** 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 **
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001: Archive through June 06, 2001
Author: John Omlor Monday, 04 June 2001 - 11:04 am | |
Hi Chris, Our posts to Mark crossed. [Hey, "Mark Cross," I get it, a writer's tool joke. ("that's a rather personal question, isn't it?")] Putting aside my goofy Python reference a few posts above, any thoughts on the two age problems I mention there? They both seem to suggest serious problems either way for the Australia scenario and the Billy Graham as author scenario, no? --John
| |
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 04 June 2001 - 11:37 am | |
Hi, John: You are fine with your humorous Python references as long as you don't call in the Spanish Inquisition! Yes, the question of the ages of Anne Graham and Billy Graham that you posed is interesting. Anne Graham must indeed have been young (around 20) when she worked as a nurse in Australia and not of an age one would think that would see her involved in a forgery such as that of a supposed Victorian diary. On the other hand, Stephen Powell's most recent contention seems to be that the "main man" in the forgery was an Australian who was originally from Birkenhead on Merseyside (across the River Mersey from Liverpool). In that case, the contention would be, I suppose, that Anne Graham was given the Diary to "place" in Liverpool, which would be consistent with Melvin Harris's theory that the Barretts were placers of the document. I would think a young nurse might have been thought to be ideal for such a task--although I am not saying I believe Mr. Powell's scenario until we see a lot more evidence that the forgery scheme took place in Australia as he claims. I have no opinion about how the Crashaw quote came to be in the Diary unless if Powell's story is true, the Birkenhead man somehow knew the line from Crashaw and it was only coincidence that Mike Barrett came across the same line later. You are quite correct that at his advanced age, in his late seventies by 1991-1992, when we think the Diary was fabricated, Billy Graham seems too aged to have had an active hand in the forgery scheme, but who knows? Possibly if Anne is right and Billy possessed the Diary decades earlier he had some involvement in its creation but when he was middle aged. Again though, if so, that begs the question of how the Crashaw line came to be in the Diary, since the Sphere book containing it had not been published, at this earlier date--or at least the copy that we know came into Mike Barrett's hands only came into his possession subsequent to April 1989. All very mysterious! And you are right to say we lack concrete evidence of who was involved in the forgery scheme or, I would add, even of when the forgery was done. Best regards Chris George
| |
Author: John Omlor Monday, 04 June 2001 - 11:47 am | |
Hi Chris, Thanks for that last post. It summarized what I was thinking much better than I did. That's the cool thing about writing and reading along with others, I suppose. Hey, I had a question. Is it clear to you what Stephen is suggesting about the time lag between the discussions in the late sixties and the diary turning up in the early nineties? I'm not sure, but in his early posts he seems to be saying that the book had already been written back then, when Anne was talking about it in Australia (that's why at first he thought it backed up Anne's story about the book being around longer than just the few years before its appearance). But if it had been finished by 1970, why did it not appear until twenty-two years later? And did young Anne Graham, as "placer," just carry the finished product around for over twenty years? This seems very odd. Of course, so does much of Stephen's story, at least to me as I've read it here on these boards so far. Thanks for the summary, though, --John PS: Is anyone else getting an annoying colonize.com pop-up window as they move around the boards this morning? Maybe I'm just a target for some reason today.
| |
Author: Alegria Monday, 04 June 2001 - 12:33 pm | |
Pop-up ads: An unfortunately annoying reminder that free speech isn't free.
| |
Author: John Omlor Monday, 04 June 2001 - 12:57 pm | |
Hi Ally, Yup. I understand the need for ads completely. And I usually don't mind the ones that pop up on the screen above and below the messages. They are fine with me. But this new one today is actually popping open a completely separate little window (from colonize.com announcing a "New Message") and the separate window box reappears each time I move to a different screen and has to be closed again each time. That's a development I've not seen here before. It's an insidious little creature. Anyway, you still get no real complaint from me, it's a small price to pay for everything we get here, that's for sure. Now it's out to stretch comfortably on a chaise lounge poolside, soak in the warm Florida sun, and read old short stories for a while. Must pick out a couple of dozen older ones for a short story course in the Fall -- so it's work, really. --John
| |
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 04 June 2001 - 01:33 pm | |
Hi, John: Well, then, is the Maybrick story a new story or an old story? And if you were asked to grade it, would you give it, a "D" for Diary, an "A" for Affect, or an "M" for Melodrama--or for Maybrick ha ha Enjoy your time relaxing in the Florida sun. I will be thinking of you as I slog away editing medical texts here in Washington, D.C., where through my office window, looking toward the Washington Memorial, seen above the Bureau of Engraving, at least we have blue skies compared to the rain-laden skies we have had of late. All the best Chris
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 04 June 2001 - 02:15 pm | |
Hi All, I can see all sorts of problems looming if we even begin to consider that 'the "main man" in the forgery was an Australian who was originally from Birkenhead on Merseyside', and that 'Anne Graham was given the Diary to "place" in Liverpool', back in the early 1970s, or that Billy could have been involved somehow, but decades ago as a younger man. Could the "main man", for instance, or Billy, have got all the Maybrick info without reference to Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick (1977), or RWE's Murder, Mayhem and Mystery (1985)? And what about the diary's various bits and bobs about the ripper, which were apparently not in the public domain thirty or so years ago? I also have serious doubts about Billy having any part in a post-April 1989 creation. And if he was involved, but earlier, when younger and fitter, why did he keep it until 1991/2, when Anne and/or Mike finally did something with it? Was he behind the plan to publish it, even though he said he would have "cashed it years ago" had he known the diary was valuable, and he "could have been lying on the beach now with a couple of strippers" all over him, tickling him with a feather? Love, Caz PS John, how long is a writer's tool then, sir? (that's another rather personal question, isn't it?) Or have I missed the point about writers' tool jokes? Are they a bit like my tall stories?
| |
Author: Mark Goeder Monday, 04 June 2001 - 02:58 pm | |
Hi again John, I hope I wasnt misunderstood when I made the remarks about a possible link between Maybrick and Kelly... "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. I used the words CAN and IF. I personaly have NO evidence....it was only a question. I am still not sure why the blood stains on the wall next to kellys body formed a clear "M" It has been argued that "M" clearly shown on the photos, are nothing but blood splashes. Blood doesnt form letters when splashed on an upright surface like a wall. It drips down and leaves its own trail. Looking at the photos again, it realy does seem as if it was put there for all to see. Or is it stil only a mere coincidence? If the diary is a hoax from about 92 - 93 as suggested, then the hoaxer had the most tremendous luck in being able to fit this into the story. I expect a hoaxer to put more emphasis on the "M" For example..."so I left my initials on the wall"... Wouldnt a hoaxer try to get more out of the discovered writing on the wall?? Hi Chris, "None of that is provable and few of the leading Ripperologists, barring possibly Shirley Harrison or Paul Feldman, would make such a contention." You forgot to mention Colin Wilson.Isnt he a " Ripperologist" too? The torso found at pichin streeet was never included in the "Official" List of Ripper victims still regarded my MOST Ripperologists as a list of only 5 Woman, the names of which we all know. McKenzie, and Coles are also not included. By the way, I dont remeber suggesting that Michael Maybrick was An "Intimate friend". All I said was " He can be linked" I think there is a big difference. "many people doubt those reports. Witnesses do make mistakes". Normaly I would have to agree with you on this one. These witnesses were not trying to explain a whole chain of events. There were 2 witnesses who both stated that they saw Kelly THAT morning. Maurice Lewis only stated that he saw her leave Millers court....why doubt something as straight foreward as that? Mark
| |
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 04 June 2001 - 03:04 pm | |
Hi, Caz: To clarify, you give the date of publication of Richard Whittington-Egan's Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem as 1985. You may have missed the date of my copy of RWE's pamphlet when I posted it in quoting from that source a few days ago, but the copy I own dates from when those pamphlets were first published on Merseyside in 1967. Moreover, the text of the pamphlets was republished from material RWE published in a book that he had put out a decade earlier still. So if RWE's writings on the Maybrick Case did, as I think, form some of the source material for the Diary, they would have been available from the 1950s onward. I agree, broadly, that a number of disparate indications seem to point to 1991-1992 authorship rather than decades earlier. Moreover, don't mistake my musings in my recent posts that I am holding out any special belief that the Aussie Birkenhead-bred man is our forger or that Billy Graham did it. I am just looking at various pieces of information that might or might not eventually lead us to solving the Maybrick Diary mystery. About as clear as Diamine ink, Caz? All the best Chris
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 04 June 2001 - 03:18 pm | |
Hi Chris, Thanks for the 'proper stuff' on the RWE pamphlet - I took the 1985 date from the bibliography in Shirley's Blake edition, and didn't think to check back through recent posts. Don't worry - I wasn't mistaking your latest musings on Billy or the Aussie connection for any special beliefs on your part. As you say, you are doing what we all do here - looking at the Dia-mine of diary information and wondering what it may be trying to tell us. Love, Caz
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 04 June 2001 - 03:20 pm | |
Hi All, Shirley is currently in France and, according to Keith, is having her usual problems with the computer. She has given him the following message for me to post on her behalf: From Shirley Harrison To The Board More “heroic restraint”. On January 19th 1995, after the interminable meeting with Mike Barrett, Sally and I went immediately to Outhwaite & Litherland where we looked at their auction lists and were told then, as we are told now, that they do not and did not auction material such as the Diary.
| |
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 04 June 2001 - 03:28 pm | |
Hi Mark: A lot of people can be "linked" to the Royal family. Any tradesman who has the Royal coat of arms with the designation "By Appointment to. . ." can be said to be "linked." I don't think it means very much unless you were to contend, as I think you are, that it does mean something. You appear to be implying that Michael Maybrick's link to the Crown was a way of James escaping capture. If that is what you mean, Michael's "link" must have been more than just performing for the Queen, and rather that he had an importance to the Crown that the facts do not seem to bear out. Yes, I acknowledge that Colin Wilson and Melvyn Fairclough have expressed belief in the Maybrick story. I should have made that clear. This is why I stated that "few of the leading Ripperologists" endorse the idea that Maybrick was the Ripper or that he escaped because his brother had links to the establishment. The majority of the leading Ripperologists--Begg, Fido, Skinner, Evans, Sugden, Rumbelow, and others--do not believe in the Maybrick theory. While Wilson has written on the Ripper he also writes on other crimes and is not regarded as a current top authority on the Whitechapel murders. Fairclough's Ripper and the Royals, meanwhile, is not taken seriously and has been largely discredited. Best regards Chris George
| |
Author: John Omlor Monday, 04 June 2001 - 03:45 pm | |
Hi Caz, Chris, and Mark. First things first -- the lame jokes. The first set ("Still, no sign of land. How long is it? That's a rather personal question, isn't it? No, how long has it been. Oh. Twenty-seven days..." or something like that) was a bit of Python theft. The second one ("Mark Cross" and the writer's tool -- "how long is it? Personal question") had to do with a very good pen. Now then, of course, like Chris, I am just reading for fun here and thinking about the Australia scenario and the Billy scenario and the troublesome ages and dates. There is no question that if we do assume that the book is actually more than ten years old in 1992, we run into a whole mess of problems, not the least being the Sphere Guide Crashaw. I'm not sure I'd be as specific as Chris, though, as I don't think the late eighties are out of the question. I'm not sure there is any evidence that would allow us to lean more towards 1991, say, rather than 1988 (the centennial) or 89. But unfortunately as the discussions of Billy and Australia demonstrate, all we really have to place the diary's composition between '87 and '92 is a few vague speculations, some contradictory science, and the hope that the Crashaw reference came from the Sphere guide. Otherwise, there is really nothing, no science or testimony or evidence of any kind that narrows down the diary's dates very convincingly at all. So there are indeed likely to be very serious problems for us if the Australia story is backed up with some evidence at some point. And there would indeed be serious problems if some evidence turns up that Billy or Anne (or anyone) really did see this book sometime before 1980. If we find just one piece of evidence that this book was heard of or seen prior to 1980, we are going to be in trouble. Not to mention the fact that we still have no idea at all who actually, physically penned the thing. Hi Mark, Of course, if we could find some evidence linking Maybrick to Mary Kelly, that would put a whole new light on things, I suppose. But none seems to be available and I can see no valid or convincing reason to expect that any ever was available. As to the letters on the wall, I must admit here that I have always had a hard time really seeing them. Even the alleged "M" still looks random to me. But, in any case, I don't think a hoaxer would have necessarily made a bigger deal out of them than our "diarist" did. One thing the writer of this diary did well was to just mention almost everything he or she discussed -- to not go into too much detail on any one thing or to over-emphasize anything. By remaining cursory and fragmented in style and emphasis, they managed to avoid opening themselves up to too many clear contradictions or simply disprovable passages. If they were going to use something like the fuzzy "initials," the best thing for a hoaxer to do would be to merely mention them and move on and then allow the critics and amateur detectives to do the work of after-the-fact legitimation for them. This, by the way, is not necessarily a sign of rhetorical sophistication. My own freshmen students have apparently learned in high school or somewhere to mention lots of different things but to discuss nothing in depth, as a way of avoiding making mistakes and getting criticized. Of course, I have to get them to unlearn this as quick as possible and get them to see that detail and depth of understanding are important and necessary for credibility and that avoiding them because they are risky merely leads to shallow prose, facile analysis, and the positing of unsupported, unestablished, and premature conclusions. But it does come in handy when you want to create a mysterious text, it turns out. In any case, we all seem to know little or nothing still (no sign of land) about the scene of composition. Any word on Melvin's agreeing or not agreeing or even responding to requests to meet with Shirley (or anyone) and to share what is available so far? It's off to the beach for me. Now if I could just find a feather or two (since strippers are always available). --John
| |
Author: Corky Witherspoon Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 12:06 am | |
Hello to all! I didn't abandon you--just started a new job, besides my work as a nutritionist. (Although, I find corporate law rather dull.) I'll have to give up my post at the flea market for the one at the firm. The apothecary bottles will have to be eliminated! Good night, Corker How's the copper jello mold? (Clue)
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 04:03 am | |
Hi John, 'I am just reading for fun here...we run into a whole mess of problems...there are indeed likely to be very serious problems for us...we are going to be in trouble.' Great here, ain't it? Peter, of course, would be your man, if you want to learn what response, if any, Melvin has made to requests to meet with his fellow diary dissectors. Peter must know something, since he has recently acted as postman for Melvin, and surely must be every bit as curious as the rest of us - even if Melvin simply said "No comment", it would be of interest to the readers here (all ten of 'em, I should think ). Love, Caz PS By the way, I was only jesting with my question about the length of a writer's tool. I see your attempts to explain Python jokes I know from my cradle (well, almost) as a giant smokescreen to avoid giving me your short straight answer. Would one or two feathers cover it? You can tell me. Sparrow or peacock?
| |
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 07:58 am | |
Hi Caz, You write: "Great here, ain't it?" Indeed, great it is. And that should answer all of the above questions. Bye for now. --John (PS: I knew you knew the "gammy leg" reference, but I thought others might think I was completely gone...)
| |
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 08:49 am | |
Good Morning, all, Since there seems to be something of a lull in our conversation, I thought I might ask a related question and see if anyone had any thoughts or insights. Just how much of an issue is this diary for the general public these days, anyway? Is Shirley's book still selling? Is Paul Feldman's book still selling? Are people still discussing this diary? Do they even know about it or has it been mostly forgotten by now? Is the film deal still in the works? Here in the US (or at least my little corner of it) the diary seems to be something people had heard about once, a while ago, and seem to remember something about, but have mostly forgotten, figuring the case must have been solved years ago. "Probably by scientists and carbon something or other." Or that's the reaction I have most often received when I have mentioned it to people, anyway. I remember being in London on a Ripper Walk in the late summer of '92 and hearing my guide tell me about a forthcoming "discovery" that he wasn't supposed to say too much about; but also saying that he had doubts about it's authenticity but that it would probably cause a big controversy. And I remember, about a year later, buying the first edition of the Hyperion hardcover of Shirley's book. Several people I knew at the time also bought the book, even though they were not Ripper enthhusiasts and had no idea who James Maybrick was. And there was talk. And there was the media and 60 Minutes with one of our own and all that good stuff. But now it's nearly a decade later and I'm wondering if the general public even remembers this diary, or if the whole thing has, for the most part, simply vanished from the cultural consciousness. And I'm wondering if even Anthony Hopkins can bring it back. And, if the diary's origins are finally discovered, what sort of coverage will that rate. A simple story in the odd-news section? A feature story for a day, maybe? Or will the public become fascinated again, this time with the forgers and their tale? Curious questions for a slow day... --John
| |
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 09:14 am | |
Hi, John: The impression I get, talking to Ripper writers, is that Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper is possibly the best selling book on the Ripper murders of all time, with the possible exception of Stephen Knight's Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution. Mirroring this, I believe most members of the public you question at this time would tell you that the Ripper was either Prince Eddy or someone covering up for the Prince such as Sir William Withey Gull or J. K. Stephen (Knight/Royal Conspiracy/Masonic theory) or a Liverpool cotton merchant who wrote his bloody thoughts in a diary and who committed the murders because he was seeking revenge on his unfaithful wife (Maybrick theory). Another indication of the popularity of the Maybrick theory is the poll Stephen Ryder is running (see link to the front page of the Casebook). In that poll, Mr. Maybrick is presently easily beating all other suspects combined. All the best Chris George
| |
Author: Mark Goeder Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 09:45 am | |
Hello John, I was thinking the same thing this morning. Its now nearly 8 or 9 years ago since the diary surfaced. As stated, the last time I looked at this message board was about April last year when I seemed to reep lots of critic for my belief inthe diary. One year ago every was was screaming HOAX, FAKE and FORGERY.Some of the reactions I recieved were outright unfriendly and totaly uncalled for. At least I was scared off This is all very fine and I suppose everyone has their right to say whatever he or she may think. But a year has passed by and I posted another message and got the very same response I suppose I should be use to by now What has changed in only a year? Nothting. Everyone ( or nearly everyone) on this board will tolerate no pro-diary comments. They are just arrogantly smashed a side as if the poster was some sort of idiot. If I didnt know any better,I would assume that the diary has already been proved a fraud judging by some of the posts I have read. The fact is, there is STILL NO evidence that points in the direction of a forgery. No one has came even close to the truth yet. Feldman ( even if you dont like him ) managed to unearth many new facts of which I am sure you all know of by now. I read Feldmans book only once last winter and one part is certainly true "The Cynics are angry about this diary. They do not debate. They scream and bellow FAKE, HOAX and A WASTE OF TIME" Soon the diary will have been on the market for 10 years. So who forged it? Isnt it about time someone came up with a solution by now? Im not a historian, author, scientist or anything academical. I dont know the truth either.but there again nor do any of you. Just for the record, most Germans seem to be satisfied with the Maybrick solution as opposed to a forgery. In September, we plan on opening a German Website based on Maybrick and the diary.We are still trying to get our act together and still have a lot of work to do bye then Mark
| |
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 09:49 am | |
Hi, John: Apologies. I misspoke when I said Maybrick was beating all other suspects combined in the Casebook poll. Double-checking on what I just said, I looked up the poll. I had thought that the graph at http://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/may.html shows Maybrick way ahead of all other suspects. In fact, he is here seemingly only in a race against himself! The graph that shows him ranked against other suspects is at http://www.casebook.org/suspects/suspect_av.html where you will see he is joint first, running neck and neck with Tumblety. If one goes by mustache size, possibly Dr. T will win by a whisker ha ha However, returning to the subject of the sales of Ripper books, it is my understanding from Stewart Evans that the sales of his noteworthy book on Tumblety, Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer aka The Lodger, pale against the sales of the Maybrick Diary books, most notably, I think, Harrison's book, which was the point I made in my last post. Best regards Chris George
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 12:55 pm | |
Hi John, I guess most of us like a real live mystery - and you don't have to be a ripper fan to enjoy reading about a controversial document that involves living breathing people, several of whose personalities - let's face it - make for a fascinating secondary study into the real live mystery of human nature, not always at its best. There are people under our very noses, who could possibly help us solve the mystery with a bit of careful handling and nurturing. In my local bookshops, the ripper offerings are nearly always the diary books, Stephen Knight's and the JtR A-Z. Ask people about the ripper and very few will believe the case remains unsolved. Most believe in some kind of cover-up, suggesting the police knew the ripper's identity, but it was too sensitive to reveal. But I've had a few who say "Oh, it was that Liverpudlian, wasn't it? You must know that, surely, seeing as you are so into it." Oh, and thanks for answering all my questions at a stroke. Wonderful to have greatness thrust upon us here. I'll blow a couple of great big peacock feathers over the pond to you, shall I? Hi Mark, Happily, you may have arrived back in this place to find yourself in a slightly more temperate climate this time around. No one should have their views trashed or ridiculed by people who feel uncomfortable or insulted by the fact you disagree with them about the diary's origins. It's a wonder why some people listen in on a debate in which some of the views expressed appear to give them the screaming abdabs. What I would suggest, though, for your own sake, and to avoid immediate conflict, is that you always try (as I try these days, and am always trying to do better) to base your opinions on the known facts, and not to assume anything, based solely on the unsubstantiated opinions, assumptions and conclusions of others, who may have gone too far down their chosen path to a desired outcome to easily change course under any circumstances. It might be seen as cheating, but if you stay on the fence long enough, and wait until you are sure which way to jump, you don't need belief - just patience. And you are less likely to make a complete ass of yourself. (Who am I kidding? ) Love, Caz
| |
Author: Mark Goeder Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 01:32 pm | |
Hi Caz, Thankyou for trying to keep a straight face whilst answering my questions. I know they seem blunt and direct at times but I cant change that....Im too old ( 40) I really do try to base my opinions based on facts. But who is to tell my what facts are right and what facts are wrong? Was told to do more reading since i was here last time, and I have done just that. I ve read my eyeballs sore in the process, but I managed to keep Feldmans book to the end. After I finished reading it, I had learnt more facts about the Diary than I thought possible. So I base my opinions now on THESE facts like most people do when they learn something new. On what facts are your opinions based on? Isnt the heart sometimes responsible for interpretating certain facts we read? But on the other hand, maybe you are right. Maybe if someone believes in a certain cause so strong, is he willing to believe everything that is served to him? If so, where does it leave any of us and where should it al lead to? Any way, I ll sit up on the fence and wait this one out like you said. I suppose its a bit like waiting for someone to score a goal..... If anyone speaks German, heres something that might make you laugh. go to the search engine WWW.google.de and type in the word JACK THE RIPPER When you have the results,take the first website and click on UBERSETZE DIESE SEITE ( translate this page) When you get there, take a look at how JACK THE RIPPER is translated into german. Anyone who understands german will probably do what i did Bye for now Mark
| |
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 01:47 pm | |
Hi, Caz and John: I agree with Caroline that the overriding feeling of the public seems to be that there was some type of cover-up. Most often, this cover-up revolves around the Royal conspiracy theory, expounded by Knight but reinforced by movies such as the 1988 Michael Caine movie and the soon-to-be-released From Hell with Johnny Depp as Abberline instead of Caine. However, even the Maybrick theory depends to some extent on a version of the conspiracy theory with the contention of Diary authors that Michael Maybrick was a high-up Mason with Royal connections. Then of course we have other conspiracy theories such as the recent one apparently being suggested by Tom Slemen in which his suspect, Colonel Claude Regnier Conder, got away with his dirty deeds because he was a friend of Sir Charles Warren, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. If you think about it, even theories expounded by such esteemed Ripperologists as Martin Fido and Paul Begg depend to some extent on the Polish Jew mentioned by Sir Robert Anderson, be he Aaron Kosminsky, Nathan Kaminsky, or David Cohen, being shut away and this fact not being broadcast to the general public. So it is no wonder that the public at large are convinced that there has been a cover-up because the Ripper stories they have been exposed to either in their reading, watching movies, or listening to pub conversation and rumor, usually entail some type of cover-up which explains why the Ripper was never captured. Best regards Chris George
| |
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 02:21 pm | |
Hi all, Yep, I think the public is likely to (want to) believe conspiracy theories of some sort, especially these days. But if I had to guess, I'd bet the public at large generally assumes that the case remains unsolved and that no one really knows who the Ripper was and that's why it's still interesting to some slightly crazy people. And most of the general public, with little or no interest in things Ripper or things historical in general, probably have some vague memory of hearing about a diary but would have to be reminded who was involved and who James Maybrick was and probably couldn't say one way or another if anything ever came of it. Of course, most of the general public doesn't really care. Even the polls on the Casebook site that Chris mentions are misleading, since they involve only those people who have taken the trouble to come to the Casebook site and therefore have at least a passing interest in the case. And while I think that those who are interested enough to buy a book or two might buy Shirley's book most often because it's the latest spectacular revelation, most people wouldn't even check out that section of the bookstore and would probably never think about actually buying a book on Jack the Ripper in any case. So I would have to say that the "overall feeling of the general public" would most likely be "Oh yeah, they never caught that guy, did they?" as they switch channels to the game. Of course, once you get their attention, it's easy to seduce them into caring for a little while at least, since it is a case with everything -- sex, conspiracy, horrible violence, mystery, and, according to recent disturbing reports about the latest Depp film, true love as well. Heck, all I have to do to get my students fascinated is turn on the computer in the classroom and put the Mary Kelly crime scene photo on the screen. Immediately, a certain percentage of them are hooked. But upon first mention of the case, the usual initial response is "Yeah, I've heard of him..." and not much more. But perhaps I am underestimating the potential for sustained interest on the part of the general public. Here in America, it seems that nothing holds the attention of the masses for longer than a week or two (hell, we got bored trying to figure out who our President was after only a few days and stopped reading the newspapers and went back to what was happening on Survivor or whatever show was hot and who was winning what championship in what sport). There'll be a spate of publicity and passing interest when the Depp film comes out, but it too will pass quickly, especially if the film flops. No one around here even talks about the Titanic anymore, despite Leo and the Oscars and all that pitiful madness over such a rotten film. But we'll see. I think there is a chance -- if we discover who wrote the diary and if it's a really juicy story -- that the tale of the diary's production might be good for burst of interest or two (in between sports seasons and especially during summer re-runs). But America has the attention span of a newborn fruit-fly for the most part, so unless it is all presented like the first hour of Baz Lurhmann's delightful new piece of postmodern eye-candy and pop-decon., it's not likely to grab the kids (and that's where the money is). Meanwhile, those interested in serious investigation or scholarship must plod on in a country where if you spend more that two solid, uninterrupted hours doing any one thing it is generally assumed you must be obsessed. Or maybe that's just how it seems to me these days, as I look forward to meeting a new bunch of eighteen to twenty-one year olds in a few months. Maybe, indeed, Anthony Hopkins will make us all stars (for a week or two, someday). --John (PS: Mark -- one problem is that Mr. Feldman actually offers so little proof of anything. He suggests things and allows his suggestions to stand as being somehow meaningful or significant, and he certainly speculates at length about what is at least possible. But there are very few passages in his book, it seems to me, where anything is even close to proven, especially concerning where the diary came from. Most of his details are in fact interpretations rather than simple facts or pieces of compelling evidence. What Paul is often claiming (despite his own peculiar penchant for a rhetoric of certainty and for melodramatic revelations) is that things are possible.... But that is different than claiming the diary can be proven to be authentic or even that there is evidence somewhere that supports the diary's claims to authenticity. But I do note, for you, with interest, that people around here don't seem to want to talk much about the watch anymore. Whether that is because they feel it has all been talked out already or whether they just can't decide what to make of it, I don't know. But that discussion seems to have ended some time ago on these boards, and despite Robert Smith's occasional reminders, no one seems to want to get back to it.)
| |
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 02:36 pm | |
Hi, John: I think you are wrong. Many people to whom I have mentioned my interest in the Ripper have remarked, "Oh yes, the Ripper was the Prince wasn't he?" or "Wasn't the Ripper the fellow from Liverpool who wrote the Diary?" I really think the general impression is that the Ripper either has been identified by now, or that the authorities knew who he was and hushed it up. It is us folk who know he was neither caught nor identified, and who realize that the evidence for any type of cover-up is weak. All the best Chris
| |
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 03:00 pm | |
Hi Chris, You might very well be right. I would like to think that most people still assume it's an unsolved mystery, but the conspiracy theories may have captured enough of the public by now to have turned the tide. I guess I just figured that most people simply don't care, and therefore wouldn't even know the conspiracy theories, and they still just assume that it's a Leonard Nimoy, cable-tv type mystery. But maybe not. Of course, many of the students I ask think the Civil War was "sometime before the 1950's, right?" and have to be reminded of who (and where and when) Jack the Ripper was in the first place. So I don't know. At least you have to grant me the fact that the attention span of the American public is such that they don't think very much about any of this (or about much of anything) very often or for very long. But you could be right that it is now more often than not assumed by the average guy sitting on his Barcalounger with his chips and six-pack, yelling at the NASCAR race on TV, that there was a Royal connection or at least that someone somewhere knew and didn't tell. That could be. --John
| |
Author: Scott Nelson Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 04:02 pm | |
There's got to be more than 10 people reading this board.
| |
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 09:24 pm | |
Hi, Scott: I agree that there are many more people that read the posts on this board than post here, so I would venture to say that the readership in many fold more than ten people. A number of the people who do not post here may be Diary believers who are put off by the perceived air of hostility toward the Diary that Mark Goeder spoke about. I am sorry if this is the case. People here do have strong opinions. However, I personally regret it if people feel they are not able to speak their minds and make their voices heard because they don't believe they will receive a fair hearing. Best regards Chris George
| |
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 05 June 2001 - 09:33 pm | |
Hello again everyone, I agree Chris, and also hope than anyone who might want to offer a thought or an idea feels free to jump into our little wading pool. After all, we can use all the help we can get around here, that's for sure. And now back to our regularly scheduled program… Prompted by Mark's welcome appearance here and his citing of Paul Feldman's book, I thought I'd try a little reading experiment this evening. Accordingly, I pulled my copy of The Final Chapter from the shelf, opened it completely at random to any page whatsoever and looked to see if I could find, on that page, an example of what I find troublesome about Paul's strategies of argumentation. Lo and behold, it honestly worked. The very first page I opened my book to was p. 288 in the paperback. Printed there was the October 5, 1888 "Dear Friend" letter concerning the Whitehall victim, in which the writer claims to be the Ripper and claims that he had nothing to do with this murder. We are all by now familiar with this one. But I read on, and sure enough Paul Feldman makes one of his typical leaps of reading and logic. Listen to the rhetoric of certainty and solution in the paragraphs and the conclusions that follow the citation of the letter and a summary of the Whitehall murder: "This was convincing. The Ripper must have written these letters. I concluded that, if you were a hoaxer and the newspapers had written that Jack the Ripper had killed again, then such a hoaxer would have claimed ownership of that murder. The police had never considered this crime to be the work of Jack the Ripper, but a hoaxer could not have known that. Only two people would have known that this murder was the work of a different hand: Jack the Ripper and the murderer of the Whitehall victim!" Well, despite the exclamation point at the end of this paragraph, this conclusion is of course logically fallacious and completely unestablished. Nowhere does Paul prove that only two people could have known this was a different murderer or that the Ripper had to have written the October 5th letter or offer any reason why it couldn't have been written by any number of people including those with press contacts or just someone with his own peculiar axe to grind (remember the letter's odd reference to Moab and Median, for instance). But he announces this conclusion as if it is self-evidently true, without doing any of the work necessary to establish its truth. But it gets stranger: "Whether the diary was genuine or not, the letter of 5 October must, beyond all reasonable doubt, have been sent by Jack the Ripper." That sentence is a paragraph all its own in the book. As if it were an established truth. Then this: "I read that letter again and again. Alarm bells went off. Some of those words I had seen before. I grabbed my copy of the diary. The letter had boasted 'I must get to work tomorrow treble event this time.'" Well, you know what is coming. Paul will now see if he can find words in the diary that somehow echo the October 5 letter. Of course, they are there if one is willing to grant a little creative reading leeway and allow an extended definition of the word "echo" to function somehow as proof of something. Here is the finding: "Astonishingly, in the very next entry after the double event (30 September), the diarist had written: 'Will visit the city of whores soon, very soon. I wonder if I could get three?' The letter also stated 'I never harm any others or the Divine power that protects and helps me...' "In the diary, in the entry following the boast of 'three next time,' the author wrote: 'I am convinced God placed me here to kill all whores, for he must have done so, am I still not here. Nothing will stop me now.'" So there it is. The letter of October 5 says "I never harm any others or the Divine power that protects and helps me." The diary says "I am convinced God placed me here to kill all whores, for he must have done so, am I still not here. Nothing will stop me now." And we are to conclude that the latter is clearly an "echo" of the former and therefore the diarist must have known about the October 5 letter. But is it possible that a writer of a fake Jack the Ripper diary might have written "I am convinced God placed me here to kill all whores, for he must have done so, am I still not here. Nothing will stop me now." without having seen or heard of the October 5 letter? Of course. It is a perfectly logical thing to write in such a book and one would even expect to find such sentences even if one had never heard of this letter. It's what the other letters often said and its what all the myths about Jack have him thinking and its just the sort of melodramatic stuff most people would think Jack would be thinking to himself. But here it is offered as proof that the diarist must have known about the October 5 letter and therefore must have been the Ripper. But wait. Here comes Paul's conclusion: "In the entry following the description of the double event, the author of the diary had written: '...will send Central another...'" (Oh yes, remember, the author of the diary [the Ripper] also apparently sent the Dear Boss letters -- Paul mentions that earlier, in a discussion of the importance of the handwriting.) But now the shocking revelation: "The letter of 5 October had never been published at the time that the diary was taken to Doreen Montgomery. Therefore, if the diary had been forged, the forger had found a letter that nobody had seen in 108 years! The diary, without a doubt, echoed the words of that letter. Joe Nickell, a Ripperologist, had stated that the diary was 'an amateurish fake.' Mr. Nickell, with all due respect..." And it ends with one of those lovely ellipses, as if Paul is really too polite to say what he wants to say to Joe Nickell. And as if he has proven something, or somehow proven Joe wrong. But let's look at that last paragraph again. It's a beauty. We move from suggesting that there were words in the diary that might sound a bit similar to words in the October 5 letter to the following announced and final conclusion: "Therefore, if the diary had been forged, the forger had found a letter that nobody had seen in 108 years!" What? How did we get this far so fast!? We were just pointing out some possible similarities and suddenly, a short paragraph later the only way this diary could have said these things is if the writer had seen the letter!? This is an incredible leap from a possibility to a "must." All because both texts mention trying to kill three and because of the idea that "I am convinced God placed me here to kill all whores, for he must have done so, am I still not here. Nothing will stop me now." allegedly sounds like "I never harm any others or the Divine power that protects and helps me." But does it? And, more importantly is the former necessarily the product of having seen the latter? Of course not. This isn't even close to logically or soundly established. Yet there is Paul writing: "The diary, without a doubt, echoed the words of that letter." "Without a doubt." That says it all, for me. That we can possibly have arrived at this certain conclusion from this little reading all in less than a page is precisely the problem, I think, with so much of this book. And this, to make a long story short, is why I would be highly suspicious of the "conclusions" that are announced in The Final Chapter with such blinding certainty but that are never actually or logically established as anything more than preferred readings and personal interpretations. And this was one page, chosen completely at random on my very first try. Of course, I still have no idea who wrote the diary. --John
| |
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 04:11 am | |
Hi, John: As you may know, I have made a special study of the Jack the Ripper letters. Mostly these letters are not held to be authentic by Ripper writers, with the possible exception of the Lusk letter. The original letters in the Dear Boss series are often credited to a newspaperman who was trying to keep interest in the cases going. Thus, the potent name "Jack the Ripper" may well be the invention of a journalist. A number of Ripper writers do cite whatever letters are convenient to support their particular suspect. Paul Feldman does this, and he actually cites more "Ripper" missives than most writers on the murders. Feldman, though, conveniently ignores the fact that each of the letters that he discusses is written in different handwriting and was undoubtedly written by a different individual. In regard to the October 5, 1888 "Dear Friend" letter, in which the writer claims to be the Ripper and claims that he had nothing to do with the Whitehall murder, you quote Feldman's conclusion, "Only two people would have known that this murder was the work of a different hand: Jack the Ripper and the murderer of the Whitehall victim!" I agree that this is unfounded if not bizarre thinking. It does not follow that either the murderer of the Whitechapel victims or of the Whitehall torso victim wrote this letter. Anyone with an active imagination and a flare for the melodramatic could have written the letter, and probably did, particularly if as the prevalent thinking goes, that letter, which appears to be one of the initial Dear Boss series, was the work of a journalist. Best regards Chris George
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 06:10 am | |
Hi Mark, As you can see from John's excellent post, the one known fact we have in his example, is that someone calling him/herself 'Jack the Ripper' wrote a letter dated October 5 1888. It's all about individual interpretation of the content and timing of this particular missive when compared with the content and supposed timing in the diary. It would be surprising if, out of all the ripper letters, there wasn't one which suggested a triple event, within days of the double, or wasn't one which dragged in excuses of the Divine kind. As with every other frustrating page of the diary, there is never anything we can pin down and say "Gotcha!" either way. It's what's missing that keeps it all going. If the diary author really was giving vent to private thoughts, but in the end decided to 'place this now in a place [terrible grammar ] were [sic] it shall be found' - finally wanting his tale of woe to be believed, it wouldn't have hurt him - and would have helped us no end - to write something like: 'Hope I gave the fools a laugh with my latest to Central even if I can't do three as promised Sir Jim May yet be the most practical joker of them all with God's help ha ha.' Love, Caz PS Just had an 'orrible thought. The last bit of the October 5 letter reads: Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat (Warning: Feldmanesque effect coming up) Well, although the triple event didn't come off, whoever sent that kidney to Lusk certainly gave him some cold meat he could show, and the diary author does write about eating 'cold kidney for supper', not piping hot on toast, as I like 'em.......
| |
Author: Guy Hatton Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 06:11 am | |
"And we are to conclude that the latter is clearly an "echo" of the former and therefore the diarist must have known about the October 5 letter. But is it possible that a writer of a fake Jack the Ripper diary might have written "I am convinced God placed me here to kill all whores, for he must have done so, am I still not here. Nothing will stop me now." without having seen or heard of the October 5 letter? Agreed entirely, John. Furthermore, the idea is far from exclusive to the Whitechapel Murders - it's common currency in both crime fiction and many real-life cases. I'm sure we could all think immediately of another high-profile British serial murderer, this one from the latter half of the 20th century, who claimed that God had presented him with a "mission" to kill prostitutes, and where much publicity had been given to this attempted defence prior to the emergence of the "Diary". Yet that this could have inspired the Diary passage is one of the possibilities that Feldman (unsurprisingly!) does not choose to consider. Your ability to deliver such a critique of a random choice of passage from Feldman strengthens my suspicion that his book is riddled with such flawed logic, and indeed, that one could find similar examples on almost any page from The Final Chapter. Superficially, Feldman can appear quite convincing, but you have ably demonstrated the need for a much closer scrutiny. All the Best Guy
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 07:08 am | |
Hi Guy, I agree with you about Feldy. But I do like to be careful about separating the various criticisms of his work from what the diary itself is able to tell us. Feldy certainly seems to have been used by some people, in particular Melvin Harris, as a potent weapon in the anti-diary wars, where to prove Feldy's conclusions are either wrong or not well-founded is not necessarily to prove anything about the document itself. By the way, I'm hugely looking forward to that programme tonight at 10.30 on ITV, about 'Wearside Jack', the hoaxer who proved to be such a terrible and tragic thorn in everyone's side during the Yorkshire Ripper's "mission". All the best. Love, Caz
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 07:15 am | |
Hi Scotty, I would like to think the number of readers here does exceed my lighthearted guestimate of ten. (Perhaps there are ways of knowing just how many visit this board, for example - anyone?) And I dearly hope that Karoline wasn't correct when she suggested that I might be frightening would-be readers and posters away! Even Mark thought I was trying to keep a straight face while writing to him, as a result of what he had written. But nothing could be further from the truth. My smileys are often directed inwards to my own shortcomings. And I am aware that my posts can be confusing, because I can switch from helpless mirth one minute, seeing humour in places (where others might not even see places), to deadly seriousness the next, if I believe someone - on or off the boards - is being treated less than fairly. Fortunately, thanks to various measures brought in since my early days here (including Ally's vigilance, and welcome comments about pest control and exposure), I believe the waters are much warmer, and less likely to be home to sea monsters of the nasty anonymous/pseudonymous kind these days. It would be nice to be able to say to more readers, "Come on in, the water's lovely." Love, Caz
| |
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 08:12 am | |
Hi all: Indeed I think Paul Feldman's research methods ("this photograph of a person looks like a Maybrick to me") did the Diary cause no good by creating an easy target for the Diary opponents. However, as Caz correctly points out, criticisms of Feldman do not address the problems of the document. Thus, as Melvin Harris might say, Feldman's intervention lead to SMOKE AND MIRRORS which obscure the central issues in regard to the Diary. Shirley Harrison's book is open to less criticism for her research style and conclusions. Obviously, Harrison is a Diary believer ("All will be revealed" and all that) but it is noticeable that Melvin's criticisms of her work have usually revolved about interpretations of the ink analyses and the circumstances surrounding those analyses than any other questions about her methodology. Best regards Chris George
| |
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 09:03 am | |
Good morning, all, Indeed, one of the most interesting things about the diary is that it has received the passionate attentions of both Messrs. Feldman and Harris and yet its origins still remain a mystery. Paul's work finally does little to help us in figuring out the who, where, when and why of the diary's actual composition -- although his book does introduce us to the major players and provide an example of how it is possible to create a story around the diary and then submit it as fact. Melvin's work also finally does little to help us in figuring out the specifics of the who, where, when, and why of the diary's actual composition -- although it does demonstrate the most convincing difficulties with some of the "authenticity" claims and even the claims of it being a 19th century document. But at some point both men have a tendency to announce things as proven and to announce solutions (or, in Melvin's case, the promise of them or the ownership of them), when in fact the solutions remain conspicuously absent. And neither man's work is very well served by their love of the language of revelation and finality (Paul's exclamation points and "without a doubts" and Melvin's "that is the end of that matter" tone and insistence on his own triumphs). So what the rest of us are left with is a reading problem and a living mystery. And for most of us this is made even more problematic and difficult because we do not know and have never met the major players. I often wonder what I would think if I had met Mike or Anne or Tony. How would talking to them change my opinions about this text and its origins? But as is the case with most reading, the principal figures remain unavailable to most of us and we're stuck with words on pages and stories told to others. I had one thought this morning. It seems that now both Mike and Anne regret the appearance of the diary (and what it has done to their lives). And I think many of the other people involved (including Shirley and Doreen, perhaps) also have moments where they wish the thing had never turned up or been written. Even Paul Feldman seems to have suffered finally with this thing, and it's obviously driven Melvin to distraction once or twice. Is there anybody around these days who is actually glad this book appeared? Or has it just been trouble for all involved? If there is an unnamed and unknown author sitting somewhere, related or unrelated to the Barretts & co., I wonder if they are proud or regretful of what their little project has produced? Also, I wanted to mention one thing to Mark and other diary supporters. If we are all completely wrong around here -- if by some rare chance it turns out that this thing was written by James Maybrick (despite the handwriting problems and all the rest) and that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, I would be perfectly happy with that outcome. If we found another document tomorrow, with impeccable provenance -- a letter, say, that had been in the family for generations, that now turned up and wherein Maybrick himself suggests to a friend or relative that he's been murdering women in Whitechapel, and we are all forced to admit that the damn diary was real after all, I would be the first to say how mistaken all my readings were and to exit smiling, knowing now who killed the poor women whose faces appear on the Casebook victims page. This, finally, is not about the pride of being right or wrong. This has to be about reading the best we can and considering what we know and don't know honestly and with care. Now I must take two lovely little girls, precocious nieces of mine, to the Florida Aquarium for the day -- to look at big, sometimes scary fish. (One semi-Ripper related fish note: the field of ichthyology has now apparently agreed to change the name of the largest of a specific species of grouper -- now commonly known as a "jewfish" -- in the interest of cultural sensitivity.) I guess these fish will no longer be blamed for nothing. Bye all, --John
| |
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 09:45 am | |
Q: What swims around and frightens other fish? A: Jack the Kipper. (a joke [?] told by Richard Beckinsale in "Porrige")
| |
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 10:02 am | |
Hi, Paul and John: Paul, thanks for the kipper joke (I think) John, I wonder if the answer to this whole mystery might be PC Fish? All the best Chris
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 10:16 am | |
Hi Paul, Pity kippers can't swim - or frighten anyone, apart from perhaps the Queen Mum, with her tendency to get fish bones stuck in her throat. But I guess the joke would fall a bit flat if the answer was: Red the Herring. Or perhaps not. (Don't let me forget the sick squid I owe everyone, each time I spoil a joke with another terrible one. Like the one about my pet squid who helps me with the washing up. I call him my wild green furry-lipped squid - work it out. ) Love, Caz
| |
Author: Mark Goeder Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 06:57 pm | |
Hi, Just wanted to say thank you to the people who kindly answered some of my questions. In a way, if I think about it, I suppose Feldmans book is very convincing to anyone who firmly believes in the diary.Its easy to jump to premature conclusions after comparing some of the evidence I read in the book. But like you all said, is it really evidence? Just because its in the book, it doesnt have to qualify as sound proof for anything really. I myself cant argue too much about the facts presented to me in the book but I still get an uneasy feeling when I read the first page of the diary in Harrisons "The diary of Jack the Rippper" ( the hardback version ) On the first page of the diary transcript,(P.273) I get an uneasy feeling.Even reading it now,I still have to shiver a little when reading it because Im not sure what to make of it. If I had to criticize it, I would have to start on the very first page Maybe it is "too" victorian? I did notice that the writer managed to use a lot of names, as if to open a story and catch the readers attention. On the very first diary page, the writer mentions Gladys,Hopper, Thomas, Michael, Edwin, Smith , Florence ( 4 x bitch and 4 x Whore )not to forget Brierly ( whoremaster). Bobos name appears on the next page.This make up for all the main actors in the diary. Also, Place names are mentioned. Battlecrease, London ( and Capital ), Poste House, Whitechapel and even Manchester.Here again the main stage has be mentioned on the first page. He even starts his campaign on the first page. I found out he was on heavy medicine on the first page too not to mention finding out that his wife is having an affair....and all this seams to be on the first page ( more or less ) Another big problem for me was the word SO typical in Victorian England, BUMBLING BUFFOON. There is a figure called VICTORIAN DAD in the adult comic VIZ which uses this expresion in the same way.......this word too is sticking out on the first page to remind us that this was written in Victorian England The usage of the word INDEED crops up too much. I could even go a far as saying " a little too obvious". Indeed it is. It maybe coincidence, but someone tore out nearly half the pages and picks up suddenly with the complete plot, nearly all the main charcters and where all this happened. And I can read it all in the very first page. So what was torn out of the diary? Maybe the first half was empty? I dont know, but I ll be sitting on the fence again waiting to find out. Guten nacht Leute Mark
|