|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 04, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through June 04, 2001
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 09:42 am |        | | So, if Mike and Anne did not write it (because the handwriting isn’t theirs) and they didn’t enlist someone to write it for them (because there is no evidence that anyone else benefited), then the ‘diary’ came from… ? |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 09:45 am | | Hi Paul,
Some fun, eh?
-- John |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 09:52 am | | Hi, John and Paul:
I think we have reached the stage where we are counting angels on the head of a pin. And the only two "angels" dancing on that pin are Mike Barrett and Anne Graham. 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 10:14 am | | Hi All,
Anne claimed that she wrapped the diary in brown paper and tied it with string before taking it to Tony, and Mike claimed it was wrapped and tied like this when he first got it. I can’t recall if Mike or Anne ever claimed that Tony knew what was in the package before Mike allegedly opened it in front of Caroline, then started pestering him for answers.
Hi John,
I agree that Mike’s stories are all so problematic that we can’t afford to assume any of them are true – even when he appears to be supporting the opposition! But it might be interesting if any of Mike’s remarks, appearing to support the idea that Anne knew something of the diary’s origins that Mike didn’t – such as Tony’s alleged “Look on your own doorstep”, and Anne’s alleged opposition to Mike going public - were made at the same time as he was bitterly refuting the idea that Anne’s story could be true. I’d be slightly surprised, even given Mike’s capacity for instant contradiction, and telling lies that give him no obvious advantage, if he told Feldy and Keith a lie because it was what they ‘wanted to hear’, despite it also being the very thing he appeared to want no one to believe – not Feldy, not Keith – no one. As far as I know, Mike has always been very unhappy with the idea that Anne - and his late father-in-law Billy - could possibly have had this diary all along. This could of course be because he knows it’s rubbish, except that he still hasn’t gone the whole hog and proved it. Or could it just be that he feels totally betrayed and foolish for effectively having been duped by his ex-wife and her father?
I don’t think Mike has ever done anything particularly clever or complex when talking to different people about the diary. I think he has just tried to keep two balls in the air at the same time – a kind of insurance. He sees potential money and prestige in both stories, whether it comes from being the man who gave the world Jack the Ripper’s confession, or being the world’s greatest forger. I can’t see him being happy with anything that threatened both stories. He started at the top and has been climbing down ever since – from being told that the diary is a fake, to Anne telling everyone that it originated with her, not Mike, to having to modify his original claim that he forged it single-handedly, presumably because no one was ever remotely taken in by that one.
I don’t know why Mike named Tony, and ‘put him in the middle of all this mess’, but the discovery of the RWE pamphlet in Tony’s home does give us something more than Mike’s word to go on. Mike claimed it was very important to him because it gave him the breakthrough he was looking for to discover the diary author’s identity. This could all be rubbish, of course, but if so, and Tony didn’t have anything whatsoever to do with the diary, what was it doing in his house? And does it fit with an excited Mike needing to tell someone about this breakthrough, and naturally choosing the man who was still refusing to say where he got the diary from? Did Mike think he was more likely to loosen Tony’s tongue by involving him and sharing his research efforts with him? Seems a reasonable and logical thing to do - if Mike got it from Tony and knew nothing else – but then, Mike isn’t always reasonable and logical, is he? (Damn!  )
Hi Peter,
You wrote:
It was therefore embarrassing that Nancy Steele had seen the book in her father's possession and later gave it to the police.
That’s a pretty emphatic statement to make, unless someone actually told you they were embarrassed. Not taking a leaf out of Melvin’s ‘postulation of thought processes’ book, are you?
I’m not sure why anyone would be remotely embarrassed by Nancy Steele’s confirmation of a likely diary connection between Tony and Mike, where otherwise there would only have been Mike and Anne’s word for it.
As has been shown, the RWE pamphlet in itself doesn’t tell us anything definitive about anyone’s guilt or innocence. It has been seen as suspicious, by those who think Tony and Mike were involved in forgery together. But equally it could have a perfectly innocent explanation, as I think I have shown above.
You also wrote, concerning Mike’s account of obtaining the scrapbook used for the diary:
Or might it have been too embarrassing if the result was that the scrapbook was actually sold in 1992?
Again, that odd word. Embarrassing for whom, exactly, to have information revealed that would have stopped all the diary nonsense back in 1997? I assume you can’t possibly be referring to Shirley or Keith, or anyone who supported their repeated requests for Melvin to reveal his information. So your question doesn’t seem to make any logical sense, or have any point to it, apart from, as Paul suggested, to question the integrity and objectivity of certain researchers - just for the sake of it, and not necessarily because you have any reasonable grounds for doing so. Why, Peter? Why?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 10:36 am | | We all have different fields of expertise, Paul. That's why you write about computers and I'm in the business of finding people and doing legal research.
You (and others) are always going on about the integrity of researchers when what you should be dealing with is the integrity of authors. The point here is this: it was necesary to examine MB's "confession" to see whether there was any truth to it. It was therefore important to see whether his story about finding the scrapbook in the auctioneers had any merit. It must have been clear that whatever could be said for or against the confession, the dates mentioned were completely unreliable. It was therefore sensible to ask the auctioneers not to rely on the dates mentioned but to check back from the time the diary entered the public domain. This was not done. We are therefore told that although the dates in the confession re for example the purchase of the red diary are wrong, the date for the purchase of the scrapbook must be right and searching after that date was unnecesary.
And if there had been found in the Outhwaite records an indication of a lot containing an old scrapbook and a ships compass in early 1992, what would that have done to the continued publication of the diary books?
And speaking about the "does not conform to our practices" bit, how does this auction house operate anyway? In most auctions I've been to, you bid for your item, you get a number or ticket and then you go to the desk, give the clerk the ticket and pay and you get your lot. That sounds more or less like what MB says he did. If Outhwaites (Auctioneers and Valuers of Southport) have a radically different way of doing business, I would like to know what it is. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 10:51 am | | Oh, and one other question for you Peter,
Does your question:
Or might it have been too embarrassing if the result was that the scrapbook was actually sold in 1992?
mean that you are still considering the possibility that the diary could have been written as late as 1992?
If nothing else, it certainly implies that you think the diary researchers were genuinely worried that this might turn out to be the case, doesn't it? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 11:05 am | | And another couple:
"Furthermore, we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner which he describes...’
What part of 'have never' do you not understand, Peter?
And what possible advantage would these disinterested auctioneers have for making such an emphatic statement if it wasn't the case?
Sorry, three:
Or do you have any information to support a suspicion that these auctioneers were somehow not disinterested in the diary affair?
Oh blast, four:
Is it clutching at straws time again, like trying to suggest that the payment which corresponded with the order for the maroon diary could actually have been for some other book?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 11:10 am | | Peter,
You wrote:
In most auctions I've been to, you bid for your item, you get a number or ticket and then you go to the desk, give the clerk the ticket and pay and you get your lot. That sounds more or less like what MB says he did.
Well, perhaps Mike did exactly what you've just done, and assumed this would be how Outhwaites would have done their business.
And we all know what comes of making one too many assumptions in a case like this.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 11:24 am | | The best assumption yet would be that Mike Barrett knew how Outhwaites operated, and told the truth, while Outhwaites themselves didn't, or lied!
A bit like poor old Voller knowing less about his own ink than good old Mel and Karoline, I guess.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 11:34 am | | Hi, Caz, Peter, and Paul:
Before things get heated here once more, I think Peter's questions are reasonable. After all, we are dealing with a highly questionable document that came from somewhere. Mike Barrett's first January 1995 affidavit contained mention of the small red 1891 diary but with a date of purchase that was wildly off. He gave a January-February 1990 purchase date instead of the actual, provable March 1992 purchase date. It is therefore not unreasonable for those of us who think the photo book may also have been purchased by somebody, if not by the Barretts by someone else, to follow up Mike's statement and see if by any chance the auctioneers may have sold it to him, along with the compass he says he purchased from the auctioneers, in 1991 or 1992 rather than 1990 as Mike stated. In addition, if the auctioneers use (or used) a different method in their sales, I, along with Peter, would like to know what it is.
I hope these queries of ours are not viewed as our questioning Keith's integrity, or anybody else's integrity. For my part, that is certainly not the case. I believe Peter and I both wish to get to the bottom of the circumstances that led to this very mysterious document being foisted upon the world. I hope our queries therefore are greeted in the spirit of honest enquiry instead of being questioned. Thank you.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 11:44 am | | Embarrassed? Well imagine the situation if the work had been done properly and Outhwaites had found a record of a sale that agreed with MB's story. It's important to look at the dates. MB's "confession" is dated January 5th 1995. According to Shirley (p312, Blake) just before that date he had taped an interview with her and others saying that he'd not forged the diary. (Maybe we can see this transcript on the boards?)
She says that his written confession was "soon in general circulation." and by 1996 was on this board. But according to her, it wasn't until January 30th 1997 that Doreen Montgomery (oddly not Shirley herself) received the letter from Outhwaites Director. Did Outhwaites take two years to search their records or is it more likely that no-one bothered to ask them to do this until about the start of 1997?
Granted that this wasn't MB's first confession or indeed his last but it did deserve to be checked. Likewise all his confessions needed to be checked in case there was any indication that one of them might have been true.
Shirley's books are written from the viewpoint that Maybrick was the author of the diary and also JtR. That's fair enough: all authors take some viewpoint. The totally disinterested (Ah, Martin!) author probably doesn't exist and if he did would probably write an unreadable book. It does mean that there is a temptation to emphasise the points that tend to prove the author's assertions and downplay the ones that don't. So, then, what would you do if you are working hard on your new edition and you have something like MB's confession dumped in front of you. If it's proved true, then you, the author, have a major embarrassment. Even so, it would be the author's duty to get it checked and I would hope that that was done very quickly. Maybe the date problems were found out and it was decided that the whole thing was on the face of it, false and so no further action was needed. Only Shirley can tell us that. Also, please note that I have no idea who finally contacted Outhwaites and it was probably done by letter from the Rupert Crew office so any attempt to charge me with attempts to malign Keith Skinner are pure mischeif-making.
Finally, let's look at Shirley's "facts" concerning MB's Jan 5th confession. (p315.)
1/ The red diary was in fact purchased after the diary had been brought to London. Wrong. It was bought before the trip but was paid for afterwards.
2/Tony Devereux did die in August 1991
3/ Regarding the auction, see above.
4/The diamine problem has been addressed by others.
5/ Melvin Harris has pointed out the probable confusion between Tenniels "mark" and the name of the engraver which could have led MB togive the name as PW Wenn.
6/ I have no opinion on the blot.
7/ We've covered the handwriting problem before but we do need a test by a reputable FDE on the diary and original contemporary letters from all concerned.
8/ MB hasn't "consistently failed to honour his contractual share of research expenses..." Most of them were deducted by Rupert Crew before he got paid.
So to make it quite clear for those who have any interest in this affair, the embarrassment would be that of the author concerned: Mrs Harrison who might have seen the possibility, if she authorised the proper research in the auctioneers records, of the whole story of the diary collapsing completely by the discovery that the scrapbook had been purchased at the auction but two years later than MB said. I hope that I'm wrong and that Shirley can assure us that the search was properly done in a timely fashion and that MB was again proved to be inventing a story. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 11:49 am | | Caroline Morris:
Don't be silly.
We need to know how Outhwaites handled their sales so that we can see how near or far from that system MB's story is.
Is there any part of that that you don't understand? |
Author: Robert Smith
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 01:43 pm | | RE: MELVIN’S POST OF 25TH MAY 2001 ON THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE BOARD
Sphere was, as I said earlier, a paperback company, similar to Penguin. Exceptionally, either company would publish a book in hardback, but the reasonable assumption would be that any book published by paperback companies, like Sphere and Penguin, would be in paperback format. However, I don’t imagine for a moment that Melvin deliberately held back the information that Mike’s copy was a hardback edition.
Shirley, in the Blake edition of “The Diary of Jack the Ripper”, provided the date of 30th September 1994 as the day on which Mike announced to her that he had found the Crashaw quote in the Sphere History of Literature, Volume 2, titled English Poetry and Prose 1540 – 1674. When and where did Alan (or is it Allan, as Melvin has it?) Gray first state that Mike had described a book to him as a “Sphere book about poems” (Melvin’s post of 15th May 2001), or as he has it in his post a few days later on 25th May 2001, a “Sphere book of poems”. Neither description is of course correct, except for the word “Sphere”. Did Gray make a written file note in September 1994, or is he recalling the event months or even years later?
Melvin’s posting on 16th May 2001 says that Mike made his statement “in the first week in September”. In Melvin’s post on 25th May 2001, the timing has subtly moved to “by the first week in September”. The slight vagueness would be less worrying, if it were not for your insistent emphasis that Mike’s disclosure on 30th September 1994 is “much later” than the “first week in September” and that “by the first week in September” is “way before” 30th September. Given that we had all been looking for the quotation for three years, three or four weeks is a very short time span. The crucial point to note is that 30th September 1994, when Mike chose to tell us that he had found the quote, is not necessarily the date on which he had actually found it. Mike would have been more than capable of finding the quote several weeks earlier, realised that another copy of the Sphere book had passed through his hands and could be retrieved from his girlfriend’s son, and put it aside for a few weeks, until he could use the information to his advantage. His total preoccupation at that time was his hatred of his wife and his love for his daughter who, in his view, had been taken away from him by Anne. The diary had become a potent weapon in the wars of the Barretts.
Anne had made her surprise confession on 31st July 1994. While it corroborated Mike’s original account that the diary had been passed to him by Tony Devereux, it made Mike out to be a false confessor to forgery. Just five weeks earlier, on 24th June 1994, Mike had made his “confession” to the Liverpool Daily Post. I am quite sure from my various conversations with Mike at that time, that he made that confession solely to inflict maximum hurt on Anne, but by September 1994, he had at his disposal a means to rubbish Anne’s confession. Previously unable to produce a single piece of evidence to link him with the forgery, he now had a fragment of circumstantial evidence, in the shape of the Sphere book, to support his story that he had forged the diary. Crazy though it sounded to us at the time (he was risking loss of income, even legal action), he was prepared to suffer any damage to himself if he could destroy Anne’s reputation and perhaps get his daughter back. Privately, Mike stands firmly by his belief in the genuineness of the diary. Maybe he did mention to Alan Gray something about a Sphere book, but it doesn’t sound as though Gray’s statement, when we finally get it, is going to be definitive.
I agree with John Omlor, that if Mike had had the means to present circumstantial evidence about the Sphere book, prior to his 24th June confession, he would have used it. And John has to be right, that if Mike was involved in forging the diary, then he would have found the quote by April 1992. Taking Melvin’s information that Mike first talked about a Sphere book in September, or even August, we only know for sure that by 30th September 1994, he had identified the quote from Crashaw and knew it was in the Sphere book. The paperback of the diary edition was published only days later on 6th October 1994. Mike was furious with Anne’s confession, published for the first time in the new eidtion. Whether or not Mike ever did lodge the Sphere book with his solicitor, from this point on he is intent on mayhem, mostly directed at Anne. The hoax-busters were working hard trying to nail down Mike’s complicity in a forgery, while Mike worked with Alan Gray to produce his sworn statement of 5th January 1995.
In all of this, the one thing Mike and Anne agree on is that Devereux passed the diary to Mike. As provenance, it couldn’t have been worse. A clever forger might have made up a better story, such as the diary being found by builders working at Battlecrease House! But for the moment try to assume that Anne and Mike were telling the truth. Shirley has written how their daughter Caroline did confirm crucial parts of the Devereux story and now it seems to me one of the more believable stories in the diary saga. I don’t think Tony Devereux was a close friend of Mike’s, just one of the people who drank at The Saddle. His house was conveniently on the way from Mike’s house to the pub. Certainly Devereux’s daughters didn’t think they were buddies, and they knew nothing about the diary. Mike told me early on how he had gone to visit his friend Tony in hospital prior to his death. He was, Mike said, in Fazakerley Hospital. Shirley has Devereux dying in Walton Hospital. Perhaps we shouldn’t wonder that he gets the year and month of Devereux’s death wrong in his January 1995 confession.
Anne’s confession, wrung out of her by Paul Feldman, possibly working on her annoyance at Mike’s forgery claim a month or so earlier, may well contain the true explanation of how the diary got into Mike’s hands, but I keep an open mind on what happened prior to 1991/2, not so open, though, as to imagine either of the warring Barretts could have carried off a forgery of a diary. As for them working together technically and creatively on a clever forgery – by 1992, they just weren’t working together at all. And if one’s view is that it’s a transparent forgery, then what does that say about the very clever people who have tried for the best part of a decade to bust it?
THE INK
I’ve said pretty well everything that I can contribute to the ink debate, and you’re probably suffering fatigue with my overlong posts.
My purpose was to evaluate the various scientific reports as they lay before us. I am sorry that in the five or six years since I last thought about the ink, that I had forgotten about Leeds being supplied with post-1992 Diamine ink by Nick Warren, a fundamental error which should have been checked and rectified at the point of supply, I would have thought. Again, excuse my ignorance, but where have the scientific results of Nick Warren’s tests on the pre-1992 ink been made available? Assuming he is correct that Diamine MS ink will bronze in three years, how can he or Melvin confirm it will bronze “just as the Diary ink bronzed in three years”? Alec Voller noted on 30th October 1995: “It is barely visible. In one or two places there is some very slight bronzing”. It would be instructive for an ink expert to look at Nick’s Diamine writing sample now and compare it with the diary writing today. My lay view is that the expert today would have as tough a job as Alec Voller did in 1995, in finding a clear pattern of visible bronzing in the diary, even after another six years have elapsed. We know from Dr Eastaugh and Leeds that iron was a minor element in the diary ink. In contrast, in Voller’s formula for pre-1992 Diamine ink, which Martin Fido posted on 26th May 2001, Ferrous Sulphate appears to be a major ingredient. And the Silicon, Sulphur and Aluminium, which are major elements in the diary ink, are not listed at all by Voller as ingredients in the Diamine ink.
Melvin, how do you answer my point that Chloroacetamide is either not present at all, or alternatively, is in trace form only, in the diary ink (Leeds and Analysis for Industry), but is a major ingredient in pre-1992 Diamine ink, according to Voller’s formula (0.26 parts per hundred).
Alec Voller, Diamine’s former Senior Chemist, was categorical in 1995 that the diary ink was “not Diamine manuscript ink”, and the points I have made from the available scientific evidence strongly support his opinion. I would be the first to admit that my views must be supposition, until validated or corrected by one or more professional ink scientists. In the meantime, it is not a fact that the diary was written with Diamine ink. It is much more likely to be a fact that it wasn’t.
I would not be against further tests on the diary, as long as I, and the main protagonists, were convinced that the tests would be reliable, decisive, and accepted by the principal parties concerned. We would also have to come up with a fair means for funding such tests. I have to say that I am not keen to witness further physical damage to the diary, such as the plethora of neat round holes made in the diary paper by the Rendell team in Chicago, or the snags made by the office paperclips, which Analysis for Industry apparently used to remove their paper samples. Putting Diamine ink on the diary paper is a defacement, into which one cannot enter lightly. One could, for instance, initially experiment on similar paper from the Victorian period, to see if the tests are likely to yield decisive results.
BOURNEMOUTH
If Adam or Paul want me to bring the diary to the Bournemouth Conference, I will need to be convinced that security will be tight (as it was when I took the diary to a lecture at the National Film Theatre), and that it will not be handled directly by the participants in the conference. It could, for instance, be mounted open in a closed and locked glass case for inspection, again as at the National Film Theatre. Forgery or no forgery it has to be preserved in good condition, so that it can be usefully available to experts, who may be able to provide a breakthrough in solving its mysteries. |
Author: David Hayes
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 04:21 pm | | Hi there everyone. I'm new to the boards and have a question or two.
It may have been discussed before, but were AG and MB's handwriting samples tested against different parts of the diary? Anyone with an interest could have picked up books dealing with serial killers and find out that handwriting changes with emotion (specifically the John Douglas book that I can't remember the name of).
If that is so, couldn't the diary have been written by more than one person? The actual text itself I mean, not just the "story." |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 05:02 pm | | Peter,
I am not sure what bearing what we do to make the daily crust has on the doubt you throw upon the integrity of the researchers and the consequent bias it reveals in your assessment of the evidence. You wrote: but I feel from what Paul said that the investigation may have been done on the principle of trying to disprove MB's confession rather than trying to find the truth. I can see no justification for this. Shirley sought to validate Mike Barrett’s confession. Whatever her personal hopes for the outcome may have been, there is no reason to suppose that she was not interested in finding the truth.
Likewise, there is no reason to suppose that the investigators ‘needed’ to bring in the RWE book or that they ‘didn't really want’ correspondence between him and Devereux or that it was ‘embarrassing’ that Nancy Steele had seen the book in her father's possession and later given it to the police. You represent the investigators as consciously manipulating the evidence in the way they interpreted and researched it so that it supported their case. But this is your personal interpretation of the motives and reactions of the investigators and it is one that questions their integrity and honesty.
You can believe this if you want to, but I think it requires rather more supportive evidence than what you think Shirley Harrison consciously did or did not do or may have done or not done in any given circumstance. As far as I know, she sought to test Mike Barrett’s confession, provided the relevant material to Outhwaite and Litherland, was informed as has been quoted and accepted that statement and has reported that statement in good faith. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 01:59 am | | Hi Chris
I welcome your comments, but Peter’s questions do question the integrity of those conducting the research. That Shirley Harrison could and should have done more to establish whether the book was supplied by Outhwaite and Litherland may be fair comment, but to suggest that she was more interested in disproving Mike’s confession than in establishing the truth is a gross insult and, in view of recent discussion, extraordinarily insensitive. As are other of Peter’s remarks about what he imagines the researchers motives were and his notion that complaints are merely foundationless mischief making. If this is the way this debate is going to be handled, I think I’ll bow out altogether. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 02:18 am | | Hi Peter,
We need to know how Outhwaites handled their sales so that we can see how near or far from that system MB's story is.
When did you arrive at this particular 'need to know'? Yesterday? Two weeks ago? Or back in 1998, when Shirley's Blake edition came out? You are whingeing about the auctioneers' information only being received in 1997, two years after Mike's statement was made. So, perhaps the diary people, like you yesterday, took a while to get round to things, eh? Perhaps they had so many other reasons to believe Mike's confession was totally false, that checking with the auctioneers as soon as they heard about it didn't take priority. Perhaps you had so many other reasons, up until now, for thinking Mike was complicit in the forgery, that contacting Outhwaite & Litherland yourself has only just become a priority.
Good luck, and let us know how you get on.
Love,
Caz |
Author: adam wood
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 03:27 am | | Dear Robert
Many thanks indeed for your comments regarding the possibility of your taking the Diary to the Bournemouth conference later this year.
I'll make the necessary arrangements with the venue and contact you via email.
Regards
Adam |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 07:28 am | | Hi, Caz and Paul:
Paul, thanks for your response. I take your point that the bitterness here has gone too far and Peter's imputations have been constant, but I wish we could all cooperate in a spirit of enquiry. I think it is important to test every piece of information even if it is years later and even if these things should have been done before. This is not an imputation against Keith or Shirley--as Caz rightly says, Peter, for example, could have asked about the auctioneers sales system before now. Potentially one of these lines of enquiry might lead us somewhere. I definitely think these leads should be followed up and re-followed up, if need be, in case something valuable can be discovered.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 07:41 am | | Hi all,
First of all, the reason Peter's rhetoric often sounds somewhat accusatorial, I suspect -- especially concerning Shirley and those still supporting the diary's history -- is because Peter has been writing from the perspective of an already assumed conclusion himself, at least since I have been here. It is very clear and has been for some time that Peter is not simply researching objectively or simply searching for whatever truth may be fairly available, he is attempting to prove an already assumed conclusion by whatever means necessary-- even if it means arguing directly contradictory things in order to do it. Consequently, he already has a vested interest in casting doubt on the reliability and professionalism of those who are arguing against the likelihood of this (his) conclusion.
I could cite post after post over the past few months alone where Peter either announces or reveals that his agenda here is proving that an already formulated scenario is true (although I grant the fact that he has had to revise that scenario slightly, a few times, when the lack of evidence to support it has be too clearly demonstrated).
In his last post, Peter actually seemed to be defending Shirley at one point. He wrote:
"Shirley's books are written from the viewpoint that Maybrick was the author of the diary and also JtR. That's fair enough: all authors take some viewpoint. The totally disinterested (Ah, Martin!) author probably doesn't exist and if he did would probably write an unreadable book."
But unlike Shirley, who wrote a book based on what she finally thought had happened, Peter has not yet written a book. He is, allegedly, still conducting an investigation into what has happened. However, he has been posting here already assuming what has happened, but without the necessary support or reliable evidence to establish his case. And he's wrong, by the way, about a totally disinterested author probably writing an unreadable book. In fact, I suspect a totally disinterested author, one who did not have a preconceived notion about what probably happened or anything particular at stake in the specific outcome of the investigation, would actually probably write a book which approached the truth in a more reliable manner than many of Peter's little forays here.
But none of this really matters much, except that Peter also feels it is necessary to get in a few digs now and again at people like Shirley (thereby echoing the "I never said anything personal or mean about her but she can't be trusted and is completely incompetent and distorts the truth all the time, you know" rhetoric of someone else we all know and love -- I've decided, in a burst of schoolboy petulance, that I'm not mentioning his name in my posts until he mentions me in one of his -- especially in one of his glorious all-caps titles -- that would be so cool). 
Of course, Peter is perfectly free to write whatever he wants and to advance whatever scenario he thinks is most likely (if he must, for whatever reason, at this point advance one, even though the evidence remains barely there), and he is free to be reminded when he has been inconsistent or purely speculative or even unnecessarily accusatory. Because ultimately even Peter's insinuations don't finally matter much. I think most people around here know that Shirley Harrison walked into a minefield completely unaware of what she was getting into and she did the best job she could at putting together what she found, and she might have made some mistakes here and there, but she has never shown any sign at all that she would seek to manipulate evidence or push an on-going investigation unnaturally in favor of one conclusion over another or deliberately misread and misinterpret to get a pre-desired result or write things she knew to be false or knew to be misleading. And I think many of us sympathize with Shirley, even if we do not agree with her conclusions, because as writers of one sort or another, we can imagine the nightmare of taking on a project professionally and suddenly finding ourselves immersed in a world where the rhetoric quickly turns nasty and personal and the accusations fly free and the positions are defended with frighteningly cult-like devotion. I think Shirley has behaved with admirable restraint and professional courtesy and I think she deserves better than the occasional insinuation that suggests she was more interested in proving one thing or another rather than discovering the truth while she was initially conducting her research. Especially if that insinuation comes from someone who has been willing to be inconsistent and self-contradictory around here if it allows him to assert his own already assumed conclusion and who has offered preferred interpretations of incomplete and problematic narratives as if those personal preferences were evidence.
Forgive the morning rant, I will try now to go on to more pleasant problems.
--John
PS: Chris, I agree completely that checking things out, like the auction house story, over and over again is a good idea and that knowing more never hurts. That's why I told Peter he should write away. I think we must know more (since we barely know anything around here). |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 07:52 am | | Hello everyone,
I'm in a better mood, having now had my morning pretzels, Mounds, and lemonade breakfast, and I wanted to mention that when I came home from golf and dinner last night, I read the posts here from Caz and Robert and everyone and noticed that I ended up near where I began the day. With, that is, a question ringing in my brain.
If we assume for a moment, just for fun, that Tony D. did in fact give the diary to Mike, who did not know what he was getting, what was in it for Tony D.?
Or is it the case that the only way that scenario makes any sense is if he was indeed passing it on at the request of Anne?
Of course, we have no real evidence, except Anne's word, that Anne gave him anything at all. And if Anne did give the diary to Tony, who the hell penned it? We have no hint that Anne knew our currently suspected but completely unlinked scrivener, right? And I've never seen Peter or you know who or Karoline or anyone suggest that this unlinked scrivener ever profited or got anything at all for his alleged penmanship. There is no evidence that anyone did, except Mike and Anne, including you know who's Three Unidentified Flying Forgers.
So I started wondering, again -- if Mike and Anne are the only ones who ever got anything out this deal, but Mike and Anne clearly did not write this thing all by themselves, nor pen the final version, and perhaps didn't even know where the thing originally came from, why did the necessary others bother to participate?
And that led me to ask this new question:
What sort of scenario would account for a fictional diary being researched, composed, and written out at least in part by people who had no apparent motive and apparently nothing to gain from doing so?
Just what sort of project was this, anyway?
Any ideas?
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 10:27 am | | Hi Chris/John
Thank you, Chris, your comments are appreciated and I am sure that nobody could wish more than Shirley and Keith for a spirit of cooperation. And both would also be first in the queue to support any research that might provide some fresh or otherwise helpful data. But the constant sniping isn’t going to help us achieve it and I think John’s appraisal is correct in every respect, for which I thank him. Let’s hope the views expressed will be taken to heart and that progress can be made.
Let's hope for a good weekend! |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 10:30 am | | Hi John
What sort of scenario would account for a fictional diary being researched, composed, and written out at least in part by people who had no apparent motive and apparently nothing to gain?
Mmmmmmmm. Discounting an intangible gain such as wanting to make Mike look silly or something like that, and working on the principle that nobody does something for nothing, it follows that there must have been an intended tangible gain. That nobody apart from Mike and Anne seem to have gained tangibly, whatever the intended tangible gain may have been, something unexpected seems to have prevented it from being realised. One thing we do know that happened unexpectedly was Tony Devereux’s death. So did Tony Devereux’s death kybosh some plans, leaving Mike with the ‘diary’ and a daft provenance? Which leads me back to asking the question: would this explain why Mike didn’t do anything with the ‘diary’ for six months, why he used a false name, why Anne asked ‘did you nick it, Mike?’ and so on and so on.
But it seems to me that if we are assuming (just for fun) that Mike got the ‘diary’ from Tony Devereux, then I think we have three alternatives:
(a) TD owned it and simply thought it might interest Mike.
(b) TD was given the ‘diary’ by somebody with a purpose in mind; i.e., by Anne to pass on to Mike or by the forger to find a patsy to 'place' it.
(c) TD alone or with someone else forged the ‘diary’ and selected Mike as the patsy to ‘place’ it and that there were plans by which he intended to profit, but TD unexpectedly died.
Which, if any, would best seem to fit the facts? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 11:00 am | | Hi All,
Well, John, we could look again at what has been proposed by 'you know who', couldn't we? Actually, I'm one up on you 'cos the great man descended from his throne on several occasions last year and addressed me directly as Caz! More friendly and unpretentious than others I could mention. (You know you wouldn't love me half as much, Peter, if I was never silly. )
Melvin is a bit of a formidable problem-solver, when it comes to scenario speculation. He must have worked out pretty quickly that Mike's accounts of his own and Anne's involvement were not going to be much help to him in his hoax-busting activities - he needed more - much more. A penman at least, and most likely a composer too. The snag was presumably that no evidence could be found that anyone else, apart from Mike and Anne, had a financial interest in the diary. But, never fear - snags can always be overcome, as Melvin himself showed us, in Appendix Eight of Melvin's True Face of JtR, when he wrote:
Forgers are not always motivated by money or fame - it can be the simple satisfaction of fooling experts. Knowing the psychology of forgers is almost as important as knowing how to analyse handwriting...
Well, I don't know precisely when these words were written (my paperback edition was published in 1995, but the book itself first came out in 1994). Perhaps Melvin was able to reaffirm his expertise on the psychology of forgers when he learned the identities of the three UFOs (Unidentified Flying Ones).
But I trust Melvin has more up his sleeve than Peter showed us, on his recent foray into the heady world of people watching, when he remarked to Keith:
As anyone can see, the wording of [Devereux's] will makes it plain that there was acrimony between Tony Devereux and his ex-wife. The diary has a similar feeling in describing relations between "Maybrick" and his wife.
This observation must have had its purpose. Was Peter giving us his own thoughts on psychology and motivation?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 11:51 am | | Hi, Caz:
I am not sure the evident acrimony between Tony Devereaux and his ex, as shown in the wording of TD's 1979 will, can be viewed as having much bearing on the scenario of Sir Jim vs. Florie unless something else can be shown that Tony used his bitterness over his ex-wife in penning the Diary--if he penned the diary or was instrumental in coming up with the Diary plot, that is.
A good proportion of the male world could express similar sentiments, so the wording of Devereaux's will is proof of nothing. Also look at the difference in the dates--1979 bitterness shown by TD vs. a posited circa 1989-1991 hoax.
I continue to think Sir Mel has overreached himself in telling us there were three forgers, etc., and that he does not have such evidence. He has as good as said his evidence is not definitive by saying "It is good enough for me." So maybe he should just stop his sleight of hand act and reveal what he is keeping from everyone? Perhaps if Melvin reveals his information, the Diary can be viewed at the Bournemouth conference as a curiosity, an interesting artifact that has consumed the time of many of us these past ten years, but a hoax nonetheless.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: shirley harrison
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 04:58 pm | | | %Thank you John and Paul. Im in France right now working on the next book`so dont get too caught up on the Boards. I didnt have the heart to respond to Melvin. Whats the point. I hope you all have better luck than i did with Richard BJ and Outhwaite. Keep up the good work all - all will be revealed..... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 02 June 2001 - 04:27 am | | Hi Chris,
Great minds think alike. You wrote:
A good proportion of the male world could express similar sentiments, so the wording of Devereaux's will is proof of nothing
which was exactly what I, and no doubt countless others of either gender, had been thinking.
Perhaps Peter will come back on your observation:
Also look at the difference in the dates--1979 bitterness shown by TD vs. a posited circa 1989-1991 hoax
to suggest that, unless Tony changed that will before his death in 1991, the bitterness must have remained with him - could even have been growing and festering, to the point where he couldn't rest until he'd expressed it all through the long-dead cotton merchant and his wayward and extravagant spouse. Now, that would make a readable book - though I'd suggest to Peter that he might need just a tad more evidence - unless he puts it out as fiction, and changes all the names and locations and circumstances to the extent of making his story unrecognisable (tee hee).
Carry on speculating dear posters, and writing to auctioneers and solicitors - the experience may come in handy some day.... 
Hope to see some of you casebookers at the Smoke & Stagger tonight.
Love,
Caz |
Author: shirley harrison
Sunday, 03 June 2001 - 06:59 am | | Morning all......I will try and clear up the Outhwaite business.....I am snowed under at the moment and looking back through the HUGE `files i have is time consuming. The the fact is that Sally Evemy and I went originally to see Kevin Whay- and I need to check the date. I doubt it anyone else has done thatI only wrote - much later - when the rumpus began. Peter - go ahead and recheck - but as I have sd the auctioneers were less than happy when i tried again recently to recheck the story. NO-ONE wants to spend time going through files....has John heard from Richard B-J for instance? As an aside...Mikes share of expenses were deducted at source....but with accompany invoices and only in dribs and drabs. We never did and still do not invoice him what we actually spend and I am now subsidising whatever research continues. I have not invoiced him for ongoing expenses for ages.
Ill check that tape but i think it is the one that is about 40 pages long...theres nothing secret...it would do me a lot of good to post it but I dont have the mechanical means to do so....and none of you would ever get to bed again! Still, I will have a think of a way..... |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 03 June 2001 - 10:26 am | | Hi Shirley,
For the record, no, I have not received any response from Richard Bark-Jones following my brief letter of inquiry. To be honest, I did not expect a response. One thing I have noticed in reading accounts here and in the archives of recent attempts to approach lawyers and auction houses and scientists and shops and the non-Ripper experts in general concerning this matter of the diary, is that the well seems to have been rather thoroughly poisoned by this time, and that many outsiders seem to be rather tired of the whole thing and mistrustful and simply put off by all things and people Ripper-related.
Apparently, rather early on in this whole affair, many non-Ripper people were pestered to distraction by acolytes on one side or another or both, and the intensity with which people were approached and then the devotion with which positions were presented and defended and questions were followed with more questions and insistences were followed with preferred re-readings and further insistences finally seems to have led the non-involved to prefer to remain silent and to resist any advances whatsoever.
I can't say that I blame the outsiders. There is a certain point, no doubt, where it just became more of a pain than it was worth for many of them. This should probably teach all of us who are interested in such things something about professional politeness and rhetorical restraint and subtlety and respect for other people's time and for their privacy (apparently there was a time when phones were ringing 'round the clock and all sorts of madness was taking place, and for those with no real interest in the Ripper or in Maybrick or in the case, this must have seemed insane).
Now it becomes a question of trying to proceed in the wake of this atmosphere of devotional and accusatory rhetoric and in this newly developing period of (I hope) relative calm and some historical distance. Perhaps next year, as the ten-year anniversary arrives, people can be approached again, quietly and in the name of history, and we can learn more about what records do remain and what they tell us. Perhaps.
Meanwhile, enjoy your weekend, everyone.
-- John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 03 June 2001 - 11:06 am | | Hi, Caz:
I think possibly a more potent "lead" than Devereaux's expressed bitterness toward his ex-wife shown by the wording of his 1979 will are the references to Florence Maybrick made by Billy Graham as a "dirty old cow" (Feldman, Virgin hardback, p. 169). Why would Billy feel so vehemently about the woman? Could this mirror the way Florie is portrayed in the Diary?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 03 June 2001 - 11:16 am | | Hi, again, all:
Here is the whole quote from Feldman in which he mentions Billy Graham using the expression "dirty old cow" for Florence Maybrick:
During the conversations with Billy, he would never refer to Florence Maybrick by name. 'The Maybrick one', 'she', 'git' and 'dirty old cow' were just a few of the derisory ways in which he would refer to her. I thought this significant. (Feldman, Virgin hardback, pp. 168-169).
Of course, naturally, Feldman and I differ on the signifance. He is saying it is significant because of the so-called illegitimate family connection between Billy Graham and Florence Maybrick that he hypothesizes in his book. I think it may be significant because the expressed vehemence shown by Billy toward Mrs. Maybrick may show he had a hand in forging the Diary which paints Florence as a "whore." Comments anyone?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 03 June 2001 - 12:38 pm | | Hi Chris,
Interesting thoughts here concerning Billy Graham and Florrie. But there is something of a chicken and egg problem here, I think. Which would have come first, Billy's apparent hostility towards Florence or his alleged writing of the diary?
Here's the problem: if his hostility towards Florence comes first, and is then used in his writing of the diary, why did he have the hostility towards Florence to begin with? What the heck did Billy Graham have to be mad at Florence Maybrick about? This, of course, is the question that leads Mr. Feldman towards one of his spectacularly speculative scenarios. But Paul's penchant for melodrama aside, the question remains. Why would Billy be so hostile towards a historical figure with which he has apparently no connection?
And, on the other hand, if the diary came first and was thereafter accompanied by the expressed hostility towards Mrs. Maybrick, then why would Billy have sought to write the diary in the first place? And when? This assumes that he had no hostility towards any Maybrick until after he decided to write the diary and thereafter was only play-acting his hostility to fit what was in the book. But then, what would have prompted him to write such a nasty little book to begin with? And what would he have done with it if he had written it? (By the way, did anyone ever check out Billy's handwriting?) And how, for instance, would all of this fit into a scenario that has a younger Anne Barrett allegedly talking about such a project in Australia at the end of the sixties?
By the way, a purely factual question for anyone who knows:
How old were our oft-discussed players in 1992?
In 1992, how old were Anne, Mike, Tony, Billy, and even the as yet completely unlinked Mr. K or anyone else related to this case?
Does anyone know their respective ages at the time of the diary's appearance?
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 03 June 2001 - 06:58 pm | | | And why the hostility of the diary writer towards Abberline, a historical figure the writer probably never (?) met? |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 12:53 am | | Hi, Scott:
I have no opinion on why Abberline is singled out for hostility by the Diary writer, except that far from having met or seen the historical Abberline, the penman of the Diary almost probably saw Michael Caine playing the role of Abberline in the 1988 film Jack the Ripper. That motion picture focused more on the role Abberline than a citizen reading the newspapers in 1888 would probably have conceived, i.e., the newspapers of the time mentioned not only Abberline but other police officers, such as Inspector Reid, whose role in the investigation rivaled that of Abberline. Another indication that the Diary is a modern hoax.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Mark Goeder
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 08:19 am | | Hi,
Im not completely new here, but it is about a year ago that I was posting messages on this board.
To shorten the story, I posted a whole load of Pro-Diary messages in April last year.This carried on for about 4 weeks. At the end of all this, I was told to do more reading.
Most people were telling me to read Sugdens A - Z and come back again when better informed.
Well, I ve spent about a year reading almost anything I could get my hands on.
Whilst I was reading, I resisted the temptation to write more posts as I knew that each book I read would be reflected in anything I said at that time. So I kept quite.
1 year later, Im deciding to take a quick look at whats been happening and judging by what I ve read so far, not much as happened.
The one book NO ONE advised me to read was Feldmans " The Final Chapter "
To keep things short again, it was the last book to be read by myself.
I am totaly convinced that the Diary is genuine and that that Mr Feldman seems to have hit most od the nails on the head.
BUT...
The only thing that really disturbs me is the way he summed up the KELLY murder.
After all the research done on the Maybrick family, I was very dissapointed in the way the research came to a standstil when faced with the problem of solving The Kelly story.
His theory his fascinating and is more likely that possible.
On page 388 he summs up by saying "If Mary Kelly lived, then what happened to her? you may ask. Sorry, but that is another story, another time"
After reading all the in-depth reasearch, why not finnish up by concluding " another story".
What happened to her and why?.....I feel that the reader deserves the right to know.
The only part of the theory that bothers me is that Kelly was seen on the morning of the murder outside in the street by more than 1 person.
My questions are:
1)After seeing the body laying on the bed, why didnt she scream murder and run out to fetch a policeman ( or even better...throw up in the room )
2)Why did she RETURN to the room to collect her personal belongings if she wanted the police to think that the body was hers and WHY did she allow herself to be seen at all??
3)Why go to a Pub where most people would recognize her and Barret?
4)Why did Barnett take the risk of getting caught at the scene of the crime just to collect some clean clothes for Kelly...Who would do that?
I may be wrong, but these events are critical and in some way have to be linked to the diary.
I think the Kelly story will hold the key to the solution when it has been clearly defined by Feldman.
I am sorry if I seemed to have barged in on the board, but these questions are bugging me and I was kind of hoping to find some answers.
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 08:20 am | | Hi John, Chris, Scotty, All,
John,
I think Anne and Mike would both have been in their early forties by 1992. According to a recent post by Peter, Tony was born in February 1931 - making him 60 when he died in August 1991 - Billy 'supposedly' in September 1913, and Gerard Kane in mid-1938, making them 78 and 54 respectively by mid-1992.
Chris,
You ask why Billy would 'feel so vehemently’ about Florence Maybrick. But you are making a bit of an assumption about the strength of Billy's feelings on the strength of his reported words alone. I’m not at all sure we can read much, if any, significance into all this. For example, when Feldy tells Billy that Flo called herself Mrs Graham on coming out of prison (page 185 of Feldy’s paperback), Billy reacts by saying: "Did she? She must have had a crush on the old fellow, eh? [laughs]". Feldy repeats that she called herself Mrs Graham and Billy says "Yes. Dirty old git..." The laughter suggests that Billy is somewhat amused by the notion that a male family member once had a dalliance with the notorious adulteress, causing her to want to change her name to his. The dirty old git, in my view, applies more logically to the male Graham, not ‘The Maybrick One’, and I think this is most likely who Billy is referring to here. But in general, I feel Billy may simply be expressing the required mix of mild amusement and disapproval for someone of his years, when talking about extra-marital relations, rather than showing any personal animosity, vehement or otherwise, towards the wayward female. Billy may assume Feldy is trying to tell him that Flo called herself Mrs Graham because of an amorous connection with a member of his own family. From there, I think Billy goes on to wonder if his father could have been the product of such an encounter. He says (on page 186): “Yes, yes. She [Florence] was in America when she was only fifteen…Right. Well she could have – she had a child didn’t she – before?” And later (on page 187) he says “She had an illegitimate child… [looking at the Morland book…puzzled] Where did she get Graham from?” Could Billy have got carried away by his own speculation here, ending up giving both Feldy and Anne the impression that he knew Flo had a child before she married James, when in fact he was merely stating what he thought was the obvious - ie that, if there was an affair between a Graham family member and the ‘dirty old cow’, and if this produced a pregnancy (which was a common enough reason for a woman to take on the name of the child's father and use 'Mrs', at whatever point in her life it was found expedient), and if Billy’s dad was the result, then it must have all happened when Flo was very young and still unmarried?
Does any of that make sense? If Billy was simply musing over the possible reasons for Flo calling herself Mrs Graham, using his recollections and knowledge of ages and dates (which may have been better regarding the Maybrick history than Anne was expecting to hear), and given that Feldy was fine-tuned to pick up on anything that could be seen to connect the Grahams and the Maybricks, one can perhaps see how confusion could have arisen, and more been made of Billy’s words than they merited – even down to Anne thinking he was saying something he wasn’t.
But I’m not sure how any of this would affect speculation that Billy was involved in creating the diary.
Any thoughts?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 09:26 am | | Morning all,
Hi Caz.
Two small points, then, about ages. If Anne was in her early forties in 1992, that would have made her a teenager or in her very early twenties when she was allegedly talking about this book in Australia, right? Would she have been planning or writing this book in her late teens or even when she was 21 or 22? Or does this suggest that if she did have the conversation down under, that the book must have come from someone else? I don't know. And then where did the Crashaw line come from, for instance?
And are we suggesting that it was possible that Billy Graham, in his mid-70's, sat down to write this book in the late 1980's or early 1990's? Or if Billy is our author, does this mean it was written a good while earlier, possibly several decades? And then where did the Crashaw line come from, for instance?
I think you are right about Paul Feldman finding ways to read every little thing Billy might have mumbled to mean something or other about the family connection and the diary story and possible provenance. The rest of the book works that way as well, of course, so this should not surprise us.
I'm afraid none of this helps us very much, finally.
Still, no sign of land.
(How long is it, sir?)
(That's a rather personal question, isn't it?)
--John
PS: Hi Mark, I'm not clear on just why it is the Kelly murder that will, as you say, "hold the key to the solution." If we do discover something or other about the Kelly murder, how will it help us, specifically, to authenticate the diary? |
Author: Mark Goeder
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 10:14 am | | Hi John,
The Maybrick Saga and the Ripper diary are both indeed, 2 very complex puzzles.
With very intense and in-depth research, Feldman and his team manages to put nearly all the pieces together.This fact I dont think can be denied.
I also had doubts about the diray before I read Feldmans book but they have now been put aside.
To almost everyone, the Ripper murders ended with Kelly.
Why Kelly?.....
Why did the murders cease and why was it generaly believed the Murderer was either insane or dead?
Only 6 months after kellys murder the massive police hunt was halted as if he had been arrested, tried and executed.
The police knew the Ripper was either dead, sick or identified.
Back to Kelly again
IF she was seen that morning between 8 and 9 o clock, WHY isnt it NOW general fact that she was seen alive?
So why do we all assume it WAS Kelly?
What really happened to her?.
Did the police know that Kelly was still alive?
If so,why was she allowed to escape(or whatever)
Can it be that the police had evidence linking Mary Kelly to James Maybrick?
IF yes was the answer, ( and I mean only if) then the police were left with a very big problem.
**It also would mean that James Maybrick was without a doubt jack the Ripper**
As known by now, at least Maybricks brother
Michael can be linked with the Royal family.
I can only use my imagination to think of the possible impact this would have made to the Monarchy.
If Paul Feldman classes the Mary Kelly whereabouts as " another story"...what is it then? |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 10:51 am | | Hi, Mark:
You are entitled to your opinion of Feldman and of the Maybrick theory. You find Feldman convincing. Most of us, John and myself included, find a lot to be desired in Feldman's research, findings, and conclusions.
You make a number of questionable statements including, "Only 6 months after Kelly's murder the massive police hunt was halted." I believe the hunt was scaled back but not halted since "Whitechapel murders" continued to take place, some of which, including the Pinchin Street torso discovered September 10, 1889 were regarded by the police as Ripper crimes.
In regard to the alleged morning sightings of Mary Jane Kelly, you state: "So why do we all assume it WAS Kelly." The answer is we don't all assume it was Kelly--many people doubt those reports. Witnesses do make mistakes.
You also say "Maybrick's brother Michael can be linked with the Royal family." You make him sound like an intimate of the Royal family, which is not so though I believe he sang once or twice for the Queen. You imply (I suppose) that the murder was covered up because Michael Maybrick had this close link with the Royal family. None of that is provable and few of the leading Ripperologists, barring possibly Shirley Harrison or Paul Feldman, would make such a contention.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 04 June 2001 - 10:59 am | | Hi Mark,
I must be a bit dense this morning, but I'm still not sure of the main link between Kelly and Maybrick that you are suggesting. Putting aside for a moment whether we think Paul Feldman has made a convincing case for where the diary came from, what specific evidence suggests to you that there was any real link between Mary Kelly (whether she was murdered or not) and James Maybrick? It's not just the alleged letters on the wall at the scene of her (non)murder, right? Because they're not very convincing evidence of anything, if you ask me, open as they are to so many possible readings and interpretations.
Is there some material evidence that you think actually links Maybrick to Mary Kelly personally?
Also, I don't think I'd read too much into Paul's little rhetorical tease about the Kelly problem being "another story." It could just very well be his way of admitting that he had no idea what to say about it and so he thought a little hint of pending but possible significance might be both suspenseful and intriguing and a way of getting him off the hook of having to write anything about it all. One of Paul Feldman's favorite rhetorical strategies (and, apparently, methods or reasoning) seems to be best exemplified by a popular device of punctuation; the ellipse (...). The "that's another story" technique is a sort of verbal equivalent of this device.
Unfortunately, it's also often a sign that something remains missing.
But perhaps you can fill in the gaps for me concerning the evidence that links Maybrick somehow to poor Mary...
Thanks,
--John |
|
|
|
|
