|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 21, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through November 21, 2000
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 10:16 am |        | Hello Mr. Fido,
Please except my apologies. I'll go sit in the corner now. :-)
Best regards
Joseph |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 11:12 am | | All apologies are always gratefully accepted, ESPECIALLY by those who take themselves off to sit in a corner.
Caz - I only dipped the toe in over Crashaw because I like poetry infinitely better than any aspect of the Ripper case. The Maybrick diary is (to me) an especial horror, causing quarrels, bad feeling and personal suspicion all over the place. So, ungracious though it seems, I don't think I'll be looking back for any chat about Mrs H.
But if I may impertinently recommend reading matter to you, if you haven't come across Keith Waterhouse's 'Mrs Pooter's Diary', I can't recommend it too highly.
Martin Fido |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 11:54 am | | Peter-- What exactly was Mike Barrett doing between July 1991 and March 1992? As confirmed by Devereaux's daughter, Mike lent Tony a copy of the Richard Whittington-Egan book. Devereaux dies in August. So sometime around July 1991 Mike has solved the world's greatest murder mystery, and knows the identity of Jack the Ripper. (cough cough). Feldman claims "Once Mike ascertained that James Maybrick was the apparent author of the diary he took it to Doreen Montgomery, a London Literary agent." (p 19) But this isn't the case. Mike didn't take the diary to Montgomery until March 1992. (At least seven or eight months later). Now, are you going to stick this in a drawer for half a year? Since nobody seems impressed by Mike's knowledge of either Jack the Ripper or Maybrick, I can't imagine he is biding his time doing further research. And really, what research would be left at this point? So either Mike's waiting for the ink to dry, or he's woefully ignorant of the commercial possibilities.
But here's what I'm wondering. Anne claims to give Mike the diary through Tony with the advice "do something with it." But she later claims "the diary was never meant to be published. Not by me." (one heck of an interesting statement, by the way). I don't get it. She's handing Mike the diary of Jack the Ripper on a silver tray with the advice "do something with it" and doesn't think he'll publish it? Huh? This is the guy that ran through the Saddle waving a check in the air once the book deal was made. Are you going to give Mike a blank check and hope he doesn't get a little crazy?
To Martin Fido: thanks for commenting. Those 17th Century metaphysicians were an odd bunch. It doesn't get much better than Donne, though.
I'm so convinced that the Sphere history was used that I'll download this message and eat my own words if proven wrong.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 12:52 pm | | Joseph Triola Jr.
And of course the most obscene, vitriolic and bad-mannered poster on these boards has been the person who used the name "Joseph" some time ago. If that was you, then you should truly be ashamed of yourself.
And I would suggest to those who haven't been with us long or who have mercifully forgotten "Joseph" of many months ago that they look at his more recent postings to judge what sort of person he must be. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 12:56 pm | | Paul:
I grant you your point. I think that our difference here is one of semantics: I think that it's "good evidence" of involvement in forgery, you think it's "suspicious." Consider this: the appointment with the Crew agency was to find a route to selling a book. Given that as a motive how hard is it to tell the difference between someone lying for profit or someone telling the truth for profit? "Owning the gun isn’t evidence that you pulled the trigger!" but it is evidence that you could have, or that you know who did.
Regarding handwriting, Mr. Kane was born C1938 and Anthony Bernard o/w Brian Devereux born 14/12/1931.
I'm afraid that I don't follow your last para. If Caroline Anne is abducted by the Aliens (God help the Aliens!)and Keith asks me to post a message for him, am I responsible for what he says? Surely not. Keith, as the writer of the message is responsible for it, I, as the postman, just make sure that it gets in the right hands. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 12:59 pm | | Martin:
You are the one who is concerned in this matter. I have taken the liberty of having read your past messages about being in the US with your books in storage and have therefore assumed that your letters etc. are similarly unavailable. It would not be polite for me to ask Paul directly for them although I imagine that you all keep your own copies of that correspondence deemed "collective." However you have answered me and I accept that, so the world presumably will not hear the full story of the problems from the Triumvirate viewpoint. Preferring not to pursue the Paley situation was a course chosen by me to simplify matters. If as you say it's germane to the whole affair, then it's a pity that we will not be able to see the complete story.
On a totally different subject, you haven't read the previous posts of Joseph so haven't any knowledge of the true depths of nastiness that he is able to bring to these boards. "Merry Christmas" posted several messages about this time last year. There was a certain suspicion about the onlie begettor.
And Caroline Anne Morris really truly was serious about the Weedon Grossmith/James Maybrick identity for the Ripper and the diary author. It caused quite a ruckus in Mid-1999. Strange but true! |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 01:01 pm | | Caroline Anne:
That is what I mean. Keith's got the certificates which he believes makes his case for the Formby/Yapp axis being closer geographically than I believed from my examination of the census. I can't say that he's right without myself examining the certs. but from what he said I assume that if he had found his theory incorrect he would have put a message to that effect here.
Guy:
I understand that Mike said that he put the quote in because the only meaning of "intercourse" that he'd heard of was the sexual variety!
Melvin's asked me to state that his review of Mrs. Harrison's book includes details of the Police enquiry, the Newspaper enquiry and other material relating to the identity of the forgers. The review is handwritten and will be posted as soon as he has time to type it up.He reminds people that he is not at a loose end but still works for a living! |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 01:03 pm | | | Er, I may be a little dense here, but what have the posts of Joseph or anyone else got to do with anything currently under discussion? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 01:26 pm | | Hi RJP
I don't think anyone is currently disputing that the Sphere book was used, but by whom was it used. That's the question.
If I may make so bold as to make a suggestion, one possible answer to your 'what was Mike doing' question was worrying about whether or not Tony D.'s family would make a claim for the return of the 'diary'. That may be why he was always so desperately keen to make clear that he'd done tons of research and discovered the identity of the author - he might have felt that if the family did lay claim to the book that his efforts this would morally entitle him to a share of whatever the 'diary' made. Of course, his paucity of knowledge about the Ripper and Maybrick tends to put a lie to those claims.
Just a thought. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 02:44 pm | | Dear Martin,
Your recommendation was far from impertinent. Mrs. Pooter would be right up my alley, even if Mrs. H wouldn’t. But now I am mortified in case you found any of my posts to you impertinent. That was never my intention.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 02:53 pm | | Hi Peter,
'Keith's got the certificates which he believes makes his case for the Formby/Yapp axis being closer geographically than I believed from my examination of the census. I can't say that he's right without myself examining the certs. but from what he said I assume that if he had found his theory incorrect he would have put a message to that effect here.'
But what theory?
You're at it again!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 15 November 2000 - 05:00 pm | | Mr. Birchwood, tsk tsk tsk,
You are a man possessed of a number of unfortunate habits; instigating feuds, twisting words, and provoking sharp replies are only a few of your....short comings.
Are you trying to impress someone with your sanctimony this time, or is it your hypocrisy that you're showcasing? You've certainly impressed quite a number of folks, over the years, with your abundance of both.
You refer to posts that have been removed, vitriol, and bad manners, but you refuse to admit that you and your handler deserved the kind of attention I gave you?
If you act vile, Mr. Birchwood, I treat you like a vile person. What is it about that concept that puzzeles you?
Poor, poor Mr. Birchwood, every time someone has responded to you in the same manner that you address them, or goes you one better, you start to cry. I don't think you have what it takes to get as well as you give, and here you are again, stirring the pot. You just don't want to leave well enough alone do you. You, of all people, have never worn a halo Mr. Birchwood; you have been as much a provocateur of the acrimony on these boards, as all those you accuse.
I'm positive that you are capable of making a fool of yourself without anyone's help, but, if you are determined to rake up issues better left undisturbed, I'll be happy to assist you.
On the other hand, if you prefer to let sleeping dogs lie, I will be happy to return to writing my essays, and no one will be none the wiser of your perfidy, and base character.
I'll leave the choice up to you.
Best regards
Joseph M R FBI NRBQ MI6 TWA Triola Jr. DSC, PH2 KFC, PIA |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 04:21 am | | Hi Peter,
If I may be so bold, I'd like to address a point you made in a post to Paul Begg. You wrote:
'If Caroline Anne is abducted by the Aliens (God help the Aliens!)and Keith asks me to post a message for him, am I responsible for what he says? Surely not. Keith, as the writer of the message is responsible for it, I, as the postman, just make sure that it gets in the right hands.'
I think you may have missed several points again.
(Or maybe it's me on my different planet!)
If you were asked by Melvin to type up and post a message, which said nothing but horrid things about you, Peter Birchwood, thoroughly rubbing your nose in it, raking up past mistakes you may or may not have made, are you seriously telling us you'd be willing to post it for him?
What we are also talking about is the fact that one of Melvin's four horsemen - sorry - postmen may have posted his/her own vile personal attacks under a veil of supposed anonymity, and for an awfully long time before Merry Christmas appeared (I have no idea who he/she was), with the knowledge, and possibly the approval, of Melvin and his other posties.
You tell us that you don't know who Valediktor et al really is - that's fine - I don't doubt your word for a moment, even though you often sneeringly express doubt regarding my word on many other issues. So it appears that some of the people you admire and trust may be keeping you in the dark - possibly to spare you being compromised, but possibly also because what you don't know can't hurt them.
But I wonder why, instead of condemning such behaviour (if, as you say, you were never involved in it) you keep churning out examples of the "well, it's not just Melvin's gang" kind, as if this somehow excuses everything.
So, one straight question for you:
Would you approve of a sustained campaign of anonymous nastiness, which could result in driving some people from these boards?
Yes or No?
(I can't stop you phoning a friend, and you could always ask the audience.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 05:21 am | | Caz - Unmortify immediately! You've said nothing untoward. I only feared you might be irritated by the incurable pedagogue issuing your reading list.
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 05:47 am | | Hi Caroline/Peter
I must say that I thought the ‘God help the Aliens!’ comment unnecessarily provocative, but assumed that it was a bit of tongue-in-cheek light-heartedness. I also think the points you raise to be pertinent, Caroline. However, I'd like to make one small observation about "missing the point".
Peter doesn't seem to appreciate that Martin Fido is not objecting to anonymous postmen or pseudonymous posters per se. Martin suspects that someone who posts to these Boards may be friendly under one identity and hostile, possibly maliciously so, under another. Because it is suspected that this person is also one of Melvin’s mailers, Martin has decided not to correspond with Melvin unless he reveals the identity of those who post for him. Right or wrong, that’s what Martin has decided. So it isn't about pseudonymous posters, but about a possibly malicious one.
As far mailing is concerned, Peter is perfectly correct when he says that being the mailman does not make you responsible for or necessarily in sympathy with or condoning the content of that message. This being the case, I'm at a loss to understand why anyone has a problem about identifying themselves or being identified as a mailman.
I can understand why in this case there may be some reluctance as the pseudonymous poster may not like to have his/her identity revealed, but since Melvin has stated that he doesn’t intend to contribute to the Boards anymore, the problem is purely academic.
And now back to the yes or no interlude... Or does that show my age? And was it Bob Danvers Walker who struck the gong? Or was he the voice on Double Your Money? |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 05:49 am | | Martin/Caz
Stop it. Just get the scraper fixed.
And dare I add "Augustus Carp" to the reading list. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 06:32 am | | Hi Paul,
Bob Danvers Walker, if memory serves, announced the prizes on Michael Miles's Take Your Pick, but I don't know if he also struck the gong for the yes/no interlude. There were some awful jokes around when poor old Michael shuffled off - like "Is Michael Miles dead?" "Yes" BONG!
And "Take the money, don't open the box!"
Funny, but 'provocative' is not the first word that springs to my mind when I think of Peter. But he does still have the ability to make me laugh, so it's not all bad.
Dear Martin,
It's okay, the pedagogue is not incurable and I've bought some cream for the irritation.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 06:33 am | | Ah, these Ripperologists, they'll say anything but their prayers.
Mr. Begg--Hello. You make a solid argument; it's reasonable to assume from the facts that Mike Barrett didn't know anything about the diary's origins. He certainly didn't impress Harold Brough, let alone the Cloak & Staggerers. But didn't Paul Feldman believe that Mike knew all along that the diary came from Anne (ie., Devereaux told him?) Any thoughts?
Caz-- Don't abandon your hobby just yet, keep ham(m)ering away. If Mike was clueless, where does this leave us? Harris's theorum still might hold; Mike was only a handler (another word for dupe?) his sole contribution being the Crashaw quote. But let's say, as way of argument, that Mike knew absolutely nothing. (I'm o.k. with that) Believing this, ask yourself: when Mike found the Sphere quote, knowing that he had a pre-existing copy in his attic, what would he have thought? I'll tell you what I would have thought, especially if Devereaux had leaked out that the diary came from Anne: I would have thought that Anne had forged the diary. So is this the germ of a theory? Mike makes a false confession to force Anne's hand. Anne, in turn, as a countermeasure, spills her own guts and claims that the diary has been in her family all along. (It's graceful, but does it fly?)
(Or did Anne tell Feldman what he wanted to hear, so he'd leave her alone?) |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 08:18 am | | | You are right, RJP, there is indeed a suggestion from Feldy that TD told Mike something like "look to your family" when asked where the 'diary' came from. And Feldy, of course, sees this as support for Anne's story. Caz, with her encyclopedia of dates and info will probably be able to give us a full quote. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 11:46 am | | Hi All,
You're never going to believe this, but it's absolutely true. Without looking in the index, I just picked up Feldy's paperback and it fell open at page 215, where - hey presto! - I read that Mike claimed that after Tony Devereux had given him the diary, he had pestered him day and night to tell him where he had got it from. 'Eventually, Tony told him, 'Look to your own family...'' 'It finally clicked that Tony meant Anne. Mike was hurt.'
RJ you are most probably right about Mike suspecting Anne. If Mike knows absolutely nothing, he must have run the gamut of guesses and suspicions about the diary's true origins, and finding the quote was on his own doorstep all along would not have helped.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 12:07 pm | | You are in a way right Paul, this particular topic has become a sort of catch-all for things unrelated directly to it's title. However, as this is my last word on the subject of Joseph, I will say that you and others have been talking on this board about "pseudonymous posters" and their vitriolic attacks but have ignored the very epitomy of thst vitriol which is Joseph. His viewpoint seems to match your own which is fair enough; I have no arguement against that. I believe however that you, for example, would not use the sort of words and expressions that he has used in the past to Karoline Leach, Melvin Harris and myself amongst others. In short, I condemn the man himself and his method of expression. I hope that you will agree with me. His latest post is of course his usual insanity which might be excused if, as I suspect he is only 15.
Don't be obtuse Caroline Anne. I obviosly mean his theory that Mrs. Formby lived close to the Yapp girl. I can't call it fact until I see the certificates but obviously Keith must feel that he can prove it and I accept that. I can't understand what else you're trying to say I'm afraid but I can certainly say that if unfairness and nastiness exists, it does so on both "sides."
Obviously this sort of research does attract strange people (see above) and tempers flare.
Paul:
If that is what Martin means then I think that there is a problem in that, is there an identity between the one or many persons who have been filing under the names you mentioned and one of the several persons who filed material for Melvin? It's possible but you are looking at a lot of permutations. All I can say is that the anonymous ones weren't me. I must look back through the boards to see what "Valediktor" actually said on the boards: my copies of Casebook messages were wiped out in a virus attack pre-June 2000. But could it really be someone who: "smiled yet wore an assassins face?" |
Author: Mitch
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 12:15 pm | | I am so confused.
Mitchell
known before as Ennui. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 01:23 pm | | Peter: I don’t know which of Joseph’s viewpoints are supposed to match my own and I don’t know on what part of these Boards' ancient history Joseph is supposed to have spat vitriol. He’s certainly outspoken, but so are you, and although he expresses himself in a way that neither you nor I would do, from the feedback I receive I can assure you that he expresses fundamental sentiments that a surprisingly large number of people seem to share. I can appreciate that this might shock you and no doubt you'll dispute it, but the bottom line is that we aren’t going to progress anywhere if the past is continually dragged up as if it has any relevance to anything.
As far as pseudonymous posters are concerned, I have done my best to make Martin’s point of view very clear and I regret that my point still eludes you. However, I don't see that it need continue to concern either of us as Melvin has decided to cease posting. I consider the whole business of pseudonymous posting an unnecessary diversion anyway. Insofar as the topic grew out of discussion of the conflict between the A to Z authors and Melvin Harris, it is irrelevant. Anyone who wants to discuss that conflict needs to address the Bruce Paley and similar issues. That's at the heart of it. But as nobody wishes to debate with Melvin by proxy, that seems an issue set to bite the dust too.
All I want, Peter, is intelligent, reasoned and civilised discussion. Not a lot to ask for.
Mitch: I'm pleased you're confused. I'm confused too, so I don't feel so lonely in my confusion now. :-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 17 November 2000 - 06:49 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
I remember you once said you felt the diary might have been composed by a woman. So, still taking Mike out of the equation for the purpose of this exercise, what do we now make of the 'O costly...' lines? Mike's explanation, that intercourse means sex, fits so well with the lines' apparent incongruity in the diary. But let's suppose it was Anne, more likely to be browsing through the Sphere book than Mike, who found those lines. Her reasons for including them are less easy to imagine. The Sphere book only quotes a few lines, yet the modern forger manages to make two errors in the five chosen words: 'oh' and 'death'. So it seems likely that the lines were not copied directly from the book into the 'Diary' scrapbook. This could be explained if the finder of the quote simply passed it on to the main composer of the diary text.
Let's suppose that Anne, for whatever reason, provided the quote from this book with the incriminating binding defect. So, why not dump it immediately afterwards? It was clearly not a book that would normally hold any interest for Mike. She could easily have spun him a quick line if she ever needed to explain its disposal. If Anne knowingly left this volume in the house, how does this fit with the idea of her being a cool and calculating manipulator, who set out to dupe her husband and all those around her?
Peter,
'Obviously this sort of research does attract strange people (see above) and tempers flare.'
I have found Joseph to be a very normal, very warm human being, and I feel privileged to call him my friend. If that also labels me 'strange', in your book of definitions, I couldn't be more pleased.
But if your temper really does flare when posting here, there is something amiss. I do find some of your posts addressed to me upsetting, while others give me real fits. But the only anger I ever feel is when I see blatant attacks on others, such as yesterday's post on another board, in which you insulted Bruce Robinson. What he has ever done to annoy you personally, apart from being famous, talented, happy, nice and very fanciable, of course, is totally beyond me. What you may have failed to grasp is that an insult from you is fast becoming more of a compliment to the recipient. I'd bear that in mind when you next feel your temper flaring up.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 19 November 2000 - 07:33 am | | Caz--I hope this doesn't come across as though I'm being coy, but my thoughts about the diary 'perhaps being written by a woman' didn't have much to do with any specific speculations about AG's involvement, but was just a general impression that I had while first reading the diary. I doubt if my thoughts here have much (if any) value.
It just strikes me that Maybrick's misogyny is cartoonishly exaggerated--all those references to 'whores' and 'bitches'-- almost as though it was written by someone fed-up with boorish men(!), though, of course, it's also an attempt at expressing JtR's 'whore/madonna syndrome', a pop-psychological profile, if you will.
I personally get this sort of 'romance novelish' feel to the thing. Florie is the unsung heroine behind the scenes, who marries a 'gentle man born', only to watch in horror (one assumes) as he turns into JtR. It is Florie who saves the unfortunates of Whitechapel from a possible resumption of the evil 'campaign'... by euthenizing Sir Jim with arsenic. As we know, her noble sacrifice will land her in prison for 15 long years, making her The Last Victim.
Now, needless to say, being male, I don't understand women. Yet, I can't help but notice that I've met a fair amount of women out there who have had a near obsession with Wuthering Heights. It's something about the dark, misanthropic, moping, tortured byronic-type, I gather. Now I hasten to add that I've never read a 'romance' novel (you know, the drug-store variety; we call them Harlequins over here)-- but I've been told on good authority that the plot of every one of them is exactly the same: a woman meets a tall dark, grumbling, glowering, semi-despicable stranger, only to find out in the end that it is 'o.k.' to like him because there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he is such a jerk. Women appreciate the verisimilitude of this, evidently.
So, you see, it is my bit of crack-pot literary criticism to say that 'Maybrick as Ripper' is a rather clever twist on the romance-novel concept, turning JtR into a love story, making Maybrick a sort of Heathcliffe run amuck. He is an evil murderer, yes, but in the end it is shown that it was 'love that spurned him'; he is repentent and we can almost feel pity for him as he nobly discards his knife and longs for Florie to end his life, etc. etc.
I'm not arguing that it is a source, but as I mentioned on the other board, Mary Reilly came out in 1991, turning Jekyll & Hyde into a love story told through a diary; here is a similar twist with Jack the Ripper.
But, all my rambling aside, perhaps there is some indication that the diary was written by more than one hand? I also wonder if the author of such a hoax would have had a pre-existing knowledge of the Maybrick story to have conceived of the diary in the first place; and wonder who this might be.
As to your specific questions and points above I am going to duck them for now. But I hope to touch on them soon. If you want to discuss or debate possible scenarios about the diary's origins, I'm willing to give you my general thoughts about 'where I'm at' in a day or two. (In other words, more rambling). But two quick points first: I think the 'truth' behind the diary is relatively clear. IMHO, at least. (Err, I'll attempt to back this up). The only confusion, it seems to me, comes from the puzzling 'confesssions'made by Mike and by Anne. Personally, I think MB's 'confession' can be completely thrown out. (But, btw, I'm quick to add: some have used the shakiness of Mike's 'evidence'--or lack thereof-- to question Melvin Harris's claims. But really, this does nothing to dispove Harris's "Mike-as-handler" scenerio. If I understand him correctly, Harris never suggested that Mike knew much about the actual creation of the diary). I think MB's 'confession' was a product of the immediate situation, and was only meant to discredit Anne & Billy Graham; it didn't spring from any real spirit of "setting the record straight".
AG's statement (or 'confession' as some call it) at the end of July 1994 is much more interesting. It is oddly self-effacing. If AG merely wanted to renounce Mike's claim, she went about it in a strange way. She could have said that it was nothing but a load of garbage...which evidently it to a large degree was. So why make up a story that would heap all the attention on herself? Is something else going on here?
Meanwhile, if you have the inclination for something provacative, don't worry about that favorite thorn in your side, but reread the comments by a Mrs. AJ on p. 302-303 of the latest edition of Shirley Harrison's paperback. Strange stuff. What book was MB writing?
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 20 November 2000 - 09:48 am | | Hi All,
RJ, your thoughts are always of value to me.
Firstly, though, I see immediately why men haven't a prayer of understanding women if they start out thinking we are all the same. My husband often lumps 'em all together, and when I say "But I never do that, say that, think like that, react like that", etc etc, he says "Ah, but you're not a 'normal' woman. That's why I married you". (Can't think what he means! J)
As for Wuthering Heights, Heathcliffe and Cathy both strike me as miserable, self-absorbed, self-pitying gits, who I wouldn't wish on anyone as lovers. (But then, James and Florie leave me feeling the same lack of sympathy I guess, both from the story in the diary, and what I have gathered about their real lives. So your comparison may still be valid, even if the poignant love story to get our fair bosoms heaving didn't work on me.)
I still cry, though, when Merle Oberon snuffs it, but it's more for poor loyal Flora Robson!
(Do you remember Monty Python's semaphore version of Cathy and Heathcliffe signalling to each other on the moor? That really cracked me up.)
Anyway, back to the modern story.
I was disappointed (but not altogether surprised) that you did not get a response from Peter to your post of Wednesday November 15 2000 - 11.54am, in which you asked what he thought Mike was doing between July 1991 and March 1992. Paul suggested Mike may have been worried about Devereux's family claiming back the diary. I also wondered if Mike had suspected privately that Devereux nicked it from somewhere, and worried about dropping his late mate in it. Mike claims he had pestered Tony D day and night, then asked his (Mike's) father, mother and sisters if they knew anything, after Tony's suggestion about looking to his own family. So, I wonder if he showed them the diary, and possibly also his mates down the pub, at some point during 1991? If so, they may have offered various opinions on its value and what he ought to do with it. And if this could be confirmed, it would add to the evidence that Mike didn't know what the hell he had on his hands. Would he really have hawked the diary around, asking questions, possibly months before going public, then given Devereux as the provenance, if he was knowingly Devereux's handler/placer all along?
Whatever was going through Mike's mind at that time, he was in no mad rush to cash in and catch up with his mortgage payments, which he gave as his motive for creating the forgery, when he 'confessed' in June 1994 (which, incidentally, I believe could have been meant to discredit Feldy more than anyone).
Page 322 of Shirley's updated paperback gives us:
'I have Michael Barrett's 'research notes' in my possession. They were typed and collated for him by Anne, his then wife, while he was trying to make sense of the Diary, before he brought it to us.' Why would Mike have bothered compiling any such notes if he was just the handler/placer of a known forgery? Shirley also writes that Mike's own work 'reflects the uncertainties of a man struggling to understand material that has already been written', rather than a forger embarking on research. So, for Melvin's 'handler/placer' scenario to hold, Mike - with Anne's help - presumably 'invented' those notes as part of their elaborate lie, and made them look plausible. And Melvin's own scenario, don't forget, seems to have Devereux firmly involved in the forgery.
As for Anne, I have said before that it is amazing to think she would invent such a story, which heaped all the attention on herself, at a time when she had decided to totally wash her hands of Mike, not start protecting him from himself. If he really knew next to nothing, and could prove nothing against her, why say anything at all? Especially when the experts were saying the diary was a hoax, which could not have existed before 1987. Don't forget, this was months before Mike tried, and failed, to implicate himself and Anne.
It's hard to comment on Mrs. AJ's described visit to the Barrett household, or Anne's suggestion to her that Mike was writing a book which she couldn't talk about, since there are no dates given for either event. But In Anne's statement, on page 293 of Shirley's update, she says:
"Some time later Michael started drinking. He was desperately trying to write but didn't seem to be getting anywhere. It was very frustrating and was making things difficult between us. I thought of giving him the Diary so that he could use it as the basis for a book. I was hoping he would be able to write a fictional story about the Diary."
Is it possible that Anne's apparent wishful thinking made her tell Mrs AJ that Mike was writing a book, at a time when he was in fact way out of his depth trying to research the diary instead?
One other thing. In your post of Sunday November 12 2000 - 02.00am, you wrote:
'The copy of Murder, Mayhem, Mystery had Mike Barrett's signature in it.'
Can you remember where you might have got this from?
I do appreciate that you are still willing to debate all this stuff with me, and I hope we can look forward to a calmer atmosphere in which anyone with ideas or questions can chip in without the least trepidation. But do you still believe Melvin has the information which could put a stop to all our speculation?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 20 November 2000 - 04:47 pm | | Hi Caroline/R.J.P.
I thought that maybe Mike was afraid that the Devereux sister's would claim it back because I can't see very many sensible reasons why he would have hung onto the 'diary' for seven months.
What has worried me is why Mike ever said he’d been given the ‘diary’ by Tony Devereux. The simple explanation, of course, is that Tony Devereux was dead and couldn’t be questioned. But Mike was also handing Devereux’s daughters a gold mine on a plate. How could he know that they wouldn’t lay claim to it, say that their father had only leant it to Mike, and demand all or the lion’s share of any monies it earned. Not only is Mike’s story about having received it from Devereux the one constant throughout all the twists and turns his story has taken over the years, it is also the one thing he’s says that seems redolent of honesty.
Let’s suppose that Mike did get the ‘diary’ from Tony Devereux. . He goes away and through reading Richard Whittington-Egan he discovers the supposed author. He tells Devereux this and gives Devereux the Whittington-Egan book (Devereux’s daughter borrowed the book from her father who told her, she said, that the book was Mike’s). Therefore, Mike already knows who the supposed author is before Devereux dies. Why, then, does he wait seven months before doing anything with the ‘diary’? Even if Mike knew it was a forgery, had forged it with Devereux, why sit on it for over half a year? Indeed, if he knew the ‘diary’ was a forgery and also knew that Devereux’s daughters knew nothing about it (or knew that they would not want to implicate their father in the forgery), there was nothing for him to worry about. He could have gone ahead and done what he wanted. Since he didn’t do so, one can surmise that he didn’t know it was a forgery.
In this scenario it makes sense that Mike if we surmise that Mike sat on it because he was worried the Devereux daughters would lay claim to it. He may have waited daily for them to turn up on his doorstep and demand it back. Which brings us back to the question of why he claimed to have got it from Devereux in the first place. Why didn’t he simply say that he found it in an old chest, or hidden in a dark corner of his loft, or found it in a skip, or… Why give anyone a claim to it?
Answer, because he didn’t know whether the Devereux sisters knew about it or not. Therefore he couldn’t claim he’d found it in an old chest because the Devereux’s could have provided proof that it had been in their family for years. Mike therefore had to admit where he’d got it from. And so we’re back to the redolent honesty bit…
So, Mike sat on the thing for seven months, afraid that he’d lose a claim to it. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 02:12 am | | Hello Paul/Caz/Everyone--
As Sir Jim would say, My dear God my mind is in a fog! For in addition to the above, there's also the possibility (already discussed) that Mike knew all along that the diary came from Anne, which would mean that Mike knew Devereaux had no claim to it, which would mean... (Hmm. I don't know what that would mean). The truly cynical might suggest that the diary didn't exist until after Devereaux's death; but I find this unlikely, considereing REW's book was in his estate.
Caz--to answer your question about the ever-popular Murder, Mayhem, & Madness: Paul Feldman writes on pg. 155, "That book, with MB's name in it, was eventually handed over to New Scotland Yard." So I was assuming that the book had Mike's signature, though perhaps it was only a rubber-stamped Ex Libris Bongo. :-) Anyway,
there you have it.
To answer your second question: Yes, I still think Melvin Harris might have the answer. I don't wish to shove my opinion on anyone, so feel free to knock my statements about and test where they might be hollow or weak. But, for the record, here's my thinking:
The diary was written post-1987. That is the ledge I cling to in order not to fall into Feldman's abyss. Baxendale found the ink "readily soluble"; Rendell found no ink "off-set" on the diary's pages. The diary refers to 'tin match box empty'. (I'll skip the rest, because you know the rest). Post-1987: that's my ledge.
So my attention now turns to Mike Barrett. He is the one that introduced the diary to the world. There seems to be two possibilities: (A) Mike knew nothing of the diary's origins, and was himself 'hoodwinked'; or (B) Mike was "in on it" (if only as a handler). Both possibilities are consistent with the doubtful nature of Mike's confession; he either had nothing to tell (A) or wanted implicate Anne or discredit Feldman (B). (One might ask, why didn't Mike mention Murder, Mayhem, & Madness in his initial confession to Harold Brough? Answer: "Would you split on a mate?")
Now I've been always been a little squeamish when it comes to actually pointing a finger at the forgers in a public forum, since most of this is merely guess-work. (Especially on my part, having not met the people involved, unlike many of you). I do think Mike is fair game, though, considering that he has already made a confession (whether true or not). I will say that if scenerio 'B' is valid (ie., that Melvin Harris is fundamentally correct) it my gut feeling that Anne was not involved in the forgery or in the handling. Hence the fighting with Mike, the worried comments to her secretery friend, the low-profile, the feelings of remorse, etc. etc. All already chronicled in Shirley Harrison's book.
So what about her 'revelation' to Feldman, that the diary had been in the family for years? One must consider the conditions under which it was made. Mike was estranged, yes, but he was still the father of their child; Mike had just implicated her in the Liverpool Post; Feldman was questioning her family and in-laws while researching his genealogical theories; there was probably guilt over the divorce; etc. etc. An irrational time. Isn't it possible that "giving-in" to Feldman's theory was the easiest way out? Didn't Feldman promise to protect her from the rabble if she told 'the truth'? (The answer might be yes; see p.181 of The Final Chapter). Now I might well be wrong, but frankly, it is difficult for me to read Feldman's book without wondering if he had planted all the genealogy in Anne's mind (quite unintentionally).
As for the genealogy, itself, I tend to ignore it. Feldman starts out by attempting to link everyone to James Maybrick, who evidently had more illegitimates than Casanova. He then switches horses mid-stream and has Billy Graham related to Florie through a relationship prior to her meeting Sir Jim. But, all this aside, we are finally to believe that the diary came neither from James nor Florie, but through Elizabeth Formby, Billy's stepmother (ie., no blood relation). (It's only fair to say that some of this confusion comes from Feldman's book being a running monologue of how his research unfolded over time. And, as for Anne, she is only responsible for the Formby/Yapp link, and need not even believe Feldman's genealogical theories). But, frankly, though I could always see how all of this might be used as evidence that the diary was authentic, I could never understand how this would fit into a scenerio where the diary was an 'old forgery', ie., by someone with access to the police files.
So, in short, I tend to think that scenerio "B" is the most likely, that Mike was involved in the forgery with others, and that both his confession and Anne's counterstatement are false. This seems to me to be consistent with all the facts as I interpret them. As, I say, feel free to slap it around.
But the pesky thing is that scenerio "A" might also be consistent with the evidence (!). It is possible that Mike knew nothing. (IMHO, Paul Begg argues this well, and, after all, he met Mike during those chaotic times, and, of course, his opinion always carries great weight). So, there's the rub. Or rather, here's the rub: since I am unwilling to let go of my 'Post-1987' ledge, if Mike was himself duped, this only points the blame in another direction. I am hesitant to elaborate on this angle, but, considering the Sphere book, etc., you must be able to guess whom I mean. In this scenerio, it might even be possible that the genealogy has some basis in truth; it serves as the genesis of the idea for the diary in a very imaginative mind. Maybe kicked around for years (remember Steve?), written post-1987, and pawned off on Mike. If this is true, no wonder there is such confusion.
Sorry for the long-windedness, but this is basically 'where I am at' in regards to the Maybrick diary. All IMHO, as the saying goes.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 03:07 am | | Hi RJP
I sometimes think that trying to make sense of the 'diary' saga is a bit like finding your way through the lanes and alleys and passages of the East End in a dense Victorian fog. There are times when all you want to do is get into daylight.
The trouble with the idea that Anne wasn’t involved in the forgery is the difficulty it poses by causing us to ask why she claimed that the ‘diary’ had been in her family for years. Yes, it was an irrational time and yes, she could have thought that confession was an easy option. But remember that Anne was well out of it at that time and wasn’t talking to anyone (none of us knew where she was and she phoned Feldman. Whether a forger or a complete innocent, she had to do no more than keep her head down, claim complete ignorance and put her life together. And she had every reason to want to pull her life together, for daughter Caroline was taking important exams at that traumatic time and father Billy was terminally ill. So why focus all the attention on herself? Was it genuinely an act of magnanimity to stop the bullish Feldman pestering family and friends? Or was it to cruelly strip from Mike the very last bit of status the ‘diary’ was giving him? Or is there some other motive?
How you answer that question (and I suppose that unfortunately you have to have met Anne more than once to really be able to make that kind of assessment of a person’s character) will determine how you interpret the following. Having told Feldman what he wanted to hear (if, indeed, what she said was what he wanted to hear), Anne could then have told him to sling his hook and been free to get on with her life. She didn’t do that. She remained involved with the research, evinced an interest in Florence and her supposed family link (or should we say imagined family link if it was her deliberate fiction), and even went so far as to write a book about her. Why?
Was it because she gained by it? Was it because it gave her people to support her through a difficult patch? If so, Anne emerges as a very scheming and manipulative woman who watched Feldman wreck himself on the rocky shores of her lies and Keith Skinner lay bear his reputation for others to trample on. Is she a woman who could betray trust and loyalty and so cruelly abuse friendship?
For many this question is at the heart of the problem because, inevitably, if one answers ‘no’ then one is faced with the awful possibility that Anne’s story is true. And that, of course, is a fog filled lane down which no one wants to wander. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 03:53 am | | Mr. Begg--hello. A dreary, but brilliant post. I think you perfectly sum up the quandary that anyone who cares about this mystery must ultimately face. I don't pretend to know the answer, but if there is ever a denouement, I would hope that it would come in as humane a way as possible.
Is sometimes the road to hell paved with good intentions?
Regards,
RJP |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 10:00 am | | My apologies if this question seems ridiculous to the hardened diary debaters here, but as a newcomer to these boards I find myself very puzzled by the apparently intense interest shown and energy expended discussing who may have been responsible for the forgery. Does it really matter? Surely the fact that it has nothing whatever to do with the Ripper murders should be enough to merit its expulsion to the bottom of a deep hole. Having read much of the earlier acrimony which has sprung up in relation to this piece of overblown fiction, it seems to me that several well-known writers on the subject of JtR are allowing rather a lot of their no doubt valuable time to be wasted in this apparently futile quest to discover who actually did the deed. Just my humble opinion and no offence meant, I assure you.
So, it would seem that Melvin Harris is apparently in possession of vital evidence re the diary forgers, and yet has so far presented nothing of value to back up these claims. Somehow this doesn't surprise me. BTW, would I be right in assuming that this is the same M Harris who attempted to nail D'Onston Stephenson as a serious Ripper candidate? If so, this strengthens my belief.
Great to see such eminent Ripperologists as Paul Begg and Martin Fido active on the Casebook boards. Although it will no doubt be a mammoth task, I intend to sift through as much of the older posted material as possible in an attempt to glean whatever scraps I can in the hope of furthering my own theories, with particular attention to the Kelly murder scene and the way everything about the final killing is somehow WRONG. No doubt others have also made this observation many times in the past, but I think I have one or two lines of enquiry that no one else has pursued before. But then again, maybe not. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 10:19 am | | Graham -
You are probably right in saying that a lot of ill-feeling has been generated by the "Diary" to little useful effect. You will find, however, that should you wish to explore new lines of enquiry in a serious manner, the published authors present here will most likely give warm and generous support - so by all means, go ahead with your research!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 11:11 am | | Guy,
I certainly feel that regular wanders through the gaslit maze of the Casebook boards is likely to lead to clarification of various matters which have puzzled me for some time. It just seems such a shame that so many people have put so much into the rather sorry circumstances surrounding the diary, and even more so that many now feel distrustful of others. I know it isn't just the diary to blame for this, but it certainly hasn't helped matters. Some of the petty squabbles are very sad to see. I would love it if everyone let the diary burn in the wind, and left people like Melvin Harris to spin out their conspiracy theories/fantasies alone. The subject of JtR is far too rich to allow it to become swamped by such futility. Somehow I can't see some folk letting go of there obsessions, though.
My own knowledge of events relating to the diary is minimal, for the simple reason that I ceased to take any interest in it the moment it became apparent that it was a fake (which is to say, almost as soon as it was released in book form). In its own way it has generated almost as many mysteries as the Whitechapel murderer himself, although sadly none of these are likely to bring us any closer to finally unearthing the truth behind the myths, rumours, speculation etc which surround the Ripper case.
I certainly can't that see perusing these boards on a regular basis will do my knowledge of the subject any harm, especially as so many illustrious commentators add their own thoughts and speculations here. I have studied the subject of JtR for many years, and so far have never been convinced by any of the arguments for the various suspects, although Buchan looks like he could be interesting if more could be discovered about him and his life. What I find fascinating and inspiring, though, is the way many researchers have come upon documents and information thought to have been lost for ever. There must be other such material out there just waiting to be found, perhaps some of which will finally bring down the curtain on this mystery once and for all.
Best regs to all,
Graham |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 11:49 am | | Surely the fact that it has nothing whatever to do with the Ripper murders should be enough to merit its expulsion to the bottom of a deep hole.
Hi Graham
Yes, you are probably right and it should.
But I suppose it rather depends on where your interest in things Ripper begin and end. Some people are happy to conclude that the ‘diary’ is a modern forgery and bin it without spending any further thought on it. Ditto the identity of the journalist who penned the Dear Boss letter, Dr. Stanley, Thomas Dutton and his Chronicles of Crime, the story of Robert James Lees, the Masonic conspiracy and so on. None of them take us one jot closer to learning anything about Jack the Ripper and thought given over to them is just wasted time.
On the other hand, all these things are part of the legend surrounding Jack the Ripper and have contributed to its development and growth. Thay are part of the story. I’d like to know who penned the ‘Dear Boss’ letter. I'd like to know more about the interesting and curious Dr. Dutton. I’d like to know how the ‘diary’ was conceived and executed. It's partly because the 'diary' is an influential part of the Ripper story, partly curiosity and partly because
unresolved problems are the undead of Ripper studies and likely to rise at some point in the future like a vampire at sundown. If we can plunge a stake through the heart of these stories now, while we have the chance, while peoplebare still alive to question, then hopefully they will stay dead, never to worry us again.
And who knows, the story might prove as interesting in its own way as the story of the Hitler diaries. |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 12:30 pm | | Hi, Paul
I certainly take your point about laying ghosts to rest while we have the chance, rather than perhaps leaving matters unresolved and just ready to pop up and confuse future researchers (as if they'd need further confusion to add to tangled web!). But my own feeling is that the diary is known to be a fake, was almost certainly faked some time after 1985, is a rather crude attempt at deception which could never hope to fool the army of Ripperologists and other experts who were bound to take an intense interest in it, and thus probably wasn't perpetrated by anyone with any real knowledge of forgery or the murders themselves, or even Maybrick's life. I have harboured a suspicion right from the beginning that it was a prank which got out of hand rather than a serious attempt at passing the journal off as the authentic Diary of Jack the Ripper. But by the time Shirley Harrison's book saw print and various serious researchers expressed a belief that the diary could possibly be authentic, the damage was already done. Those with a vested interest, and those with reputations to protect, such as Harrison herself, felt they had to go along with the circus despite the fact that there are numerous flaws in the work, obvious even to my far-from-expert eye, and ample evidence to suggest that the forger(s) had only a rudimentary knowledge of the subjects involved. Although it would no doubt be of some interest to learn exactly who did they deed, and how exactly they went about it, precisely when etc, I don't feel that the pursuit of such knowledge is worth the bad feeling, accusations, counter-accusations and manifold other unpleasantness which has resulted from the diary's appearance.
With regard to the Dear Boss letter, the real story behind the Dr Stanley account and other such matters, I think these DO merit the attentions of Ripperologists, not least because the possibility exists, albeit rather slim, that investigating these events could feasibly shed further light on the crimes themselves, whereas there is no hope of this with the fake diary. There is no solid evidence that the Dear Boss letter was faked. Perhaps one day someone will find a uterus and a heart preserved in jar in a disused attic, and with these grim artefacts will be drafts of that letter written in the same hand. And maybe the true identity of Dr Stanley will come to light, from which missing pieces of the puzzle could slot into place. I doubt it very much but it's a possibility, even if a remote one. As the diary has no link whatsoever with the Ripper murders in a real or valuable sense, I don't think any good can come from debating the whys and wherefores. In fact, I feel certain that several people who voluably argue on the subject of the diary would be rather disappointed if no one took any further interest, and would quite likely make public any knowledge they may have, be they the forgers or not.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Jennifer Michelle
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 01:44 pm | | I am brand new to these message boards and am delighted that so many famous "Ripperologists" are posting here. Frankly, I searched for the board with the most recent messages and decided to jump right in.
Of course, I cannot disprove or prove the validity of the Maybrick diary. I think Feldman has presented a very detailed and exhaustive amount of detail in his book "The Final Chapter". While I wouldn't stick my neck out to confirm that Maybrick was the Ripper, there is a certain amount of doubt after reading that book. One would to be quite a Renaissance man (or woman) to take on the feat of forging the diary and having so many accurate details about the killings and the Maybricks.
The turning point (for me, at least) has always been the murder of Mary Kelly. If the eye witness accounts are true that she was seen the morning following the killings...then we can eliminate Barnett as a suspect. The locked door has always pointed me in the direction that it was not Kelly who was found...but they she made the discovery and fled the city.
Forgive my memory loss.....32 is far too young to start having "senior moments"...what does the diary remark about the Kelly murders??
Most sincerely,
Jennifer Michelle |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 02:25 pm | | Hi, Jennifer
Like yourself, I am also a newcomer to these boards, although not to the various Ripper mysteries themselves. My own humble advice would be to take everything connected with the diary with a very large pinch of salt. That it is a fake is beyond any reasonable doubt, although I have to agree that if one takes what has been written by Shirley Harrison or Paul Feldman at face value then the 'facts' seem very persuasive.
Without wishing to appear argumentative, I would venture to suggest that forging the diary would have been extremely simple so far as the actual composition goes. I would go so far as to say that I, and no doubt a great many others, could knock up something which would stand up better than the Maybrick comedy has. There is nothing whatsover contained in the text allegedly written by Maybrick which was not easily available from various widely published sources. Most tellingly, where mistakes and downright fabrications have been added by various researchers in the past, and these snippets have been regarded as fact, so they appeared in the diary. Also, note the way that everything 'Maybrick' alludes to in direct reference to the murders themselves is something we already knew. If 'he' had made reference to some little detail - let's say that he'd taken one of Mary Kelly's earrings as a keepsake - and then an undiscovered medical report had confirmed this, that could be regarded as real evidence for taking the diary seriously. Alas, there is nothing of the kind apparent.
Some people have suggested that obtaining a late nineteenth century journal with a requsite number of unused pages would be faily difficult, but as I have something very similar in my possession, I know it wouldn't be THAT hard to come by. The ink would be likewise relatively easy to obtain. Sit down, write your extraordinarily bad little verses (Jack would turn in his grave!), add a bit of patent nonsense about whores and such here and there, maybe place said journal under tanning lamps or perhaps in an oven on a low heat to simulate aging of the ink, and Robert is your mother's brother. Plus, of course, the handwriting is nothing whatsover like the real Maybrick's. Etcetera ad infinitum.
As I mentioned in a post above this one, the Mary Kelly murder has always bothered the hell out of me (and no doubt a many other researchers). Nothing about it makes sense, not least the fact that it is inconceivable that Jack would have eviscerated her with a blazing fire burning, bearing in mind that there was only a piece of muslin covering the broken window through which shadows would have been visible to anyone passing by outside, surely. Which means it's probable he killed her by daylight. I also read somewhere that on entering the room, the ashes in the grate were found to be still warm. Surely this couldn't really have been the case. And although it may seem that Jack was taking less of risk by killing Kelly indoors, surely he was in fact putting himself at far greater risk of capture by effectively trapping himself in a corner should anyone have happened upon him while he was in the process of committing his vile deed.
But I'm getting carried away now so I'll shut up!
I have no doubt that some of the experts here can provide for more enlightenment regarding the pros and cons of the diary than I ever could.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Jennifer Michelle
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 03:23 pm | | A delight to hear back from someone so soon!
As always, I most certainly take the diary with a grain of salt. However, being the legal profession, I am taught that are you innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the diary. Has it been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" a fake...I think it can't be dismissed so easily. The handwriting is the least bother to me. If true (let's speculate, regardless of whether he was the Ripper or not) that James Maybrick was indeed a drug addict. Test yourself - run to the nearest pub, slug down a dozen drinks or so and write to your emotional content. Trust me, your writing will be unrecognizable, even to yourself.
Even if the diary is proven to be authentic....it still, in the minds of many (perhaps my own) that James Maybrick was, in fact, the Ripper. He wouldn't be the first delusional drug addict to imagine himself as someone else. Drugs, alcohol can do amazing things to the human brain.
I had not heard that the ashes were warm in Mary Kelly's room. An interesting side note that sounds rather fishy to me - something about it reminds me of Goldilocks and the three bears....wasn't the porridge still warm? 
I would appreciate yours (or anyone's) thoughts on Graysmith's book. I found the story so tiresome and speculative that it bored me to sleep. I have yet to read it completely. How about it? An English Pastor in San Francisco...hmmm.
Yours sincerely,
Jennifer Michelle |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 04:23 pm | | Well, I think that my handwriting wouldn't differ to such a degree when drunk that it would be unrecognisable as my own (not, of course, that I would ever dream of imbibing alcoholic substances for any reason, ever). And the writing in the journal doesn't strike me as particularly erratic; it remains pretty firm and consistent throughout. But this is just an aside. There is nothing in there to suggest authenticity. Plus Maybrick does not resemble any of the more reliable witness descriptions (not that that means anything). There are just so many arguments against this piece being the real thing that the whole house of cards tumbles when the merest breeze reality touches it (I'm stealing that quote from someone connected to the Ripper case, I know I am). The fact that sodium traces were found in some of the ink samples was about as far as I remember back - and this, as I recall, proved beyond all doubt that the writing hadn't been set down in Victorian times. It is also inconceivable that the real killer would have added nothing in his text beyond what we already know; it's all far too neat and tidy. And then there are the provable fallacies added to the case in later years by less than scrupulous researchers of days gone by which have crept into the diary, errors which obviously the real killer wouldn't have added because he'd have been present at all of the killings and been the one person in possession of all the true facts. I guess I'm like one of the several Ripperologists who has a suspect and doggedly sticks by their man no matter what. I have never believed the diary to be genuine and never will.
I definitely read somewhere that the ashes were found to still be warm. Trouble is, even the comtemporary reports in the respectable newspapers are littered with inaccuracies (I believe the one which appeared in the Times the day after Kelly's murder made reference to her having, or at least looking after, a young child - which of course may have been true. Possibly).
I would agree that Maybrick, leaving the diary aside, does seem to be a possible candidate if one allows that curse of all Ripperologists, conjecture, free reign. With so little real evidence available, this is inevitable, but so far as I know there isn't a scrap of hard evidence upon which Maybrick could be suspected.
I must confess to not having read Graysmith's book so am unable to comment on its merits or otherwise. I shall hunt it down and have a read.
My feeling is this - I don't think anyone has ever put forward the name of the person(s) who killed 3,4,5,6 or more ladies of the night in Whitechapel during the late summer and autumn of 1888. I do, however, think that the solution is out there somewhere, just waiting to be unearthed. And I think when it is, everyone will look at each other and wonder why that particular individual had ever occurred to them. But I also think something very odd was happening at the time. Not a cover up as such, or even anything necessarily suspicious so far as the behaviour and actions of the authorities go - but something. Nothing makes any real in the case. Fallacies, inaccuracies and elaborations abound. Most of these come to a head with the Kelly murder. It seems almost beyond belief that it could have taken place at all, but it did. And somehow the killer walked away Scot free.
Graham |
Author: LeatherApron
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 04:37 pm | | Hi Jennifer,
I would say "Welcome to the Monkey House!" but as that phrase is for the chatroom, Welcome to the Wonderful World of Casebook!
One thing you said that I'd like to comment on was "In this case, the diary. Has it been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" a fake...I think it can't be dismissed so easily."
Legally speaking, it's not up to the skeptics to prove that the Maybrick diary is a fake. It's up to the believers or proponents of the book to prove that it could NOT have been written by anyone other than who they claim. This is a very difficult thing to do and rightfully so. To use an example, the OJ Simpson trial -- it wasn't up to the defense to prove that OJ did not commit the murders; the burden of proof was on the prosecution's side to prove that the murders could not have been committed by anyone else.
Sorry if it seems like I'm talking down to you, I really don't intend it to sound that way. This Ripper thing has a strange effect on all of us and our emotions and logical reasoning sometimes falter in its wake. You should see me during a full moon. ;-)
As you observed, delusional drug addicts can imagine themselves to be someone else, so even if the diary supporters prove that it WAS written by James Maybrick (which they have failed to do so far), then we have to look at the document from this new perspective to see if he was the Ripper or was simply delusional. (NOTE: These 2 concepts are so closely related that there's a lot of doubt cast on both positions).
Please have a good time playing Hunt the Ripper and join the chatroom if you have a chance!
Yours Truly,
Jack |
|
|
|
|
