|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 February 21, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
NEW HOAX FINDINGS:
Archive through February 21, 2001
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 07:58 pm |        | In my first published comments on the Diary I wrote "...the man who faked the diary found it comparitively easy to know anything he wanted about the Maybrick family in 1888 and 1889." Then, of the Ripper sources I said "Just three source books are all you need to provide the crime facts and their backgrounds." I also drew attention to Robert Smith's claim that the Diary hoaxer would have to "...be a crime historian who had acquired intimate knowledge, well beyond the accessible published sources of two famous Victorian cases..."; and have "...a rare and precise knowledge of the physical and psychological effects of arsenic addictions."
Of Smith's claims I wrote: "I find this almost beyond belief. He really seems to be quite out of touch with the mass of popular literature-the crime magazines, cheap pulp paperbacks, trashy novels- which were easily able to supply all the garish colour and sordid bits and pieces that we find in this diary. In these times you don't have to be an expert on serial killers to know about them. Pick up some of the many 'True Crime' types of magazines and soon enough there are all the insights one could need. Finding out about arsenic and strychnine addictions is almost as easy..."
Since then I have examined the Diary text in full, careful detail in public, and shown how its Ripper bits are derived from just two books. To this I have added an examination of its Maybrick items and shown that they can be found in just one modern, popular, Penguin paperback. But this has never stopped Smith, Harrison and Feldman from claiming that the writer of the Diary had inside knowledge! So what does it take to gain an honest admission of defeat from these people?
And now my latest reading discloses the grim fact that Feldman had for over FIVE YEARS proof in his hands that his 'rare research' claims were bogus. On page 7 of his book he discloses that he owned a complete set of the Marshall Cavendish part-work 'Murder Casebook'. Issue 41 of this 'Murder Casebook' deals with the Maybrick case and Feldman not only confirms that he knew its text, but states that it proved crucial in his negotiations for the film rights. On page 8 he says of it "I read that Marshall Cavendish article over and over again."
I was out of the country when this part-work was published in 1990 and saw just one issue (the Ripper special) on my return. I have only now had a chance to read ISSUE 41. It is an eye-opener. I have already stated that the Maybrick material is easy to find in Ryan's book and that verdict still stands, but this Maybrick magazine write-up provides all the so-called rare Diary material in handy, readable, digest form! Here is how it matches up:-
The St James Church of the Diary is found on page 1445.
Maybrick's early work and affair in London is on page 1446.
Feldman (p 232) states that Judge Richard Hamilton found that the diarist's reference to the 'Exchange floor' "displayed knowledge". The word 'Exchange' in reference to the Cotton Exchange "...was correct usage, but not something easily known by any modern-day forger" I have already demonstrated that this opinion is sheer nonsense. The term is used more than once in Ryan's modern book and twice even in one line (p26) which also speaks of "the exchange floor", as does p24. And there, in part-work 41, the Exchange features on page 1446!
Dr Hopper, Gladys, and Edwin all appear on the same page as the Exchange.
On his p294 Feldman stated that Dr David Forshaw had commented "...that the use of the word 'medicine' demonstrated a good knowledge of Victorian references to drugs." I have earlier pointed out that this is a daft claim since the word is no more than an age-old generic term. And Dr Forshaw confirmed to me that he was being misrepresented. But on page 1447 of issue 41 you will find Maybrick speaking of his use of arsenic and referring to "...my medicine." That "...a new bottle of medicine had been obtained in London." is mentioned once more on page 1452 of issue 41.
That he tore up the Will on New Year's Eve is there on page 1447. The same page records the incident (again used by the faker) where Florence wrote to Michael about some sort of drug; when Michael quizzed James about this "James flew into a temper 'Whoever told you that is a damned liar,' he said."
Florence's nickname "Bunny" is found on page 1451, as is the information that she had run up "considerable debts" and that: "Maybrick said he would settle the debts." The same page also deals with the Grand National affair; with the blazing row that followed; and with Dr Humphreys' visit. (Extra on the Grand National is on page 1447)
Feldman made much of his claim that knowledge of James' mistress in Liverpool showed rare inside knowledge by the diarist. He even wrote p298 "Only Florence and the author of our diary would appear to know of this woman in Liverpool." Well, I have shown that this Liverpool mistress was not obscure at all. She is dealt with by Ryan on p20 and p28. And now we have page 1447 of No 41 telling us that "Florence discovered that James had a mistress in Liverpool."
Once again Feldman made much of the idea that Florence had more than one affair. This, true to form, he saw as inside knowledge by the diarist, who wrote "I find it in my heart to forgive her for her lovers." No faker would know this, argued Feldman. But on page 1455 of No 41, in speaking of Brierley, we read "...Florence had had several lovers before him." And we also read "James was close to boiling over into violence towards Florence's many suitors."
Page 1451 records: "Returning from London, James Maybrick made a new will to replace the one he had torn up on New Year's Eve. The new document left almost everything in trust to the children, with only a moderate allowance for his wife."
Page 1452 tells us that "...Florence had spoken to the doctor [Dr Humphreys] about 'the white powder' her husband had been taking."
In 1994 I stated that it was easy to find out about arsenic addiction and Issue 41 proves this. Page 1454 has a box-feature on Arsenic which tells readers that it produces "severe numbness in the limbs." Page 1447 foreshadows this by stating that James Maybrick began filling the home "...with noisy complaints about aches and pains, particularly headaches and pains in his stomach and limbs." Page 1452 reports that James began "...to vomit and complain of numbness in the legs." And we learn further that "The medicine from London contained strychnine, which could be used either as a stimulant drug or a poison, according to the dosage."
Finally, we have to return to the disgraceful episode of the Fleming letter. Feldman takes two pages to muse over this letter since it quotes James as saying "I take this Arsenic once in a while because it strengthens me." Feldman even underlines the word 'strengthens' since he wished to make the point that "...this document proved that the diarist had used the precise word ('strengthens') that had been used by John Fleming". (p294) He then quotes Keith Skinner, who was under the illusion that a forger would have to plough through the entire and bulky rare book by JH Levy (1899) in order to lift this one single word! I have already shown that this Fleming letter was used by Christie, by Morland, and by Ryan BEFORE the Diary emerged. And now on page 1445 of the part-work we find it used again, in a sub-variation derived from Ryan!
Now, Colin Wilson was one of the consultants to that part-work, so why didn't he intervene when he read Feldman's book and say "Hang on Feldy, Skinner and Co. this won't wash! All this 'rare stuff' is in a Marshall Cavendish magazine." Am I expecting too much of Wilson? I don't think so. If you take on the role of a Consultant you also take on the responsibilty of reading the texts you are offering to the public. Apart from that, Wilson's own book of 1961 (Encyclopaedia of Murder) PRINTED Fleming's quotation on its page 445. And that single quote alone should have set the alarm bells ringing.
But the important question is surely this: why was the Diary camp's research so bungled? How did Skinner, for one, fail to spot the tell-tale evidence found both in Ryan's book and in Feldman's copy of issue 41? And how did Feldman manage to conceal the fact that issue 41 alone, made many of his claims ridiculous? Remember that he read it "...over and over again." |
Author: Fred
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 09:41 am | | | I wonder if Paul Begg read this part-work? He was one of the 'campers' who was claiming that there was difficult to find points about Maybrick in the hoax 'diary.' |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 11:29 am | | I was also out of the country in 1990 so apart from seeing a full run of the magazine for sale in an Ojai CA bookshop at a price that I couldn't afford, I haven't until now heard of its Maybrick/JtR issues. The information from Melvin Harris is an eye-opener. It suggests that the diary which first appeared in the public view in early 1992 had as its precursors the Murder Casebook (1990) and the JtR a to z.(1991) So I have to wonder whether the whole diary could have been put together from an inexpensive part work with some help from the famous a to z?
Who do we know who had copies? Feldman, definitely: he even recognises Battlecrease House by its picture in the book. Colin Wilson? As one of the four "consultants" to the series, can we assume that he had a copy?And how about Paul Begg and Keith Skinner? As far as I can see from the one copy I have which deals with the McKay kidnapping, only the consultants are mentioned, individual authors are not named so we can't say whether either of them had a part in the part-work. It's certainly more than possible that Paul Begg for one had a run of the magazines.
The major part of the "proof" which Feldman gives to show the authenticity of the diary is the amount of research that would be needed to fake it. Could it be that that research entailed wandering round the corner to the newsagents to pick up the current copy of the Murder Casebook?
Peter. |
Author: Jennifer Michelle
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 03:57 pm | | Mr. Harris:
As I have always thought of the diary as "strong proof". By that statement I mean that I believe the diary could have been an actual diary of James Maybrick, but not necessarily of Jack the Ripper. If it is true that Maybrick was a drug addict, it would surely elevate him into the delusional class of individuals who sent letters to the police claiming themselves to be the Ripper. I shall gladly check all the references you have provided! Thank you!
Alas, hopefully we will never fully solve this mystery. What would happen to all the professional and amateur "Ripperologists" if that were to happen? 
Most sincerely,
Jennifer Michelle |
Author: A Hadrian
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 06:17 pm | | | What indeed Caz? Er I mean 'Jennifer' |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 03:48 am | | Er, excuse me for butting in here, A Hadrian,
Naturally, Jennifer's opinions are most welcome here, but I do not happen to agree with them. I don't believe the diary was James Maybrick's, and I would like the mystery solved. Everything I have ever posted with regard to the diary has reflected this. So, to confuse me with Jennifer, I can only assume you haven't been reading very carefully.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Mitch
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 11:30 am | | | Will people PLEASE quit accusing every new person to post on this board of being a regular trying to disguise themselves?? IT IS GETTING SO OLD! New people will occasionaly wander here and want to post. Try being friendly people! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 11:58 am | | I sympathise Mitch. It does get tiresome, for new and old posters alike, to be subjected to such suspicions, which are often so way off beam as to be ludicrous. The cynical would suggest some are just designed to cause trouble. I was accused at one point last year of being more or less every single poster to one particular topic - quite, quite mad - but I didn't mind in the least, because the accuser's motives were pretty transparent, not least to all the very real individuals posting!
Love,
Caz |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 05:20 pm | | Mitch,
You sound so much like that joker who was going by Tiberius that it must have been you!
;-)
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 09:19 am | | Although Shirley is now Internet enabled, she's still having problems posting to the Message Boards. She has therefore faxed thr following through to me to place here for her.
................................................
With my Internet connection re-established I want to say a brief 'thank-you' to those who are, at least, having some really thoughtful debate about my troublesome child! R.J. Palmer is asking so many of the questions that I wish (and oh, how I wish!) I had asked all those years ago. There are no excuses, just an explanation of how what was happening. It was a nightmarish time. There was a publishing deadline to meet and there was the combined onslaught by Mike and Paul Feldman. Mike was writing and phoning me at all hours of the day and night, first with his passion to help me with research and later wjem he was drunk and brokem and Paul with equally fervent determination and more financial resources was conducting a parellel programme of his own, hoovering up many of the contacts. Well meaning and sometimes helpful, this was also often destructive.
It was not evasion nor was it because of any kind of conspiracy that clues were missed or by-passed. There were many things I didn't do (such as minuting every phone call). I just didn't realise how vital day by day notes would become. I regret this bitterly, of course.
However, I plan to speak to Sally Evemy, my researcher, and will trawl through the files and try to anser some of the questions you are asking. It is a good feeling that perhaps, at last, there is an extended and begingn research team 'out there' and so perhaps with goodwill we may together get somewhere near the truth.
Shirley Harrison |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 11:37 am | | Hi everyone
Please forgive my ignorance regarding all things diary related, but does Shirley Harrison now accept that the journal is a fake?
Graham |
Author: shirley harrison
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 04:54 pm | | No I do not! I am still convinced about the journal's authenticity but as I have said so many times I cannot claim that I have evidence to prove conclusively my belief. But the more positive nature of the message boards today encourages me to join the debate again. There are many problems to resolve and I am considering the possibility that some of the correspondence and in particular Mike's research notes from 1991 which Sally and I c0llected in July 1992, long before we were really au fait with the Maybrick story, might be made available for dissection. They make interesting reading and I would be happy to share them if there is a way thios can be done. there is fr too much material to put on the boards. As I keep repeating I am willing to meet Melvin whenever he wishes, to view the conclusive evidence he claims to hold that the diary was forged.
Please ask questions. I will try to answer - if there is a fault at all it
is that of wobbly memory from a long time ago. But we do have a great deal of filed material and serious questions will encourage me to trawl through the records.
So bear with me a moment whilst I collect my wits and go through the files. One thing I can confirm - in 1989 Judge Richard Hamilton did do a re-creation of Florie's trial in St George's Hall. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 04:59 pm | | Hi Shirley --
If you want to disseminate information on the website I would be happy to post it under the Maybrick Diary section of the Casebook (as I have other items of interest). Feel free to contact me at spryder@casebook.org to discuss the best way to handle this.
Stephen |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 06:19 pm | | Hi, Shirley
Many thanks for clarifying your stance, and please accept my apologies for my ignorance of diary related matters. Having now read a large proportion of the discussions on these boards, I would consider that I have gained quite a lot of insight regarding the alleged Maybrick journal. There would appear to be a welter of evidence to suggest a forgery, which I have always believed the diary to be, but I certainly look forward to any future developments which may prove otherwise.
Best regards,
Graham |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 09:38 pm | | Hi, Shirley:
Thanks for posting and reaffirming that you still do believe in the authenticity of the Maybrick Diary. I was madly scrambling through posts of several months ago for your reply to me in which you also reaffirmed your belief in it. Nice to know you are sticking by your guns, and so there is something that we can be sure of in the Maybrickian "tangled web." :-)
Thanks also for confirming that "in 1989 Judge Richard Hamilton did do a re-creation of Florie's trial in St George's Hall" in Liverpool on the occasion of the magnificent floor being bared to the public. By the way, for those who do not know, St. George's is one of the finest neo-Classical buildings in the world, designed by Sir Robert Rawlinson and completed in 1854. To have a look at three images of it, people should go to http://www.liverpool.com/coa/ or http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/lealmcgu/CIVIC/trial.htm for a look at the courtroom and a mention of Florie.
The fact that the Maybrick display could be seen by the public of Liverpool in 1989 is extremely interesting news, and perhaps significant if as so many of us think the "Diary" is a post-1989 forgery. I had attended a previous occasion on which the floor of St. George's Hall was laid bare for viewing by the public, some thirty odd years ago, although without Florence or other waxworks! It is interesting that Florie's trial was actually re-created for the public at the time of the 1989 unveiling, which must have been well reported in the press, if not attended by Barretts, Devereauxs, Kanes..... the mind boggles. Do you know if by chance the waxwork of Florence that was prepared for Madame Tussaud's, a photograph of which is shown in Anne Graham and Carol Emmas's "The Last Victim," was used for the re-creation of the trial? Thanks.
Shirley, as mentioned before, if you want to send me a copy of the Blake edition of your book, I will make sure we run a review of it in "Ripper Notes." Although I am not a believer in the Diary, it is "out there" and the arguments for and against it should be heard.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 05:08 am | | Chris - yes I'll get on to Blake again. I thought this had been done ages ago. Can you e mail me your address.shirley@thewordteam.netscapeonline.com
The waxwwork,sadly, was destroyed.
I am starting to make a file of "1994" and also reviewing the events when Mike came to London first. His notes were given to Sally and me in Liverpool in late April 1992 and were not prompted by us. Sally added a few handwritten bits of information but at that time Mike already knew more general stuff than we did about Maybrick.Hed been reading the trial reports in the library. This is why his notes are fascinating and - I don't believe are the work of a forger let alone a handler. I will contact Stephen because I dont know how to turn 25 odd pages of typescript (by Anne) into computer material. I dont know if Melvin has seen these. Isnt it time we enticed Alan Gray onto the Boards? And can anyone find Citizen Kane? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 05:44 am | | Hi All,
Shirley Harrison is having trouble getting her messages up again and has emailed me the following post to put up on her behalf.
Love,
Caz
CORRECTION..CORRECTION...before anyone accuses either Keith or me of purposely
confusing issues I made a mistake in my last posting. The date that Mike gave
Sally and me the diary was between June 28th and July lst 1992 and NOT April. -
my mistake.
I am posting Mike's notes to Stephen Ryder today. I admit to doing this with
some anxiety because I now have to trust readers of the board to treat them
fairly and to understand that unlike most other people Sally and I have met and
spent a great deal of time talking with Mike in particular (not so much Anne)at
the time and I read these notes in that context. I ask again ARE these the
notes of a clever forger or someone who is part of a conspiracy? They were
ordered and typed by Anne and the few handwritten notes are Sally and my
additions as we researched. |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 10:45 am | | woops
another senior moment...!! For "diary" read "notes". He had already given us the diary of course. I have mailed the notes to Stephen Ryder today and shall be very interested to see what you make of them. Dont forget that at the time the notes were given to us Sally and I had a very scant knowledge of the Maybricks. |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 10:45 am | | woops
another senior moment...!! For "diary" read "notes". He had already given us the diary of course. I have mailed the notes to Stephen Ryder today and shall be very interested to see what you make of them. Dont forget that at the time the notes were given to us Sally and I had a very scant knowledge of the Maybricks. |
Author: Jim Kay
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 04:35 pm | | To: Shirley Harrison
Dear Shirley
This is just a pure speculative note on an interesting story I was once told by my Father.
My Great Grandfather was Persian and lived most of his life in the north of Persia near the Caspian Sea.
In the mid-late 19th Century, Persia was rumoured to be abundant with diamonds and silver (of which the silver part turned out to be true). As a country closely associated with the British Empire, many British merchants and prospectors were welcome in the country. My Great Grandfather recalled an English Merchant in the early 1880's, who had spent some time in the area trading and prospecting for Silver.
Years later, the locals used to say that he was JTR (probably only due to the fact he was an English Gentleman) and told stories of his strange mannerisms and habits.
Do we know if Maybrick every visited this region? I know it's a very long shot, but it is a beautiful local story.
many thanks
Jim K |
Author: shirley harrison
Monday, 04 December 2000 - 12:38 pm | | | Jim - sadly no. It would have been an interesting diversion. There are still many unexplored avenues in The States but as far as I know James didnt even get to Europe. |
Author: Jim Kay
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 04:23 pm | | To: Shirley Harrison
Dear Shirley
I didn't think so, but thanks for replying anyway.
cheers
Jim Kay |
Author: Tim
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 12:42 pm | | Hello everybody
Wow! I see Shirley Harrison is posting in here. I have just ordered her book after seeing a program on Ch5 about the alleged diary of Jack the Ripper. I should add that I have not been very much interested in Jack the Ripper (so be gentle with me) but the diary of Jack the Ripper has gripped me tremendously. I just can't wait to get Shirley's book. It will be the one and only book I own on anything to do with Jack the Ripper.
Whether it is a fake or not is of great interest to me either way. If it is a fake then Michael Barrett needs a lot more credit than he has been given so far. His extensive research and attention to detail is breathtaking in the fact he has eluded the experts for the best part of a decade now. 18 months of extensive scrutiny and ten years on, the experts still can't make up their minds on whether it is a fake or not. I do wonder if Michael Barrett is capable of producing such a fake though. If he did write it, why create something so brilliant and come up with the story of getting it from a bloke in the pub (Tony Devereux). Even the handwriting has been proved to be that of a man, so, Michael Barrett's claim that his wife (at the time) wrote it also adds more questions than answers.
Why would he confess to it being a fake are of equal importance. If it is a fake then he would want to gain as much publicity as he could and also some the money that he didn't by exposing it in the first place. If it is genuine, then he may want to be covering for the person/persons who may have stolen it from under the floorboards of Battlecrease Mansion.
The whole thing is so much more interesting than the story of Jack the Ripper itself. But if Michael Barrett was capable of producing this diary. Then surely he has the ability to write a book about how he faked it, doesn't he?
And with that I shall bid you good day. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 10:21 pm | | Hi Tim:
First, I wish to point out a mistake in your post. The handwriting in the Diary has not "been proved to be that of a man."
Second, the Diary is clearly not the brilliant creation you think it is. Mark Angus noted in Criminologist, Spring 1995, that it is betrayed as forgery by the writer's persistent use of disparate pieces of Ripper lore that would not be known to any one man--even the Ripper--in 1888. The clear implication is that the writer was someone in the twentieth century who had boned up by reading books on the Maybrick and Ripper cases and concocted the Diary based on his or her reading.
There is plenty of discussion of other flaws in the document on this site. Happy reading.
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 07:19 am | | And Tim, most of the experts made up their minds long ago. Only they don't all agree with each other. Still, the overwhelming majority believe the diary to be a forgery. (As far as I know only Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison now dissent). The disagreement is as to whether it was forged by Michael and Ann Barrett using information in the public domain from the end of 1987, or whether as Ann has claimed, it had been in her family to her certain knowledge for a couple of decades previously.
As for Mike's 'fooling the experts': at different times and places and in different states of inebriation he has stated or sworn to just about any combination of things you can imagine: he forged the diary personally and fooled the world; he knows nothing about it except that it was given to him by Tony Devereaux and may well be genuine; he devised it and Ann transcribed it because his writing was too recognizable; Ann put it down on the coimputer and he transcribed it.... Picking among these stories is a thankless task. Nobody can rely on anything said by a man who has at times made it apparent in taped interviews that he will say whatever his questioners want to hear if they will only give him a quarter bottle of whisky. Mike isn't fooling anybody at all. There is some suggestion that he has damaged his brain so much with alcohol that he himself is no longer capable of remembering which of his stories is true and which false. This hopeless unreliability hardly constitutes effective and deliberate deception.
Martin Fido |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 07:22 am | | And Tim, most of the experts made up their minds long ago. Only they don't all agree with each other. Still, the overwhelming majority believe the diary to be a forgery. (As far as I know only Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison now dissent). The disagreement is as to whether it was forged by Michael and Ann Barrett using information in the public domain from the end of 1987, or whether as Ann has claimed, it had been in her family to her certain knowledge for a couple of decades previously.
As for Mike's 'fooling the experts': at different times and places and in different states of inebriation he has stated or sworn to just about any combination of things you can imagine: he forged the diary personally and fooled the world; he knows nothing about it except that it was given to him by Tony Devereaux and may well be genuine; he devised it and Ann transcribed it because his writing was too recognizable; Ann put it down on the coimputer and he transcribed it.... Picking among these stories is a thankless task. Nobody can rely on anything said by a man who has at times made it apparent in taped interviews that he will say whatever his questioners want to hear if they will only give him a quarter bottle of whisky. Mike isn't fooling anybody at all. There is some suggestion that he has damaged his brain so much with alcohol that he himself is no longer capable of remembering which of his stories is true and which false. This hopeless unreliability hardly constitutes effective and deliberate deception.
Martin Fido |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 05:11 pm | | Tim
Regardless of whether or not the diary is real or fake, distortion of detail and even fact concerning the Maybrick diary by the writer will have more appeal to popular history. This type of distortion will undoubtedly have its sensationalist and commercial appeal. The same can be said of the Salem Witch trials, and countless other debatable historical events that have much myth and fiction attached to them. This might be a message board for serious discussion concerning JTR but I can understand those who accept the diary as genuine, because despite the silly case put forward re: Maybrick’s diary I do appreciate the ingenuity of the coincidental aspects of the diary. |
Author: Tim
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 01:28 pm | | Hello Christopher, Martin and Tracy
Thank you very much for your replies and I do apologise for the long delay.
I see your point about handwriting experts as I have just been reading Paul Begg's contribution to this site about the Hitler diaries and how not one, but two handwriting experts agreed it was the handwriting of Adolf Hitler. I was only going by what Anna koren said about it being a mans handwriting. After reading Paul Begg's postings here I can now see where you are coming from.
I've also been going through the various post (so much bad feelings) in here and have learnt a lot. I now have various posting in here sent to me via email. This does save a lot of time getting new posts. And could I just say what a great site it is.
I do apologise for using the words 'fooling the experts' it was by no means meant to imply any insult to the experts. I don't know Mike Barrett so I will reserve any judgement about him, except when I first saw him I did think he looked like one of the Scousers off the Harry Enfield show If nothing else, I'm sure he has helped to increase book sales. I still can't understand if this diary was such an obvious fake, why did it take 18 months for a panel of experts in various fields (some I see are in here) to come to the same conclusion when they first heard about the diary. Even in 1998 a convention of over one hundred various interested bodies voted two thirds in favour of it being genuine!
I think if this is a fake then someone has spent a lot of time and effort trying to make it seem plausible and has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. To go to all that trouble only to come out with the story of I got from a bloke in a pub routine is puzzling. I know there are other stories about Mike being a plant etc. But nothing seems to have been proved either way. I can live with the fact that we may never know who JtR was, but this diary was only produced to the world ten years ago. And if the experts don't all agree with each other what hope is there for the general public.
I guess it is like the old crop circle rubbish. When the hoaxers prove how it was done people don't want to know. And the truth kills book sales - case closed.
Regardless of whether or not the diary is real or fake, it is of fascinating interest to me either way. I'm hooked!
Tim
And with that I shall bid you good day. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 02:43 pm | | Dear Tim,
Lets not close our minds to the possibility it is the creation of an exceptionally-gifted woman, eh?
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Tim
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 03:33 pm | | Hello Rosemary
I don't think that is even remotely possible. But who have you in mind?
Tim
And with that I shall bid you good day. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 03:40 pm | | Hi Tim,
I think most people do want to know how it was done, possibly even more than who dunnit. I agree there are people who want to believe in 'the old crop circle rubbish', ghosts and ghoulies, even the existence of God, would you believe!! :-) There may even be a few whose lives would be devastated if they were forced to believe that the diary was a fake, but luckily I don't know anyone whose life is that lacking in other interests.
Welcome aboard.
Love,
Caz - from 'that London'.
Calm down everybody, calm down. :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 04:20 pm | | Dear Tim,
Caroline :-))
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Tim
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 07:08 pm | | Hello Caroline and Rosemary
What, you mean 'that Caroline' from 'that London'? They do that thought though don't they
Tim Nice-but-Dim
And with that I shall bid you good day. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 01:50 am | | Tim--Hello. In reference to it taking '18 months for a panel of experts to come to the same conclusion'. Sadly, this isn't the case. What is often glossed-over or forgotten is the fact that the diary was shown to be a shoddy fake, long before Paul Feldman or The Diary of Jack the Ripper ever showed up in the bookstores. Once upon a time Time-Warner was going to publish the diary, as was the Sunday Times. But since they valued their reputations, they brought in some experts to study the diary beforehand. These were no light weights. They included Kenneth Rendell (Hitler Diaries), Joe Nickell (Shroud of Turin fame), Robert Kuranz, Maureen Owens (Chicago Police Department, if my memory serves me right). I believe Dr. Audrey Giles was involved, and others. From the very beginning, the consensus was that the diary was a fake. The handwriting was not James Maybrick's. The ink was readily soluble; it hadn't been on the paper more than a few years. They even found a corner of a photograph (dating several decades after Victorian times) lodged in the binding. Naturally, Time-Warner decided not to publish, despite the fact that the Times estimated that the diary was worth at least 4 million Pounds, and a couple hundred thousand advance copies of the diary had been sold.
Now, I can't pretend to read the mind of the publisher Robert Smith. I don't know whether it was the 4 million Pound figure or whether it was his conviction that the diary was genuine, but something kept dancing in his head. He brought in more experts, and eventually he got some dissenting opinions. I believe some of these were good, sincere and decent people who really believed the diary was old. At this point other complications, including the watch began to surface. The diary was eventually published by Hyperion (ie., Disney, the same people who brought you Peter Pan and Fantasia).
Here is an important point. In many ways, this is not the story of a forgery, it is the story of the marketing of a forgery. Sad, but true. See Kenneth Rendell's Forging History: the Detection of Fake Letters and Documents (University of Oklahoma Press, 1994), Joe Nickell's i{Detecting Forgery: Forensic Investigations of Documents} (University Press of Kentucky, 1996), and, especially, Sunday Times, 19 September 1993, for all the gory details.
Strangely, the rest that we are now discussing is very complex, but is really merely an afterthought.
Best wishes,
the ever-sadder, and increasingly cynical,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 07:47 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
What is often glossed-over or forgotten is the fact that the diary was shown to be a shoddy fake, long before Paul Feldman or The Diary of Jack the Ripper ever showed up in the bookstores.
The ink was readily soluble; it hadn't been on the paper more than a few years.
Don't you have to be a bit careful here, not to go stating as facts, the opinions, arguments and speculations of others, in whom you personally, happen to have the most faith?
It really does give the strongest impression that you honestly believe people like Shirley, Keith, and Robert Smith, among many many others, must all have been utterly blinkered, or stupid, or insincere, or money-grabbing, or untruthful, at whatever cost to their respective reputations. You may be right. But I don't think you are.
People who try to read minds, to see what keeps dancing in their heads, and come up with only two alternatives are, in my experience, on a hiding to nothing.
Hi Tim Nice-but-Dim,
Original choice of Ripper suspect! 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 09:13 am | | Gosh, Tim, just noticed your picture too. You must have a double....I think I'll join you!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 11:51 am | | Tim - The 'panel of experts' claims tend to be greatly exaggerated postulations by people who have an axe to grind one way or another. On the one hand, Robert Smith and Feldy tend to imply that no one has ever been able to disprove the diary's genuine nature; on the other, Melvin Harris chose to bolster his own claims to priority as an expert with remarks about the consultants 'sleeping at their posts' by supposedly not having observed objections he raised.
Bad feeling was initiated at the outset of the whole diary mess when the owners of rights in it knew they needed some sorts of expert advice, but also knew that they wanted the new 'facts' to remain secret until it seemed possible to publish as a commercial venture. So all the 'panel of experts' were sworn to very strict secrecy, with signed confidentiality agreements.
Apart from Shirley Harrison and Doreen Montgomery's sensible and responsible consultaions with the British Museum and the Museum's recommended antiquarian book dealing experts, Keith Skinner was the first aboard. Those who glibly dismiss all 'the experts' as though they were incompetent or dishonest, and tie these charges to reiterating the names of familiar Ripper historians, have very little to say about Shirley's initial consultation and advice she received from well accredited experts whom most of us would have tended to accept, and who firmnly advised her to go ahead with the probability that the diary was a genuinely old document. If all the attacks that have been made on Robert Smith the publisher had been directed at his namesake the British Museum curator, and at Brian Lake of Jarndyce's antiquarian bookshop they would at least have been directed at people who might have cut off the whole diary project in its infancy. As it was, Shirley and Robert Smith redirected questions to Dr David Baxendale: the first scientific expert to give the diary close attention, and he immediately concluded that it was not genuine.
Keith Skinner was brought in by Robert Smith the publisher as, on Keith's urging, was I. Our brief was to advise Robert whether or not to buy rights in the manuscript, based on the question, 'Would anyone be able to prove instantly from the Ripper material in it that it was historically inaccurate?' The Baxendale report was not then completed, so Robert told us quite accurately that so far the experts on old documents who had looked at it thought it likely to be genuine, but in answer to my question about provenance he admitted at once it was 'about as bad as it could be'. Our examination of, first a transcript, then a facsimile of the diary persuaded us that it was most unlikely to be genuine, but on purely historical grounds the problems and lacunae we noted (not to mention the appalling spelling and grammar) invited very grave suspicion, but not conclusive proof. Our brief was not, however, to say whether we thought it was genuine, but whether we thought it was a commercially viable proposition. Bearing in mind that Joe Sickert's ongoing twaddle had received a new impetus from Melvyn Fairclough; that Jean Overton Fuller was crashing onto the scene with half-baked and misunderstood misinformation; that Melvin Harris had advanced from the valuable discovery that 'Dr Rosslyn D'Onston'really was a doctor and a Garibaldino to the indefensible assertion that he was also Jack the Ripper,it seemed clear to us that SOMEBODY was going to publish this Maybrick stuff sooner or later. We never envisaged a massive publicity campaign asserting that this was REALLY THE TRUTH AT LAST: Shirley Harrison impressed us both as a responsible journeyman writer researching the case and listening to what she was told. And if ever I accept a commercial consultation, I never forget T.E.Lawrence's misplaced belief that he had saved Standard Oil a fortune in misspent prospecting with the confident assurance that there was no oil in Saudi Arabia! So we advised Robert Smith to go ahead and make a bid for the book.
After which, with further commitment to secrecy, we accepted a brief to advise Shirley on historical content. At our urging, Paul Begg was also brought in as a consultant. His initial opinion was that the diary was so obviously bogus that he could find little or nothing to say that was in any way helpful to Shirley.
At the same time, and completely coincidentally, Paul, Keith and I were in consultation with Paul Feldman who proposed making a video on the Ripper which, at that stage, would have been definitely Druittite. Paul and Keith suggested that he approach Robert Smith and see if he could acquire film anad video rights on the new secret material, and once Feldy had done this, the picture changed.
At this stage I was extremely busy writing both 'Deadly jealousy' and 'The Chronicle of Crime' to very tight deadlines, so I was not up close to what was going on. I heard that Dr Nicholas Forshaw had concluded on psychological grounds that the diary was genuine. I knew nothing whatever about Dr Baxendale's report. I only knew that (as Keith and I recommended)the ink and paper had been submitted to scientific testing and the results had come up positive. This referred to Dr Nick Eastaugh's report, which actually said that as far as his tests went there was nothing to show that the diary wasn't from the 1890s. But some wildly exaggerated claims reached me at this time, the most notable being that the examination of Maybrick's will had shown that it was 'as clear as a fingerprint' that the diary was written in the same ink. I also heard that Anna Koren had authenticataed it, and she was the Israeli government's most trusted document examiner and had never lost a case. At this time Richard Whittington-Egan and Donald Rumbelow were also introduced to some of the material under conditions of strict secrecy, and I was told that they both agreed the diary was genuine, and that Don had observed movement in the handwriting suggesting that Maybrick wrote parts of it on the train between Liverpool and London. I was put under extreme pressure, being told that I was the ONLY person who had seen the material who still believed it was fake, so it was a great relief to me when I telephoned Richard W-E about something else, and he said to me, 'Have you seen this Maybrick diary? Did you ever see such a lot of balls in all your life?' adding hastily, 'Of course, I can't prove it,' which was just what I had said all along. (Later I discovered that Don, like me, had not at this stage seen the original, and he had certainly not tapped out a little rhythm indicating some imnaginary train journey taking place during the diary's composition).
Word was by now leaking out, especially via the Liverpool press, I think, and on learning that it was being claimed that James Maybrick was about to be proved Jack the Ripper, Melvin Harris, Stewart Evans and Nick Warren all loudly and firmly said, 'Rubbish!' in public. For this they came under a great deal of unwarranted attack by diarists who accused them of forming unjustified opinions without seeing the evidence. I for one was never party to these attacks, seeing that their estimate was historically correct - and if anyone turns up with a claim to have proved that Oscar Wilde or Thomas Hardy or Hubert Parry was the Ripper I shall, if asked, say, 'Balls!' without waiting to see the supposed evidence. Melvin telephoned me at that time asking whether the diary evidence had changed my published opinion that Cohen ws the Ripper, and I incautiously said, 'No,' realizing afterwards that this might be a breach of the confidentiality agreement I had signed, so I called Robert Smith to apologise. At the same time Melvin made his astonishingly accurate predictions to me, that the diary would prove to be written with an iron gall based ink, and it would be in an old book with the first few pages torn out. Melvin's knowledge of the physical methods of forgery and deception remains unchallenged among Ripper experts, and whatever he has to say on the subject should always be taken very seriously indeed.
The phase during which Feldy's enthusiasm had those working up close to him convinced that the diary must be genuine was never very complete and didn't last very long. It was true that the diary had been submitted to more physical tests than any other piece of Ripperana ever, and this led Paul Begg to make some favourable statements. In fact, he and Martin Howells hadn't been working on Feldy's video for more than a few weeks before they turned to each other and agreed they thought they were working on a forgery. Keith, persuaded by the exaggerated claims of scientific 'proof' that the diary must be Maybrick's work, nevertheless was quite sure that it represented aberration or delusion and was in no way an account of things that had happened. I was mystified as to how someone from the Maybrick household could have used Maybrick ink to forge this document. But noting the handwriting's conflict with the Maybrick will as crucial - (something Shirley always acknowledged as her biggest difficulty) - I was appalled at the chasing after mirages which was leading to earnest discussions of the possibility that Michael Maybrick forged his brother's will! The only Occamite 'necessity' for suggesting anything of the kind was the necessity of disposing of the clear evidence that Maybrick didn't write the diary.
Crisis point for supposed expert endorsement of the diary came when a conference of experts at the Tower Thistle Hotel was held and filmed for Feldy's videotape - (extracts from it appear). Feldy, very honourably, stayed away from it, knowing that his enthusiasm could be held to 'bounce' people into agreement. At this, for the first time, I met and heard from Drs Forshaw and Eastaugh. I learned from the former that he could propose a mental scenario which fitted the diary's being written by a maniac murderer; but without seing the patient he couldn't confirm that this was anything but his own ingenuity. A long way from proof! And I learned from Dr Eastaugh that he had never said anything like there being clear 'fingeprint-valid' proof of the ink of the diary's matching the ink of the will. Exit the most positive 'scientific' proof I had ever encountered that the diary was anything but a modern forgery. I learned in the vaguest terms of the Baxendale report at this conference: clear efforts to discredit it were being made, which I ultimately learned would not stand up.
Paul Begg was now proposing AS A HYPOTHESIS that some of the internal problems might be resolved if the diary was forgery composed within the lifetime of people who knew Maybrick. Shirley, who gets pushed (as we all may be from time to time) into making more extreme declarations of belief than she necessarily likes, thought that it was 60% or 70% probable that the diary was genuine. I was more brutal than most, saying that I was 100% sure it was fake and (now that I learned that certain dertails appeared in Don's 1987 revision of 'The Complete Jack the Ripper') I 'knew' when it was written. All this conference should still exist on tape somewhere, either in Feldy's or MIA Duocrave's possession, so that the position of 'the experts' months before the diary was published can be ascertained.
It is bosh to suggest that the diary fooled all the experts for 18 months. It is bosh to suggest that the consultants did not warn the diary's owners and proprietors of the snags in proffering it as genuine. It is fact that the consultants were all bound to secrecy until publication day. It is fact that by that time, several (including me) were so appalled by the unprincipled vilification of Shirley Harrison that we gave her and her work as much support as we could, in conscience, find it in ourselves to do.
Martin Fido |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 12:19 pm | | Martin -
A most enlightening account, which puts the record straight on a number of issues as far as I am concerned. Many thanks.
Guy |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 01:28 pm | | | I can confirm Martin's account in all but a couple of minor details, for example I did not particularly hypothesise that the 'diary' was written about the time of Maybrick. Somebody did suggest this, but it was almost immediately rejected, for reasons I cannot now recall. My old forgery suggestion was because I was concerned that people were not paying sufficient attention to when the diary was composed - opinion having polarised into genuine vs. modern forgery -and that potentially important questions were not being asked. To focus the questioning more precisely I unsuccessfully advanced the notion that maybe the ‘diary’ was an old forgery and suggested as a hypothetical scenario that it was created to add a little substance to a hoax newspaper story in or about 1939. I suggested that the outbreak of WWII had swept the hoax aside or maybe even led to the call-up of the journalist and even his death. This hypothesis was not intended as a serious proposition. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 02:02 pm | | Hi Paul!
I don't blame you for not treating my long screed of memory as Holy Writ to be studied closely. But I never suggested that you invited a diary from Maybrick's time as a potentially useful hypothesis to examine: I said 'a forgery composed within the lifetime of people who knew Maybrick'. I.e., any time up to say 60 years after his death. 1939 falls within those parameters. As far as I can recall, some time in the 1920s was being considered as a possible forgery date, but I cannot remember why.
Martin |
|
|
|
|
