Archive through April 02, 1999

** 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 April 02, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Handwriting: Archive through April 02, 1999

Author: Paul Begg Monday, 23 November 1998 - 02:18 pm
Hi Peter It does indeed. I knew I couldn't have got the idea that it was the Ripper out of thin air! And I didn't - I've checked my file and see that Stuart Evans told me, pointing out where the name is!!! I, too, know of nothing else offhand. All the best Paul
Author: Bob_c Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 05:31 am
Hi Paul, First of all please forgive my impoliteness at my short answer yesterday to your message. It's no excuse, but we stand examinations short before and the students are becoming nervous (and me..?). As I said that the diary, as forgery, had no more interest I was speaking for my egoistic self. What I should have said was that as proven hoax, the diary had no interest for those who are in full hue-and-cry after Jack, not thinking that there are others who hold a much wider basis of interest as I do. Thanks for the short info about the club. I intend to take up contact as time and chance allows. (My not knowing about the club shows my status as Fan of Jack!) Bob
Author: Christopher T. George Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 09:26 am
Peter Birchwood wrote: Paul: Just after posting my piece about the cartoon I did what I should have done which was to check the source instead of relying on Paul Feldman's book and yes, the figure is JtR not because of the title but because in teeny-weeny letters under the figure it says: "Jack the Ripper" and this undoubtedly is a linking of the two most famous crimes of the time in order to make a point. I'm therefore wrong when I said that the two cases had never been linked. I'd be astonished to find anything else linking them. . . . Hello, Peter and fellow assembled Ripperologists: I may be wrong, but I think Trevor Christie in his book on the Maybrick case, "Etched in Arsenic" (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1968) may have made some allusion to the Ripper. In fact, the cases are so closely tied chronologically that mention of the two together almost seems natural. Here though is a linking of the two which I can confirm. I quote from Richard D. Altick, "Victorian Studies in Scarlet: Murders and Manners in the Age of Victoria" (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970), in the chapter "Arsenic and the Lady from Alabama: Florence Maybrick 1889," pp. 252-258: "The case of Florence Maybrick offers, if anybody is disposed to look at it that way, a fortuitious conjunction of Jack the Ripper and Henry James. The former's association with Mrs. Maybrick is chronological: the sixth victim attributed to him by some authorities, and, as it turned out, the last according to anyone's count, was found on July 18, 1889, and her trial opened in Liverpool thirteen days later. . . ." The mention of the "July 18" murder is apparently a reference to the murder on the night of July 16 to July 17, 1889 of alleged Ripper victim Alice McKenzie. After McKenzie, there was one more alleged victim, Frances Coles, on February 14, 1891, the last victim by some counts. Of course, if either of these two women were killed by Jack the Ripper, James Maybrick could not have been the Ripper. He died on May 11, 1889. Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 04:37 am
Happy Birthday Peter! Believe me, tonight I'll be thinking about you eating your birthday din dins and drinking your birthday tipple.
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela) Monday, 01 February 1999 - 07:57 am
I'd like if I may take a different slant on the whole handwriting issue. I'm no handwiriting expert (and, quite frankly, have no desire to be) but one aspect of the Maybrick Will which I'd like to point out is his signature. (For the present purposes I'm treating the will at Somerset House as genuine). In both the will and the other examples of Maybrick's handwriting in Feldman's book I noticed that the K in Maybrick is a capital K (or at least a rather extravagant "k"). Interestingly Michael and Thomas Maybrick also have the same characteristic in their signatures on the will (top of page 1). I wonder if anyone with a knowledge of Victorian handwriting can tell me whether this is normal or whether it's likely to be a family trait. The capital K's are not confined to Maybrick's signature. All of the k's (bar one) in the will are capitals. So what does all this mean. Well the handwriting in the Diary doesn't match that in the will. But the diary doesn't exist on it's own in implicating Maybrick as the Ripper. There is also the watch with it's engravings. Interestingly the signature engraved in the watch bears some likenesses to Maybrick's signature in that the k in Maybrick on the watch is also a capital K. The running of the James into Maybrick (ie, Ja May..., rather than the full James) in the signature is also similar to several examples of Maybrick's signature. Something to think about. DELA P.S. I've noticed a few other things but I'll see what people have to say before introducing these.
Author: Christopher T. George Monday, 01 February 1999 - 08:43 am
Hi, Dela: You have made an interesting observation about the prominence of the letter "k" in the name "Maybrick" as it appears in Maybrick's will, which I believe appears in Shirley Harrison's book, not Paul Feldman's (at least not in his first edition hardback). The "k" is similarly an upper case "k" in the December 28, 1881 memo of Maybrick's shown in Feldman's book written from Maybrick's Norfolk, Virginia office. The prominent "k" does not appear in the diary, in the name "Jack" or elsewhere where the letter "k" is used, so this must be yet another strike against the authenticity of the diary. Chris George
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela) Monday, 01 February 1999 - 10:10 pm
Hi Chrisgeorge, I don't necessarily agree with you that the prominent K not appearing in the diary is a strike against the diary, but it is puzzling. My point is about the watch and I think most people agree that the watch and the diary are probably the work of the same person(s). The diary bears little resemblance to any known handwriting in either Maybrick's will or any of the Ripper letters. There's no prominent K anywhere in the diary to my knowledge. So if the diary is a forgery then the forger has made no attempt to copy Maybrick's handwriting (or for that matter the author of the Ripper letters which the diarist claims are his). It's then a distinct possibility that a forger wouldn't even know what Maybrick's writing looked like. There are only half a dozen or so examples of his writing known to be in existence. AND then we have the watch which we assume to come from the same source as the diary. It has a signature on it, ENGRAVED. Now most people wouldn't expect that an engraved signature could possibly be analysed as a handwriting sample. So why would a forger who engraved the signature on the watch, having written the diary in a hand which copied none of the known handwriting of Maybrick, suddenly decide to copy it on an engraved signature which is least likely to be studied in handwriting analyses? And engraving is hardly the method you'd use to start forging a signature! Dela PS Yes the copy of page one of the will is in Shirley Harrison's book. It's also on the Casebook in the Dissertations section attached to Melvyn Harris's first rebuttal of the diary. Feldman's book has about 4 samples of Maybrick's handwriting.
Author: Peter Birchwood Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 06:51 am
Matthew: The Maybrick signature on the watch isn't engraved, it's scratched like the other names. Quite honestly, once again we are relying on those persons who wrote or researched the pro-diary/watch books being so impressed with the characters of those involved in the affair that they fail to investigate them properly. Not all burglars wear striped jerseys, masks and carry bags marked "swag" over their shoulders. Peter.
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela) Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 07:24 am
G'day Peter, Engraved, scratched - I suppose it really depends on the level of workmanship you require before a scratching becomes an engraving. The initials and signature are etched onto the watch (how's that?). And either way this has got nothing to do with the writers of the pro-diary books. It's an observation I made and wish to test. It's a comparison between the watch and Maybrick's known handwriting. I'd rather people made comments on the observation rather than expressing for the millionth time that they don't believe in the diary (I'd prefer a rebuttal of my theory - seriously, I won't be offended!). I don't think the question I posed necessarily imputes that the diary is genuine - if it is a forgery then why would a forger suddenly start copying the handwriting when he/she/them had not done so anywhere in the diary? Dela
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela) Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 07:28 am
"he/she/them" - please excuse the poor grammar - he/she/they Dela
Author: Peter Birchwood Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 12:19 pm
Matthew: Engraved, Scratched:- sorry, there's no time when a scratching becomes an engraving. The two terms are very different. An engraving is done with a proper tool and with a certain amount of care and precision. A scratch is simply that, done with whatever sharp implement is at hand. If you look at a photo of the watch - and the best I've got is from the US first edition of Shirley's book - you'll see the sort of thing.. As far as can be seen there's no similarity with any of JM's known writing or with the diary. As to rebutting your theory Matthew, as well as examining the writing you've also got to examine the source of that writing: the people who brought the diary and the watch to us. Peter
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela) Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 10:29 pm
I know what's on the watch Peter. I've had a good look at the photo. As far as I've been told the "scratches" are quite old. This raises problems for the "recent forgery" theorists. As far as I'm concerned the etchings don't necessarily advance or defeat the genuine/hoax argument too far - they just add to the intrigue. I'm grateful for your opinion that you don't see any similarities. I hope more people advance their opinion so we can get some sort of idea whether it's worth looking into in more depth. As to your last comment, I don't quite know what to make of it - examine the source of the writing - are you saying that the Barretts forged it? I thought Feldman and co had already examined the sources - whatever you think of Feldman's conclusions. I suppose if the Barretts are suspects in a forgery (they're the only ones who people seem to be prepared to accuse thus far) then please, let's see their handwriting so we can compare!! Dela
Author: Anonymous Wednesday, 03 February 1999 - 01:15 am
It's only one opinion that the scratches are old, and that qualified. See Melvin Harris's comprehensive dismissal. The old particles of the brass scratching 'instrument' probably came from what was used, possibly an old brass hat-pin or similar. Thus the scratches may be (and almost certainly are) recent.
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 03 February 1999 - 09:38 am
I am beginning to chuckle in anticipation at the fate which awaits everyone's 'theories' about the diary contents and watch markings when the science catches up and tells us conclusively how old these items actually are. I think there will be a few surprises in store! But then again, who am I to hypothesise on this subject? Watch this space, dear listener! Love, Caroline
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela) Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 12:19 am
Hi Anon, Peter (you posted the last message on the wrong discussion) and Caroline, First things first - if anyone has the full transcript of the Turgoose Report and Wild Report (and any other report on the watch) I'd appreciate if you could tell me where to get a copy (hopefully over the Net). As far as I've read from the books both scientists talk about the engravings. Now I've had quite a bit of a debate with Peter over whether the initials and signature on the watch are scratches or engravings - which underlines the importance in defining everything before you begin (which doesn't seem to have been done). I don't care what you call them but you have to define what you're going to be talking about (that's the lawyer in me speaking). Now on the extracts I've read the "engravings" contain pieces of brass which was quite corroded. Now sure whoever made these markings could've used an old brass instrument - but as a general rule corrosion of such an instrument will only occur at the surface - this will in turn create a layer of corroded material which protects the rest. So, for example, when you clean silver of it's tarnish you remove that layer. The same goes for copper, which corrodes to form a green layer which can react further to form a black layer (or is it the other way round?). Remove that layer and do some polishing and you have your shiny copper surface. My point? Well, the brass tip may have been old and corroded on the outside but when the particles became embedded in the watch then they are likely to have broken away from the nib/point - so much of the surface area of these particles would not be corroded but left to corrode over time. Caroline - don't hold your breath waiting for the conclusive scientific report - it won't happen unless someone is prepared to spend lots and lots of money and the people conducting the investigation do it right (the scientist in me speaking). Dating things like ink, paper and metal scratchings is too tough for today's scientist, especially when dating things under 200 years old. It would need year's of developing proper techniques. For example - how can you date a scratch? As far as I can imagine you'd have to removed the suface of the watch and do the relevant tests that way - then you've destroyed your exhibit! By the way Anon, I would hardly call Harris' dismissal of the diary comprehensive. Sure he makes alot of good points, most of which I agree with - but there's just as many points which are baseless in fact and not supported by any evidence. Feldman makes alot of good points too, some of which I agree with and many I don't. Both writers rely on supposition, reading between the lines, and twisting the facts to suit their own argument - most of the time they present little in the way of fact to support their theories. Peter, thanks for the little bit of research on Hammersmith. I'm finding it hard to believe that only a young labourer and his wife would be the only person in the district with that name (what about parents, brothers, sisters, wider family). I just wonder if you were to try and find out the names and addresses of people who lived within half a mile of Battlecrease House at the time how many you'd come up with? The name Hammersmith has me interested because why should it be there if it's a forgery. The forger would be embellishing a story which really doesn't need it (perhaps it could be the forger's name?). I feel it's something small such as this which could disprove or prove the diary beyond doubt. Morse's law? If you subscribe to that then Barnett killed Kelly, PC Watkins killed Eddowes, Diemschutz killed Stride, Davis killed Chapman and Cross and Paul killed Nichols. Feldman & co are the only one so far to do an investigation into the sources and their associates. Why haven't those who are strongly opposed to the diary also done an investigation? Dela
Author: Caroline Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 08:56 am
Apparently, Dela, nobody in their 'right' mind would want to soil their hands on anything to do with the diary. Which leaves a few of us, by inference, out of our tinies! At least by my association with these discussions, I cannot be accused by anyone of being either smug or know-it-all, because I'm clearly off my rocker and need help. Although I don't believe Maybrick wrote the diary, I have my own reasons for being fascinated by the person who chose him for weaving his little yarn, and the relevance this brings to the JtR case. See ya, Caroline
Author: Christopher T. George Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 12:31 pm
On a related board, Peter Birchwood wrote about the appearaance of the name "Mrs. Hammersmith" in the diary: ". . . about the Hammersmith lady, there's only one family (named Hamersmith) living in all of Lancashire in the 1880's and thats 21-year old Benjamin Hamersmith and his 17-year-old wife. Ben's a labourer living at St Helen's and I really doubt the Maybricks would know him or her socially." To which Matthew Delahunty (Dela) replied: "Peter, thanks for the little bit of research on Hammersmith. I'm finding it hard to believe that only a young labourer and his wife would be the only person in the district with that name (what about parents, brothers, sisters, wider family). I just wonder if you were to try and find out the names and addresses of people who lived within half a mile of Battlecrease House at the time how many you'd come up with? The name Hammersmith has me interested because why should it be there if it's a forgery. The forger would be embellishing a story which really doesn't need it (perhaps it could be the forger's name?). I feel it's something small such as this which could disprove or prove the diary beyond doubt." Thank you both for this input. For Dela's information, Peter is an accredited genealogist and has no doubt scoured the period records for Lancashire in the 1880s for any mention of a Hammersmith family, and all he has come up with is a labourer in St. Helen's and his wife. St. Helen's is around seven miles from Aigburth where the Maybricks lived and as Peter says, the Hammersmith who lived there was a laborer who was unlikely to be known by the Maybricks. So the mention of Mrs. Hammersmith is certainly curious. Now this may be an impertinent suggestion but much as I wrote earlier that the diary hoaxer had contrived to make a connection between Whitechapel, Liverpool, and Whitechapel, London, when no clear connection can be made, could the introduction of the name "Hammersmith" be another attempt to put the idea of Maybrick and London in the reader's mind? Hammersmith is a borough of southwest Greater London. Shirley Harrison in the hardback first U.S. edition of "The Diary of Jack the Ripper," p. 169, asks, "why does Mrs Ham(m)ersmith appear at the beginning of the diary?" This could be the answer to her question -- to subtly plant the idea of Maybrick and London in the reader's mind. The name "Hammersmith" occurs on page 6 of the diary, whereas the first mention of "Whitechapel" appears on page 1 while the next mention of "Whitechapel" is on page 10, where Maybrick allegedly vows to commit his murders in Whitechapel, London. Chris George
Author: Caroline Friday, 05 February 1999 - 05:10 am
Dear Chris and all, I think there is still work going on by non-web users regarding the Hamersmith angle so maybe something else will turn up soon, I don't know for sure. Trying to tie in Maybrick with London is obviously sensible from the hoaxer's point of view, as you so rightly point out. I like to think of the hoaxer as more of a framer, simply because, whether one believes the diary to be old or recent, someone is attempting, however ineptly, to put the whole blame on poor old 'loopy' Maybrick! Love, Caroline
Author: Gabriel Wednesday, 10 March 1999 - 02:00 am
I've found the last few postings rather interesting in relation to making a comparison between the signature on the watch and the known signature of James Maybrick. I took what was written and conducted a rather rudimentary experiment. I attempted to scratch my signature in metal (copper, brass, bronze, silver and gold). Not one of these signatures resembled what my actual signature looked like on paper. This probably has something to do with the resistence one encounters when writing on metal, with a metal impliment. It is likely very difficult to make any sort of comparison between the scratched signature on the watch and the smooth signature on the paper. A pronounced 'k' could have been intended but not yielded, or no effort may have been made to do this. Either way comparisons of writing and scratching will not tell us. Regards, Gabriel
Author: Leanne Friday, 02 April 1999 - 06:52 am
Reading Paul Feldman's book, 'The Final Chapter', about scientific tests made on the ink of the diary, (concluding that the date of it's composition was between 1909 and 1933), I wonder has anyone ever considered that it may have been forged by the real Ripper himself, with a 'strong' James Maybrick flavour? As some of the facts, contained in it, weren't made public until 1987, it must have been written by someone with the knowledge.