|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through May 10, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 10, 2001
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 09:20 pm |        | Good morning to everyone just waking up.
In case you missed it while you slept, it now turns out that Mike David's laws of probability and statistics have, all along, been making the following stunning and insightful argument:
Whoever forged the diary must have owned it.
Only four people could have ever owned it.
Therefore one of them must have forged it.
Well, slap my head and call me Jesus!
No arguing with logic like that.
Now I wonder who forged this diary?
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 10:18 pm | | Chris,
A post on the handwriting is about to upload.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 10:20 pm | | Hi Chris,
I see you are out there tonight.
I was wondering if you ever got a chance to compare the word "Place" as written by Kane and the word "Liverpool," as written by Kane, to the same words written in the diary.
I'm up and not doing anything, so I thought we might revisit this.
As I mentioned once before, I have no expertise in these matters whatsoever. I admit that readily. But I am looking at the copy of the diary reproduced in the Hyperion edition and there are a number of letter shapes and lines and a roundness to the formations of the letters in the diary handwriting that seem on first glance to me to be completely absent from the small sample of Kane's writing we saw earlier.
Here come the two isolated samples.
Here is the word "Place," I believe.
Now, if you look closely at the last page of the diary, you'll see the sentence "I place this now in a place where it shall be found."
Check out the formation of the letters in the two appearances of "place" in the diary and then look at Kane's writing.
Next will be "Liverpool,"
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 10:21 pm | | Chris,
Next, look closely at the way Kane writes "Liverpool" in his address below.
Now look at page 216 of the Hyperion, where the forger writes "Whitechapel, Liverpool." Look at the rounding out of the "pool" and especially the final "l" and then look above.
What do you think?
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 10:24 pm | | Finally, for all involved,
Here is the complete sample taken from Tony's will.
I don't know. You be the judge. The handwriting in the Hyperion edition of the diary is easy enough to see. Compare it, if you can, to this.
Well, that did not reproduce very well. I apologize. This is the only isolated sample of Kane's writing I have.
I suppose it's too cloudy to tell anything definite.
This will have to hold us until we see the further samples that are apparently now known to exist.
Thanks everyone, for any thoughts,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 03:54 am | | Hi John
It’s an interesting conundrum, isn’t it, that thus far only two people can with absolute certainty be shown to have owned the diary. Threfore, on the basis of ownership the statistical probability is that one of them most likely forged it. Except that apparently the handwriting doesn’t belong to either of them. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 04:11 am | | Hi, John:
I think my conclusion about Kane's handwriting is that there is some similarity but no exact match. There are also differences as you point out. I do, though, see some similarity between "Place" in Kane's writing and "place" in "I place it now" on the last page of the Diary although since the latter does not offer us a capital "P" it is hard to say definitively. The diagonal slope of the letters, to the right, is similar. The lack of full rounding in the loop of the "p" is similar, rather it is a squashed oval in both -- also the "p" in "Lpool [Liverpool]" -- and so on. The "Lpool" written by Kane and the "Liverpool" in the Diary are not unlike. Look at the uneven peaks of the capital "M" which is also a characteristic in the Diary. Of course this is too limited a sample to make any conclusion that the writer was responsible for the Diary so these are just some observations I will offer while we await more extensive samples.
There are some distinct letter formations in the Diary that I would expect to see in the usual handwriting of whomever wrote this document. Look on page 3 of the facsimile (Hyperion p. 209): The top line where the capital "I" has a loop at the top, again in a squashed type of formation, and a fishhook-like formation at the bottom. The "I" is very distinctive throughout the Diary. Also right next to it the "If" in "If I" where the "If" looks like a capital "H." Compare this to "If Smith" in line 5--again the same distinctive, odd formation giving the semblence of a capital "H" as if it read "H Smith". Then a couple of places where a letters are formed oddly with either an inappropriate break in a line or of different strokes in almost an abstract figure instead of normally in one continuous line. Look at the "f" in "find" in "If Smith should find" where there is a break in the top of the "f" and a similar break in the top of the "b" in "before" at the beginning of the next line (see opening page of the Diary, Hyperion p. 207, beginning of third para, where there is also a "b" with the top broken). But more dramatically the "y" on Hyperion p. 209 in "would never hurt a fly" toward the bottom of the page where the "y" is formed oddly and not only is the loop of the "y" broken, they don't even look as if they can going to meet--the loop is made up of two strokes and those strokes are at odd angles.
Again, I am making the assumption that this is the normal writing of our forger. I think other things in the Diary, such as the long cross strokes to the "t's" and the flourishes of the pen are done to simulate old writing and are thus not pertinent to possibly identifying the writer. I hope these observations have helped, John.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 06:23 am | | Mornin' Chris,
Thanks. Very interesting thoughts. First paragraph first. I'm looking at the second "place" in the sentence "I place this now in a place where it shall be found." on the last page. The top of the 'l' on this second "place" seems also to be more rounded off to me, distinctly so, than the 'l's in Kane's writing, which seem quite thin to me. Again this is especially also true of the two "o"s and the final "l" in the word "Liverpool" on 216, which seem much fuller and rounder in the diary (you can clearly see into the loops) than they do in the same word written by Kane, where all three letters are almost closed. But I agree with your lack of a conclusion and the need for more writing samples. Absolutely.
Interesting thoughts on the distinct quality of the diary writing. I have actually thought about this before as well, and it seems to me the upper case "I" stands out immediately. But I have long suspected that the peculiar upper case "I" in the diary (which looks to me something like a tall, lower case "g" -- check out pages 216 and 217 for a number of these suckers) is deliberately written this way in an attempt to periodize the writing. I don't know this for sure, of course. But look at the upper case "I" formations on 216 and 217 and see if you don't think they seems slightly forced and a crude attempt to antiquate the letter. I think this also might be the case with the upper case "T" as well in many places. For a clear example, look at the phrase "The whore" on 217, immediately after the break, where the "T" in "The" seems to me the "T" of someone trying to write something old. I'm not sure this means that these letters are "not pertinent." It just means we have to watch what we conclude, I suppose, and could probably use an expert's help (as always).
I see what you mean about the "y" in "fly" on 209, where the line of the lower loop was obviously broken.
Something else you might want to notice: On the same page a little later, there is the word "exceedingly" and there the bottom of the "y" is completely different, with no loop at all and even finishing in the other direction, although both these "y"s end their respective words! These inconsistencies are troublesome as well. The upper case "F" above that in "For how could one suspect..." also seems to be odd and deliberately antiquated for effect.
So you are right about the problem we have with someone's natural handwriting if there is a clear attempt or two (or many) to make this writing look older than it is.
Interesting stuff, though, Chris. Thanks for the thoughts,
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 06:33 am | | I've steered clear of the mathematical arguments for some time as I'm not a mathematician and wouldn't know whether or how it can be statistically proved that the (universally admitted) suspicious circumstances surrounding Mike's identification of the Crashaw quotation and possession of the Sphere Book amount to an almost incontrovertible certainty that his ownership of the Sphere Book must have some (causal?) connection with his holding the diary.
But I do know a false syllogism when I see one, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the impossibility of proving a negative UNLESS that unproven negative is assumed as one of the premisses of the syllogism. Which is what is happening here.
We are told that the very large odds offered on one or other or both the Barretts haviong composed the diary are calculated after generously taking into account that two other postulated owners might conceivably have held it first. These, it seems are Tony Devereux (known from both stories of the diary's provenance as an alleged part of the chain bringing it to Mike)and Gerard Kane (not known to have anything whatsoever to do with the diary or the Barretts, but noted by Melvin Harris as a signatory witness to Tony Devereux's will, and so marked down by Melvin's 'extraordinary ability to nose out the truth' - I quote the wrapper of his last book - as a possible/probable writer or amanuensis of the diary). But this calculation omits at least two other potential owners of the diary put before us by name in Anne Barret's 'confession', which needs testing every bit as much as Mike's self-contradictory yarns (the most consistent of which it actually fits). As she understood it, she says, the diary was owned by her father for years, and was given to him by Granny Formby. And unless it is suggested that Granny Formby was herself the forger (which seems wildly improbable) it must have come into her hands from some previous owner. Those who still believe Maybrick lies behind it - (and it was gratifying to see the respectful welcome Robert Smith received here. Would that Shirley received similar courtesy from all posters!) - have inevitably to postulate at least one previous owner to transmit the volume from the Maybrick milieu to Granny Formby. And an unknown number of people might have handled/'owned' it after the pen fell from Maybrick's lifeless hand.
So without moving into the realm of speculation and conjecture (which, while kept within reason and not built into elaborate houses of cards, are perfectly valid alternative approaches in a case where the stories offered as evidence either conflict or seem completely implausible)we have already raised the 'possible' ownership from two to five people. I've dropped Mr Kane, because he belongs entirely to the realm of speculationa nd conjecture, and once he is let in the floodgate of 'anyone you care to suggest who can be made to fit might have owned the diary' is opened.
So, I can't argue with the maths offering definite odds if only two or four people can safely be said to have owned the diary. but from a historian's, as opposed to a mathematician's point of view, that assertion is not safe. Indeed, only three of the four fall within even the 'safe' range the mathematician intends.
If Mike were a computer, would we fear that he had been given GIGO?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 06:51 am | | Hi Martin,
Yes, and I can see, historically, the number continuing to rise as we pursue our reading of these conflicting stories.
Martin, now I want to be an "amanuensis" of something. Very cool word. I looked it up to be sure it meant what I thought it meant. The entry read: "a secretary: now a jocular usage."
That's what you are, Martin, "jocular."
Thanks,
--John
PS: Odds on history remain intriguing. What are the odds that grown, literate, intelligent, well-educated, even sophisticated men would have sat around a table in a lovely home one pleasant evening and looked at each other and calmly and rationally discussed annihilating the entire population of Jews in Europe, how to do it, how to transport them, the most efficient way to exterminate them, how and where to build the death factories, who should oversee which aspects of the project; exactly as if they were discussing a business plan or a park redevelopment task? Sorry, just a bit pensive this morning about probability and its relationship to the interpretation of history, I guess. It's back to the handwriting, for me. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 07:27 am | | Good gracious, John!
I had no idea amanuensis was now regarded as a jocularity. My use of it really wasn't intended to be facetious: it's just a normal part of my (I suppose fuddy-duddy) vocabulary, which I use for anyone who does the writing out for some one else but isn't in fact a paid secretary.
Martinm |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 07:38 am | | Hi again Martin.
Excellent, a first hand and immediate example of the linguistic principle that meaning often exceeds intention. We should no doubt keep this in mind as we read the diary text and listen to the stories and create interpretations and postulate likelihoods. And we should therefore remember that there is a degree of inevitable uncertainty built into all of our readings precisely because of this little problem, which will no doubt come back to haunt us in so many different ways.
But I still think you can be "jocular."
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 07:45 am | | Martin/John
Maybe it is jocular in the States, but it is used in a serious sense in the UK quite a lot and I can't really think of another way I would ever describe Eric Fenby other than Delius's amanuensis. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 07:49 am | | Hi Paul,
Brief thanks for not correcting me yesterday when on some board or other I wrote 'counsellor' by mistake for 'councillor' (in relation to vestrymen, not your goodself).
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 08:12 am | | Hey there, Paul,
Yeah, it might be a national thing. The dictionary that cited it as "now a jocular usage" was Webster's New World Dictionary and is, I believe, a dictionary of the so-called "American Language," as they refer to it on their cover. The Webster's New Collegiate that I also have here (which is the 150th, from back in '81) does not include the "now a jocular usage" line. Maybe it just became officially "jocular" recently over here. I love this stuff.
 Anyway, does anyone know if the other samples of Mr. Kane's handwriting that are now available can be put onto the boards here yet, so that we might have a look at them?
Just wondering,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 08:20 am | | Hi All,
I thought Robert made an interesting observation about it being worth a few hundred pounds of someone's money to have Kane's larger handwriting sample compared professionally with the diary. If I had that sample, and was getting frustrated by people telling me here that I was putting the cart before the horse by assuming guilt, I think I would be champing at the bit to pay for someone like Sue Iremonger's opinion. Of course, we don't know that such an analysis has not already been commissioned. But I think, in view of the fact that suspicions against Mr. Kane have now been doing the public round here for quite some time (and no, we don't need more comments of the "We didn't start it" variety!), the only ethical and responsible move now is for someone with access to the larger sample to do the decent thing and announce publicly that the analysis will be done and, if it turns out not to be a conclusive match, that they will announce that fact also.
Mr. Kane is of course in the unfortunate trap of not being able to prove negatives - he can't prove he didn't pen the diary, nor can he prove that he had never heard of Mike Barrett in 1992. But I do think that anyone who has their suspicions about the man, and is in a position to do something about them, has a moral duty - as Melvin himself said - to clear the man if they possibly can (and before it's too late, when everyone will be free to put the boot in). Please let's not take advantage of the trap Mr. Kane is in, by making him an easy target for our hopes and desires and expectations about this strange, yet compelling document.
What does everyone else think?
And if it really would only cost a few hundred pounds to get Sue Iremonger on the case, and Peter, or whoever else has that sample, is willing to arrange for the analysis, and send the results to Keith or Shirley, or announce them here, they can send me the bill too. How's that?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 10:47 am | | Hi All,
Well, don't all rush - those of you with Kane's larger handwriting sample - to take advantage of my offer.
While you are still thinking about it, I thought we'd have a pleasant interlude - here's a website I found over the weekend, after an internet friend of mine asked me about my daughter's school. This is it:
http://website.lineone.net/~pat.dunne/oldpalaceschool.htm
There's music too!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 11:42 am | | Hi Martin
As if I would stoop to correct you over such a minor and obviously accidental slip! Sheeesh! Forbid! I don't bear a grudge over "muttonhead". Anyway, I didn't see it. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 12:35 pm | | | The most famous amanuensis is of course Dr. John H. Watson, late of Baker Street and currently on sabbatical in Sri Lanka. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 12:49 pm | | Hi Chris,
Have you any more thoughts you could share with us, regarding how Crashaw may have come by his little niche in the diary, thereby reinforcing his status, if only in the insular world of the Maybrick curse?
For example, if you think that there is the slightest possibility that the diary composer knew more than the two lines (and was possibly misquoting from memory, rather than mistranscribing, as a result of someone else's dictation from Mike's Sphere), who do you think, out of our small bunch of modern Catholic suspects, could have known his/her Crashaw well enough to use the imagery to help enhance the sibling rivalry and 'whoring mother fixation' angles?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 01:33 pm | | Hi, Caz:
I have no real thoughts as to how the Crashaw quote came to be in the Diary other than that someone thought that the theme of intercourse and death was appropriate to the story told in the Diary of sex and murder. As John Omlor has observed, it is an odd inclusion and there appear to be no other comparable literary quotes from obscure literary works in the document. I will just observe that, as I commented in one of my last posts, just about everything in the Diary is borrowed from somewhere. There is nothing really that can be said to be original, which is one of the pointers to it being a hoax. All the facts of the Ripper and Maybrick cases can be found in published works, with the possible exceptions of the mention of Mrs. Hammersmith and the two Manchester murders which both seem invented specially for the Diary. So the Crashaw quote, it seems, was just thrown into the pot. Whenever, or I might say if ever, we find out the inside story of who forged the Diary perhaps we will find out the circumstances under which the lines from Crashaw came to be included.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 05:37 am | | Hi Chris,
Thanks for that. I agree with you about the borrowed themes in the diary. It's just that I find it hard to work out who, out of our little group of suspected modern fakers, could have thought up these themes and schemes, found and gathered in all the relevant source material, then brought it all together. And if Crashaw was another of these borrowed themes, Mike's Sphere book becomes redundant as a tool in our faker's trade. And where does that leave Mike's role in the whole saga, if his only valid-looking claim to be involved is rendered invalid? If we also consider that Mike appears to have been more or less left in sole charge, to decide what to do, or not to do, with the finished product, will 'chasing the money' really help solve anything?
Peter,
Will you be letting the board know if and when you get a reply from Mike's solicitor, to your question regarding the date the Sphere book was lodged? Thanks. And no thoughts yet, regarding my offer to fund Sue Iremonger's analysis of Mr. Kane's larger handwriting sample? We’ve got to pin this tail on the donkey somewhere, surely? That’s if you really are keen to call a halt to the diary money-making machine, and the polluting of the waters of history. I, on the other hand, just want all the bad feeling, caused by the person(s) who created the diary, to go away. So if we could join forces, couldn’t we at least try to achieve all those aims, in one fell swoop?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 07:15 am | | Absolutely, Peter, and a much needed amanuensis at that. The Great Man himself made a pig's breakfast of it when he tried to write up two of his own cases.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 10:28 am | | God, hasn't it gone quiet round here....
I've managed to clean the house from top to bottom while waiting for some response to my plea to help flush out the forgers once and for all. Perhaps all that moaning and whingeing about people getting rich on 63 pieces of historical (or hysterical) lavatory paper was hot air after all.
(Do I have time to start on the back garden now, I wonder? It's a really beautiful afternoon out there..)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 10:28 am | | Hi, Caz and John:
Ah, I see that in concurring with Robert Smith's view that surrounding text in the Diary close to the Crashaw quote "O costly intercourse" was derived from the full poem, I was agreeing that the quote was not cadged from the Sphere volume (which only gives a snippet of the poem) and that therefore Mike Barrett could not have "dun it"--i.e., dun the forgery. Oh that cunning pro-Diary Bob Smith! John, you could be right that what I supposed might be further imagery derived from the Crashaw's poem could be pure happenstance since, as you rightly point out, such imagery as blood pouring forth is hardly original and fits right in with the Ripper story and need not have come from Crashaw. Thus, on reflection, I agree with you, John. Probably the person who put the lines from Crashaw in the Diary knew nothing more about the poem and its Catholic metaphysical author other than the lines in Sphere. I do think, though, that Robert Smith made a good point that because the transcript typed on Barrett's word processor shows the lines from Crashaw as one line rather than two as in Sphere and Crashaw's full poem and of course most importantly in the Diary itself, this possibly indicates that the transcript was typed from the existing Diary not preceding it--also that Mike's original scene of him dictating from the Diary for Anne to type the transcript on the WP is the way it happened.
Moreover, of course, Paul is correct in pointing out that if the lines from Crashaw did come from Mike's copy of Sphere, which he received following the Hillsborough soccer tragedy of April 15, 1989 as a donation from the publisher, the forgery could not have been done 1987-1988 as I had mooted. Good point, Paul.
I hope this helps to clarify my current thinking for everyone on the mysterious appearance of Crashaw in the Diary. I wonder, will "Intercourse" still prove costly for someone??? 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 11:58 am | | Chris,
It always has for me.
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 12:15 pm | | Hey All:
You all probably know this already, but let me work the handwriting angle from the opposite end of the alleged timescale implied by the 'dairy.'
Can we tell from any surviving examples of James Maybrick's handwriting how closely the forger attempted to match his handwriting?
----------------
There are many types of forgeries, some of which would be pointless without a person's name (the 'Hitler Diaries,' for example) or a group which can be associated to the document (the unfortunate 'Protocols of Zion' would fit here). You can probably list other examples where a known name or spefici group is necessary for the forgery to succeed, whatever the purpose of the forgery.
1) Why would it be thought necessary to link any 'diary' of Jack the Ripper with a person who is more or less well-known (both in his own time and down to our own)?
2) Is this a clue to the forger's weak thought processes in believing that, like the 'Hitler Diaries,' a forgery is only valuable or interesting if a well-known person's name is associated with it?
3) Does is tell us that, whatever else he or she or they might 'know' or have 'learned' about the details of the JtR crimes -- the forger has little comprehension of perhaps the most significant issue in the JtR case, namely that no one knows who JtR was?
4) Is the choice of Maybrick a further clue to the naivete -- why mince words: a clue of plain stupidity -- if Maybrick's known handwriting exists which would be compared to the 'diary' to authenticate 'authorship?'
If Maybrick's handwriting exists, and little or no effort was shown in trying to match it, I would say we have a forger who is either 1) a complete simpleton; or 2) a person who neither expects to fool anyone, or is even motivated by issues/tests of authenticity.
----------------------
The diary was made public by people who live in Liverpool. The 'author' is probably the most well-known person from circa 1888 Liverpool.
What could this commonality of Liverpool mean?
1) Is it a clue to the forger's origins and scope of knowledge (stupidity enters the picture again);
2) Is it a clue pointing to a more sophisticated thought process where the forger is acknowledging limitation in his or her choice of plausible reasons why Jack the Ripper's 'dairy' turns up in Liverpool rather than London or its environs? What other reasons could there be besides economic ones for choosing Liverpool? (That is, the forger cannot afford to move toward or to London, or make appropriate connections in London, to 'place' the 'diary' closer to the scene of the alleged 'action.')
3) Is this another sign of the forger's limited intellectual capacities -- he or she thinks they know Liverpool (circa 1888 down to today) better than they ever would London?
4) Is Liverpool an outrageous neon-sign from the forger warning his or her audience that the 'diary' is fake? And further, that the people most likely to believe in or accept the 'diary' as genuine would be (simple..very simple?) people from Liverpool?
5) Is it a stroke of some kind of forgery-genius to anticipate the initial doubts that any alleged 'diary' of JtR would produce? That is, is it Liverpool because authenticators would be distracted from high-priority questions about the physical document's authenticity (the type of book, the missing pages, the ink, etc.) trying to figure out "Why Liverpool?" or "Why James Maybrick?" -- where both the 'diary' contents and the choices of historical James Maybrick from Liverpool reinforce one another to confuse and distract authenticators (professionals or, perhaps especially, amateurs)?
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 01:18 pm | | Hi Yaz
"If Maybrick's handwriting exists, and little or no effort was shown in trying to match it, I would say we have a forger who is either 1) a complete simpleton; or 2) a person who neither expects to fool anyone, or is even motivated by issues/tests of authenticity."
Well, it depends on how you personally assess the "sophistication" (for want of a better word) of the forgery. If the forger used a dip pen instead of a fountain pen and used a Victorian look-alike ink instead of a propriety ink commonly available in a newsagent, then he was aware of what experts would look for and took steps to fool them. The forger is therefore arguably neither (1) a simpleton, nor (2) someone who didn’t expect to pass expert tests. So why didn't he make some effort to fake Maybrick's handwriting?
There is a (3), of course, namely the forger didn’t use a dip pen or a Victorian ink to fool anyone; he used them because that was what was used when he wrote the ‘diary’. Of course, this is an option nobody wants to consider and which is certainly impossible if the Crashaw quote came from Mike’s Sphere book! (And thus was born the idea of an old forgery!)
But the question moves one into the area of thinking about the purpose of the forgery and whether the above actually fits Mike's purpose. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 01:22 pm | | Hi Yaz,
Interesting questions. I'll just say a word or two about one of them and then see if I think of anything else later.
Concerning the last one: It seems to me that the forgers make a wise choice when they opt for Liverpool and Maybrick rather than London and either a previously unconsidered London suspect or an already known suspect.
If they choose London and an already known suspect, they have a whole 150+ year old body of texts to deal with and all the research surrounding Jack's London and Jack's coming and goings in London and a whole bunch of other stuff and all the details of the particular known suspect that have already been discovered. Even if they choose a new and anonymous suspect, they have all the details of location and time and place and crime scene to deal with in mass quantity.
If they choose Maybrick and Liverpool, they can have their Jack get quickly out of town and they can get away with not having to fill the diary with that many particulars of time and place and comings and goings around Whitechapel. They only have to worry about where Maybrick might have been in London in general (“Middlesex,” I get it. D’oh.) and about when he could not have been there.
However, now they do have to worry, first, that there is no official documented record that Maybrick was clearly somewhere else on the nights of the murders and could not have possibly been in London and they have to worry about when they put Maybrick at home in Liverpool, specifically. By not dating the entries, they alleviate the second problem somewhat. Although, they still have to make sure they don't have Maybrick in Liverpool during a period when Maybrick would have clearly and demonstrably been in America, for instance.
Also, by choosing Maybrick, they have committed themselves to researching two cases rather than one. And since a great deal of information is already known about both, they have doubled their chances of a simple and glaring screw-up, time, place, or info-wise.
Paul has suggested some sophistication on the forgers’ part. There is at least this. They have written a diary covering at least several months in the life of a fairly well-known historical person and including and accounting for some of the best known and most-researched crimes in history, and they have managed not to simply and clearly produce a single provable inconsistency or demonstrably provable mistake of time, place, or official record. Not bad.
I have often wondered which came first for our author(s). Maybrick or the Ripper? Did they think about Maybrick and decide "Hey, he would be a good Ripper suspect!" Or did they think about writing a Ripper diary and then go out to find a good suspect and hit on Maybrick? And how did they manage finally to determine that Maybrick's whereabouts could not be officially accounted for on any of the days of or the days surrounding the murders? He was after all a businessman whose travels were, I'd suspect, at least somewhat recorded and dated.
And yet, as your first series of questions, concerning the handwriting, clearly demonstrates, they seem not to have been concerned about matches with Maybrick's writing (unless they thought that only the Will existed and it could always be argued that the writing of an addict under the influence could be explained as being altered -- especially as his mind began to deteriorate).
Odd. On the one hand there seems to be some real care (unless the dates and Maybrick's known whereabouts were just dumb luck) and on the other hand there seems to be little or no care (unless it was assumed that by not making the handwriting even appear to match they actually improve their chances of having the question of authenticity kept alive because the problem becomes more complex and paradoxical and therefore an easy explanation and an end to the matter is even further deferred).
Both questions allow for both readings, one which speculates dumb luck and the other which speculates craft and the subtleties of misdirection and profound deceit.
The book, the ink, the language, the psychology, the scientific data and its conflicts, the expert testimony about the writing style -- in each and every case, it seems to me, arguments can be made convincingly both for an incredible streak of dumb luck and, at the same time and in the opposite direction, a subtle play of strategies involving missing and partial information and the importance of providing incomplete material in all aspects of the finished product.
They might not have been able to pull off a completely convincing and successful forgery either by riding this streak of incredible luck or by using the strategies of offering only incomplete and partial information and routinely misdirecting readers and investigators with false leads and red herrings; but they have been able, so far, to avoid identification or even to avoid leaving clear and useful clues to their own particular identities.
Which reading is more likely? Has it been dumb luck or clever strategy? I don't know. What does this therefore tell us about our forgers? I don't know.
But it is fun, anyway.
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 01:31 pm | | Hi Chris
Your current thinking is that the text on Mike's word processor is there because a transcript was made from the 'diary'.
If the British Museum and antiquarian bookseller experts didn't clap eyes on the diary and immediately smell a fish, and as they were prepared to say on paper that it appeared to them to be consistent with a late Victorian date, do you think that this perhaps argues for a date of composition (i.e., the ink actually being put on the paper) in 1992 or before 1992? |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 01:45 pm | | Hi John
By "sophistication" I meant not only anything that might be deduced from the written text - storyline or plot - but also and more importantly things indicating an awareness of what experts would look for and steps taken to fool them (such as using a dip pen, Victorian look-alike ink, trying to fake a hand schooled in the mid-Victorian period and so on.
From this one might be able to deduce not only the intelligence (or awareness) of the forger. but possibly deduce purpose and intent in the sense of being able to say whether the forger expected this document to be subjected to superficial examination, rigorous examination, or was meant to fool Bongo the Clown. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 01:46 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
Thanks for your thought-provoking questions. Let me try to address some of your questions in no particular order.
As a Liverpudlian, I can tell you that James Maybrick would not have been the "most well-known person from circa 1888 Liverpool." William Ewart Gladstone was certainly the best known Liverpudlian of the day, having been born on Rodney Street, Liverpool, in 1809. Gladstone has also been mentioned as a Ripper suspect, and gave his name to the Gladstone bag that the Ripper is often said to have carried. However, Gladstone was not chosen to be the diarist most probably because the former British Prime Minister was too well known, his whereabouts during the crimes probably checkable, even if he were at his mansion in Hawarden, near Chester, chopping wood and certainly Gladstone's handwriting could be readily compared with that of the Diary.
It has been remarked, I think by Peter Birchwood or Melvin Harris, that Maybrick's will with the dead man's signature could have been readily accessed by the forger. I am not sure our forger would have necessarily have known how to access it, though. Peter as a genealogist would know and Melvin as an accredited researcher would know, but the very fact that the Diary writing in no respects matches Maybrick's handwriting betrays the fact that the forger may not have known where the will could be found. Besides, the larger and meatier samples of Maybrick's writing apparently were unknown, tucked away in Richmond (Virginia) Chancery Court, and were only brought to the attention of Paul Feldman by Anne Graham who has been regarded on this board as a "suspect" in the forgery of the Diary (she saw a reference to them in the research notes that Trevor Christie had made for his 1969 book Etched in Arsenic.
Yaz, I don't think the "diary" contents and the choices of historical James Maybrick from Liverpool do reinforce one another to confuse and distract authenticators (professionals or, perhaps especially, amateurs). I don't think placement of the Diary that we have come to know and love in London instead of Liverpool would have improved its acceptance. It is still a document that is a nonstarter as an authentic document.
I rather think James Maybrick was chosen because he was dead, he was an arsenic addict and he had a famously unfaithful wife. The Maybrick case thus offered a heady mix of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, as it were.
Last, Yaz, I don't think the Diary was likely to be granted more acceptance in Liverpool than elsewhere. Just look at the worldwide success of the Diary books, first Harrison's, then Feldman's, and more latterly Anne Graham's. I understand Harrison and Feldman's books have well outsold most Ripper titles.
The foregoing may not address all your questions, Yaz, but possibly gives us some more to think about. My head is already hurting. 
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 02:00 pm | | Hi, Paul:
As I remarked before, I think the Diary writing must have been put on the page before 1992, possibly in 1991 or earlier, since the documents experts in 1992 thought it looked old and not brand new on the page and judged it "consistent" with a Victorian vintage.
Our conversations about how sophisticated the forger was are kind of getting like the debate over whether Jack was an organized or disorganized killer. Yes, the forger used a dip pen. That makes him/her organized, just like one profiler's remark that Jack was an organized killer because he brought his knife with him.
I think the lack of match of the handwriting shows lack of sophistication, as I remarked in my last post, but the fact that the forger has not fallen into any readily perceived traps in terms of mistakes of dates and places (with the possible exception of our much argued about debate over the Poste House) shows, as John remarks, a certain level of guile on the part of our hoaxer.
All the best
Chris |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 02:03 pm | | Hi Paul,
Right. I thought that too and I understand what you mean. That's why I offered the little list of things scientific and expert near the end of my post -- each of which either produces clear evidence of an incredible streak of dumb luck on the the forgers' part or an awareness of the subtleties necessary for keeping your finished product problematic, incomplete, and indeterminable in order to keep alive your deceit.
I just can't decide which is more likely, that so many of these things were accidental and that's the only and incredible reason that they avoided quick detection, or that they really knew what they were doing in each case and played it masterfully by never giving away too much information or allowing the product to be too easily analyzed or too thoroughly determinable, or perhaps some odd and unlikely combination of both.
That's why I'm still not sure what, if anything, this tells us about our culprits.
Chris, paracetamol with codeine. It's the one thing the Brits can walk into a store and buy that we can't that I miss from my travels there. "Co-codamol" they call it, from Boots. I have to use mine sparingly because I'm not over there enough to keep myself well stocked. But my head loves it.
Bye for now,
-- John |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 02:25 pm | | Hey:
Am I to understand from your third option, Paul -- "of course, namely the forger didn’t use a dip pen or a Victorian ink to fool anyone; he used them because that was what was used when he wrote the ‘diary’." -- that the possibly exists that the diary is either 1) from James Maybrick, or 2) the forgery is at least as old as the appropriate timeframe? This question isn't meant to raise the hackles on pro-forgers/anti-diary (Is the glass half empty or is the glass half full?). I just want to know if either of these two options still need to be considered -- even if "evidence" is slim or disputed or whatever. To use an analogy, I just don't want to purposely close one eye when I already have trouble seeing out of the other.
John's observations on the Maybrick choice would lead me to to start with the idea -- in the absence of data we either have not introduced or do not currently possess -- that the forger was more sophisticated, knew at least enough about the craft of forgery to attempt to pass the Maybrick/Liverpool idea vs. the hypothetically safer idea of a complete unknown living in or near London.
(Any research in census data or cemetaries, could produce on a man in the 20-40 year old range, who died any time after Kelly's murder, who left few if any handwriting samples, and whose life could not be compared with JtR events because of his anonymity/obscurity).
So even a hypothetically sophisticated amateur forger had a valid choice between the relative safety of an obscure person and the risks inherent in choosing a known person like Maybrick. He had this choice because he was not an imbecile who simply picked the name/person of James Maybrick out of thin air, local legends, whatever.
But we aren't comfortable with even a theory that explains this choice yet. So we still should keep asking ourselves as we proceed, "Why Maybrick/Liverpool and no other?" Yes?
Maybe more data will make this choice clearer -- maybe not, but who wants to be a pessimist at this stage, eh? Don't be shy.
Now perhaps Martin and/or Chris could examine these few issues from the point of view of one motive for the forgery: a practical joke where the practioner is sophisticated (and perhaps lucky as well) and meant to reveal the joke before things got out-of-hand. (If they wouldn't mind, would they also consider an expansion of this thought where the hypothetical practical joke was perpetrated maliciously and the forger had no intention of ever revealing the "joke?")
Does anything we've said so far aid and abet this theory or, pessimists rejoice, knock this idea down, temporarily?
Back to Paul's other post on the "British Museum and antiquarian bookseller experts." It would seem to me that we might politely examine the examiners.
1) What did they officially commit themselves to saying about the 'diary?' The words "appeared" and "consistent with" seem to leave not just the back door open for a hasty retreat, but also several windows and a few sections of wall, as well.
2) Are we unreasonable when we expect any expert to "immediately smell a fish" if at least minimum care has been expended to avoid submitting obviously mistakes (as in, loose-leaf, college-ruled paper written in psychodelic tangerine felt tip ink -- with the dots over the lower-case letter "i" being drawn in the shape of a little heart)?
3) What exactly were the experts asked, by whom, how much time were they given to consider the question(s), and what restrictions regarding any physical test (possibly destructive of even a tiny piece of the 'diary') were explicitly placed on them, and what restrictions are simply implied when handling rare, valuable antiques unless permission is offered (by the owners of the 'diary') or given (if the experts even asked for such permission)?
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 02:49 pm | | Before I forget, either myself or an anti-diarist/pro-forgery proponent could and should legitmately request that the basic premise contained in the 'diary' -- that is, 1) Maybrick as an alleged arsenic addict, and 2) Proof that Maybrick indeed was historically known to be an addict of any substance -- be excluded from our current consideration and, more importantly, from the thinking of the "experts" called upon to date the book and the writing.
The 'content' of the 'diary' should be ignored in determining the age of the book, the writing/ink, and the date when ink was set to paper. Introducing the content at this point also introduces a potential bias to prove not just the physical "facts" but also the premise of what is, after all, a suspected forgery. We play into the forger's hands if we, at this time, confuse the two issues.
And why, if the 'diary' isn't even a book intended as a diary or even to be written in -- it is a photo album, isn't it? -- isn't that cause for an "expert" to "smell a fish?" (I love that term -- better than the American variation of "smelling a rat!!!")
And why, if Melvin Harris could predict a forgery by one simple criteria -- the first pages would have been cut out -- why isn't this another cause for peculiar odors emanating from the 'diary's' direction?
(Yes, we should test Melvin's premise -- not because Melvin suggested it, but because we need to know if and of what kind any counter-explanations could be offered to divert us from our argument that the 'diary' is a forgery. I happen to thik Melvin's premise is sound and I tip my proverbial hat to him -- me, or my hat, or Melvin by themselves should satisfy our need for data to prove forgery and to disprove any other alternative.)
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 03:03 pm | | Hi Yaz,
Yes, I thought about the joke scenario myself (and about the forger being a budding young Ripperologist or student of the case and therefore knowing stuff in advance of the project's beginnings). And this would account for the lack of others profiting besides Mike and Anne, even though neither of them now seem likely to have been the actual penman (perhaps, always perhaps). Jokesters might have vanished in shame when this whole thing got out of hand, in order to protect their own reputations. But, and this is an insurmountable "but(t)" I'm afraid -- and I've seen more than a few of those in my time, let me tell you, living as I do within walking distance of the beach and the Gulf of Mexico -- but, this would be an awfully time-consuming and elaborate practical joke considering that the forgers had picked two well-known and researched figures and cases and had to make sure that Maybrick's known comings and goings even allowed for him to be the Ripper and that the sixty-three pages of reviewable material in this book had to pass the age and ink and paper and writing tests at least well enough to make the joke be more than simply lame. There is some serious effort put into this thing -- even if the writing is not all that compelling or sophisticated and the narrative is conventional and obviously fictionalized and melodramatic and not random enough to be a believable diary.
Again, much depends here on who came first, the Ripper or Maybrick. If this started with the idea that Maybrick would be a good Ripper candidate and no one had suggested him, then the process takes on one speculated set of events. If this began as a "let's fake a diary of Jack the Ripper" project in need of suspect, and a search was made and Maybrick was then found, this takes on a different speculated set of events. The location of the diary in Liverpool might at first suggest that the Maybrick case caught someone's eye, it was linked in their head to the time of the Ripper murders, dates were checked for obvious conflict, and an idea was born.
But -- and this is important, lest we assume too much -- there is also no evidence that this text was actually written in Liverpool. We first see it there, yes, and all the stories we have so far place it there, Anne's and Mike's and Mike's II (the sequel), and Mike's III ("The Revenge"), and Mike’s IV ("The Legend Continues"), etc. But if Tony did give this diary to Mike in a brown paper wrapper (did Mike hope it was porn, I wonder? -- No, probably not, as he supposedly let little Caroline watch him open it), then Tony must have gotten it from somewhere (if not from Anne) and the tracing back of its origins to the scene of composition could certainly take us outside of the city limits.
So I don't know. But the joke idea seems a bit unlikely (leaving aside for the moment the glaring and important fact that there is no real evidence of any sort whatsoever to support it yet and it is pure fantasy and speculation to begin with), because of the very elements of care (or incredibly dumb luck) that we have recently been chronicling.
Of course, if all the circumstances regarding the reception of this diary (the undecidable and conflicting results of: the ink analysis, the handwriting analysis, the science, the linguistic content, the textual research, the Ripper and Maybrick information, the problems of unknown events being referenced, etc.) were the result of a careful and strategic play of partial information, misdirection, subtle deceits and false leads and deliberately and consciously produced indeterminable artifacts and styles --- then this is one hell of a joke. If all of these things and their accompanying uncertainties of age and of authenticity and consistencies of content were actually the result of an incredible streak of dumb luck and fortuitous circumstance -- then these are very, very lucky people.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 03:23 pm | | Hi, John:
My hunch is Maybrick came first, and someone thought Maybrick would make a great Ripper. As Melvin has remarked, the forgery was probably done on the heels of the Prince-as-Ripper stories of the 1970s and the idea that anyone could be considered as a suspect. One of the things I keep thinking about in terms of Mike Barrett, whether he is the forger or not, is that he has apparently remarked a number of times that he thinks the Ripper is a big story, the greatest of all time, etc. Whether that makes him our forger, I don't know, but whomever has concocted this tale knew that it would capture the public's imagination. And unfortunately it has. It has become a new myth just like the Prince-as-Jack myth. Hey, Hollywood beckons!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 03:36 pm | | Hello
Wouldn't it be rather a 'no-brainer' for someone from Liverpool to choose a local suspect if they set out to forge a diary of Jack the Ripper? It would speak to provenance. If a scrap metal dealer suddenly showed up with a London diary one would wonder where he got it; yes, we still wonder where Mike got the Maybrick diary, but being from Liverpool, several provenances were happily offered: the Knowlsey Buildings, a Formby/Yapp link, a renovation of Battlecrease. The choice of Maybrick only suggests to me that the author(s) of the diary were from Liverpool, little else.
As to the 'expertise' of the forgers: frankly, I tend toward 'shoddy' forgery rather than 'sophisticated' forgery. Studying the various Maybrick books, I am quite certain that the Maybrick material came from Bernard Ryan's "The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick". As far as I can tell, it's all there: Bobo, Lowry, brother William, etc. (Christie/Morland wouldn't work). If the forger had been a Ripper expert, I think it would have been hard to resist the alleged Ripper letters from Liverpool (McCormick again) that are included in many of the more well known Ripper books of the 60's & 70s (Farson, McCormick, Knight). Why not use those letters?--they were happily "lost" [if indeed they ever existed] and certainly would have been more natural than using both the 'Dear Boss' and the 'Lusk' letters, and given some interesting corroboration. But the letters aren't used & Maybrick isn't put in the Minories. What does this suggest? I think Harris made a good guess that Middlesex street was pinched from Underwood's book, which mentions it.
As to the Crashaw lines: when this thing is finally solved, I'll buy everyone here curry dinner in Brick Lane if those lines didn't come from the Sphere History! Since no denials are forthcoming, am I right in assuming Mike did own the Sphere history prior to the diary being brought to London?
Caz--apologies; but I didn't mean my remarks to sound sarcastic. You are on good terms with some that are close to the diary investigation; you have been able to post information that has been hard to get at. I think I have thanked you for it several times, but thanks again.
RJP |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 03:43 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
Of course, American documents examiner Joe Nickell and documents dealer Kenneth W. Rendell, both of whom were shown the Diary, did sniff a very foul-smelling fish ("straight from the River Mersey" we might say) and made it very clear that they did so in the 1993 Hyperion edition of Shirley's book even if other "experts" hedged their bets.
Best regards
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
