|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 09:19 am |        | Peter,
some posts up you asked for "reasons they think prove the diary to be a fake". The problem lies in the language (please correct me if I am wrong John, because this is more your line of work than mine) and the use of the word "reasons". Resaons are not proof and so you will always be able to bring forward "reasons" which you think will prove the diary to be genuine. What we are lacking at the moment is proof for and against the diary. You will follow your "reasoning" and John will follow his. Remember The Neagle and his Royal Theory? Not amount of "reasoning" will stop him following that line of thought even if there are enough "reasons" to bury the story. So lets be "reasonable" and admit that none of us know the truth, except for a anonymous poster some time back on another thread who claimed to know who wrote the diary.
I can easily think of five reasons which speak against the diary, but the same six could be used for the diary. Don't believe me? Well take a look:
1) No dating of ink and paper have put the diary in the 1880s.
2) No information in the diary cannot be found in newspapers etc.
3) There is no information to be found to place Maybrick in Whitechapel on the nights of the murder.
4) There is nothing prior to the diary to link Maybrick with Jack the Ripper.
5) The handwriting of will and diary and different.
6) There are mistakes in the diary.
So what do these six reasons prove. Nada! Nothing! Nichts! Because you can turm them around and use them for the diary.
Monty said a while back that we are staring at the wall. And this post is just "Another brick in the Wall".
Yours
Living in the Past
Philip |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 04:07 pm | | Philip
I have three minutes, the Braithwaites are coming on, so I'll be quick:
1) No dating of ink and paper have put the diary in the 1880s.
No dating of ink and paper have put the diary in the 1990's.
2) No information in the diary cannot be found in newspapers etc.
Yes, there is information that cannot be found in the papers. 'Sir Jim', 'Bobo', the fact that Maybrick's wife was a yank, the fact that Maybrick's parents were buried together, tin match box empty. Want more?
3) There is no information to be found to place Maybrick in Whitechapel on the nights of the murder.
There is no information to be found to place Maybrick in Liverpool (or anywhere else) on the nights of the murders. Twenty odd visits to his doctors are recorded for Maybrick. NONE of them conflict with the dates of the murders.
4) There is nothing prior to the diary to link Maybrick with Jack the Ripper.
Spectacularly wrong Phil. He was even linked in the press of the day, during Florie's trial. Billy Graham tells a story of running up and down outside Maybrick's house shouting "watch out, watch out, Jack the Ripper's about". And the Liverpool chemist made a Maybrick/Ripper connectiion BEFORE the diary became public property.
5) The handwriting of will and diary and different.
Absolutely. But Maybrick's handwriting, his PROVEN handwriting, matches that of a letter sent by the ripper. His will also matches that letter. The diary was written in a relaxed hand, it is not a business document.
6) There are mistakes in the diary.
Name them.
Now I must go.
Sorry to everyone else.
Peter.
P.S. Chris T. George. Liverpool are doing well. |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 04:19 pm | | Peter,
You are repetitive, unimaginitive and becoming quite boring. If you are going to continue this line, at least bring up some topics that haven't been refuted over and over. Or learn to read and retain. Why don't you read through the last 6 months and one thousand posts several times. Then if you come up with anything original, come back and visit. And do it fast because it's not going to be around for long.
If anyone dignifies this debate with serious argument, they are an idiot. |
Author: Peer Schnee
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 05:44 pm | | Peter,
I agree sometimes with you, you know that, but let me take place here for three point of views to:
(3) to name JM as JTR or as the Whitechapel - ghost there must be evidence, that JM was in London at the time of the cases
(4) Bill Grahams poroposition is like a tale, there are not one point for historicall evidence, but more for prejudices to a family, which are very long in the press, which are a ball of crime and so one
(5) that the will and other writings of JM matches the JTR - letter, is not a evidence, that JM or the author of the letters identified with the Whitechapel -murderer.
Only (2) is a hopfull point for the argumentation, I think, but not with totaly sureness.
By the way, Peter, I aske some days later:
Who could knows, what a possible hoaxer knows?
Best wishes,
Peer |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 06:13 pm | | Hi guys,
I have just read an old book (pre diary 1978) about Florence Maybrick and others. (Crimes Of Passion) its just a little sad paperback that i bought at a bootsale about 7 years ago. It mentions a mistress to James Maybrick that bore two children by him, and IF? i remember rightly, the name it gives here is different to the one given in "The final chapter" ??? This lady`s name is "Mary Hogwood" and this same Mary Hogwood wrote a letter from virginia to say that she "fully suspected" James to die of self inflicted Arsenic abuse poisoning. So why is this name not even in the "The final chapter" or "The A-Z" ?? is this name a red herring for the other lady in Maybricks life? The one in whitechapel, who also allegedly bore two children before James met Florence on the vessel crossing the Alantic (claims PHF)??????
Also a month or so ago i wrote about a "Thomas Ede" (or Eade in some publishings) witnessing a guy in his forty`s with a limp and what appeared to be a wooden arm (anyone remember???)that had at least three inches of knife hanging out of his pocket when spotted by the rail lines on the morning after one of the killings. And i said this sounds like what the diarist claims to of felt (numb limbs etc) and everyone on here took the dirty water out of me for it. well the book says ... "in mid April James visited london to pay off one of Flories creditors. He also took the opportunity to see a doctor about pains in the head and "Numbness of the limbs" the doctor prescribed various medicines for indegestion and constipation, as he was not aware that James had made a habit of dosing himself with arsenic and strychnine, both of which are stimulants, (when taken in small doses) which CAN produce the symptoms Maybrick complained of. (They`re words not mine.) Maybe this is the book the "Forgers" read for certain info ?? maybe i`m completley wrong ? Maybe i`m right ?? Who is this Mary Hogwood ?? who cares?? does this make any sense ?? I`ve had a drink so excuse me.
James the Ripper ?? so what has that Skinner fella found out now ???? Is it James Maybrick ???? or another James ??? I thought he believd the diary was a forgery ?? anyway southpark is on. See ya guys and gals.
yours Truly.
Tee Vee |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 06:26 pm | | Ally
Kiss it
Peter. |
Author: Peer Schnee
Thursday, 11 April 2002 - 06:56 pm | | Peter,
are my questions so stupid, that you must ignore they??
Peer |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 12 April 2002 - 05:09 am | | Hi Tee Vee,
I wouldn't take the recent remark about Keith Skinner's search for James the Ripper too seriously or too literally. Best to stick as near to primary sources as possible if you want uncontaminated, unbiased info.
You know how "Send reinforcements we're going to advance" can change to "Send three-and-fourpence we're going to a dance" in a twinkle of an eye if you're not careful. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Saturday, 13 April 2002 - 05:44 am | | Dear Peer
My apologies if you thought I was ignoring you. Rather, I had a problem understanding what you had written. Where are you from?
Anyway, you say that to name James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper there must be evidence that he was in London at the time. A good point, if not entirely valid. But Peer, there is evidence that James Maybrick was in London in 1888, witness his mistress who lived there, his brother who lived there and his business partner who kept an office there.
Can I prove that James Maybrick was in Whitechapel on 9 November 1888? No, of course I can't. But Peer, perhaps your question should be turned round and aimed at the detractors? The diarist has James as being in London on at least the dates of the five canonical murders. James' life is well documented, his attendance at cotton exchange meetings, his visits to his doctors etc. And so far no one has been able to prove that James could not possibly have been in London on the dates of the canonical murders. Rather a gamble for a forger, don't you think?
Bill Graham's evidence is like a tale? I don't really know how to respond to that! Anne and her father have given the diary a provenance dating back to the 1940's. That alone should mean that the diary is genuine, because the texts the "forger" is supposed to have used weren't around then. And if Anne is lying (as would seem to be the obvious alternative) why has nobody strapped her to a polygraph and proved that she is lying.
It's black and white Peer, either Anne is lying or the diary is genuine.
Let me see if I get your next piece of reasoning: James' handwriting in his will matches with the handwriting in one of the JTR letters, but you say that is not proof that JM was Jack the Ripper? Well, I suppose not, it could after all, have just been James having a jolly jape.
But what an amazing coincidence for the forgers!!!
They "choose" Maybrick as their candidate, go about writing a fictitious diary that contains evidence relating to his life that was published nowhere and then, when their diary has already been let loose on the world, they find out that JM's handwriting matches that of a ripper letter. Wonderful!
Now this, Peer, I have a problem with: Who could know what a possible hoaxer knows? What do you mean by that?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Saturday, 13 April 2002 - 07:59 am | | | This thread is now closed due to it's size. Posters are asked to create a new thread Time For a Re-Eval 2 if they wish to continue the debate. |
|
|
|
|
