because we have the benefit of "history" to fall back on. Did the poste-house exist? Does this fit, does that fit. I personally would find it incredibly interesting to take four pieces of contemporary prose (say, from 1850) and add them to four pieces of "fake" writing, and then give all eight to a team of "experts". I would BET that the experts would find things "wrong" with the genuine articles..
"But they didn't use the phrase ..... in 1850"
"Ah, but the Poste-House wasn't there then..."
"We've carbon dated the copy and traced it to between 1880 and 1973"
Sean |
Author: Nikki dormer
Friday, 25 December 1998 - 06:57 am | | Dear Everyone,
Look people, I think I've been slightly misunderstood, and frankly it's getting annoying. All I am saying is, at the moment, in my personal opinion which I will be the first to say means diddly squat, I believe that James Maybrick is the most likely suspect, not that I am anything even remotely resembling an expert on the matter. It just makes sense to me which this business about poor polish jews and royalty just does not do. I'm not saying that there is no doubt that the diary isn't a forgery, but until (if)a forger comes along and says 'Hey, I did it, this is how and this is why', I have no reason to discount the diary because of a few 'mistakes' which can't be conclusively proven as mistakes anyway. As for you Peter Birchwood how the hell do you know that it's a forgery? Did you do it? Unless you did, you're going to have to come up with something a little better than 'This is a hoax. Jon Smyth, I'm not saying that I 'know' who the murderer is - of course I don't, but I strongly suspect Maybrick, which is all anyone can do. I think Paul Begg said everything else which got my goat about what you guys said - namely about the journal book itself. Unless you people were there, anything you have to say about how or why he used it bares little evidence to suggest either way that said diary is real or not. I am genuinely sorry if this posting sounds bitchy, it's not meant to but everytime I say something people tend to jump down my throat. I'm merely stating my humble opinion.
Thanks guys.
Nikki |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Friday, 25 December 1998 - 12:19 pm | | Nikki:
How do you know that Maybrick done it? Unless you were there in the winter of '88 seeing him complete with gold watch attached to his stomach creeping into Mary's room then you are only going by what Shirley and Feldy tell you. If you read "The Story of Dr. Doolittle" then you will have excellent evidence for believing that animals speak. (Our cat does but that's different.) If Feldy has persuaded you via his misunderstood genealogy and unlikely "evidence" that JtR was James Maybrick, then good luck to you. Before however you join the rapidly diminishing ranks of the Feldy fan club read Phil Sugden's book or indeed the AtoZ (available at all fine book stores.)
And no, I didn't forge the diary. But that hasn't prevented me from examining the evidence pro and con gentleman Jim Maybrick and falling very heavily on the side that the diary was forged probably around 1991. And it probably wasn't forged by anyone with a ripper track record. I have mentioned before that in my opinion the most likely ripper document to be successfully forged would be the suicide note/confession of Druitt. At least we know that that existed at one time.
In the meantime have a happy rest of Christmas If you're near the beach, pity us poor dwellers in Wales where the only difference between the sea and the land is the amount of water.
Peter. |
Author: Dave Bedwell
Friday, 25 December 1998 - 07:17 pm | | | I have found that in my 15 years of intrest in jack that a lot of paper has been written on and most of all oo it is the same things just hashed over in a different view. But the Maybrick diary is at least fresh and holds a possoble answer to a lot of questions we all keep asking. This a a great subject and will require much more work and a great deal of luck to complete. |
Author: Dave Bedwell
Friday, 25 December 1998 - 07:41 pm | | | I have found that in my 15 years of intrest in jack that a lot of paper has been written on and most of all oo it is the same things just hashed over in a different view. But the Maybrick diary is at least fresh and holds a possoble answer to a lot of questions we all keep asking. This a a great subject and will require much more work and a great deal of luck to complete. |
Author: Anonymous
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 05:37 am | | Well ,here we go again. It should be obvious to all now that the crass nonsense of the 'diary,' a blatantly obvious modern forgery by Barrett and his wife, is not going to die overnight. It has many parallels with the Royal/Masonic stupidity, and we have all seen how that lingers on.
It is understandable how some of the less knowledgeable general readership may be taken in by it, and in no way must we disparage them. We should, instead, attempt to educate them with the true facts. It is inexcusable for anyone who is informed on the subject to support it in any way.
Dave Bedwell's comments are a little puzzling. After 15 years interest he should really know better than to be taken in by the 'diary.' The 'Maybrick diary' holds no answers to any of the questions being asked by seekers of the truth in 'Ripper' research. The subject will receive a lot more attention, and, indeed, is receiving it. Luck may play some part in the discovery of fresh information, but mostly it is down to hard work and persistence by the researcher. However, it will never be complete. |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 06:43 am | | Dear Peter,
AHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I DON'T KNOW THAT JAMES MAYBRICK DID IT, AND IF YOU CARE TO READ MORE CAREFULLY NEXT TIME I NEVER SAID I DID!!!!! What I said was 'in my opinion...James Maybrick is the most likely suspect'. When I read more information, maybe my opinion will change. Maybe I won't, but if it doesn't, does that make me an idiot? Apparently it does, according to you and by the sounds of things 'Anonymous' as well, although I think he's barking up the wrong tree there with Barrett and his wife if, for arguments sake, it was forged. As for the Dr Doolittle crack, I'm not even going to grace that with an answer. I may be only 18, Mr Birchwood, but I am not an idiot and I would prefer it if I wasn't spoken to as one, thanks all the same.
Nikki. |
Author: Anonymous
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 09:27 am | | Of course, the ridiculous thing about this is that James Maybrick never was a suspect. His name never arose in Victorian times in any way whatever to connect him with the murders, and never has done since, that is until the arrival of the forged 'diary' in 1992.
Ah, Nikki, to be 18 again! No one is suggesting you are an idiot, most certainly neither I, nor the well-versed and gentlemanly Mr Birchwood would ever dream of making such a suggestion. It is a pity that you thought that anyone was speaking to you in such a way. However, age does bring with it (usually) a modicum of wisdom and a wealth of experience. And you become, what is known for want of a better description, worldly-wise.
Please Nikki don't think that I would have such effrontery, I am sure that you are as intelligent as, or more intelligent than, me. But there is a slight difference between being intelligent, and being experienced in life and in certain subjects. Mr Birchwood and I are exceedingly well-versed in the subject under scrutiny here. Please do not take our thoughts lightly, or as ill-considered, they are merly offered for what they are - well considered, and well-based deductions on all the available evidence. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 03:21 pm | | | Nikki - I'm sure that Peter didn't intend to suggest that you are stupid and you certainly aren't stupid if you have been persuaded by Paul Feldman's book. Other people, if not persuaded that the "Diary" is genuine are persuaded that it is rather more than 'a blatantly obvious modern forgery by Barrett and his wife' (to quote anonymous), as a reading of Prof. David Canter's introduction to Shirley Harrison's recent revised edition indicates. And Prof. Canter isn't stupid. Nor are a lot of the other people who have questioned whether the "Diary" is in fact a modern forgery and whether Mike and Ann were the forgers. But the "Diary" does generate a lot of heated emotion, as does any subject where strong views and opinions are held by both sides, and it's best not to let the words of others get to you, especially when half the time the written word doesn't convey the spirit of the words. Anonymous's message came across as patronising. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be. It's just an opinion, like Peter's, which they think is the right one. Maybe they are right. Maybe not. Time will, er, reveal all. |
Author: Sean Miller
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 03:43 pm | | Nikki,
As you probably gathered by my earlier message, which appears to have had no effect at all on this discussion, I agree with you - I think that it is easy to discount something which EXISTS. You can pick on details and "prove" them wrong. It is far harder to prove speculation wrong - rumours, theories. Whilst you can pick on the mention of the "poste-house" within the diary, because it is there in writing (!), if you try to prove a "theory" wrong then the author of the offending book can always so "oh well, I worded that wrong ... I said X but I meant Y". You can't do that with something in print.
I personally don't like people who post to boards anonymously. I think it means you can't actually conduct a proper debate - I would rather be able to question people directly, and conduct a proper debtate. I would beg anybody posting to this board to at least have the courtesy to put something in "Username" when posting their message. At least then we know who we are!!
I won't say I know for certain, because I don't, but the idea that the diary is only 7 years old (at most) is rather difficult for me to take in. I see it as older than this - I personally (as Mr Begg and Mr Birchwood have heard before - sorry!) think that if it is a forgery it is a contemporary forgery (or at least written by somebody who WAS around at the time - so written within 20-30 years of the murders) and the details which are so often stated as "proof that this must be modern as facts X and Y weren't available to the public until 1990" would have been gained through contacts, or indeed employment, within the Police at that time!! One has to remember that anything which was made public in the last 10 years was in the police files from day one!!
Sean |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 04:55 pm | | | I MUST AGREE WITH ALOT OF YOU ON THIS PAGE. WHICH ONES I WILL AGREE WITH, THOUGH, I'M NOT CERTAIN YET. I DO BELIEVE THAT JAMES MAYBRICK IS A LIKELY SUBJECT, BUT THEN I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT ALMOST EVERYONE ONE I HAVE READ ABOUT REGARDING JTR IS A LIKELY SUSPECT. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHAT DOES EVERYONE WHO TALKS ON THIS BOARD THINF OF THE FACT THAT MICHAEL BARRETT HAS IN FACT SIGNED A SWORN AFFIDAVIT SAYING THAT HE HIMSELF WROTE THE DIARY? |
Author: Dave Bedwell
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 04:59 pm | | I hope that there is room to consider all the potential that the books opens up . I do not say that the book is the end all and be all on the matter of Jack The Ripper. But I do say that there are things in the diary that add a lot of questions that need to be looked at. Mr Maybrick
fits so many of the parts in this case and yet we all are so quick to dismiss the book as a fake and push on. I think a true hunter might delve a litter deeper.Maybe as is the common belief it is a fake but in the 15 years I HAVE SEARCHED for the answer this book was a real attention getter./ |
Author: SHELBI
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 05:14 pm | | I also found that this book was an attention getter, and I'm not discounting the belief that the diary is real. I myself read the diary three times in the same day just to make sure that I had read everything correctly. I am not an expert in the field of JTR, nor do I claim to be anything else than what I am. I love researching JTR and proobably always will. Due to limited funds, I cannot buy every book there is on the subject, but I do spend an enormous(sic) amount of time reading as many books as I can get my hands on at the local library. I enjoy discussing JTR as much as possible and I was thrilled to find this web site (I have only had a computer for 3 days now). Sorry to ramble on so, but the point I was trying to make was that I give everything I read on JTR an equal chance, including the diary, even though Michael Barrett did claim that he wrote it.
Shelbi |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 05:34 pm | | I, like Sean Miller, have largely avoided commenting on many aspects of Ripperology, but feel the recent ill-conceived comment on Melvin Harris' work demands redress.
Having studied JtR for many years now, and with personal experience of discussion with both Mr. Harris and Mr. Feldman, I have no hesitation in expressing my belief that Melvin's rightful reputation for scrupulous, critical research puts his work well beyond comparison with anything so-far produced in support of the so-called 'diary of JtR'. The 'diary of JtR' is, to my mind, - after several years of serious, critical, review of this so-called historical document - no more than a late twentieth century JOKE. All the works that attempt to prove otherwise seem to me to fall so far short of acceptable methods of historiography to be taken seriously by all but the most neophytic student of the subject. This is in no way intended to be a criticism of any of those who believe but is, I suppose, a compliment to the superficially persuasive presentation to date. Perverted presentation of extant evidence, however, seems to be the only substance in support of this 'diary'.
I have no doubt that The Diary of Jack the Ripper is a joke and no amount of misinterpretation, misrepresentation, or even ill-founded threats of litigation, will convince me otherwise.
Merry Christmas
Alex |
Author: Sean Miller
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 07:02 pm | | Alex,
If you read the note that I sent, I didn't in any way express a view that what Melvyn has written was rubbish - simply, that the WAY he wrote it didn't keep me interested. Unfortunately (perhaps due to his "rightful reputation for scrupulous, critical research") the long passages from source material tended to make me lose the thread!!
In contrast, Shirley Harrison wrote a remarkably persuasive book! I was captivated by her style (in much the same way as I was by Stephen Knight, by (dare I say it) our friend Mr Begg (!), and by Martin Fido et. al).... what one has to consider in this JTR scenario is the fact that ultimately, when it comes to the general public at large, it is the person who writes the most persuasive book that sways people!
...unfortunately, our friend Mr Harris is not good at writing books that I, personally (AND LET'S GET THAT STRAIGHT - PERSONALLY!!) would want to read. He may be a great Ripperologist, but the people who make the most impression when writing are people like Stephen Knight (and Shirley Harrison I would say) who can make the book INTERESTING!!
I think to call the Diary a "joke" is unfair! It is not an insult to the person that wrote the diary, it is an insult to the people that believe in it! ...and these are not just cranks, these are people that actually have studied the other theories and wish to find out the truth!
I have read a lot on JTR. I, unfortunately, cannot claim to have the experience of Paul Begg or the like (though I have their books on my shelf), because I have my own profession and my own work to do. However, I am capable of putting facts together, and having done so I find it offensive that you should "put down" the Diary with so little justification.
There are some "scary" things in the diary, things that our mate Barrett could NOT have known. I still maintain that it is probably a forgery, but they're going to have to do better than persuading somebody of Mr Barrett's calibre to sign some half-baked statement to persuade me that it is less than 50 years old!
Sean |
Author: Anonymous
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 07:10 pm | | What excellent, sober, sane and and intelligent words by Alex Chisholm. I recommend all readers of these boards to read and inwardly digest them. Mr Begg suggests I may be patronising, I would like to level the same accusation at him. My words to Nikki were sincere, more than that I do not wish to add.
A reading of Professor Canter's first book 'Criminal Shadows' will reveal the level of his knowledge on this complex subject. Need I say more? Mr Begg's 'other people' who are persuaded that the 'diary' is 'rather more than a blatantly obvious modern forgery by Barrett and his wife' do not include any recognised authorities or authors on the subject. If any such recognised persons do number amongst these 'other people' please could Mr. Begg name them here.
Four of the best and most accurate authorities, Melvin Harris, Martin Fido, Nick Warren and Philip Sugden, dismiss it out of hand as an audacious modern forgery - that's good enough for me! Mr. Begg can hardly be described as unbiased in this instance after all his involvement (and embarrassment) with this nonsense. I understand that the three authors of the 'A to Z' fell out with each other over it because they couldn't agree!
Now if misled enthusiasts wish to divert onto a dead-end track and research the fake 'diary,' that is entirely up to them. What does seem wrong is when they leap into print and mislead others. Let's get it straight - the 'diary' is a waste of time and honest research may be well spent in other areas.
Now if Mr. Sean Miller does 'not like people who post to boards anonymously,' that again is fine by me. That is his problem, he does not have to read my posts. I know that I am capable of conducting a proper debate and, (and I say this in no sense as a boast, merely as a fact) I also know that my knowledge of the subject is much greater than his. Perhaps I do not wish to debate with the likes of Mr. Miller. I certainly would gain nothing from such an exchange. Mr. Miller's comment regardng the suggested age of the 'diary' is his own ill-informed opinion and the mere fact that people of the stature of Messrs. Harris, Fido, Warren, and Sugden (as listed above) take the totally opposite view surely indicates that his words are mistaken.
To Mr. Bedwell I would address one simple question, what new fact or knowledge about the Whitechapel murders of 1888 has been added by either of the 'diary' books? I know of no-one who recognises either author as an authority in the field. Also, if his research (as a 'true hunter') is serious then he must forget all the books he has been reading on the subject and return to original sources thus obviating all the dross which has accrued over the years. Mr. Yost could give him some excellent advice regarding this.
Shelbi may think that the book was an 'attention getter' which it may well be for an uninformed reader looking for a read only (Publishers' blurbs do tend to be 'attention getters' and I can recommend some much better works of fiction for you to read).
I know that the likes of Mr. Begg will dismiss me as another 'bigoted anti-diarist,' but others must judge what they read here for themselves. Again I must recommend the serious reader to Mr. Chisholm's excellent post preceding this one.
Also, a word of warning for those who wish to embark on research into a 'Ripper'/Maybrick/'diary' connection. Mr. Feldman with vast amounts of cash and a 'talented research team' has been there before you. He failed dismally. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 09:48 pm | | I hate this topic...DIGEST THAT INWARDLY, Anonymous! But this constant devolving into the subjective brainpower quotient of people who happen to disagree with you has pissed me off NO END!
Nikki and Sean and Dave Bedwell and Shelbi, to you especially, keep fighting for what you think and believe. Trust me, NO ONE on this Casebook has EVER been persuaded by anyone else's arguments, so don't let that stop you from posting. I wish this topic could be a place for you to share your thoughts and feelings with like-minded people. But we have the Maybrick-Thought-Police who immediately become ballistic if anyone has the temerity to disagree with them and all their like-minded Ripper pundits and all their so-called refutations. And they post denigrating, sly, bombastic, you-provide-your-own-derogatory-adjective messages, and for what? For what purpose? So that "the public" won't be misled? So the "uninformed" won't be duped? So the JtR Fan Club won't fall into disrepute among the throngs and hosts who follow our every word? So that Our Saviors can save us from ourselves? Well, take your messiah-complexes, all of you, and shove 'em inwardly!!!
To all of you who feel compelled to constantly point out the supposed personal errors of others, their ignorance, their inexperience, couch it in whatever terms you will...find something better to do, will ya. How many times does this topic have to degrade into open or something that tries to approach subtle personal attack? What we want here is debate. Pointing out personal "failures", declaming that others are ignorant/inexperienced/frivolous or flighty (as opposed to THEIR righteous seriousness!!!)/blah-blah-blah, accusing others of fraud, deception, avarice, ignorance...THIS SERVES NO ONE. It might make the post-er feel a little bigger or better than the rest of us, but they should just go get their fav personal photo blowed-upped into a poster, suitably and tastefully framed, hang it on their walls, and worship themselves!
And don't be misled...I'm talking to you, Anonymous and others like you who adopt your tone and attitude...and only tangentially to others who have posted using similar tone and language -- either in moments of personal frustration or whatever. I simply cannot accuse them of willful malice toward Nikki et al...BECAUSE I KNOW THEM, Anonymous. No one knows you. And your motives are as suspect as your need for anonymity (not even a personal nickname so others can identify you -- like yours truly, for instance). But I've had enough of you. Post what you want, ya pompous little weasel...I guarantee I won't be paying attention to you. The sad thing is, there are so few of us here all the time, I probably know you under another name...and I would not want to associate with you after your Saturday, December 26, 1998 - 07:10 pm posting. Maybe my "electronic" friendship means nothing to you, but if it does is that loss worth ANYTHING you put into that post?
The rest is especially for Nikki (and others her age):
I really don't want Nikki to have to listen to people like Anonymous or their snitty arguments -- because even a sound, well-reasoned point...badly made...is of no value to anyone. And also, forgive me, Nikki, it is because you are so young. The future of JtR research belongs to people like you. You can do far, far worse if your only "fault" is being persuaded by what you believe is a sound argument. Unlike some examples you read here of what passes for intelligent thought, your ideas DO change; beliefs morph without our knowing it sometimes. Maybrick may stay your JtR til your dying day, but if you're like the rest of us here, he probably won't -- or you won't suspect him for the same reasons that you do today.
I'd urge you to listen and learn from your friendly, more respectful opponents (your Christmas greeting tells me you can differentiate them from certain OTHERS). The Diary's authenticity is in question (whether or not you think it should...it is). There is very little you can do right now to change that. Leave it to the scientists and Harrison et al. to bolster the case. Meanwhile, you have to learn all you can about JtR and his times. Why? Perhaps some day we'll be discussing the new book by Nikki Dormer which ABSOLUTELY and POSITIVELY proves that James Maybrick did the deed!!!
If I could make a suggestion to you, Nikki, I'd like you to consider this: which most interests you...showing that Maybrick is Jack the Ripper (disregard HOW you came to this conclusion for a moment) or are you more interested in proving that the Diary is genuine?
Even if one day the Maybrick Diary is universally recognized as genuinely written by him, think of that Diary as evidence in a courtroom. Is it evidence of his guilt or of his disturbed state of mind? Don't you need documents or other evidence to substantiate the case against Maybrick? If you want to just prove that the Diary is genuine and you don't care whether Maybrick is the Ripper -- I have no advice to offer but I wish you well. But if you want to prove that Maybrick is the Ripper, you and others who feel the same MUST search for more evidence of his guilt...and it must be independent of the Diary (because, again -- and I am sorry -- but the Diary is in question). You can do those things for yourself on your own by reading Sugden/Begg/Rumbelow/Harris/Evans...the list of authors goes on longer than my posts!!!...and learn and share here too, with the rest of us, until you can marshal your arguments and facts like Perry Mason, and write as persuasively and convincingly as those you admire today.
We'd all like to unmask the monster who was JtR: we'll act as historians and police detectives to identify him; prosecuting attorneys to present our evidence; sit as judges on the arguments made against him; and form a judgement of his guilt or innocence. But there's one important step that always seems left out...someone MUST defend the accused; they must attack the incriminating evidence...otherwise there would be no fairness or impartiality, no broad consensus in the verdict, and absolutely NO Justice. Weigh Maybrick's innocence as well as his guilt...and you'll be by far the fairest and most honest JtR researcher I've yet encountered, and that especially includes me.
So just turn away from Anonymous-type posts, Nikki. You have people here who agree and don't agree with you, but they do so as courteously as they can (perhaps under temporary or permanent trying personal circumstances).
I hope that the OTHERS someday at least learn courtesy and respect from you. I know you can learn a helluva lot from most of the people you'll meet here (but NEVER listen to a WORD I say or you'll be in deep you-know-what). I also hope they'll realize that they have much they can learn from you.
If this was a playground -- which certain people act as if it is -- I'd smack some of the people here around. But it's not. Send me an email if I can say or do anything to keep the petty little weasels off your back. I don't mind a fight in a good cause. But I do HATE, HATE, HATE this nasty, ugly topic!
Yours truly,
Yaz |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 11:14 pm | | To Anonymous:
I must agree with Yazoo in calling you a little weasel. It is people like you that cause others to give up on their own theories just because you sound smart. I may only be 24(which is just a few years older than Nikki), but I am anything but "uninformed". No, I cannot buy every book on JtR, but that doesn't mean anything except that I prefer to spend money on other things. I have read everything about JtR that I could get my hands on at least a dozen times. I not only read it, I absorb it. But then you couldn't possibly understand what I'm talking about because the only thing you absorb is the author's name so that you can throw it around and belittle others. So I hope you remember that someday after you are gone, it will be the young like Nikki and I that will carry on the search for JtR.
Thank You
Shelbi
By the way, I may be only 24, but I happen to have extensive knowledge on the subject. I also happen to be a criminal profiler. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 12:07 am | | Hey, Shelly!
When I was 24...never mind 18!!!...you wouldn't have found me anywhere near something as serious/important/worthwhile as this. More likely I'd be in some trouble, 24-hour-long parties, and/or staring into the bottom of a bottle of vodka, and/or+and/or walking three feet above the sidewalk with the aid of illegal pharmaceuticals. I shudder to think but my chromosomes are probably alphabet soup due to my excesses. But look and see what we got here!
It is amazing to me that people so young (and forgive, please, my awe...its the senility, you know) would show any interest in this topic...and take a breath before you old codgers and bitties snipe about diaries, forgers, and people more of my sort (ah, my youth!). If you can't remember to imagine a human being behind the pixels that flutter on your screens, at least consider trying to remember an age.
I can now slink softly into blessed oblivion (I'll only go prematurely if I can take Anonymous with me -- grins) knowing that some portion of the young among the human race will not let go the search for the murderer of those guitless women, 110 years ago. Give these younger ones among us some credit and show a little extra consideration for their demonstration of responsibility at least! (What were YOU doing when you were 18 or 24, hmmmm?)
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 04:32 am | | In my post to Nikki I made the small but not insignificant point that the spirit of the written word on these boards is sometimes missed. Sadly, some people not only miss the spirit but also what was actually said. For example, I did not say that Anonymous was being patronising, but that his words could be read as being patronising (especially given the earlier 'think again sonny' crack!). My point, however, was that we should take a step back and have a think before blowing off steam because people often aren’t saying what we think they were saying. Anonymous might also like to read what somebody is saying, not what he thinks they are saying.
Similarly, I did not say that Professor David Canter has been persuaded that the “Diary” is genuine. I said that he did not immediately perceive it as ‘a blatantly obvious modern forgery by Barrett and his wife’. Had he done so, I assume that he wouldn’t have taken the interest in the document that he has done or written the introduction to Shirley Harrison’s book. And Professor Canter’s conclusion is based on areas within Professor Canter’s expertise, not on his knowledge of the Ripper case. Dr David Foreshaw was equally impressed with the psychological content, believing that it either revealed the “Diary” to be genuine or to have been written by someone capable of understanding and accurately portraying the psychopathology of a serial killer. Neither of these men are stupid. Neither, I hazard, is Bruce Robinson (scriptwriter of The Killing Fields) who has not only stated that he doesn’t regard the “Diary” as a modern forgery, but rather more importantly stated that had he written the “Diary” he would regard it as ‘the summit of my literary achievement.’ These are not necessarily people who believe that the “Diary” is genuine, but they aresane, intelligent, mature and responsible people who have achieved stature within their individual fields, who clearly don’t consider that it is ‘blatantly obvious’ that the “Diary” is a ‘modern forgery by Barrett and his wife’.
And contrary to your opinion, Anonymous, not only am I unbiased, I think I have every justification in expecting to be described as unbiased and perhaps even to be treated as more unbiased than those authors named. While not criticising any of them – and let me repeat that I am not criticising them - two of those named dismissed the “Diary” as a forgery before they even knew anything about it, one hasn’t to the best of my knowledge investigated the document at all and went into print saying that if Florence Maybrick had known of it she would have used it in her defence (omitting to realise that Florence would hardly have produced evidence in mitigation of a crime to which he had pleaded innocence). I, on the other hand, investigated the “Diary” with an open mind, did not allow initial feelings to colour my later judgement, have consistently attempted to balance the evidence fairly, and I have met and interviewed the principal participants and others involved in the story, which is more than most people have. As for Martin Fido, he was part of the original research team, his involvement is pretty much the same as mine and the authors of the A toZhave been unanimously agreed that the Diary is a forgery and have stated so numerous times. What do I have to be embarrassed about, Anonymous?
I don’t dismiss you as ‘another ‘bigoted anti-diarist'’, Anonymous, but you do imply that people are stupid if they think differently to you and that is a stance I cannot condone. By saying that the “Diary” is ‘a blatantly obvious modern forgery by Barrett and his wife’ you imply that people are stupid if they can't see what to you is ‘blatantly obvious’. And that’s what happens on this “Diary” board: instead of reasoned and intelligent debate, somebody pops up with a sweeping statement like yours which is highly questionable and even doubtful. Let’s assume that the opinion of an Oscar-nominated screenwriter carries some authority. We thus have Bruce Robinson saying that he thinks the “Diary” so good he would consider it the summit of his literary career. But you think it ‘blatantly obvious’ that it was written by Mike Barrett. Do Mike Barrett's literary skills strike you as on a par with those of Bruce Robinson's? It's that 'blatantly obvious' is it? Well, maybe you'll be proven right, but that won't make you more intelligent or clever than Bruce Robinson. And if you are proven wrong, that won't make you stupid either. But it just might suggest that your sweeping acceptance of the authorship of the "Diary" worked to suppress reasoned and intelligent discussion.
Okay, so maybe the “Diary” was written by Mike Barrett, but prima facie the supposed literary skill and ability of the “Diary” author” is a valid topic for discussion. It may even have the ultimate value of showing whether the “Diary” is skilfully written and whether Mike and Ann did or did not possess the necessary skill to have written it. To this end Nikki is entitled to air and discuss her opinions, as is anyone, without being put down with a 'think again sonny'. |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 05:26 am | | Mr. Begg, you obviously did not comprehend what I wrote, I said that you suggested that I was being patronising, which is exactly the case. Rather than saying that I was, you made the suggestion that this was the interpretation that may be put on my words. However, I really do not wish to argue semantics.
With regard to Professor Canter I stated merely what is an undeniable fact - that he is no expert on the subject under discussion here. Implicit to this basic fact is that any initial interpretation of the 'diary' that he may make is not tempered with any in-depth knowledge of the murders, nor of the tortuous provenance arguments surrounding the 'diary.'
Without wishing to make any further remarks that may be misinterpreted as 'personal attacks' I shall refrain from any comment on any other persons mentioned by you.
As for yourself, you have failed to name any recognised person in this area of knowledge who does not think that the 'diary' is a modern forgery.
You may think that you are unbiased, I am afraid that you have to live with all your past postings which clearly indicate the contrary.
You mention your colleague Mr. Fido, I am sorry but I believe that his opinions regarding the 'diary' and all its ramification are greatly at variance with yours. You, and certain others, may be well impressed with the content of the 'diary' but you, and they, are a tiny minority.
If my postings come over as implying that people are stupid then I must apologise to them, for that is not the intention. I merely recognise that others may be rather inexperienced in this field of research, and I was merely offering advice. Obviously that advice is not wanted/required and in view of the vehemence of some of the responses to it I shall politely withdraw from these boards. I was not trying to suppress or put down anyone's ideas or opinions, but merely to advise and warn. It would seem, however, that it is only postings supportive to the 'diary that are wanted here.
I am afraid, however, that your rather puerile arguments will do nothing to make me change my mind about the 'diary' and the damage to honest research that it has done. As for yourself, I think that you ran out of fresh ideas/arguments on this topic dozens of postings back and I hear the same old tired rhetoric.
Good-bye, and I sincerely wish you, and all the other posters here, a happy New Year. |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 07:03 am | | Dear Everyone,
I do sincerely mean this: Thank you all so much for getting behind me.
Yazoo:
I know the diary is in question, it should be, as should any document be about such a controversial topic. I think the reason that I believe in this diary (apart from Shirley Harrison's, and Paul Feldmans books, and the amount of research involved) is that James Maybrick fits the picture of Jack The Ripper that I've always had in my mind. I've been intrigued by this guy since I was about 7 years old and saw a documentary on the television which scared the pants off me. From that moment on I was hooked, and I have always believed there were only 5 or 6 murders and that he was a middle to upperclass guy, and probably married or divorced since the violence was only on women and were of such a sexually violent manner. Before I heard all this diary stuff, I was leaning toward JK Stephen or MJ Druitt, but neither really had my full attention the way our good buddy James does. To answer your question, I think I'm more interested in trying to prove the diary is real because that would then prove that James was the guy, if you get what I'm trying to say (I think I've said it badly - this is why I don't think I'll ever write a book, my english is bad). The problem is, if there is any additional evidence that a) has not come to light yet or b) Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison missed, it would have to be mighty convincing if anyone were actually going to believe it, because I think even I would be a bit sceptical. Not to mention the fact that there are certain people out there (not mentioning any names for the only reason that he hasn't given one) that wouldn't believe it no matter what came to light. I am however going to read and ponder both books, and these message boards and if my opinion changes, I'll be sure to let you all know (at which point I'm sure somebody will come out with a chorus of 'I told you so's').
Nikki |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 07:33 am | | Anonymous – I think I comprehended you perfectly. You wrote: “Mr Begg suggests I may be patronising”. I did not suggest that. Quite the contrary. I said that although your message ‘came across as patronising’, I was ‘sure it wasn’t meant to be’.
I also stated that intelligent people like Professor Canter did not share your given opinion that the “Diary” is 'a blatantly obvious modern forgery by Barrett and his wife'. You responded by suggesting that Professor Canter’s opinion was devalued because he doesn’t know much about the Ripper case. I replied that his opinion was in the main based on his own area of expertise, not on his knowledge of the case, and as such was acceptable. I then cited, as per your request (‘please could Mr. Begg name them here’) some other people whose professional opinion threw into question whether it was ‘blatantly obvious’ that Mike and Ann Barrett had the literary skills to be the forgers.
Now, your statement that the “Diary” is ‘a blatantly obvious modern forgery by Barrett and his wife' is belittling to Nikki. That’s why it provoked the response it has. Your statement is also questionable given the professional conclusions expressed by the likes of Professor Canter and Bruce Robinson. Maybe both are wrong. I’m probably not qualified to argue with either. Maybe you are. Well, the ball is firmly in your court to explain to those people (not to me; I am merely repeting what they have said) why they are wrong and why it is ‘blatantly obvious’ that Mike and Ann composed the “Diary”.
Finally, I do not want anybody to leave these boards, especially when they have knowledge and insights to share, and it would be a pity if you departed. And there is no need for you to do so. Instead, just think about what you wrote and why it provoked a heated response from several people. Also, think why Nikki and anyone else would be offended by being told that something in which they have placed credence is ‘blatantly’ a forgery ect. And, although you think my argument puerile, think, too, about whether or not the “Diary” does betray literary skill and about whether Mike and Ann really do have the literary skills. Or offer alternative viewpoints. But please don’t think a ‘blatantly obvious…’ or a ‘think again sonny’ constitutes reasoned argument. It doesn’t. Just moderate your expressions a little and your opinions will be welcomed and valued. |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 09:07 am | | Hello everyone! I’m only 11 and my technophobic mum has been eavesdropping the casebook message boards for several weeks, on my dad’s internet account! I too am interested in Jtr. It’s amazing how much heated debate the “Diary” has provoked. Everyone has different views, and I think people should not be so rude in the way they criticise others.
My mum has her own theories regarding some of the diary “problems” e.g. the post-house, 1 tin match box, empty, ‘8 Little Whores’ poem (oo-er!) and “O costly intercourse of death”. She thinks the idea that the Barretts are master-forgers of such a document is extremely outlandish, having read the updated Shirley Harrison book.
By the way, do you like my impressive vocabulary?! I hope to follow in Nikki’s footsteps as a young “Diary” supporter. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 09:36 am | | Hey, Nikki,
I'd have made a bet that you would have made the choice about the Diary that you did, and for the reasons you did. One thing I could suggest is that you write to Shirley Harrison and ask her if she needs any volunteers to help with research etc. Paul is a professional author and maybe could offer some insight on the kind of reception you might expect...1) Harrison may never see your letter, 2) she may be so busy as not to have time to reply, 3) her position on the Diary may make her wary of people who claim they want to help, etc etc. Try a letter to her via her publisher. At least she might appreciate the moral support. But of course you can also just stay here too and be her unofficial champion (along with Shelly and others).
Anonymous, O Anonymous!
What are we to do with you? You seem able to deconstruct Paul's messages and find that the most innocuous statements prove incontrovertibly, unquestionably, etc etc blah blah blah that Paul Begg is more sly than even the Serpent in the Garden of Eden! Not any or every statement that does not totally denigrate or demolish the "Diary" provides proof that the author's sentiments are "really and truly and secretly" IN FAVOR of the Diary being genuine. Basically all Paul seems to be saying is that OTHER people find it to be remarkably well-done -- whether as forgery, or as far as its fictional quality, or its resemblence to the thinking of a serial killer. Paul can't seem to win for losin' if he breathes one word about the Diary that does not heap: 1) abuse on everyone involved in supporting the theory behind the "Diary", 2) scorn, ridicule, righteous indignation upon the document itself -- in all of its manifestations as an alleged "confession", a "historical" document", a literary achievement (especially in the fiction category), or as a text showing some skill in recreating the mind of a serial killer.
We can and should argue for and against ideas. There is no value in attempting to make a point against the theory behind the Diary or the Diary-as-document by pretending to play "ambush journalism" and exposing the PEOPLE and not the OBJECT to scepticism (on the mild end of the scale) or to absolute condemnation as the production of liars, cheats, frauds, what-have-you (on the other end of the scale).
Personal attacks are unnecessary if you have a case, with unassailable strengths and merit, against the OBJECT. But if you resort to making cases regarding the motivations etc of the PEOPLE behind the OBJECT and then, whatever negative conclusions you have against those PEOPLE, you try to apply those conclusions to the OBJECT, you risk the accusation (frequently heard) that "since you can't attack the legitimacy of the Diary, you must resort to character assassination." You must know that you can bring considerable doubt against the Diary as an OBJECT. Why bother with the PEOPLE who believe in it -- especially when some or most or all of those people may not be liars, cheats, frauds, dupes, inexperienced, gullible, etc etc? If you're from America, you must realize the half loathing/half twisted vicarious enjoyment people who religiously watch the TV program "60 Minutes" feel when Mike Wallace catches some idiotic schmuck with his hands in the cookie jar and we see his face in the camera looking like a deer that's been caught in the headlights of a car racing toward it. Most of us may even start to half-way sympathize with the guilty schmuck, SOLELY because of the "ambush journalism" treatment he gets. It don't serve your cause!
And listen to what the Man says: "Just moderate your expressions a little and your opinions will be welcomed and valued."
I'd make two suggestions to Stephen Ryder concerning this topic:
1) Create another topic that deals strictly with the PEOPLE involved in the Maybrick Diary. Since emotions run high, and personal attacks are hard for even the mildest among us to contain, have a place where these scurrilous attacks can be vented...and either followed by those so bent on that course, or ignored by the rest of us who find no value in it.
BUT...I prefer item 2...
2) Do a cost/benefit analysis of making a dartboard with James Maybrick's face on it and, if feasible, sell it on the Casebook to help financially support this website. People who believe in the Diary and Maybrick as the Ripper can buy it to show their contempt for the "villain." And those who don't support the Diary will be able to show their contempt, and have an alternative outlet for their feelings, about the whole "Maybrick Diary" industry...all in the privacy of their own homes.
Yaz |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 10:08 am | | I did not intend to reply any further, but Mr. Begg's posting does ask for a response.
I said that I did not really want to argue semantics, but I find myself having to do so. I am capable of reading and saw exactly what you originally said. You said that 'Anonymous's message came across as patronising', albeit with the qualification you describe. Now whether or not you were 'sure that it wasn't meant to be' is irrelevant, the suggestion has been made, you have described it as 'coming across,' appearing, or call it what you will, patronising.
Your arguments regarding Mr. Canter and Mr. Robinson are totally irrelevant, neither of them is qualified to make a pronouncement on the authenticity of the 'diary,' both of them lacking the requisite knowledge. The names I am asking for you to supply as supporting the 'diary' as being either genuine or an 'old forgery,' are names in the 'Ripper' field of expertise. You have not named one!
If my statements are 'belittling to Nikki,' which they are most certainly not intended to be, then that is a matter of personal interpretation and down to the individual. That, if assumed, I would argue, is far worse than feeding them with false (or misleading) information, posing as fact, in the first place. And there is plenty of this to be found.
Mr. Barrett has confessed to forging the 'diary' with the help of his wife, on numerous occasions, even issuing a sworn affidavit to this effect. It is rather noticeable that his retractions have either been made by others on his behalf, have all been after others have 'got to him,' and they have not been sworn to. Goodness, he even appeared a Mr. Canter's recent Liverpool conference to yet again, and consistently, give the story of how he and his wife forged the 'diary.'
It is tiresome to reel out, yet again, all the arguments as to why the 'diary' is a modern forgery, which nearly all the experts in the field as well as the authors agree. Your stance, Mr. Begg, is anomalous in these circles, and quite perplexing to many who know you. Your rather convoluted arguments and specious ideas may be fully examined in your exchanges with Mr. Harris, and I do not wish to become embroiled in them. If you examine the history of hoaxes and hoaxing you will find a very similar pattern to that in the 'diary' case. Experts are quoted saying this or that (and we all know that more experts are then found by the opposing side to give the opposite opinion), but all they are giving are not facts - merely opinion, and you would do well to remember that.
All the classic signs of a hoax were evident with the 'diary,' an old book or album, the first few pages excised, vague references that are difficult to pin down, assumption of certain facts being known, some blatantly obvious mistakes such as murder in Manchester, a plain ink with simple ingredients (easy to obtain), nondescript writing matching none of the extant examples of the alleged writer, and so the list goes on. And let's simplify the ink ingredient example. The AFI ink test revealed the presence of chloroacetamide, and that is, in my book proof positive. Anyone with any common sense at all should be able to assess all the available evidence and come to the obvious conclusion - it's a modern fake.
I notice, Mr. Begg, that you made no response to Mr. Chisholm's excellent comments - and his comments strongly endorse what I am saying. Is he just a little too clever and knowledgeable for you to contradict? He states categorically that all his years' study of the 'diary' and its origins have convinced him that it is 'a late twentieth century JOKE', and this is stated by probably the best informed and most academically qualified contibutor to these boards. I suggest that all those in any doubt should take heed of Mr. Chisholm, and he is totally objective and unbiased.
Also, rather significantly Mr. Begg, he says, 'All the works that attempt to prove otherwise seem to me to fall so far short of acceptable methods of historiography to be taken seriously by all but the most neophytic student of the subject. Regarding the pro-diary arguments he also says, Perverted presentation of extant evidence, however, seems to be the only substance in support of this diary'.}
You, Mr. Begg, are one of the, if not the main, defender against attacks on the 'diary,' and you are constantly wriggling to logically explain the pro-diary arguments and give them a fragile appearance of credibility. Sorry Mr. Begg, it sounds as if Mr. Chisholm is describing your stance, but is too polite to mention names. (Do I hear the approach of accusations of trying to set one poster on these boards against another? How dastardly! Incidentally I am not, but that is the inescapable conclusion I have come to).
Literary skill, or lack of it, has nothing to do with the hoax and dating arguments, it is merely another red herring. The 'diary' does not even exhibit the quality of one of the better 'dime pulps' and I am surprised to hear that anyone thinks that it does.
Finally, and not wishing to end on a sour note, I feel I must congratulate Mr. Begg on his restrained and polite response, even if I do not agree with it all. He could \b(never} be described as churlish, rude or base, and for that I am truly appreciative. Unlike another hysterical poster on these boards who really should moderate himself. Perhaps you could advise \b(him) Mr. Begg. He needs it. |
Author: Sean Miller
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 12:07 pm | | Mr Anonymous Person (whoever you are),
The ability to conduct a proper ongoing dialogue (or debate) with somebody posting as "Anonymous" is dependent on that person being the ONLY person to be posting anonymously at that point in time!
Else, it gets very confusing! If there are sixteen people posting anonymously, how do you direct your comments to the right one??!?!?
Sean |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 12:08 pm | | Paul Begg is a gentleman. I am not.
Paul Begg is willing to give the benfit of the doubt concerning people's intentions and motives (and not just to anonymous post-ers but...surprise, surprise...even diary supporters -- for which stance he obviously deserves the calumny constantly heaped on him by people who cannot stand the thought of one non-derogatory remark being made about the diary or its proponents, huh, Anonymous?). I am not.
You have been asked to tone down your rhetoric for several days, Anonymous. But you did not.
You have been asked repeatedly to consider that making any innocuous positive statement regarding ANY aspect of the diary IS NOT evidence of support for its authenticity. (And Paul Begg could be interpreted as saying that not only is Alex right and the diary is a joke, but it is a very good joke indeed -- as Canter and the screenwriter also seem to be saying.) But you did not.
Paul Begg treats everyone fairly -- even suspected forgers and their "product." You did not.
Paul Begg attaches his name to his opinions so we all can judge for ourselves what his qualifications are for making any statement, instead of relying on a policy of "trust-me-I-know (but I can't say who I am so you can test my qualifications)." You did not.
You were given a clue to the age of the people whom you attacked -- and I say you repeatedly and peevishly attacked them. You should have stopped yourself, considered your audience, shown a respect for their age and their admitted level of experience. You did not.
I waited for days for this to stop. It did not. I've almost written several times before I did, but I stopped...waiting and hoping that courtesy and reason would prevail here. It did not.
My position on personal attacks is well-known to regulars here, so me coming to this idiotic topic ONE MORE TIME should not have been a "bolt from the blue" to anyone. Nor should the tone and attitude I take towards people who indulge themselves in this scurrilous nonsense be any surprise either.
What I will warn you of, that IS new, is that I consider attacks on the young as PARTICULARLY offensive and worthy of my attention. And I don't care who makes them or whether my attitude is welcome. NO ONE WILL ATTACK THE YOUNG ONES and just mince away like it's all in an honest day's work. Not while I'm around. I hope other people would share my feelings regarding this, but it is irrelevent if they do not.
I don't care what you think of me. I am far, far worse than anything you can think to call me. But my last scrap of humanity to which I hang on tightly -- for my own sanity as well as any benefit I may do for others -- is my attitude towards any kind of verbal or physical abuse/attack...and I am infinitely worse if the target of that abuse/attack is someone young.
To "Caz,"
If your "mum" lets you use your "dad's" Internet account, ask her or both of your parents' permission and help in attaching a return email address to your next post. This is after all a topic about forgery and hoaxes...and I wouldn't want to make a mistake of thinking you might not actually be an 11-year-old when you are. A return email address would help me establish that you are who you say you are; and your parents can monitor any incoming email to protect you from slappy people and loons. So do that next time, okay?
The purported presence of an 11-year-old on these boards concerns me for all the obvious reasons, not least of which that this could be the sickest "joke" of them all. If my cynical and suspicious nature proves correct, we might have the presence of an 11-year-old mentality in an adult body to contend with on top of diary forgers, hoaxters, frauds, alleged closet-Diary supporters (who are surreptitiously poisoning the minds of our youth!!!), and what-not nefarious and strange creatures in the Maybrick menagerie.
Yours truly,
Yaz |
Author: Sean Miller
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 12:51 pm | | Nikki,
As the issue of age/experience seems so important to certain individuals, I shall just admit the following:
I read my first ripper book ("The Final Solution") at the age of 20 or 21. It blew my mind, and I KNEW that I had the solution there in my hands - obviously we had Gull and Sickert etc. riding around in their cab merrily protecting the royals from an anti-catholic driven uprising!
I went to a public library and took out a second "solution" soon after, one which tried to discount Stephen Knight's facts and point the finger at Druitt. I wouldn't know which one it was now, but it didn't convince me of Druitt's guilt - though it did convince me that there was a lot more to find out.
Time passed, and probably two or three years ago I was spending a lot of time away from home so I started reading again, and JTR was something of interest. I now have about 10-15 in my "library", including books my Paul Begg, Melvyn Harris, Martin Fido, Keith Skinner and (of course) Harrison and Feldman.
I have obviously upset Alex by agreeing with one of the previous writers that Melvyn Harris' book was not one that did anything for me, and also seem to have upset the mysterious "Anonymous". However, this is just too bad! I don't go out of my way to cause offence, and if it happens it is unintentional.
In a perfect world, everyone who posts to a board like this would be a renowned world expert. The "creme-de-la-creme" of Ripper investigation would discuss the minute details of every aspect of the murders. However, how many times has an "innocent" comment at a lecture given an "expert" the idea to look down a new avenue of research, and possibly change the world??
Without the "innocent comments", the questions asked by the person who hasn't read many Ripper books but maybe has been struck by something, how can we move forward - for experts often become "stale". After all, it's the "Radical Thinkers" who have changed the world! (Did the experts really believe the world was round ? , did they heck!) - and the sun HAD to orbit the earth, didn't it... even if this meant an INCREDIBLY complex system of orbits and sub-orbits to make the observations add up!
Before I came on this board, I had bought a book or two written or co-written by Paul Begg. Since I've been on this board, I have been impressed by the fact that the man is simply trying to gain as much knowledge of the subject as he can, rather than push his own agenda forward. 90% of Paul's messages seem to be currently defending himself against attack rather than actually moving forward - I think this is a shame, and I think people should think twice before accusing Paul of "rather convoluted arguments and specious ideas" or suggesting he would "do well to remember that" - this is hardly respectful is it!!
To 1999, and onwards towards the dawn of a new millenium!
Sean |
Author: Caz Senior
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 01:33 pm | | Happy Holidays Ripper Fiends (sorry, Fans!),
To Yaz: I have just read your posting regarding Caz. Please don’t worry, my husband will sort out the E-mail address thingy for you when he wakes up as I am computer illiterate!
My daughter Caz has shown me how to join in this easy-going! discussion. While she is busy making a clay model of Homer Simpson (as you do at eleven years old) I will put my two-penneth in (as you do at 44!). I can assure you that Caz (Carly) is old beyond her tender years and we monitor closely anything she plans to read on the web. I believe if she can read and understand and show interest in a subject then she can also have a small voice. I realised immediately after posting her message that her age could cause problems and apologise profusely. Now for my posting:
If the Diary were such a blatant modern forgery as the likes of Anonymous would have us believe (preferably by the scruff of our ignorant necks) then how come it has not already gone the way of the infamous Hitler Diaries and suchlike? Is it because anyone who questions the Diary at all is regarded as such pondlife that proof of fakery is just not worth the effort and expense? Oh how I wish there were someone out there with pots of money and an unhealthy obsession with this Diary and a thirst for the truth, whatever that turns out to be.
We have had Shirley and Feldy who sincerely believe the Diary to be genuine, and poor beleaguered Paul Begg who is constantly misunderstood by persons who otherwise seem very intelligent, though verbose. He is always stating he does not believe the Diary to be genuine but does not want to discourage others from expressing their own views. (Actual evidence, for and agin, does not appear to count for much when so many so-called experts cannot agree on the science, psychopathology, graphology or history.)
Can I put up a couple of ideas of my own now to show that I feel the Diary to be quite a complex document worthy of more discussion (Attention Nikki et al):
I was under the impression that the chloroacetamide may have been present in the rag used in the production of the paper in the Diary rather than in the ink dots which were tested with minute amounts of paper still attached. Although chloroacetamide was not used in ink in 1888, it was apparently used as a preservative in rag products. Has the Diary paper been tested on its own for the presence of this chemical I wonder? (I’m not spelling it out again!)
The layout of the Diary appears to me like a transcript in places, and yet , when the content becomes more emotional and disturbing so does the handwriting. An expert graphologist has suggested that the actual handwriting (whether by the original author or not) shows characteristics of a seriously disturbed or even psychopathic nature. If we accept this much I find it very odd that someone like this would be capable of writing anything other than an autobiographical type of piece. I have always felt that psychos were supposed to be somewhat autistic in nature, and as such would be totally incapable of imagining, let alone writing about, the feelings and thought processes of anyone other than themselves. This is why I do not believe that the ‘forger’ is himself disturbed. But could they be clever enough to disguise the writing sufficiently to fool the expert graphologist?
By the way, how on earth did a photo of Florence Maybrick in old age end up on Anne Barrett’s wall? I thought the old lady lived quite anonymously until her death when a neighbour told the press who she really was. Shirley Harrison must have asked Anne but failed to tell us poor frustrated readers!
So many more questions buzzing around, but Caz is fed up with me hogging the PC and I’m shattered so cheerio for now, I’ll just sit back and wait for the inevitable flak.
Luv to all,
Caz Senior. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 02:11 pm | | Hello Caz Senior:
We appreciate your input. As others who know me can verify, I am not in the least a Diary supporter. As a Liverpudlian, I have long been interested in both the Maybrick Case, before James Maybrick surfaced as a possible Ripper suspect, and in the James Maybrick-as-Jack-the-Ripper thesis. As I remarked to Nikki Dormer, it would be fascinating to me personally to me to know that James Maybrick was the Ripper, since I lived in Liverpool just up the road from Battlecrease House where Jim and Florie Maybrick lived and where James died in May 1889, allegedly by Florence's hand. Aigburth Hall Avenue where I lived is an extension of Riversdale Road where the Maybricks lived, a road running up from the River Mersey in Aigburth (or "Aigwerth" as it is spelled erroneously in the opening pages of Florie's autobiography, "Mrs. Maybricks's Own Story: My Lost Fifteen Years"). I have to say, though, that having read both Shirley Harrison's book and Paul Feldman's book, there is nothing in either of them that gives us proof that James Maybrick could be caught out red-handed as Jack the Ripper. In fact Paul's book relying as it does on possible ties with the Maybricks, facial similarities and so on, provides even less proof of a tie-in with the Whitechapel murders than Shirley's book. Some of my family have facial similarities with members of the Royal family but that does not make them relatives in any way. In fact, because Feldman reproduces correspondence and a salutation written in the front of a bible in Maybrick's handwriting that do not match the writing in the Diary, the case is damaged for the hypothesis that Maybrick might be the Ripper. In total, then, there are too many deficits for the Diary document for it to be the real thing. If Shirley Harrison or Paul Feldman can come up with any verifiable documents that would tie James Maybrick to the Whitechapel murders beyond what is in the Diary, they may have a case. However, as far as I can see, they have failed to do so. And as for Anne Graham having a picture of Florie Maybrick on her wall, well she is clever, isn't she? After her release, Florence spent her final years living in Connecticut in anonymity until her death in 1941. If Anne Graham has such a photograph, believe me, it is a recent acquisition obtained from someone long after Florence Maybrick's death.
Chris George |
Author: Sean Miller
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 03:07 pm | | Hold on! Time out!
We have Carly (Caz) and Caroline (Caz Senior), yes? We have Caz's name given by Caroline, and Caroline's name by Caz...
I would congratulate you, Caroline. Carly has picked up your writing style exactly! Obviously a good model!
If this is some sort of sick joke, then let's put an end to it! If it is not, and Carly actually wants to put something forward then fine! But I would rather not (without trying to sound like our friend "Anonymous") have the board filled with messages like "My mum is interested in JTR, I just though I'd say hello".
..nice to meet you, Carly! See you in 10 years?
Sean |
Author: Dave Bedwell
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 05:30 pm | | Hello to everyone
There seems to be a great deal of passion with
requards to the so called "DIARY" and I can see
that many of you possess a great deal of knowledge when it comes to this suject. I have for (repeat again) many years been having a great deal of fun with this unknown.and I can say that I have a great deal of fun doing this. I freely admit that I have less knowledge on this matter than many of you but then again I have a life and this is not the end all be all in the world.
Using such things as I KNOW HIM OR YOU SOULD KNOW THAT OR HE SAID THIS SO IT MUST BE SO. This is a hobby gus and gals its not a subject to fight over. It is my feeling that what ever you belive or think might be the way thing took place this I am sure of NO ONE will ever fing the answer to this little game and thats what mkes it fun is the hunt Its a game And suppose that someday some great and powerful person was to prove without a doubt who jack was this is the only thing that would happen would be no one would be writing anymore books no more ripper clubs and no more great fun and the end of a great hobby for many many people. Im 52 and a 24 year vetrain police officer so come on let up a little . |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 07:07 pm | | Dear Sean
I'm sorry I gave the impression that my posting was specifically directed toward your comments, it was not. I fully appreciate that you were merely expressing your opinion, something which I assure you would never cause me offence. I simply sought, against previous better judgement, to offer my own view as an alternative to the more general impressions of the much maligned Melvin that have often been introduced into diary debate.
My reference to the diary being 'a late twentieth century JOKE' is not intended to belittle or insult anyone, it is no more than the conclusion I have arrived at. I do not believe the diary was produced with any intent to seriously deceive or defraud. It seems to me to be quite literally a 'funny little game'. An exercise in whimsical word play, superficially amenable to differing interpretations but with 'clues' to its falsity 'cleverly' inscribed within the text. Having said that, I have never thought of Mike Barrett as the most likely author. In addition, while freely accepting that works promoting the veracity of the diary can seem persuasive, in my opinion these, like the diary itself, cannot withstand close historiographical scrutiny. If that causes offence to any contributor to these boards I can only offer profuse apologies; such has never been my intention. My opinion, however, which surprisingly I regard as rather more than a 'put down' with little justification, remains unaltered.
With reference to the anonymous praise afforded me in comparison to Paul Begg, I must stress that I would in no way claim greater experience or knowledge of this subject than Paul; a gentleman who has never struck me as being reluctant to challenge my views. Indeed I think we have exchanged good-natured banter on this topic on several occasions in the past and, despite holding differing opinions on the diary, I have always had the greatest respect for Paul and the contribution he has made to Ripperology. That my words could be seen as an attack on Paul Begg is something that causes me considerable concern
Therefore, having so unfortunately ventured a view on this tendentious topic and, with copious festive spirit, expressed regret for any offence this may have caused, I now intend to revert to past good sense and avoid further embroilment in diary debate.
Best Wishes
And a Happy New Year to All
Alex |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 08:24 pm | | To whom it may concern:
I thought that when I first came to these boards that anyone could post messages. Now I find out that I was wrong. It appears that you have to be 18 or older. When I was 11, I was so interested in JtR that I read every book I could find. Because I was so far advanced in my class, I found it difficult to find a person to talk to about what I had read. I believe that instead of telling Caz that she shouldn't post messages, we should encourage her interest. Isn't that the primary reason for these boards? Discussion and the airing of ideas and theories? If Caz's mother thinks that it is alright for her to post messages, then what right have we to stop her? I had hoped that the closed minded people had left, but I was apparently wrong. If older means wiser then perhaps everyone under 90 shouldn't be posting on these boards.
To Caz:
If you have anything to add to these discussions, go ahead and post it. Or if you feel uncomfortable about that, feel free to email me. Just click on my name at the top of the screen.
Have a nice day
Shelly |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 09:04 pm | | To Both Cazes and Shelly,
Little Caz, your sudden appearance during one of my periodic temper tantrums took me by surprise. If you were following the discussion previous to your "arrival" you'll see that age and anonymity were issues involved in my tantrums. I shouldn't have cast doubt where I had no cause. Sorry. (And I also wrote an email to, I guess, your dad, asking him to verify you and your mom. Shelly makes me think I really had no right to do that. Sorry twice -- are you keeping count?)
I am very impressed by your vocabulary as well as your articulateness and knowledge. It's part of the reason why I thought it hard to believe you are only 11. Sorry -- that's three times now! And I did not mean to question the "morality" of your being here; I was (and still am...and always will be) concerned for the welfare of even a hardened, grizzled vcteran of 9 years of horror movies as you are -- I won't say I'm sorry for being concerned and for watching out for your well-being in the future, so I take one sorry back...what's my score so far?
So welcome, Little Caz and Senior Caz. We don't always fight like this, by the way, so you both should find the people here pleasant and agreeable -- except for me, of course, I am a curmudgeon (I challenge your vocabulary knowledge with that one, Little Caz). And as usual once I calm down I am sorry for being a cur...well, you get the idea. How many apologies am I at, I've lost count?
One thing I ask of Little Caz (do you mind if I keep calling you that -- but that will be TWO things I'm asking of you...sorry...score, please!): Will you please always let people know who you are and what your age is? There is no age discrimination here, but I wouldn't want you fooling me and getting into a discussion over some topics that I would feel uncomfortable discussing with you -- no matter if you can probably handle the topic better than I could. Okay? And thank you, Shelly, for shaming me into giving the two Cazes a better welcome and the benefit of the doubt!
Maybe I'll see you under another topic sometime as I try to avoid this topic as much as I can -- since I can never quite behave myself when I'm here. And tell your dad I'm sorry for writing to him. What's my total in apologies...I was going for the Guiness Book of World's Records in number of apologies made by one person, at one time! I challenge the entire Casebook to top my score (but they don't have half as much to be sorry for as I do!).
Sorry!
Yaz |
Author: Dave Bedwell
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 10:06 pm | | I must say so long to all of you I had hoped to
find a better way to get moer information on jtr on this side of the world but its the same all over. Best wishes and good luck with the hunt.
Respectfully yours Dave. |
Author: Caz Senior
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 04:30 am | | To Chris George:
Hoorah! Some decent civilised discussion at last actually regarding the Diary. I agree about the family resemblances, it’s all a bit much isn’t it? If the Diary cannot stand up by itself without some of Feldy’s more desperate scaffolding, well…..
Anne Graham obviously has a lot she could tell us (perhaps in her forthcoming book on FM?), but I still do not see her or Mike in the roles of forgers with ‘funny little games’ to play.
All I want to know is: who dunnit, why, and how, and if there was not much money made by them, and since so few merits are seen in it by so few, etc, etc, …….please please don’t do it again whoever you are!
To Sean Miller:
I was going to launch into a long indignant mother hen bit when I read your ‘sick joke’ comment, but I see that Shelly and the ‘wonderful with words’ Yaz have come bounding to our rescue!
Caz is having a nice lie-in at the moment so she hasn’t seen her defenders’ postings. She said “ouch” when she read yours though, and I have advised her against posting messages in case the replies get too upsetting.
She recently read The Diary of Anne Frank at school: you know, the 12 year-old who dies at the hands of a mass murderer for being born in the wrong sort of body in the wrong time and place…. A bit like those grown-up victims who were killed for being poor and in the wrong place (Whitechapel) at the wrong time…..Just divide the total number of victims by about a million! That’s 11 year old logic for
you I’m afraid.
Thanks Shelly for confirming that there are others who find JtR fascinating at an early age.
To Yaz:
I would never take offence at anything you say to me or Caz, so no need for all this grovelling! As you say, hope to see you under another topic next time.
Yours , Caz Senior |
Author: Caz
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 05:55 am | | Hi Yaz!
Thank you for your five (yes, I did count) apologies and for your letters. They were very reassuring. But you got me with curmudgeon. I looked it up in a dictionary! You’re not a bad-tempered person at all!
Thanks once again,
‘Little Caz’
Hi Shelly!
Thank you very very very very very much for sticking up for me. It’s nice to know there are people who respect children’s views. But, as interesting as Jtr is, you may find me on a different web site from now on. My mum will take over!
Caz
Hi Sean Miller!
Sorry to be a little rude, but wouldn’t my mum’s and my writing be similar? I’ve known my mum for 11 years! And this is certainly not a sick joke.
Caz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 06:35 am | | Nikki:
This is my second attempt to reply to you: one of the many power cuts for which the Welsh valleys are famous wiped off my first. I think however that I can recapture the tone of the original. In your posting of the 5th December you said: "Come on guys, give this diary a chance. Have any of you read 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter' by Paul H Feldman? It gives decent answers to the questions that some of you have brought up about it. Get it out from the library or something. Trust me, if you didn't believe it before, you will after you read this book." You also said in your posting of December 7th in regard to Paul Begg's book: " it was mentioned a lot in Paul Feldman's book which has managed to convince me that James Maybrick is Jack." Therefore when you also said in your posting of December 24th: "AHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I DON'T KNOW THAT JAMES MAYBRICK DID IT, AND IF YOU CARE TO READ MORE CAREFULLY NEXT TIME I NEVER SAID I DID!!!!! " Then I have to assume that you either have a short memory span or that you changed your mind between the 7th and 24th possibly thanks to persuasion by those on this board. You are however wrong when you denied that you ever put poor old Jim in the frame.
In your posting of 6th December where you were kind enough to correct Stephen Rider you said: "It is now assumed that Judge James Fitzjames Stephen knew about it {that JM was the Ripper} (he was also a freemason)and that's why he convicted Florie, incorrectly assuming she
had killed him after finding out about the murders." A couple of points: Feldy didn't know that Judge Stephen was a freemason, Shirley didn't know and neither do I. Do you have evidence for this? According to other unlikely theories Judge Stephen knew that his son was the Ripper. It's more likely that if the Judge did mishandle the trial it was because of developing mental problems.
I don't think that I or anyone else here has accused you of being an idiot. I would only suggest that you read a few more books. Don't be too sensitive about being 18: I certainly didn't know your age when I replied to you before. Would you expect me to treat you any differently because you're 30 years younger than me? That would be rampant ageism!
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 07:14 am | | Hey, Caz Senior!
Little Caz should definitely post if she feels she wants to say something. You're watching, Shelly's watching, I promise to be a shadow here for her, and others will certainly be careful as well...as long as we know when Little Caz is speaking. And yes, Sean, though I too was suspicious, there is a very real 11 year old and a very real mum behind our two Cazes.
Give my regards (and sympathy for his lost PC priviliges!!!) to your husband and apologize for me once again for bothering him...but he's probably quite puzzled by the quill pen you traded with him for his PC! Is he interested in Jack the Ripper as well?
Sorry to see Dave go. I hope he'll give this place another chance.
Now I really will see you on some other topic. Just wanted you and your daughter to know that you're BOTH welcome here -- to write and well as to read.
Yaz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 07:15 am | | Hi Shelbi:
It's nice to hear from a new voice. I do suggest however that it's not a good idea to turn what was a reasonably scholarly discussion with leavenings of humour into a "youth versus age" conflict. Bearing in mind that (with a few exceptions) none of us really know the others on this board you really don't know whether Anon. is your age or mine. He could be 50 or 16. It used to be part of the good old New Age that you trusted no-one over 20. If someone in their teens reads a couple of books and decides that the authors have the true insight into JtR then that's fine. Remember that research into an event 110 years ago is not a matter of flashes of inspiration or believing secondary and tertiary sources but actually digging into original records, reading everything you can and making considered judgements. That's how you get theories. Everything else is only opinion. Some of the people out here have spent 30-40 years in research and in the past ten years they have turned up more truth than we ever thought possible. If you're doing that then you are going to be on the wrong side of 40.
It's nice that you're a criminal profiler but where and for whom do you work? It would be interesting to know.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Edana
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 09:45 am | | Wow, go away for a few days and look what happens! I'd like to personally welcome the new people, the young ones...hmmm....I remember that show. Yaz has come through once again in his rather explosive manner. I agree with just about everything he has said concerning the Anonymous subject and the youth subject. I have the same concerns for someone so young (little Caz, if I may be so bold). There are things we talk about here that would have disturbed me greatly when I was 11. Personally, I had started reading about JTR at a very young age...I must have been maybe 14, but when I saw the photograph of Mary Kelly for the first time, it did disturb me and I spent time dealing with that, so I'm very glad to see that Little Caz's mum is so attentive. (huzzah!) Again, welcome... and I look forward to hearing from Nikki, Shelbi, Caz (junior & senior)and any other person young or old with the intelligence to take up this very confusing subject, shake it in their teeth and make it their own.
Edana |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 12:37 pm | | Hi again Nikki:
Just a couple of points: James Maybrick may fit the picture of Jack The Ripper thatyou've always had in your mind but that James Maybrick is based on what you've read in the Diary plus Shirley and Feldy's comments on him. This has little to do with the real-life JM who appears rather sketchily in the books on the Maybrick case and other first-generation material.
For a middle-class family in the 1880's divorce was not an option. It still needed an Act of Parliament.
Please go ahead with researching the diary but saying that you want to prove it "real" is begging the question.; keep an open mind, check everything and then come to a conclusion. If you get real evidence that JM is JtR then Anonymous who above all respects facts, will agree with you. And if you want to contact Shirley, don't worry: she's a really nice lady. I'll ask her if I can give you her address. But I don't think she needs any researchers!
Regards, Peter.
Greetings Shelbi:
Life is strange. Here we were discussing (sometimes with a little venom) a murderer who probably has been dead a good few years except for D'Onston who lives down the road from me and drives the Machynlleth school bus and suddenly we're talking about who's older than who and does being younger than 25 give you a right to being right. Try to understand that at least in this field of research age doesn't matter. What does matter is the depth of research you do, the amount of checking you do and liberal quantities of common sense. Unfortunately as this requires time, you do tend to become middle-aged pretty quickly. But after all, Stephen Ryder is in his early 20's and he's done a fair bit of work on this! Good on you, Stephen.)
And good for the Caz's as well. I shall believe them to be real until I learn differently. They're presumably British although Mama Caz does use the term "Happy Holidays" which we tend not to do.
Regards, Peter.
Dear Caz's
I can't think of a collective noun for you so hopefully the above will do.The family resemblances are not the most believable part of Feldy's book. If you remember, many people said that Anna Anderson was Anastatia because of her family resemblance and the shape of her ears! As to Mike's confession, as far as it goes it's ok but there's obviously more to it than he says. I do however think that he along with others were perfectly capable of writing the thing.Most if not all of the "information" in the diary could have been taken from the JtR A to Z published a year before the apearance of the diary and still available from all good book shops. Money is a debatable point in the diary world. Without going into figures Shirley's original book was near the top of the best-seller list for some time and her new edition is selling well. Just check the "copyright by..." section. And as for doing it again, we have to wait a couple of months to know about that.
Best regards, Peter. |
Author: Caz Senior
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 01:44 pm | | Dear Peter,
Thanks for taking me seriously. I am indeed British, born in London actually. I thought holiday was English for vacation- silly me!
Little Caz sends her best wishes, she has exams coming up shortly, I dread to think what her essay choice will be like!
Yours, Mama Caz (nice one!) |
Author: Sean Miller
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 03:11 pm | | What is this, the Spanish inquisition?!?!?
I post a message simply stating the fact that I have doubts as to whether the Caz's are actually different people and the masses turn on me!!!
This isn't what this board should be for anyway, it's supposed to be discussing Jack!! Let's get back on track. I stated that I didn't think messages such as "my mum thinks this.." and "my mum thinks this.." were necessarily useful! I would invite Caz junior to post a message saying "I think this...".
You know, I should (perhaps) post this as Anonymous. You know everybody could, and that poor fellow who was being so self-righteous a couple of days ago would get the blame for the views!! We could post a message saying Queen Victoria did it ??!?!
Sean |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 03:46 pm | | To all:
I didn't realise that this board required credentials to post. When I mentioned that I was a profiler, I was just trying to make the point that you don't have to be old to have done research or have a degree. When I backed up Caz, I was trying to make the point that as long as the person is adding something to the discussion, what does it matter if it is an 11 year old from England, an 80 year old from Russia, or a 45 year old from the USA. I realise that we have no way of knowing who these people are, but who cares as long as it is something useful. So please in the future, let us all restrain ourselves from attacking one another and just discuss the diary.
Shelbi |
Author: Sean Miller
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 05:57 pm | | Shelbi,
Beware of 80 year olds from Russia! They might be called something remotely similar to Kosminski! - and therein lies a whole area of Ripper research!
..45 year olds from the US? Yeah - probably, them too!
Sean |
Author: Caz Senior
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 03:11 am | | Sorry Sean. Little Caz will only post in future if she has something useful to contribute.She showed me the way in so the very young can be handy to have around.
Back to the diary: Have you any good ideas regarding its dubious provenance, considering the unlikely theories put forward by Feldy concerning government cover-ups of Anne Graham's background/ancestry etc?
Best wishes, Caz S. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 03:39 am | | At this stage a lot of water has passed under the bridge since Anonymous's post and it may not be worth answering. But since I have already typed it...
Anonymous, I don't want to get involved in semantics either, but I think the point I was making is sufficiently important that it not be overlooked. I said that your words could be read as patronising but added the qualifying statement that I was sure they weren't meant to be. Truncating my sentence so that you can accuse me of saying what the all-important qualifying comment makes clear I wasn't saying isn't in the least acceptable. The context of my remarks should also be taken into consideration, and in this case I was saying that an intent can be read into words that was not meant by the writer.
You would be completely correct in saying that my statements about Professor Canter and Bruce Robinson are 'totally irrelevant' if we had been discussing the authenticity of the "Diary". However, that wasn't the point in dispute. I was questioning your statement that the "Diary" was a 'blatantly obvious' modern forgery composed by Mike and Ann Barrett. I was questioning it because the qualified opinion of Professor Canter and Bruce Robinson is that the "Diary" reveals a literary skill and specialized knowledge which Mike and Ann arguably do not to possess. Their opinion does have a bearing on that point. If you think that the "Diary" 'does not even exhibit the quality of one of the better 'dime pulps', I'd be interested in hearing your qualified reasons why you are right and Professor Canter and Bruce Robinson are wrong.
It is also perfectly true that Mike confessed to forging the "Diary", although as far as I know, it isn't true that he was persuaded to retract the confession when people 'got to him'. However, uncritically accepting the confession doesn't take account of the circumstances in which the confession was originally given, the serious (and published) reservations of the journalist to whom the confession was made, of Mike's initial inability to answer simple questions such as where he bought the ink or the book, his inability to provide any support for his claims whatsoever, the apparent fact that the auctioneers deny ever having sold the book, or what I understand to be the fact that neither Mike's own handwriting nor that of Ann Graham's seems to match that of the "Diary". Nor does it take into account the possibility that Mike doesn't possess the literary skill and knowledge of serial killer psychopathology (which has impressed both Dr Foreshaw and Professor Canter) to compose the "Diary".
I'm not going to get involved with your other points, though I do have a minor difficulty with all your co-called 'classic signs'. What examples do we have from the world of forgery that makes these signs 'classic'. Loads of forgeries in old books with pages torn out? The high-profile Hitler and Mussolini diaries didn't have pages missing did they? Loads of examples of forgeries with a nondescript handwriting that didn't even attempt to match that of the supposed author? Ditto Hitler and Mussolini. And if the forger is so inept that he makes these 'classic' mistakes, how come he bothered to use an ink that would pass initial tests? How come our inept forger tried to copy Victorian letter shapes (see the anti-"Diary" Times report for that bit of info)? Don't misunderstand me. I'm not arguing in favour of the "Diary", but I have difficulty with this inept forger making 'classic mistakes' argument: here we have a supposed forger so inept that he writes in an inappropriate book from which he'd torn the first pages, a dead give away that the thing is a forgery, yet has the sense to buy a Victorian look-alike ink (or find a recipe for an ink and 'cook' it on the family stove!) and alter letter shapes to make them look Victorian.
As for the AFI ink tests, Leeds University didn't find chloroacetamide and one expert opinion is that the chloroacetamide, if its exists in the ink sample, could have found its way into the sample by other means. I'm not qualified to comment, but I think these details need to be considered, don't you?
If people who know me are perplexed by what they perceive as an anomalous stance on the "Diary", then they don't know me and haven't read these boards for very long. I am not going to explain the whole thing over again, except to say that I am simply trying to be accurate. If somebody says it is blatantly obvious that Mike and Ann wrote the "Diary" then I'll point out the alternative viewpoint. If that makes me a "Diary" supporter or "Diary" apologist then that is what I most certainly am. I don't think it does though.
As for not arguing with Alex, I didn't argue with Alex because as far as I recall he didn't say anything with which I disagreed. He believes the "Diary" is a forgery. So do I. He doesn't think it was intended to defraud. Neither do I. He thinks it was composed in the late 20th century. I think it probably was, but allow for the possibility that it is an old forgery. As for the histiography, the document has no established provenance and therefore I have no cause to disagree with Alex on that score either.
But let's not forget the foundation of this dispute, Anonymous, which is that we should treat all opinion with respect and try to see the intent behind words. And thank you for your concluding sentence. There is no justification for rudeness and certainly no justification for diminishing anyone. To mention Alex, I have considerable respect for his knowledge and ability and if he demonstrates that I am incorrect in something I have said, I would (a) expect him to tell me in his customary polite fashion and (b) not to imply in any way that my error or ignorance makes me intellectually deficient. I would accord Alex the same respect, as I try to do for everyone. Furthermore, that's the only way these board will EVER work. People must exchange views and opinions fairly and with respect. |
Author: Caz Senior
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 06:49 am | | Dear Paul,
Hear! Hear! So many words, so much common sense. Why can’t they all be like you? Why do some people insist they are hearing an opinion behind your words all the time instead of simply enjoying the content and adding to the interesting stuff?
Isn’t the author of the diary a bit of a genius really? He has managed to get a lot of intelligent men and women at each other’s throats (sorry), for rather a long time now. He is both stupid (not researching the first-page Poste-House bit properly?), and clever (making at least the first part of the diary read as if no other eyes were intended to read it, I doubt if Mike or Anne could have achieved this). So is it all a dastardly plot to keep us guessing for eternity and take us away from other mental stimulation?
None of the science has been satisfactorally dealt with yet, do we know of any rich people out there who share our enthusiasm and would pour their money into the further research needed to date the watch markings and diary ink/paper with a lot more accuracy?
Mr Anonymous is so clever that he thinks the literary skills of the diary are poor. I think I must have been reading a different journal, you too? Or do Professor Canter and Bruce Robinson also have the brains of fleas? And anyway methinks Mr A. doth protest too much. If the diary is not worth discussing, why are so many of us still doing just that? If I said I believed the earth was flat after all,everyone would simply yawn and go away. (She exits to the sound of yawning).
Best wishes, Caz Senior |
Author: Paul begg
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 07:38 am | | Caz Senior -
A very quick response to your questions:
Shirley Harrison had the "Diary" paper tested for chloroacetamide by Analysis For Industry, the business who undertook the tests on the ink samples for Melvin Harris, and chloroacetamide was not found in the paper. A test on the paper had already been carried out by Leeds University with the same result, but since the Leeds tests had been called into question it was thought that an additional test was worthwhile. I don't know how this effects the satus of the Leeds test - they rightly found no chloroacetamide in the paper, but didn't rightly find no chloroacetamide in the ink? I am by no means an authority on the chloroacetmide business, but my understanding is that experts who have been consulted feel that no test on the ink would be conclusive. Further, the question of chloroacetamide really revolves around whether or not the ink used to write the "Diary" was an ink manufactured by a company called Diamine who first used chloroacetamide as a preservative in ink in the 1970s. I think I am right in saying, though others will no doubt correct me, that the head chemist at Diamine, Alec Voller, has stated that the "Diary" ink is not Diamine ink. If he's correct, I don't know where that leaves the chloroacetmide issue. I understand that he also thinks that the irregular fading of the ink indicates that it was put on the page some time ago and has dismissed the idea that the appearance of the ink was 'artificially aged' (and, of course, if it was artificially aged then that suggests the forger possessed a degree of expertise, which in turn casts further doubt on the inept forger making classic errors).
I think the handwriting expert you mention was Hannah Koren. She is primarily a graphologist and graphology is widely regarded as a pseudo-science. Hannah Koren's conclusions are therefore generally disregarded and perhaps rightly so. However, it should be observed that one handwriting analyst consulted by anti-"Diary" Times newspaper, Audrey Giles, noted 'that the diary writings varied considerably in style from small and neat to large, scrawled and apparently agitated…' I do not know whether the agitation perceived by Audrey Giles was what caused Hannah Koren to see a seriously disturbed person in the writing, but it's worth observing also that Professor David Canter, assessing the "Diary" writing from the perspective of a psychologist with experience of serial killers, has also noted disturbed characteristics in the writing.
I do not know anything about the story of the photo of Florence in old age being on Ann's wall. Or, if I did know about it, I've forgotten it. Can anyone enlighten me. |
Author: Caz Senior
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 09:47 am | | Dear Paul,
Yes I can enlighten you about Florie’s photo, it is mentioned on page 379 of Shirley’s updated paperback. She is a bit naughty though for not explaining how it got there. My theory is that Feldy managed to unearth it during his copious research and gave it to Anne as a souvenir, believing as he does that Florie is Anne’s great grandmother- bless him!
Hope we can speak again sometime, isn,t this stuff time-consuming?
Caz Senior |
Author: Sharleen Wright
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 11:28 am | | Although I've been reading these Casebook messages for a long while, it hasn't been till now that I have felt compelled to write my own message. As a brief introduction, I'm a good friend of Johnno who helped create this new Casebook along with Stephen. I'm 21, but my interest in the case stems back to age 11 when the centenary took place. And like many others on here, my early interest of such a topic as Jack the Ripper confused and disgusted many of my peers, and was frowned upon by my elders (such as my teachers at a high school which I attended for so-called advanced and "superior" students).
Anyway, on with the case... the hoaxing of the diary, now I'm new on this topic but if Mike Barrett had written the document himself, is there anyway that he would have the psychological/behavioural knowledge to skillfully write what is found in the diary? From what little I learned at psych in university, to be able to forge such delusional writings would take years of study or must truly be the creation of a madman, you cannot just fluke such a document.
Seeing as I read earlier that Shelbi is criminal profiler, perhaps you could explain what the psychological make-up of such a person writing the diary would be, or what skills would you need to be able to fake it? Also, could you let me know how you got into the field criminal profiling? I'm most likely heading back to uni in 2000 to complete a criminology degree, so I'd like to know if there's anything else that would help me get such a job.
Last of all, just a general comment back on the age issue... we should all try to encourage all the younger people who wish to contribute something worthwhile to this board. Just from my own experience, my high school teachers condoned my interests and tried to steer me to more "academic and worthwhile" pursuits for a person in their young years. I was discouraged from following my lifelong dream of being involved in the areas of forensics and criminology. I regret that, and it has taken me 10 years to get my goals back on track. Let's try and encourage new people on this site, for it is ultimately those people who will further jtr research and maybe one day solve this case. Hope I didn't bore everyone... from now on I will try to stick to the topic at hand. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 01:07 pm | | Dear Mama Caz:
Of course I take you seriously. Your (collective) messages have been a breath of sanity on this particular board. London, eh? Dreadful place: I was born there too so I should know. Where we live at the moment is mid-Wales where never is heard an unpleasant sound except for the insistent bleating of sheep and the occasional scream of tortured metal as drunken Young Farmers slam into trees.The thing about "happy holidays" is that the Americans, for reasons of their own and nothing of course to do with the majority of Masons in their original Congress don't seem to like referring to it as "Christmas."
Maybe I could suggest for your daughter's essay choice: "Odd, eccentric and seriously deranged persons found on internet message boards?"
Regarding the great Anne Graham coverup, this seems to be a myth. Some sources say that there's an SIS block on certain Graham files because a member of the family works for the security services. To me, this seems unlikely. Until I see a copy of this supposed letter to Feldy I'll assume that there is nothing to it.
Happy Solstice, Peter.
Sean:
You should never mention the Spanish Inquisition.
Peter.
Shelley:
I'm interested. If you are a profiler then you actually might have something worthwhile to contribute to this board. If you don't want to give us your expert opinion, fine.
Also, if someone comes on this board with opinions, theories, questions that come within any of my areas of knowledge then I reply or comment. If I think they're wrong I say so. Then they come back to me and either admit it or give reasons for what they believe. If they are right then I admit that I'm wrong as I have done in the past.This is called a discussion. Most of the time people don't say how old they are; there is no need. Considering what children see on British TV, I would suspect that an interest in JtR is pretty wholesome. Even the Mary Kelly photo isn't so bad considering what we see on some of the forensic pathologist shows (where are you now, Quincy when we need you?) Taking Carly at her face value she seems pretty well-adjusted and from a nice family. She definitely is not saying to us: "hey, I'm only 11: don't be so hard on me."
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 04:28 pm | | Sharleen Wright wrote:
"...if Mike Barrett had written the document himself, is there anyway that he would have the psychological/behavioural knowledge to skillfully write what is found in the diary? From what little I learned at psych in university, to be able to forge such delusional writings would take years of study or must truly be the creation of a madman, you cannot just fluke such a document."
Sharleen, I am a fiction writer, and believe me when I tell you that I believe that someone with the right intelligence and aptitude could readily fake such a document. Much like the famed "orgasm" scene in the movie "When Harry Met Sally," just as an orgasm can be faked, I really think that the Diary, convincing as it may be to some readers as a document written by a killer, could have been and was contrived by someone with, as Melvin Harris says, minimal knowledge of the Ripper and Maybrick cases.
Chris George |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 05:01 pm | | To all:
Sorry I got on the defensive earlier about where I work but with almost everyone attacking every comment, I chose to defend without finding out the context of the question. In answer to that, I am not working currently as I am attending school to get a degree in forensics.
To Sharleen:
I became a criminal profiler after getting my degrees in psychology and criminal science. I recieved an internship during school and after I graduated, I started working full-time in the same place. My experience there was short due to an opening in college in the forensics field. (Please forgive me for not naming the place but I would not like for some JtR copycat to come and look me up. I tend to be a little cautious about things like that.) In answer to your question about Mike being able to write like a psychopath: yes it is possible. You do not have to be a psychopath to write(or think)like one. There are thousands of horror/mystery/ crime books out that could prove this point. Another example is profiling. This is a job where sometimes to recreate the crime and come up with a profile, you must think like the criminal. It does not mean that the profiler is a criminal, just that he can think like one, as with writers, and possibly like Mike B. if in fact he did write the diary.
Shelly |
Author: Caz Senior
Wednesday, 30 December 1998 - 03:33 am | | Dear Peter,
I was only teasing about “holidays”. My friend from Orlando tends to send me into American-speak sometimes along with all those Patricia Cornwell novels. I do so agree with Chris George about being able to fake a document “with the right intelligence and aptitude”, but that would rule me out for a start and where does it leave the Barrett argument?
If the forgers created the diary in weeks using the JtR A toZ and all they could find on the Maybricks at that time, they are still pretty lucky with the overlapping. Feldy mentions an entry in the Hand Hotel, Llangollen register where Maybrick stayed on possibly more than one occasion. The question isdid he look for any entries there (or anywhere else for that matter) around the murder dates? I believe if an alibi had been found in the early stages of research all would have been well, but what about thousands of hours (and £’s) down the line? Would Feldy have been as painstaking to disprove a JM/JtR connection then? Perhaps you could climb aboard one of those sheep and pop to Ruthin County Record Office to find James enjoying a pleasant early autumn 1888 weekend at the old Hand, instead of carving up poor devils in that London. By the way, I remember spending many an extended lunch-hour during the 70’s strolling down Middlesex St (never saw a petticoat for sale though) but never gave it a thought that I was so close to ripper territory.
By now I thought everyone expected the Spanish Inquisition on this particular board. (Sorry!)
You’re dead right about Carly and British TV etc. of course. Parents can be too protective sometimes. The more information we allow kids, the less screwed-up the adult, that’s what I say, as long as the background is secure and loving. Serial killers are most likely set on course long before Carly’s age. Yes, she took the Mary Kelly photo in her stride (sorry again!), I think that once she realised that most mutilation takes place after death, the victim is no longer suffering and only the ones left behind (including the killer) have to cope with it.
Yours, Caz S. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Wednesday, 30 December 1998 - 07:22 am | | Hi Paul:
Just to take up one of your points. Brushing aside the main thing that annoys me about Canter: that he can't quote Sherlock Holmes correctly, I'm sure that we all know that according to Shirley he suggests that the diary is either a modern forgery or is real. Now obviously he says that if it's a modern forgery then the forgers: "must be extremely sophisticated with a wide knowledge of the physical, psychological and medical characteristics of a serial killer." Shirley also said that in a letter to her he said: "the only people who could have forged it must come from within the world of Ripperology." Although he's not reported as having said this the implication must also be that a psychological/criminal profiler would also be a good suspect.
So according to the above Canter is saying that it's either someone with the depth of knowledge of a Paul Begg or a David Canter. Do I believe this? Probably not. What I do believe is that a reasonable writer can, with the aid of some research write a book about a country where he's never been. Equally, because an author fills a book with tales of cannibalism, depravity and hideous mutilations it doesn't mean that he's actually experienced these things. It means that he is taking advantage of some of the many books and videos available today that describe these things in dreadful detail. The whole point of writing fiction is that you pretend to be something that you are not. As to Bruce Robinson, he may of course be an excellent scriptwriter but I would wish to know the source of this quote. Is it on a blurb or in a context which shows that he had actually read and understood the diary. If he actually said that bit about the summitt of his literary achievement then he must have very low opinions of his own talents. The fact that I haven't heard of him before doesn't actually mean much. I haven't seen the film either.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 30 December 1998 - 04:38 pm | | Peter and Caz -
Peter -
You wrote: "Regarding the great Anne Graham coverup, this seems to be a myth. Some sources say that there's an SIS block on certain Graham files because a member of the family works for the security services. To me, this seems unlikely. Until I see a copy of this supposed letter to Feldy I'll assume that there is nothing to it."
The letter does exist and I have a copy in my files. It concerns the destruction of certain records and states that they were destroyed because of the "security risk associated with the subject" (meaning the person) and states "We can confirm that only governmental officers would have the authority to destroy such records." This letter has no bearing on the "Diary" other than the part it played in Paul Feldman's theorising and to some extent on how we interpret the story of Ann's 'confession' to Feldy.
Caz Senior -
No wonder I didn't recollect this photo! It isn't a photo that had been in Ann's family or anything like that. I think Shirley simply meant that although Ann does not claim descent from Florence, she does have a photo of Florence hanging next to a photo of her father, from which you might like to conclude that Ann attaches rather more to the possibility of descent than her public stance suggests. Personally, I think it means no more than that Ann has just spent a long time researching and writing a book about the Maybrick case. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 30 December 1998 - 05:14 pm | | Peter
I realise that a competent writer could accurately portray the mind of a serial killer or the mind of anyone else for that matter. I am not saying otherwise. The question I am asking is simply whether or not Mike Barrett is a competent writer. If he is, fine. If he isn't, then he lacked the ability to forge the "Diary" and we must look elsewhere for the forger. That is, of course, if authoring the "Diary" required any skill and knowledge.
And on the point of skill, all I can say is that both Dr. Foreshaw and Professor Canter were impressed by the author's accurate presentation of the psychopathology of a serial killer. Now, as we are all very well aware, a novice to the Ripper, for example, could pick up two or three Ripper books, cull from them whatever information they needed for their fiction, and get two dozen critics immediately picking holes in the factual content. My point? Simply that research isn't easy. What's easy is making mistakes. So here we have Mike Barrett, who as far as we know knows double zilch about the psychopathology of serial killers, ploughing through two or three books on the subject, extracting the relevent material, constructing an accurate psychological profile and weaving that into a diary narrative, and doing this so proficiently that two authorities come away impressed. And, of course, according to some, he did these in a few days, accumulating a smattering of Ripper and Maybrick knowledge along the way.
Of course, if the "Diary" is just a load of tat which makes a second-rate dime novel look like Shakespeare by comparison, then the whole question is irrelevent. But we do have some professional people who don't think this is the case. Personally, I don't feel qualified to comment. I'm simply making observing that these things have been said and should in my opinion be fully addressed before authorship of the "Diary" is glibly ascribed to Mike Barrett.
Bruce Robinson's quote follows the dedication page of Shirley's revised edition. |
Author: Johanne
Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 07:03 am | | Re: The Identity of Jack the Ripper
It's been interesting reading peoples comments on who they think JTR is and how they came to think that way. I can remember reading every new book that came out a number of year's ago and thinking "yes, this is the one" and that Jack the Ripper was definitely whoever he was purported to be in that particular book. Until the next book came out that was. To tell the truth, I don't really want to know who Jack the Ripper was. After all, if the truth finally does come out there'll be no mystery and I believe it's the not knowing that keeps the interest alive!!!
Jo |
Author: Caz Senior
Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 08:21 am | | Dear Interested Parties,
I really must get back to real life (and new year quaffing!) shortly, but before I go I have a few more thoughts for anyone still listening:
We always come back to Anne Graham (I don’t know which surname she prefers at the moment so I hope I don’t cause her offence, none is intended). All we know is that she knows things we wish we did!
Anne’s original story was that she first saw the diary when Mike got it from Tony D. (therefore no established provenance and most likely a modern forgery).
After being prodded once too often with the soft cushions by Feldy, she reveals that the diary was passed down the family from step-granny Formby (genuine then? No, this still doesn’t rule out an old forgery).
Anne’s story yet to come?: how the diary really came into the Barrett’s hands and who the real forgers are/were, if neither the above is true.
We can be sure of one thing: Anne knows which of the above is true, if no-one else does.
Theories can therefore range from:
Anne knows zilch about the diary and made the whole thing up with the forgers’ help, after they decided to ‘plant’ the diary with the Barretts.
Anne knows it’s all true but is having serious problems proving it.
Or: Anne had the original idea of forging the diary and enlisted the help of others (we know there was at least one other if the handwriting was not Anne’s).
If the friendship between Billy Graham’s step-granny, Elizabeth Formby, and Alice Yapp can be verified, this gives us a tangible link between Anne and Battlecrease House in 1889. Unless the link with Alice Yapp is untrue or a bizarre coincidence, it surely could have provided the original inspiration for Anne or others to have concocted the whole thing. Here is the scenario:
Yapp has access to linen trunks etc. in Battlecrease House 1889 / finds diary during searches of house / reads last page / gasps! ‘Do I believe it? Do I destroy it? No, I’ll give it to Elizabeth Formby for safekeeping, she won’t know what it is, she can’t read or write, I can trust her never to show it to anyone, and it might just suit my purpose to retrieve it one day, who knows?’……..and Hey Presto! The diary has provenance.
When does the film come out? We all know how fact and fiction can be merged to wonderfully lucrative effect, James Cameron come on out and take another bow!
So, what can we say about Anne in conclusion? She knows what she knows and doesn’t know, and may be able to put us all out of our misery. Will she come up with the goods? Wherever the truth lies, and whether or not she ever meant to deceive, the tangled web woven suggests she is a truly remarkable lady, deserving of our respect, if only for having given us so much food for thought (and new ripper books) over the last few years.
A truly Happy New Year to all, Caz Senior |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 08:56 am | | Hi Caz Snr!
As I see it, the "problem" with Anne Graham is that she has been all too willing to change her story in the past, such that any new "information" she provides now or in the future must inevitably be viewed with extreme suspicion. Bear in mind that the "provenance" of the Diary relating to Anne's family and its supposed links to Florence Maybrick did not come forward until after Paul Feldman seemingly planted the idea in her mind - by apparently telling her " I think this has come from your family". (Sorry, I haven't got Final Chapter to hand to check the exact wording, but I think this is basically correct.) The interview in which Anne's father allegedly gives confirmation of the family history also sets alarm bells ringing for me. From the outset, Feldman appears to be "leading" his witness, whose answers are so confused as to defy rational interpretation. Feldman performs an extraordinary leap of logic to draw the conclusions he does.
I'm sure, as you seem to be, that Anne probably could tell us the truth about the Diary. However, I have a sad feeling that she's not about to.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caz Senior
Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 09:28 am | | Hi Guy!
I never said anything about "blood" links between Anne and Florence! I agree with you on that one, and everything else you say too as regards Feldy. But are you saying the link between Formby and Yapp came from Feldy initially? Who thought that one up?
Hi Paul!
Sorry I read too much into the Florie photo, I thought (mistakenly) that Shirley was trying to imply a final bit of mystery, that was all.
Yours, Caz Senior |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 10:57 am | | Hi Caz Senior & Guy
Happy New Year.
I don't think it is stricly fair to say that Ann 'has been all too willing to change her story in the past'. All she didn't reveal initially was that she had given the "Diary" to Devereux. And her reason for not revealing that was that she did not want her terminally-ill father being pestered. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable reason to me and her subsequent decision to tell the truth (to get Feldy off the back of her friends and family) doesn't strike me as being 'all too willing' to change her story. That's just my opinion, of course, and I may be biased because I was knocking around at that time and know a bit about what was going on from the "inside".
And Caz S. is correct that all roads currently point to Ann. If she is telling the truth and the "Diary" was bequeathed to her family in the 1940s then we have a whole different set of problems than we do if the "Diary" is a post-1987 forgery. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Thursday, 31 December 1998 - 12:30 pm | | Thanks Paul but who is the letter from and who is it to? Is this the report referred to in Feldy's "confrontation" with Anne in July 1994? If it was, what was Anne's "created" story explaining it and did she ever offer a more believable story? Obviously in a case where the integrity of the people concerned is important, to judge the reality of the diary we also need to know if there are any problems in the past of someone who has been accused of forging the diary.
Now before I say anything else I must make it plain that I am not, at the moment accusing any particular person of forging the diary. I for the sake of argument we take Anonymous' hypothesis that Mike and Anne wrote the diary then we have to ask not just whether Mike is a competent
writer but whether Anne is. And "competent" is a word with no set value. There are plenty of competent writers out there penning hack horror stories for the cheap labels who in my opinion show as much artistry as the diary writer. And as to these authorities telling us how the diary forger shows insight into the mind of the serial killer, could we ask them how the diary's main character compares to Bundy, Sutcliffe, Gacy or any of the other serialists? It's a pity we can't ask Martin Fido his opinion on these point.
Bruce Robinson. Well, whoever he is (and had you heard of him before you saw his name in Shirley's book?) maybe you can tell us, as a published author yourself, whether a publisher commonly pays for such little comments. Every time Colin Wilson offers a sentence or two to adorn the book jacket of someone who has found yet another location for Atlantis, does he get a few pounds? I believe Groucho Marx was asked by a publisher to contribute a line or two in a similar context and said "This is the best book I have ever read between breakfast and lunch."
.
Hi MC,
OK, the linkage between Formby and Yapp. The first mention of this in Feldy's book is on p. 171(pb) during the conversation between Feldy and Anne just after he shows her the mysterious "confidential report" Anne is talking about her supposed discussions with her father: "I don't know when but I also picked up that Edith (Formby's) mother Elizabeth was a good friend of Alice Yapp. According to my father his step-granny, of whom he was very fond, accompanied Yapp to the trial of Florence Maybrick." Now this leads Feldy to a whole string of assumptions and surmises which I won't bother you with. Suffice it to say that he makes no obvious attempt to discover whether this information is true or whether Anne (who in the same conversation has admitted lying to him) is telling more porkies.
Although Shirley told me once on the phone that she had proof that Alice Yapp and Elizabeth Formby were indeed friends, this proof has not survived to go into her new edition. There was a rumour that the two were childhood friends. As Yapp was born C1861 in Ludlow and Formby C1854 Kidderminster this seems unlikely. Shirley does say that there was a "family tradition" that Elizabeth Formby had been a friend of one of the Battlecrease servants: "the skivvy" This may or may not refer to Alice. We do not of course know how far back the "family tradition" goes.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Caz Senior
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 06:42 am | | Dear Peter and Paul,
The whole point about the link between Formby and Battlecrease House (whichever staff member may have been her friend) is that it is crucial in proving Anne’s involvement every which way you turn. If she made it up it implicates her in a modern forgery (other forgers, independently of Anne, could not have hoped that she would come up with a personal link to the Maybricks, real or invented, could they?).
If the link is either real, or a family rumour, we have the ‘genuine’ v ‘old forgery’ debate again, unless, as I mentioned before, Anne used the real link to concoct a modern hoax. Only she can tell us and, as you say, Peter, she may never do that. I wonder if Scotland Yard covered this angle when they investigated the diary for intent to defraud? They certainly didn’t find a case, did they? Or are we talking headless chickens again?
I hope all that Cabernet Sauvignon and Drambuie last night hasn’t clouded my judgement too much,
Compliments of the season,
Caroline (Caz Snr, MC, not OBE) |
Author: Caz Senior
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 07:28 am | | P.S.
My judgement was clouded with regard to intent to defraud: if Anne showed she never wanted the diary to be published, there would be no intent to defraud on her part. Mike B.took the diary for publication arguably knowing nothing much about it at all, and is probably still deeply confused about the whole sorry mess! All of which is rather convenient for the 'hoaxers'.
Yours Caz Snr |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 08:24 am | | Peter:
Yes, of course Ann's literary ability should be judged. But hasn't Mike variously claimed that he wrote the "Diary" himself, either personally with a gold-nibbed pen or by dictation to Ann? If Mike in fact lacked the supposed skills required to author the "Diary", then those claims, along with his confession, were bogus.
And If Mike did not write the "Diary", his role in the forgery is open to question. Indeed, did he even know that the "Diary" was a forgery? After all, he was initially unable to name where the book or the ink had been bought and the auctioneers who he later claimed had sold him the book have denied that they did so. So was Mike merely a patsy? Either way, it becomes less than 'blatantly obvious' that he authored or was even party to authoring the "Diary"
I understand all that you say about the literary merits of the "Diary" and the questions you pose. But the fact is that those questions are being posed before the "Diary" is glibly dismissed as a piece of literary tat obviously forged by Mike and Anne.
And, of course, we're not simply talking about the artistry. There's the mechanics of writing, the ability to research, to understand and handle sources, find the information you want and extract it. That isn't easy. And only then is the accumulated information woven into a story. Moreover, it's done so plausibly that experts like Dr. Foreshaw and Professor Canter are impressed. Those of us who have experience of research tend to forget how difficult it can be, especially for an inexperienced person. So, yes, these authorities should be asked how diary's 'main character compares to Bundy, Sutcliffe, Gacy or any of the other serialists'. We can ask Martin Fido, though unless anyone knows to the contrary, Dr Foreshaw and Professor Canter are the professionals in this field and your questions should be addressed to them.
As far as Bruce Robinson is concerned, I don't normally pay much attention to the names of screenwriters so I hadn't heard of him, but I had heard of The Killing Fields, for which I understand that he was nominated for an Oscar. Whether Bruce Robinson was paid for his comments is a question you will have to ask Shirley. But one should not infer that payment in any way makes the offered opinion anything less than honest.
Concerning the letter, yes it is the report referred to in Feldy's confrontation and as Feldy says in his book, it is a report to himself from a private investigator he'd hired to look into Anne's background. I don't now recall what Anne's "created story" was, but I think the reason was that it concerned a relative. But the letter is unimportant beyond the part it played in convincing Feldy that Mike and Anne were not Mike and Anne, as he explains from about pg.160 (pb) onwards and Shirley recounts on page 284 onwards of her revised edition. What I can wholly and absolutely confirm is that when Feldy wrote that Anne's 'confession' left him feeling despondent, that's was an understatement. That 'confession' was not what Feldy expected to hear or what he wanted to hear and worst of all it didn't materially advance Feldy's researches. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 09:24 am | | Caz S.-
Yes, Anne's story about the "Diary" being bequeathed by a relative put the ball very firmly in her court. But that could have been her intention. Anne's concern was her family and friends, so by focusing attention on herself, she diverted it away from them - and diverted it successfully! Feldy 'bought' her story hook, line and sinker. The thing is, though, is her story true?
As best I recollect, Mike has only told two stories. One is that he forged the "Diary" himself. The other is that he received it from Tony Devereux. Thus, if he didn't forge it himself, did he get it from Devereux? If he did, where did Devereux get it? Did he get it from Anne, like she says? And if so... question after question.
The tough job is trying to establish some solid facts. We have people saying that the 'literary' quality of the "Diary" is tat, but other people clearly see merit within it. Who is right? We have people claiming 'classic errors' in the forgery, but others claiming some ability and, perhaps, even sophistication. But as you say, as the end of the day the ball is in Anne's court. My colleague, Keith Skinner, has talked with her at considerable length. He believes her. Martin Fido, who has met her only a couple of times, doesn't believe her. Who is right? |
Author: Anonymous
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 01:26 pm | | | Martin Fido. |
Author: Anonymous
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 01:35 pm | | | Keith Skinner. |
Author: Anonymous
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 01:38 pm | | | I can't decide. |
Author: Caz Senior
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 02:49 pm | | Dear All,
My eleven-year-old Caz thinks we are all sad old gits doing this on New Year’s Day!
I’m still gonna pick away at this one I’m afraid. When in desperation Anne mentioned the Formby/Yapp link, she must have already had some Maybrick knowledge if it was pure invention, or was Alice Yapp a household name in early 1990’s Liverpool? Was she already doing her research at this time, maybe as a result of Feldy’s pestering, and came up with the idea of linking her step great grandmother with a Battlecrease servant in order to take the heat off her family and friends? If so, she still ended up enlisting her ill father’s help in confirming her story- quite the opposite effect then!
I agree totally with Paul that this was not what Feldy wanted to hear. What I don’t understand is how he could have made the quantum leap to Billy’s father having chosen for his second wife the daughter of a woman who supposedly accompanied Yapp to the murder trial of his own real mother! (Anyone still with me?)
Until we sort this one out, we’ll never get onto the weighty problem of Anne’s co-conspirators, and the ability to write sufficiently like a Victorian fantasist/murderer, high on arsenic and/or strychnine, as to
have fooled a good few professionals.
Thanks to Anonymous for keeping it short and sweet, I could learn a lot from him!
Best Wishes, Caz Snr. |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Saturday, 02 January 1999 - 06:58 am | | Happy New Year People.
I've been away for New Years for a couple of days, it's amazing what you miss in such a short time.
Peter, okay, for the last time...reread those posts. Where did I say that Jim did it without a doubt? I said, read the book, and I said ...it convinced me that James was Jack. The key words in that sentance, would somebody like to point them out for the nice man? Yes, that's right boys and girls, CONVINCE ME. Once more... ME. Is this finally clear?
Yazoo, I really liked your 27 December post. You've got a way with words that I just can't get without resorting to swearing, which is why I'm ignoring posts which piss me off too much.
Little Caz, I'm very impressed with you, please keep posting here, you remind me of me when I was that age (all those years ago!!) Don't let those big bullies out there pick on you too much!
Nikki |
Author: Caz Senior
Saturday, 02 January 1999 - 12:13 pm | | Dear Paul and All,
Back to Anne (sorry folks!):
Would focusing attention on herself have made any sense unless she is telling the truth about the diary’s origins?
We have a paradox here: she lies, from the purest of motives, hoping to protect her family, implicating herself in forgery in the process? Hardly the actions of a calculating artful forger, capable of producing such a document by herself.
Okay then: she lies, cynically and deliberately, about the diary having been in the family for decades, totally manipulating Feldy and bringing all the attention on herself, and goes as far as getting her terminally-ill father to aid and abet her, having previously duped her husband? She has now become a manipulator of Lady Macbeth proportions! I’m sorry, I don’t buy this one either. No-one having read the Feldman/Harrison material could seriously come to such a conclusion about our Anne.
Digressing slightly, and addressing ‘All’ rather than Paul here, I feel there are too many people in this affair willing to believe the worst of people they don’t even know, without giving fair and considered reasons for their judgements. I would not feel comfortable knowing these people may be eligible for jury service! If Feldy was right about anything it was that this is the story about real people, and he does not have a monopoly on dodgy logic.
The only option left to the ‘modern-forgery’ argument, as I see it, is the existence of a behind-the-scenes mystery man who chose Anne carefully several years ago when planning his hoax, planting the seeds of some sort of provenance for his masterpiece on her family, and pulling her strings ever since. If it was never this forger’s intention to deceive, defraud or upset, with nought but funny little games in mind, he has spectacularly failed, and caused Anne and her family years of accusations and torment, for his own amusement. He should come clean immediately and stop messing with people’s lives. If, on the other hand, he is indeed a master-forger, he is a very cowardly one, hiding behind Anne, effectively using her lies to cover up for him and letting her take all the public insults. I can’t see what he achieved at the end of the day. If this man exists he should pay for his actions.
If this mystery man does not exist, ………ah, there’s the rub, we are left with one conclusion: we are dealing with a genuine document or an old forgery and a whole new can of worms. Perhaps we all owe Anne a huge apology and should start looking a bit deeper for our author.
Whatever time reveals, someone has been playing with people for his sport, be he from Knotty Ash or dead and buried these 110 years. I sincerely hope he won’t share Mr. Anonymous’s name for much longer, that would be a final indignity!
On a lighter note: Let he who thinks this codswallop cast the first stone, while hitting me he’s leaving the rest alone.
Yours, Caz Snr. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 02 January 1999 - 12:59 pm | | Hi Caz S.
To answer your question about Anne, she was apparently concerned about what she regarded as Feldy's harrassing of her family and friends (in particular Mike's family). The only way I can see that she could have stopped that was by focusing attention on herself. And the only way she could have focused attention on herself was by claiming responsibility for the "Diary", either as its forger or as its owner. I don't think this makes her an arch-manipulator either, just someone who felt guilty and took the flack to protect those close to her. And that action makes sense whether she was the forger or not.
The question is, when in the following months and years her relationship with Feldy firmed into friendship, would Anne - could Anne - have continued to so callously deceive him and others, among them Keith Skinner? I've met Anne. I don't think she would. But who can really tell what a person will do? |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 02 January 1999 - 02:38 pm | | Hi, Caz Sr.:
Alice Yapp is mentioned frequently in all the books on the Maybrick Case because she was the nurse who opened Florie Maybrick's letter to Alfred Brierely, and there was considerable shock in Victorian England that a servant would have the temerity to open the letter of someone of a "better" class, the evidence of adultery notwithstanding. So presumably the forger of the Diary knew well enough that Alice Yapp was an important figure in the "real" Maybrick Case not the one that is the result of the hoax Diary.
Chris George |
Author: Dimmn
Saturday, 02 January 1999 - 09:55 pm | | well, not to anger and upset anyone -I'm new to this web site and very much impressed, and was wodering if anyone could help me by telling me what exactly the names of these books and 'diarys' are so that I may buy them. Please email me if you know of any of these.
Thank you,
Dimmn |
Author: Johnno
Saturday, 02 January 1999 - 10:33 pm | | Hello Dimmn.
The two most well known books on the topic of the alleged diary of Jack the Ripper are The Diary of Jack the Ripper by Shirley Harrison (1993) and Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter by Paul Feldman (1995).
If you are interested in either book, please check out the book review section on the Casebook for reviews, plus links to Amazon, from which you can purchase them online.
Also, please take note that the diary is quite a controversial issue in Ripperology and has been the cause of much disagreement in the past. Many believe it to be genuine, while many others believe it to be a grand hoax. |
Author: Dimmn
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 01:02 am | | | Thank you very much :) I can't wait to buy it |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 02:10 am | | Hi Dimmn
I'd just add the following details. The original US publisher, Time Warner, hired a team led by Kenneth Rendell to investigate the "Diary" and their controversial report deemed it a fake. Time Warner pulled out and the book was picked up and published by Hyperion. This edition, unlike the UK edition, contained the Rendell report and a rebuttal by the British publisher Robert Smith of Smith Gryphon. There followed a revised paperback and, in 1998, a rewritten and revised paperback (which is the version to get). |
Author: Caz Senior
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 03:21 am | | Hi Chris.
Obviously the forger knew about Alice Yapp, I was not saying that. I was exploring the possibility of Anne not being the forger, her first involvement being typing up the diary transcript for Mike. I just found it slightly strange that she was able to come up with such a good story: 'I first saw the diary in 1968 or 9....' etc. and included the Formby/Yapp link into the bargain, none of which has yet been disproved, and, as Paul says,Anne has stuck firmly to this 'deceit' ever since for her own reasons.
Anne's story, if invention, shows careful planning, not one clutched out of the air in desperation to appease Feldy,like some poor devil who cofesses to a murder he didn't commit to get some respite from police questioning. Tim Evan's 'confession' was taken at face value, don't forget, and he swung for it!
I simply like to explore all the possibilities to try to eliminate the unlikely or impossible ones, they are not my actual opinions, I have not quite got it all worked out in my own mind....yet.
Best wishes, Caz Snr. |
Author: Winston
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 04:46 am | | | Never in the field of human literature has so much waffle been expended on so much nonsense by so many. |
Author: Winston
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 04:48 am | | | No, sorry, I got that wrong, the diary isn't literature, carry on. |
Author: Tim Nice but dim
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 05:05 am | | | I would just like to say what a bloody nice bloke Paul Begg is. |
Author: Caz Senior
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 05:25 am | | Dear Paul,
You’ve let me down! I’ve just been teaching Little Caz about split infinitives, using Star Trek’s ‘to boldly go’ example, and you come up with ‘to so callously deceive’!
To redress the balance, the other day I wrote ‘whine’ on my shopping list in mistake for wine, which hubby said was a Freudian slip!
See ya, Caz S. |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 06:18 am | | Hey Winston, I don't suppose you were previously on this board as 'Anonymous'?
Nikki |
Author: Caz Senior.
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 06:48 am | | Dear Winston/Anonymous,
I see you think the diary could be genuine then? Not literature? The 'hoaxer' got that bit right then, didn't he? The diary author was making out like he was a pathetic man scribbling private drivel to himself, wasn't he? He wasn't trying to come across the pages as Conan bloody Doyle! Now that would have confirmed a hoax.
No-one's forcing you to read this waffle are they?
Bye bye, Caz Snr. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 01:20 pm | | Hi Paul:
Happy New Year to you and all your readers. Do you have or have you read any of the stories, interviews, crossword puzzles or the like that Mike supposedly produced? That might give us a clue to his writing ability. One was I believe an interview with Kylie something of whom I know little. If I used the methods of some of the correspondents on these pages I might also say: "If Mike wrote the diary then he has to be a competent writer." Even at my advanced age I do see the flaw in that one. Considering serial killers in fiction I remember a very powerfull short story by the late Ted Sturgeon (Some of Your Blood?) that described the motives of such a killer. What would the Profs. make of that?
Thanks to the endeavours of you and your co-writers I do suspect that as far as Jack is concerned the 1991 AtoZ and one or two Maybrick books may have been all that was recquired. Is there anything ripper-related in the diary that couldn't be found in your magnum opus? As you and I both know, research is not easy but then it's not impossible either. Given an incentive virtually anyone can do it. And if you're copying material from recognised authorities then you're going to think that you won't make too many mistakes. The whole point here is that you do not have to be an expert in the psychopathology of a serial killer to write the diary. All you have to do is read a book or two. If writers had to experience themselves everything that they wrote about they'd never have time to do the writing. And it's me who says that the diary could have been written in a short period without a lot of research.
Hi Caroline:
Nice name. Do I assume that your last name has a "z" in it? Relating to my previous message about the Yapp-Formby alliance, the first reference to it in Feldy is after Anne has already lied to him about her mysterious past. Do we assume that she is now telling the truth or has she developed a story that will stake her claim to the diary? The idea that Anne gives to Feldy, (an "impression" it's called) is that Elizabeth Formby runs a laundry at 10 Peel Street where the staff from Battlecrease House bring the washing.(Shirley says it's "around the corner" from Battlecrease House: it's actually near on 4 miles away.) Elizabeth is supposedly a fence and handles items that various servants bring to her with the washing. The implication is that is how the diary gets from Battlecrease to the Formby's and thus the Graham's. Bear in mind then the likelihood of William Graham (supposedly Florrie's illegitimate son) receiving the diary, not from his "mother" but from his second wife's mother! There is no proof other than what Anne or her father said that links Alice Yapp with any of the Graham's.
Is there someone, a "Gray" (sorry) eminance behind the scenes pulling the strings of Anne and Mike? Well, what conceivable reason could anyone have for using the Barretts in this way? They have no connection to any of the families involved in the Maybrick case (and I say that knowing that someone is going to jump on me with Anne's story about her Great-grandmother Florrie. Ignore it: the research doesn't bear it out.)
As Martin Fido said right at the beginning of this, provenance, whichever story you use, is a mess.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 01:27 pm | | Hi Caroline:
Regarding the Maybrick case particularly there's quite a lot of information in the various popular books on the subject (four is it?) without having to go into things like the McDougal book. They don't obviously give an 1888-89 calendar for Maybrick's daily doings but there's enough there to show that he wasn't obviously and provably out-of-town at the time of the murders. He doesn't have alibis and that's all our forger/s need. Jim was not an important figure who's every movement was noticed and recorded. He leaves the same imprint on public records as do most of us today: about the only newsworthy item in his life was being poisoned. Based on this, our forger was pretty safe in placing the poor fellow in London on the right days.
As for Ruthin, it's already been checked out (probably by the indefatigable Keith Skinner.) It's a nice building in the old gaol. One of the search-rooms is a cell! Jim seems pretty safe from dirty week-ends in '88 at the Hand Hotel (good bar snacks.)
One puzzle is Feldy's footnote to his entry, p. 81(pb) The entry mentions Jim's holiday at the Hand in Feb. '89 with some friends. The footnote reads: "...confirmed by an entry in the...register dated 3-10 April 1886..." How a holiday in 1889 can be confirmed by an 1886 register escapes me at the moment.
Regards, Peter.
Nikki:
However long its been between December 28th and Jan 2nd, certainly things can change. What can't change is that I reported you correctly in saying "it was mentioned a lot in Paul Feldman's book which has managed to convince me that James Maybrick is Jack." Now as far as I am concerned that means that you read the book and believed at that time that JM was JtR. Being convinced that someone committed a crime is several stages above what juries have to believe to convict. You are right YES, YOU, NIKKI DORMER ARE INDEED 100% RIGHT when you tell me you didn't say "Jim did it without a doubt." No, you are so determined not to have made a mistake that you pick on that poor little word"convince" to try to get you out of the situation.
If you've changed your mind about Jim or if a tiny piece of doubt has come into existance, fine. Admit it and start afresh. If you are still hard-and-fast determined on the guilt of a long-dead murder victim without a doubt then your Jan. 2nd posting is so much puppy-food.
And I reject your suggestion of me being "nice." This post was originally twice as long. This is the censored edition and is as "nice" as you are going to get.
Peter. |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 05:37 pm | | | I believe what Nikki was trying to say is that although she believes that JM is the ripper, that doesn't mean that she couldn't be wrong. I thought that this page had gotten rid of the @#%%#&^%$ (There. That is my censored edition.) In case anyone missed the heading on this message board, it is not "Let's pick on everyone else until they believe exactly as I believe." This is not a place to call othe people's posts "puppy-food", whatever that means. |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 05:56 pm | | It seems to me that some of the posters on these boards would do well to remember the old adage, 'If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.'!
Mr. Birchwood has reasonably stated his case and the position regarding some past posts, when what happens? Up pop the 'boardroom police' to have a pop at him when he is merely stating facts.
This is a contentious subject and if those who strongly state their opinion when they do not wish it to be challenged (or corrected if it is patently wrong) they should not be posting at all - they should be just reading and learning before leaping into print.
If fair, reasoned and constructive debate is to take place at all then they should expect their arguments to be challenged - strongly. It seems to me that a lot of contributors are wimpish and as soon as the flak comes they don't like it. Instead they want some sort of Utopian site where all is love and flowers, no-one speaks their mind, and no-one can be criticised (because that is a 'personal attack'!) Well, I suggest that some would do well to go away, mature and grow up and then return when they are capable of a bit of aggressive debate.
Why don't they start an 'I'll love and praise you if you love and praise me site, all of their own? |
Author: Winston
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 06:38 pm | | Dear Caz Senior,
Re - Your post of 06:48 am
I do not know how you got the impression that I think the diary could be genuine when I described it as nonsense.
I think the adjective pathetic is fair enough as regards the forger of the diary, and I must agree that he certainly was not trying to 'come across' as 'Conan bloody Doyle.' Incidentally I was not previously aware of this sobriquet for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, where did he obtain it, the South African war?
It is also true that 'no-one's forcing' me 'to read this waffle,' but nice to see that you agree that it is waffle.
Yours, |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 07:09 pm | | To Anonymous:
I agree with you when you say that if you don't want your theories debated then don't post them. I must disagree on the point that stating your theories on this board leaves yourself open to degrading remarks and belittlement. This is a board to post theories and have discussions about the diary. It is not the fifth round of a heavyweight title match. I am anything but wimpish as is Nikki, as posting on this board proves after all the STUPID (forgive me, but this word fits the best)remarks by others. If you have anything useful to add to the discussion, then do it. Quit taking pot shots at others and act your age.
To Winston:
In case you missed it, Caz Sr. was being sarcastic.
To all who are interested in the diary:
What do you think about the "FM" found on the wall at one of the murder scenes?
Shelly |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 08:48 pm | | What's this about puppy food and waffles? Opening a very strange new restaurant? Offering the "Breakfast of Champions," no doubt? The stuff that keeps the anti-Diary crowd in fighting trim?
And since WHEN is anybody here supposed to be giving anybody "heat" let alone dissing others about an inability to take said "heat?"
What is it that FRIGHTENS you people about this topic? I do not for one instant believe that the sole or even the main purpose for attacking the Diary and, especially, the people who CHOOSE to believe it genuine (or simply want to investigate it further), is some high-minded intellectual purity, historical integrity, or even the misguided notion that you are the Maybrick-Thought-Police with due governmental powers to identify and arrest suspected forgers, miscreants, and their supposed gulls.
I don't believe the Diary is genuine or that Maybrick is JtR...and I know a number of people who feel the same way. But you don't see any of us loitering on this board -- telling other people how wrong they are if they believe in it, blah blah blah ad nauseum.
So let's hear it: WHY do you torment yourselves and others by hanging around here when you don't agree with the entire premise? Are you masochists? What is it? Give me five good reasons why you have to hang around here and tell everybody else that they are wrong and/or stupid? Give me ONE good reason!
And if you tell me "because it's a free world" I'll simply point out that it seems to be much more free for some -- like you anti-Diary lot -- than for others -- like those who want to be left in peace to discuss their belief that the Diary is genuine or Maybrick might have done or did the deed.
Why don't you start your own Anti-Diary board instead of hanging about here? Go and enjoy one another's company.
One person, Dave Bedwell on Sunday, December 27, 1998 - 10:06 pm, has already left the Casebook in what looks like despair over what he's seen under this topic. We have a lot of new people posting lately. Will we lose them as well when they see what passes for sharing ideas on this board?
Yaz
Waffles and puppy food! You guys crack me up! Is that a new item on the menu at The Waffle House or the International House of Pancakes? I didn't know England had IHOPs! |
Author: Anonymous
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 02:42 am | | To Shelbi,
Surely you do not regard Mr. Birchwood's remarks as degrading or belittling? If so, I have seen a lot worse than that in my time!
Surely such an interpretation is in the mind of the individual, rather than intended or obvious. Strong debate will always include remarks which may seem aggressive or a 'put down.' As I said, if any individual can't take that they should not be debating in the first place.
There is a lot of difference between someone who says that they have read a book or two on the subject and that they think they know the solution, or even agree with a particular author, to the individuals who come on here, having read the said book or two, and instantly proclaim that they are convinced or know that this is the answer. Surely anyone needs to read more than a couple of books to be so bold?
The former would certainly receive the opinion of others with more knowledge in a more restrained way to the latter who were making such grandiose statements. If this board is your idea of 'a heavyweight title match,' where have you been all your life?
And, of course, we see you resorting to the same sort of words you are so quick to criticise others for using. But do you see a wounded 'anti-diarist' bemoaning his lot? Do you see a defending knight errant leaping to the defence? No, any debater worth his salt expects some strong words. This is an adult site, and adults should be just that - adult. I suggest that you, Shelbi, are the one who needs to act your age. (Mind you, having said that I don't know how old you are).
From your comment about 'FM' being found on the wall at the Kelly murder scene it appears that you too are being seduced by the mythology. All there was on the partition behind Kelly's bed were some marks or blood splashes which can be interpreted as a letter(s) by anyone with some imagination and the need to invent conspiritorial theories.
To Yazoo,
If Shelbi is one of the 'policemen' of this site, you, surely, are the 'Judge Dredd' of the site. Believe it or not some people are concerned with the truth and do not like to see others bamboozled. They do not like to see words of fiction cloaked in the guise of fact.
I did not realise that this was a pro-diary only board, and that those with factual and logical minds (the dreaded anti-diarists) were not welcome. Seems to me that unopposed opinion would make for a pretty sad and boring board. Still, maybe that's what the likes of you want. Although judging by some of your past postings I wouldn't have thought so!
If heat there be, then it certainly seems a pretty tepid sort of heat compared to that generated by you, yourself, when you climb out of your pram!
Who the hell is 'FRIGHTENED'? Who are the 'Maybrick-Thought-Police'? Surely, some of those defending the diary nonsense could be more accurately described under these terms? And why is it that you constantly hover in the wings awaiting every chance to leap into the fray with some wild accustations or words?
The fact that you probably do have a reasonable sort of view really is shown by the fact that you don't believe the diary to be genuine. Surely you are loitering on this board telling others how or how not to conduct themselves? So what gives you that right???
So let's hear it, why do you torment yourself by by hanging round here when you don't agree with what, and how, others say things? Are you a masochist? What is it? You give me five good reasons why you have to hang around here and tell everybody else that they are wrong and or not wanted? Give ONE good reason.
And if you tell me that "you are defending others or standing up for this or that" I'll simply point out that if others aren't capable of standing up for themselves or presenting their own arguments they shouldn't be here. Is not the bold title of this board 'NO HOAX THIS DIARY MUST BE REAL'? Ah, I suppose that you think that such an idea should be allowed to stand unopposed and that all those subscribing to it should be left alone to propagate their own ideas and theories. Sorry, these boards don't work that way.
This is not a 'pro-diary' nor an 'anti-diary' board, it is merely a board for debate on the subject and, as such, encompasses both views. Why don't you run off and enjoy yourself elsewhere rather than interfering here?
If people choose to leave this site 'in despair' then that is their right. Some do not like to read views they do not agree with or to be corrected. Why are they 'debating' in the first place? As before, I would point out that 'sharing ideas' with no wish for debate or opposition is not really the nature of true debate or discussion. If those contributing want mere bland agreement and no opposition then, yes, I would agree, let all others depart and let them get on with it. However, on previous boards I have never seen you stand back from fierce debate, argument and opinionated theorising. Have I? |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 05:13 am | | Peter: I understand and appreciate your point. All I am saying is that Dr Foreshaw and Professor Canter, both presumably experts in their field, were impressed by the accurate presentation of the psychopathology of a serial killer in the "Diary" and I wonder and ask how difficult it would be to fake that presentation and whether or not Mike Barrett has the ability to do it. Everyone can form their own opinion, but personal opinions are of little value unless backed by a relevant expertise. We therefore need to research the questions: ask Dr Foreshaw and Professor Canter how easy it would be to impress them, ask them what they make of serial killers as portrayed in novels and films, find examples of Mike Barrett's unedited writing and crosswords. I'm not saying that I want to personally do that research or that you should do it. All I am saying is that those questions should be answered before the "Diary" is dismissed as tat or authorship glibly ascribed to Mike Barrett.
To briefly comment on your remarks to Caz, all we have is a recitation by Anne and Billy of where they think the "Diary" came from. Surely that story is what has to be researched and its probability assessed. But even if shown to be wholly untrue, that doesn't mean it is a lie, only what they thought was true, and unfortunately it wouldn't prove the "Diary" a forgery either.
Could you also clarify your statement that Billy received the "Diary 'not from his "mother" but from his second wife's mother!'? My memory is probably failing me here (not unlikely with this subject!), but I thought the original story was that an unnamed friend gave the "Diary" to Granny Formby, who was Billy's step-grandmother (the mother of his father's second wife?), who entrusted it along with other documents to Edith while Billy was away at War. Edith then gave it to Billy round about Xmas 1950. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 06:04 am | | Anonymous: What people are saying has nothing to do with debate per se. It's about how the debate is conducted. A remark like 'think again sonny' isn't helpful, isn't debate, isn't being 'concerned with the truth'. It's downright rude and offensive. All people are saying is debate with vigour, but be polite.
Shelbi, Anonymous, Nikki: On December 19 Nikki wrote "I'm with you, Mota. I got the diary back in '95, and I got Paul Feldman's book last year (if you haven't got it, then you gotta read it!!) and I'm convinced too. As for you 'Anonymous', what makes you so smart that you think you know for sure that it isn't and what gives you the right to tell those of us who believe that it's real that we're wrong?????"
In my opinion this reads like a fairly emphatic statement of belief! It is also an understandable reaction to Anonymous's terse 'think again sonny'.
On December 20 Peter Birchwood wrote: "Nicki: You are wrong. The diary's a hoax..." Peter was only expressing the majority view, but he did not offer support for his statement and it seemed to be endorsing the 'think again sonny' crack. Nikki was possibly justified in interpreting both remarks as put-downs and consequently feeling aggrieved.
However, Nikki could hardly rightly claim to being 'slightly misunderstood', as she wrote on December 25. It is really tough to misunderstand the words 'I'm convinced' and 'those of us who believe that it's real'! Nikki hadn't been misunderstood. But she doesn't seem to have expressed herself very precisely because it seems clear from what she has since written that she meant no more that she had found Shirley and Paul's arguments persuasive. Maybe if she had said what she meant then Anonymous and Peter might have asked what parts of the argument had persuaded her. Reasoned debate might then have resulted.
Faults on both sides then? |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 08:24 am | | Hey, All,
I agree with Paul's comment on faults on both sides. I'd also like to say that, although I've never been involved in a discussion with Peter Birchwood, he seems to me to be a witty, sensible, well-learned contributor to these boards. I regretted seeing his comment on 'puppy food' though. Emotions are running high and, as Paul so aptly describes, BOTH sides may share some responsibility in aggravating the bejeebers out of one another.
There are no boardroom policemen or women on this site...though God knows I wish there were sometimes. We do have a pest-control problem with the Maybrick-Thought-Police.
I'll disregard the age issue question you use against Shelly. And since she's previously told us her age, your admitting to not knowing her age demonstrates just how well you pay attention around here.
You say: "Believe it or not some people are concerned with the truth and do not like to see others bamboozled. They do not like to see words of fiction cloaked in the guise of fact." A perfect job description for the Maybrick-Thought-Police...so you answered your own question. And believe it or not, SOME other people are concerned that one individual or one side of an argument claims a monopoly on "truth" and also the duty to save the "bamboozled" from themselves.
You say: "I did not realise that this was a pro-diary only board, and that those with factual and logical minds (the dreaded anti-diarists) were not welcome. Seems to me that unopposed opinion would make for a pretty sad and boring board. Still, maybe that's what the likes of you want. Although judging by some of your past postings I wouldn't have thought so!" Now that you realize this IS a pro-Diary board -- duh!!!! -- will you kindly start your own anti-Diary board?
You say: "If heat there be, then it certainly seems a pretty tepid sort of heat compared to that generated by you, yourself, when you climb out of your pram! " You also said earlier: "It seems to me that some of the posters on these boards would do well to remember the old adage, 'If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.'!" I said: "And since WHEN is anybody here supposed to be giving anybody "heat" let alone dissing others about an inability to take said "heat?"
You said: "Who the hell is 'FRIGHTENED'?" I say, you are. You say: "Who are the 'Maybrick-Thought-Police'?" I say you are. You said: "Surely, some of those defending the diary nonsense could be more accurately described under these terms?" I say, No...don't think so. You asked: "And why is it that you constantly hover in the wings awaiting every chance to leap into the fray with some wild accustations or words?" I wonder why you give me SO many chances and then whine about it when I do make my appearance.
You said: "The fact that you probably do have a reasonable sort of view really is shown by the fact that you don't believe the diary to be genuine." I say, which is it -- am I only reasonable when I agree with your point of view, or are you being inconsistent with your previous characterization of my comments here and would like to retract one or two of your statements?
You said: "Surely you are loitering on this board telling others how or how not to conduct themselves? So what gives you that right???" I say: As much right as you.
You ask: "So let's hear it, why do you torment yourself by by hanging round here when you don't agree with what, and how, others say things? Are you a masochist? What is it? You give me five good reasons why you have to hang around here and tell everybody else that they are wrong and or not wanted? Give ONE good reason." I say: I asked you first -- nyah, nyah, nyah!!
You said: "And if you tell me that "you are defending others or standing up for this or that" I'll simply point out that if others aren't capable of standing up for themselves or presenting their own arguments they shouldn't be here. Is not the bold title of this board 'NO HOAX THIS DIARY MUST BE REAL'? Ah, I suppose that you think that such an idea should be allowed to stand unopposed and that all those subscribing to it should be left alone to propagate their own ideas and theories. Sorry, these boards don't work that way." I say: Only THIS board doesn't work that way; on all the other boards, people would have long ago agreed to disagree and gone their separate ways.
You said: "This is not a 'pro-diary' nor an 'anti-diary' board, it is merely a board for debate on the subject and, as such, encompasses both views. Why don't you run off and enjoy yourself elsewhere rather than interfering here?" I say: Oh, Waffles-and-Puppyfood!! After so eloquent a defense of your own right to be here, you would again be inconsistent and deny me mine. Ah well!
You ask: "If people choose to leave this site 'in despair' then that is their right. Some do not like to read views they do not agree with or to be corrected. Why are they 'debating' in the first place? As before, I would point out that 'sharing ideas' with no wish for debate or opposition is not really the nature of true debate or discussion. If those contributing want mere bland agreement and no opposition then, yes, I would agree, let all others depart and let them get on with it. However, on previous boards I have never seen you stand back from fierce debate, argument and opinionated theorising. Have I?" I say: Last things, first -- you must never look beyond this board not to see how often I agree with others to simply disagree, or to walk away from a board where I couldn't agree with what was going on. So, let me be your role model. Now, first things, last -- sharing ideas and debate or not the same thing. Bravo on you for realizing the distinction.
Whew!
Yaz |
Author: RN
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 11:38 am | | Paul, my hero wrote ......
As for you 'Anonymous', what makes you so smart that you think you know for sure that it isn't and what gives you the right to tell those of us who believe that it's real that we're wrong?????"
Woooooaaaaah !!! |
Author: Caz Senior
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 11:47 am | | Dear Peter,
How the devil are you? Thanks ever so for replying to some of my queries. I noticed the footnote error too. You will find an identical footnote on p.78, my assumption being that Feldy had a different footnote ready for p.81 which somehow got scrunched up and binned along the way, I can’t condemn him for that, I’m always doing that sort of thing lately (I’ll make an author yet I tell you!)
Dear Winston,
I agree with you that a lot of what I come out with could be described as waffle, but I do share the trait with some very nice people, so I don’t mind in the least. Sorry about Sir Arthur’s ‘sobriquet’, I will try not to swear again. If he was as clever as I think he was he would never have gotten himself tangled up with those frightful Boers, unlike you, staying glued to these frightful diary bores!
Dear Paul,
I think Peter said ‘ William Graham received the diary,’ etc, etc, not Billy, his son. A bit of a generation mix-up is all.
Dear Others,
In the immortal words of Harry Enfield’s Scousers (can you guess?) :
‘Calm down,……Calm down! I fear for your collective blood-pressures.
Lots of love,
Caroline (No z in the surname) |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 11:50 am | | | Sorry, RN, but I did not write those words nor do they reflect any opinion of mine. Nikki Dormer wrote those words and I merely quoted them to show that Peter Birchwood was not, in my opinion, wrong in assuming that Nikki believed the "Diary" to be genuine. |
Author: Anonymous
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 11:56 am | | Gasp !
Thanks Paul...... I should make sure I get the entire story, and all the facts before I jump to any conclusion.
RN
PS I was very sincere about the hero thing ! |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 12:00 pm | | Hi Caroline
Thanks. |
Author: Caz Senior
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 12:33 pm | | To Mr 'Rapier wit' Anonymous,
(Such a long name for such a small brain)
No wonder children are attracted to this board! |
Author: SHELBI
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 12:46 pm | | For Everyone:
I have never claimed to be pro-diary. In fact, the only thing I have ever claimed to be is 24, a criminal profiler, and well read on JtR.
My point that I am trying to make all of you understand is that even though a person believes something is correct, that doesn't make it correct. The world thought the earth was flat but they were proven wrong. I believe that even though Nikki believes that JM is JtR, she also realises that she could be wrong. I was just trying to clarify Nikki's statement but apparently no one wants to listen. When I asked about the "FM" on the wall, I was just wondering what everyone else thought. When I said that some statements on this board were belittling, I never pointed a finger at Birchwood. It was a general statement. Is acting your age calling someones statements puppy-food? And I don't recall asking your opinion on the subject, Anonymous. Thank you Paul for your defence about the debate and politeness and I do agree with you that there are faults on both sides. I do believe that I will vacate this board before my temper is lost and I start calling people worse names than I have in the past.
To Yaz:
See you on some of the other boards. I do believe that I agree with you on this subject. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 01:14 pm | | Hi Caroline
Is your brother famous for his music though. If your brother was nationally or internationally renowned for something then I suspect that you'd know what he was renowned for. Michael Maybrick was nationally famous, very wealthy, very influential. I find it difficult to accept that James really would have been ignorant of what Michael did. But I do find John Knight's comment intriguing and, like you, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Michael did write verse.
Hi Shelbi
Not only does belief in something not make it true, belief in something doesn't mean you have to believe in it forever. Nor does having believed in something make you gullible or intellectually challenged. What is so perfectly illustrated by all this is my hoary old argument that what we write on these boards does not always accurately convey what we mean - our intent can often be misconstrued. This was evidently the case with Nikki, who really meant no more than that she had been persuaded by Paul's book. I don't particularly find that a bad thing. A lot of people were introduced to the subject by Stephen Knight's book and they have since made excellent contributions to our knowledge of the case. And I welcome Nikki's enthusiasm - anybody's enthusiasm - and I don't like to see it slapped down by thoughtless posts. Not, of course, that I think Peter's post was particularly thoughtless, but like Nikki's, it was misunderstood.
So don't vacate this board. What we really need to do here is put an end to the smartarsed comments and debate points sensibly. As a profiler you could make a contribution to this, such as giving us your informed opinion of the portrayal of the psychopathology of a serial killer in the "Diary". |
|
|
|
|
