Archive through 09 October 2001

** 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 09 October 2001

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!: Archive through 09 October 2001

Author: Madeleine Murphy Monday, 08 October 2001 - 04:53 pm
Hi Ivor, (and all!) Have you heard the Barrett tapes? He is on record as explaining his "confession" as a way to get back at Ann for leaving. There was a tree distributing them, and I was the most recent recipient (from John Hacker, and here's a public Thank you!) so if you want copies just send me an email at madeleine_murphy@hotmail.com. The tapes are interviews with Shirley and (I think) Keith, in January 1995. As for why someone would do something self-defeating, hysterical and destructive, well, spend an afternoon in a dive bar! It's human nature not to act in your own interest. Regards, Madeleine
Author: John Omlor Monday, 08 October 2001 - 05:27 pm
Hi Peter, Remember, I'm not convinced the diary is real. I am convinced it it is a forgery, in fact. But I am also not convinced that it has been proved a forgery finally in such a way as to satisfy the general reading public. I am also not convinced that it has been proved to be real in any sort of way. So I am neither arguing for or against any specific outcome. I am arguing against all sides when they claim things that are not logically valid from their premises, whether that has to do with authenticity or the likely identity of the author(s). So some of what I say may sound like I'm arguing in favor of the diary and some of what I say may clearly be an indictment of its claims to authenticity. Such is the way I read. I am not actually being "swayed" either way. Now, as to your post... You write: John, how much more 'definitive and verifiable' can you get than Anne Graham's father saying that he saw the diary in 1943, and Anne saying that she saw it in the late 1960's?" Anne and Anne's father's statements are neither definitive nor verifiable proof of anything. They are both highly interested parties, therefore their statements cannot be used to verify each other nor can their personal testimony, independent of material or supporting evidence or documentation, be considered definitive in any logical way. Their claim that the diary has been in existence prior to 1992 has not been substantiated in any way, materially or in terms of independent testimony or verification. Consequently, their statements remain precisely the things that need proving. You ask: "O.k. so they verify each other, but does that mean they are lying." No, it means we can't count this as "independent verification" or as "definitive evidence" of anything. Then you write: "The forensics on the diary certainly back their stories up, wouldn't you agree?" No. The forensics are quite clearly and demonstrably contradictory and therefore do not "back up" their story at all. Now back to Paul and the handwriting. Of course, if the handwriting does not match Maybrick's and I want Maybrick to be the author I have to point out the weakness of handwriting analysis as a science and I have to remind people of the often inconsistent nature of people's writing. I would expect this argument at this point Paul's book. It is the proper response. It does not make the problem go away (the writing still doesn't match Maybrick's) but it mediates it by raising at least the possibility of doubt, at least rhetorically. Fair enough. But then Paul goes that one, needless extra step over the top and throws in the "multiple personality" argument besides. And he loses me, I'm afraid. First of all, genuine MPD is extremely rare and the language of the diary and the words on the page do not actually suggest that the writer is any way suffering from genuine MPD. In fact, the narrative voice is shockingly and almost redundantly singular and consistent, whether it is speaking of family matters, business dealings or murder. Yes, the writing changes dramatically, but the voice does not and the phrasing does not and the "personality" of the narrator does not. And there is no historical evidence that Maybrick ever showed any symptoms of MPD (and because of his death and the subsequent trial, he was much written about eventually). MPD is not in fact linked to the intake of arsenic or other poisons. Of course, the writing is in fact consistent, even within its fluctuations. I have no trouble at all believing one person wrote the entries (although it is still possible that two did, given some of the size changes). Chris and I have already noted how the style of the writing changes with the content. But none of that suggests genuine MPD and none of that suggests that Maybrick's handwriting would vary so completely in his personal journal from his public writings. I agree Peter, that appropriate and responsible critical responses can be made concerning the inexactness of handwriting analysis as a genuine science and the possibilities for variation from public to private. And yes, as I said myself earlier, a very small sample of our suspect's handwriting is available and that needs to be taken into consideration. This is perhaps why the handwriting problems, though they seem definitive to so many, have not simply relegated the diary to the dustbin of Ripper history once and for all. (Putting aside the still completely open and fascinating question of who the hell did write it and where and why and how...) I agree that the handwriting problems do not make the diary go away. But they remain problems for those who want to claim authenticity as well, and just raising the specter of uncertainty over such a small sample does not make them go away for the believers either. And pointlessly and melodramatically raising the red-herring of a mysterious case of MPD certainly doesn't help the discussion proceed rationally or rigorously or logically or historically or responsibly at all. But I'm still here and still reading, against the tide, --John
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 08 October 2001 - 05:39 pm
I am new to this message board and this site. But I am not new to neither the White Chapel murders nor murder in general. I am a private investigator specializing in cold case homicide and missing persons. I was previously with the New Orleans Police Department for 20 years and I was homicide for 16 of those 20 years. I have seen all types of murders and victims and I have had to deal with all types of murderers. The White Chapel killer was a full blown paranoid schizophrenic. His crimes became more grisly the further they went on. A person committing these types of crimes would have trouble functioning in society. He would have trouble putting together a full sentence, let alone writing a detailed diary. Literally, hundreds of cases back this statement. Richard Trenton Chase, Dominick Hassleman, Terry Songy are just three that come quickly to mind that butchered and mutilated their victims. Jeffery Dahlmer is not one. He was able to still function and tried his best to "hide" his crimes. The White Chapel killer like others, whose psychosis is this full blown, did not bother to hide their vics, they just kill and move on until their psychosis finally gets the better of them.
Author: John Omlor Monday, 08 October 2001 - 05:56 pm
Hi Scott, Geez, I don't know. I live in Florida. Ted Bundy killed and butchered his way across the country once or twice, leaving women in ditches, and still charmed everyone he knew, wrote perfectly clear and intelligent legal briefs, and later wrote rhetorically persuasive anti-pornography propaganda from within prison here. And I grew up in Philly and New York. David Berkowitz (who admittedly didn't butcher, but did leave his victims right where he killed them for all to see) may or may not have heard the voice of Satan coming from his neighbor's dog, but he wrote letter after letter to the newspapers, went about his daily life in the city just like normal and is now writing detailed and perfectly coherent testimonies of his born-again Christianity from his prison cell for his regularly updated web page. Those are just the first two sociopaths that come to mind who could write clearly and coherently. I suspect history is littered with more. As to the clinical specifics of Jack's psychosis, I do believe that it is impossible to create a definitive or professional clinical diagnosis with any specificity simply from the bodies themselves and what very little supporting biographical material we have. Our guesses are always based on our own experience, and I respect yours completely, but this is not something we can honestly be that certain about, is it? Thanks, --John PS: Oh yes, the Yorkshire Ripper (Jack's namesake) could also write and act coherently and in fact went to work and conducted his daily life and affairs without incident or suspicions and even spoke with the police a few times while he was carving up women, didn't he?
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:13 pm
John Now I see where you are coming from, you just want to know the truth. I haven't studied MPD in any depth and I expect I am on a caning to nothing here if YOU have, but to argue that the diarist doesn't exhibit any traits of MPD is, to borrow one of your words, illogical, I am afraid. There are plenty of contradictory statements in the diary which indicate to me that our friendly neighbourhood diarist was at least a bit wacko! Witness these two: "Next time I will throw acid over them. The thought of them riddling and screaming whilst the acid burns deep thrills me". AND "June is such a pleasant month,the flowers are in full bud and the air is sweeter and life is almost certainly much rosier. I look forward to it's coming with pleasure". So there we have it, a drug addled psychopath who dreams of throwing acid in women's faces - and yet likes to smell the flowers! How many more personalities do you want him to portray? From a medical point of view there may be no justifiable evidence of the condition which is strictly termed 'Multiple Personality Disorder', but there is certainly evidence that our diarist exhibited mood swings. Not just mood swings like we suffer when our favourite football team loses, or we get dumped by a loved one. But violent, off the wall, mood swings. The natural reaction to the the English national football team losing a game isn't for me to go out and find some 'bitches' to throw acid at. Neither, I suspect, would you. I could fill this page with examples from the diary, but those two above, will, I believe, suffice. Now, what evidence is there that Maybrick had mood swings? Well, if you take at face value Florence Aunspaugh's evidence then you would get a picture of Maybrick as a family man who was totally besotted with his children. But then just take a peek inside Battlecrease on the night that they arrived home from the Grand National, and take a look at the bruises on Florence Maybrick's face...................... '........pointlessly and melodramatically raising the red herring of a mysterious case of MPD.............." - Pointlessly? He has a point to prove, how can it be pointless? Melodramatically? Well, Paul Feldman is nothing if not melodramatic! And what is wrong with that? Would you rather he sat in the corner and whimpered to an audience of about five people about his latest theories? Of course you wouldn't! The great speakers of our and any other age were melodramatic. The great politicians were and are melodramatic. Paul Feldman was trying to sell a book, he's not in this business out of purely altruistic reasons, he's a business man with something to sell, so to accuse him of being melodramatic is only to accuse him of doing his job? Red herring? Well, yes - if you believe the diary to be a fake then the mpd argument IS a red herring, if however you are prepared to accord other people's opinions an audience then ALL the evidence MUST be heard. Logically? John, you rely a lot on that word, logical and please don't think I am criticising you for that. Have you ever tried looking at something from a different perspective? Whoever wrote the diary (Maybrick or forger) wasn't logical, so consequently Feldman's analysis of it's text and contents relies heavily on the mental make up of our "forger"/"Maybrick". If you have a red jumper and you try to describe it to me, you can disguise it in any number of ways, but it will always be red! A rose by any other name............... My next question for you: In the bible Maybrick gave to Sarah Ann, he calls her 'Piggy'. Do you think it possible, in view of the fact that the diarist called Florie 'Bunny', that Maybrick liked using 'pet' names for his wives? Do you think it is just a coincidence? Or do you think the forger saw the bible? Against the tide? If you are against the tide, then I am practically drowning! See you soon John Peter.
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:14 pm
Peter. You missed the point I am trying to make.I dont think Mike knew the diary to be Genuine.He knew it was dodgy. I want people who believe the diary to be genuine and who also believe Mike thought it genuine to answer the question I put forward.Now do you see my point I should have made it clearer. Thanks for clearing up the point about reading books.
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:22 pm
Hi Scott Good to see a new name on the board. I too have worked as a police officer and dealt with violent criminals, murderers etc. I know how they manage to function in society even though the rest of society finds their acts abhorrent. The answer is that they LIE. They lie to everyone around them and they lie to themselves. If they can convince themselves that 'someone else, not me' was responsible for their actions then they find it all the easier to sit round the breakfast table in the morning and eat their cornflakes with the wife and children. As a matter of interest, how many of your quoted murderers were single men and not in a relationship with a woman? Dahmer? Bundy? Peter Sutcliffe was married at the time of his crimes in England and fooled his wife, his neighbours and his workmates. Maybrick too was married......an echo of more than just a name? I believe Maybrick used his 'diary' as a confessional to himself. I genuinely believe he didn't want to kill anybody and thought that by writing about it he may be able to satisfy his cravings. But history tells a different story.....doesn't it? Peter.
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:24 pm
True on all accounts. But sociopaths are not manical in their acts. Sociopaths like Bundy, Dalhmer, Berkowitz and Gacy are still able to function in society, it is how they are able to survive. They are able to change their M.O. to fit their needs. M.O. changes, the signature of the criminal and the respective crime does not. Bundy was also able to drive and navigate across country. He could maintain a job and go to school. A person with full blown paranoid schizophrenia is literally not mentally able to drive or move across town. They become trapped in their own world both physically and mentally. They operate in areas that are known to them. They literally cannot hold down a job because even the most simple of task is to difficult for them. Working as a night janitor in an office building would prove to be more than they could handle. The progression of violence from Annie Chapman to Kate Eddowes and to Mary Jane Kelly indicates the possibility of a schizophrenic disorder that is getting worse. The M.O. may change but it changes not for survival purposes but because the psychosis is deepening, in this case according to police and coroner reports the M.O. stays the same. The throat is cut from behind left to right followed by post mortem mutilation, with of course the exception of Ms. Stride.
Author: Scott Weidman Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:26 pm
Hi Scott, Welcome to the fold, Magnum. So, you're saying that Jeffrey Dahmer is the only exception to your theory? If JD could put together a full sentence and function in society, then why couldn't the Ripper have done the same? You must also believe beyond a shadow of doubt that the Goulston Street Graffito could not have been written by the Ripper. Okay, fair enough. While I am not sure whether or not the Ripper wrote the graffito, I do share your belief that the diary was written by another hand. Regards, Scott White--> <--Chapel = Whitechapel
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:26 pm
Madeleine, I have said time and time again (it is on record on the casebook ) that Mike Barrett fell out with his wife and he did it to get back at her.I knew this before he ever made any tapes which I have not heard by the way. When criminals fall foul of each other anything can happen and the truth can be said about some male/female relationships.We all know the saying about hell hath no fury etc, well it can work the other way as well. I wish I had a pound for every time I have seen it happen.In a nut shell Mike cut off his nose to spite his face.
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:27 pm
True on all accounts. But sociopaths are not manical in their acts. Sociopaths like Bundy, Dalhmer, Berkowitz and Gacy are still able to function in society, it is how they are able to survive. They are able to change their M.O. to fit their needs. M.O. changes, the signature of the criminal and the respective crime does not. Bundy was also able to drive and navigate across country. He could maintain a job and go to school. A person with full blown paranoid schizophrenia is literally not mentally able to drive or move across town. They become trapped in their own world both physically and mentally. They operate in areas that are known to them. They literally cannot hold down a job because even the most simple of task is to difficult for them. Working as a night janitor in an office building would prove to be more than they could handle. The progression of violence from Annie Chapman to Kate Eddowes and to Mary Jane Kelly indicates the possibility of a schizophrenic disorder that is getting worse. The M.O. may change but it changes not for survival purposes but because the psychosis is deepening, in this case according to police and coroner reports the M.O. stays the same. The throat is cut from behind left to right followed by post mortem mutilation, with of course the exception of Ms. Stride.
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:32 pm
Sorry about the double posting. I don't know how that happened. Musta double clicke when I shouldn't have. Peace, Scott
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:34 pm
Ivor "Can you cite me a case where someone with the genuine article worth it's weight in gold has turned round and said it to be a forgery while knowing it to be genuine?" The last five words Ivor: KNOWING IT TO BE GENUINE. I refer you to my previous posting. If you were to ask me why Mike would denounce the diary as a forgery whilst SUSPECTING that he could make a mint out of it......I would answer thus: Mike Barrett might be a bit of a 'wide boy', he might even fancy himself as something of a 'wheeler dealer', but businessman of the year he ain't! Mike strikes me as a family man who got gobbled up by the publishers and agents and writers with all their contracts and 'fair share of contractual expenses'. He got so confused the poor lad probably couldn't even tie his own shoe laces. Mike wanted his old life back. He wanted his wife and daughter back. He wanted his little garden at the back of his terraced home ('my pride and joy'). He wanted to call into the pub after dropping his daughter off at school. In short - Mike wanted a return to normality. Mike wanted to wave a magic wand and make the diary disappear, and what better way to do that than denouncing it as a forgery? Mike wasn't a villain in this game, he was an unwilling participant and I for one am not surprised to hear of his nervous breakdown. I pity him. But it still leaves us with the diary. It is not important who brought it to our attention. Stop trying to shoot the messenger! Concentrate on the facts. Peter P.S. I see you have shown no interest in reading MY book.
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:39 pm
Scott So our sociopath isn't capable of holding down a janitor's job? But he is capable of holding a conversation with a prostitute long enough to transact some business with her and persuade her to accompany him? I rather think JTR wasn't the dribbling idiot you portray, but a very clever, cunning man. Just a thought Peter.
Author: John Omlor Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:43 pm
Peter, I must rush out for the evening but one quick point or two... You write: "So there we have it, a drug addled psychopath who dreams of throwing acid in women's faces - and yet likes to smell the flowers! How many more personalities do you want him to portray?" These are not, psychologically speaking, two different "personalities." They might be two different moods or different emotions, but they are not evidence of multiple personalities at all. There is nothing in the diary that suggests the writer had more than one defined and developed clinical personality (that is, fully-drawn characters who inhabit their consciousness). Contradictions and inconsistencies do not indicate MPD. Separate speaking voices or drawn personalities within the same brain do. Second: what is often "wrong" with Paul's penchant for melodrama is that it elides over gaps in his reasoning or disguises his suggestions as conclusions, when conclusions have not thoroughly or properly been developed. The exclamation point and the suggestive ellipse are not substitutes for material evidence and independent verification or thoroughness of reasoning. For instance, dramatically pointing out that MPD's handwriting often varies from personality to personality is not "evidence." Not in this case. Not unless Paul can at least find some reliable evidence that Maybrick might have actually had MPD, which he has not. The gesture of invoking MPD is drama, it is a flourish for the crowd, but it is not reasonably linked to the case in any reliable or scholarly way and therefore it remains still only a red-herring. And of course I am not suggesting that whoever wrote the diary was logical or that the Ripper was, I am suggesting that Paul, as a responsible scholar, historian, and analyst and reader should be. Because it is through care and patience and thoroughness and yes logically sound reasoning that we are most likely to create a solid and reliable reading of this document and its history. I'm out of time, but in quick response to your last question, I remind you that my significant other and I call each other "Buckwheat." I have no idea why. I do nt think the inscription in the Bible makes the term Bunny in the diary evidence of authenticity. In fact, Maybrick might very well have called Florence Bunny and this might have been public knowledge. I honestly don't know. Now I must run to dinner with my Buckwheat. All the best, --John PS: Scott, I understand your distinction, but I think a responsible clinical diagnosis of Jack's mental condition would require more data. Until such time as that data becomes available we cannot be sure whether Jack was one who could write and function or whether he was one who would have been more and more incapacitated by his drives. In any case, the police at the time were not sure of this either. I take it, then, that you think none of the letters are authentic and that Jack would have been immediately identifiable in public as demented by the end of his madness.
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 08 October 2001 - 07:04 pm
Dear 'BuckWheat' Enjoy your meal, I'm off to bed, it's gone midnight in Manchester, England. By tomorrow I will come back refreshed and able to argue against the Kosminski/David Cohen theory towards which you seem to be leaning. But as a little clue, remember the witnesses? Yours Bunny
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 08 October 2001 - 07:11 pm
Hi, John and Peter: With that salutation, I keep thinking I am writing to a couple of Gospel writers, rather than a pair of Diary students. First, John, thanks for lucidly explaining the argument against the writer of the Diary having multiple personality syndrome. I keep hearing the possibility the Maybrick had MPD and there are the samples of handwriting by a person with MPD in Harrison and Feldman's book. Yet the writing in the Diary does not vary that much from beginning to end. Rather it gets big and it gets small, sometimes the writing is done in longhand, and occasionally in capitals, but there are no great changes in the writing on the same order as shown in those samples. I also agree with you, John, that the consistency of the voice throughout the Diary argues against personality shifts consistent with anyone who had MPD. Peter, you have spoken about how many Ripper books you have read. Have you got Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner's Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell yet? If you have not, I would advise you to do get it because I think it would give you a different perspective on the letters, written as it is by two well-informed researchers in the Ripper field. Having corresponded with Mr. Evans I will tell you that he leans toward the belief that Thomas J. Bulling of the Central News Agency was responsible for the Dear Boss letters. Evans and Skinner in Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell make the point that the publication of the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jacky postcard in the press and on the police broadside with the request, "Any person recognising the handwriting is requested to communicate with the nearest Police Station," led to an avalanche of letters most of them written in different handwriting. Now, out of these hundreds of letters, Paul Feldman picks and chooses the letters he singles out as written by Maybrick. So he publishes (p. 277 Virgin hardback) a letter of October 8, 1888 side by side with a letter Maybrick wrote on March 4, 1881 on R.M.S. Baltic stationery (p. 276). This comparison was also mentioned by Melvyn Fairclough in Bournemouth as proof of Maybrick's authorship of this Dear Boss letter. But the point is that this Dear Boss missive matches neither the writing in the Diary nor the writing of other Dear Boss communciations, particularly the original Dear Boss letters! Neither by the way do I agree with you that the only alternatives for the first Dear Boss communications are that they were either written by the Ripper or by a journalist. The other alternative is that they were written by a hoaxer, a member of the public, of which, going by Evans and Skinner's excellent new book there were evidently hundreds of hoaxers in 1888 ready to get their little bit of attention. One other thing, on an entirely different subject. What do we make of the fact that there is absolutely no mention in the Diary of the fact that Florence Maybrick was an American? Best regards Chris George
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 08 October 2001 - 08:05 pm
Hi Scott, Interested to learn of your background. I have also been in a position to study the subject. I was on the other side of the fence though for 35 years or more.Many years ago I was the Wing No1 in 'D Wing' which was the lifers wing in H.M.P Wandsworth. I had between 14-21 cons working under my instructions at any given time.Part of my job was to get the food from the kitchen and feed the wing inmates, do the laundry for the wing, and book in and out of the wing all inmates. I was also the No1 Hospital Orderly in Wandsworth. I have spent several years living day to day on the same wing as some of the worst killers in British prisons. If fact I made it my hobby to study them. I can tell you this much they would tell me far more than any official or policeman that caught them.Being convicted they had nothing to lose by telling me facts also they viewed me as one of their own which led them to open up. In saying that one or two would try to bullshit me. I made a habit of finding out what books many killers read before even talking to them. Also I had a great deal of help in my studies from hospital staff in Wandsworth who knew about the mental aspects etc, of such people.I also studied the Ripper murders for 9 years full time and have just written a book on the subject.I find that many people take far too much for granted when dealing with the ripper. I believe that only criminals know about criminals in great depth. Anyone who is not a criminal ( or used to be one ) cant really see into the criminal mind in such detail although some people may think they can. I have met people who have killed in certain situations and I have thought, but for the grace of God go I.Some I concidered were more than justified in their actions but the law being an ass did not see it like that.One lad I met who was serving in the army was attacked and his attacker tried to rape him. He killed his attacker and got life. The worst killers I have ever met were those I termed as evil and believe me when I say you can only deal with them in a certain manner. Many evil killers I met were rank cowards show a weakness and they would take advantage of it. Some killers I met were just plain nuts.I got to know quite a lot about them while I was working in the hospital. I find that many people get involved in the subject of crime and they dont have a clue what they are on about. While others with no experience do quite well because they know how to use their brains. You will get to find this out if you plan to stay here. Of course you have those with a little experience and even less brains. It is a matter of sorting the chaff from the wheat if you get my drift. Good luck.
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 08 October 2001 - 08:37 pm
Peter, When I ask a question it does not mean that I dont know the answer. You are the only person who has bothered to answer my question. I believe that Mike's problems,the drink, and the heat in the kitchen did get too much for him. I believe that if he had left the drink alone he might have done better. But as for feeling sorry for him I dont.He has made money out of all this. He brought about his own demise and in the process he caused a lot of trouble apart from wasting my time and the time of many others.You reap what you sow and he was no exception to the rule. I'm sorry if I appear to be harsh in this respect.
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 08 October 2001 - 09:13 pm
Peter, forgot to add dont be daft of course it is important who brought the diary to our attention. I cant believe you wrote that. Every player involved had a part to play and we must find out what parts were played by whom.Just because you feel sorry for Mike that is no reason to let up.He was the man who fronted the diary for Gods sake. And if he is guilty of conspiracy he should face justice in a court of law.Anyone else involved with this diary who broke the law for the purpose of gaining money should be prosecuted. Also please do not dictate to me what I should or should not do in relation to this diary. I dont need you to tell me how to suck eggs. You wrote, I have shown no interest in your book. Give me details of your book and I will show the interest you desire.
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 08 October 2001 - 09:28 pm
Peter, Just read your profile I see that not only were you a policeman but that you believe Maybrick was the ripper. I wont hold being a policeman againest you but Maybrick being the Ripper!!! Surely you jest with me. Is you book about Maybrick being the ripper?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 05:52 am
Hi All, Peter, I can't see how the diary could have been written by James Maybrick - there are too many problems with it. I also can't see Mike and Anne forging the thing, either together or separately. Those of us who would agree that the handwriting is not Maybrick's will probably have to acknowledge eventually that it isn't Mike's, Anne's, Billy's, Tony D's, or Gerard Kane's either. So where do we go from there? I just don't know the answer. Ivor, I really think it would help if you listened to Mike's 1995 tapes before commenting further on his part in the diary's downfall. I'm still not sure how his given reasons for confessing can help you decide that he was involved in fraud. Has no one any comment to make about my argument that 'tin match box empty' was just the diary author's shorthand for 'the tin match box was empty', in the same way that 'first whore no good' was shorthand for 'the first whore was no good'? If that's the case, our forger wasn't just stupidly transcribing straight from the police list, even if it was indeed his source. But time and again, I find myself having niggling doubts about the diarist getting certain bits of info from any of the suggested sources. Martin Fido doesn't think his book was used by the forger, although others have suggested it must have been one of the sources. The Grand National stats couldn't have been the source of the forger's racing titbit. I doubt very much now that Mike's Sphere book was the source of the Crashaw quote. And if Ryan was a source for the Maybrick info, as has been suggested, the forger would have read details about James' will being written in his own hand, yet no attempt was made to track it down and imitate the writing, even though the will and the diary were meant to have been written so close together in time. Love, Caz
Author: R.J.P. Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 07:40 am
Caz--Hi. Thinking back on Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square [I think I accidently called her Liz Stride the other day] and thinking also about the police beats of Watkins and Harvey, the lay-out of Church Passage, and how poor Kate was found, etc., etc., it seems unlikely to me that the murderer would have even known that Kate had had a tin match box in her possession. The coroner's list is a list of all the junk found in her many pockets--ball of hemp, small tooth comb, etc. I think we can agree, knowing what we know about the murder, that it is doubtful that Jack would have taken the time to dig through her pockets, note the items, and then replaced them, even taking a second or two in the darkened square to open the match box (or rattle it) to see that it was empty. So reasoning that the murderer didn't do this, I have to come to the conclusion that the writer of the diary got the information about the empty match box from some other source. Where? What source? Someone claimed that there is a reference to Eddowes having a match box in an old news item. But, if my memory serves me right, it didn't mention that it was empty. [Maybe this could be checked]. So, what I'm asking is this: even if the diarist was only musing for his rhyme in shorthand [as you suggest] wouldn't he still have had to have seen the list that was published for the first time by Marin Fido in 1887, [or had seen the obscure police papers?] How else would he have known that she had an empty match box in the first place? I agree that the Grand National line suggests that diarist wasn't working from official race stats. Why the line about the 'fastest race' was included is beyond me. Maybe like the Manchester murders, the hoaxer was amused by the prospect that researchers would go out and try to confirm or disprove this. I do think the diary contains a number of intentional jokes and puzzles, [including maybe a couple of 'inside' jokes] and that the intention was to write a best seller and not a masterpiece of forgery. But that's just my reading of the thing. One final thing. I'd softly and quietly suggest that it might be premature to dismiss the idea that the diary might be in the handwriting of one of the people you listed above. I certainly don't know that that is not the case. Cheers, RP
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 08:11 am
Hi RJ, I don't know. Do we know that the empty match box definitely belonged to Eddowes? Could it have been left at the scene by her killer, or could the police have thought this was the case - which might explain why this item alone was excluded from the available contemporary lists of the victim's possessions, and only finally made it into the public domain courtesy of Martin Fido, in 1987? I'm just looking at all possible options. All I was saying was that, even if the police list was the source of the forger's info, it doesn't mean he was so daft that he simply copied it word for word into the diary - unless he meant it to be a dead giveaway. And if so, why? Doesn't that in itself suggest a very odd mentality for our funny little forger? Thanks for the handwriting hint, but I'll let you into a little secret - I'm rather glad no one has taken up my offer to help finance handwriting tests on these individuals - I have a strong feeling I'd have wasted my money and we'd all be back to square one regarding who actually penned the diary. Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 09:11 am
Morning all, Peter, You won't find me leaning towards or supporting any Cohen/Kosminski theory at all. My questions to Scott about the killer standing out in a crowd because of his advanced dementia were purely clinical. I have no suspect in mind and I have no preference for one. (My own gut suspicion is, like Don Rumbelow's, that when we finally meet Jack we're all going to ask "Who the hell are you?") RJ, you write: "Why the line about the 'fastest race' was included is beyond me. Maybe like the Manchester murders, the hoaxer was amused by the prospect that researchers would go out and try to confirm or disprove this." But by choosing to specify, in the line, that the race was "fast," the diarist put the whole project at risk, unless he somehow knew it was not a particularly slow race. If the researchers found out the race was a slow one, there'd be hell to pay. So this choice only makes sense if the forger at least knew the 1889 race was a comparatively fast one. How did he learn this? From what source? Is this evidence of at least some research outside the famous "two books" on Maybrick or is the relative speed of the race available in those? Genuinely curious, --John
Author: Paul Carpenter Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 09:53 am
Hi John, All... I'm writing from memory here, but doesn't the diarist say something along the lines of "I believe it to be the fastest race I have ever seen"? If so, there is easily enough qualification to render the sentence meaningless, whether it matches historical records or not. "I believe that I am the handsomest man I have ever seen", would be an example of a similarly subjective statement - no matter that my photograph reveals me to be stunningly attractive. Of course, if I am misrembering the quote and its context, this whole post has been a massive waste of time and you have my apologies! All the best, Carps
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 10:05 am
Hi Paul, Yup, I thought about this, too. I suppose the writer could always say "OK, the race might have been a slow one, but it might still have seemed fast to James, fast enough that he would remark about it in his diary...." But does this really make sense? The actual line is "true the race was the fastest I have seen" In any case, it would certainly at least hurt the cause of the diary if the race really was a slow one. Especially since the grammar of the sentence implies that James had seen others. It still seems like a weird and unnecessary risk. The Manchester murders and Mrs. Hammersmith, if they are indeed made up, present no risk really, because if they do not exist no one can find them and it is easy to claim that the records are gone or that they remain missing but still possible. But the adjective phrase "fastest I have seen" in describing the race seems like something that opens the sentence up at least to some sort of historical verification (allowing, I agree, for later waffling about "seems" and "to James, anyway"), and therefore this is a different sort of risky choice and one I'm still not sure makes sense unless the writer at least knew the race was not an especially slow one. At least, that's how it appears to me. --John
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 10:26 am
No Problem Ivor, I was with the New Orleans Police Department for 20 years. 1980-2000. For 16 of those years I was a homicide detective, my l;ast two years I was assigned to the cold case homicide unit. I also hold a BA in Psychology and working towards a MA in Criminal Psych. I have been to the FBI Academy in Quantico Virginia where I attended an extensive course on Sexual Predator Profiling. I have also attended various schools on crime scene analysis in particular blood spatter analysis, ballistics and finger printing. I have been to the Louisiana State Police Academy for an extensive study in advanced crime scene profiling and I attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for an 80 hour course on kinesic interviewing and interpretation. I now am part owner of the Artemis Group, a private investigation firm specializing in Missing Persons, Cold Case Homicide Investigations, Kinesic Interviewing and Interpretation and Criminal Defense. Peace, Scott
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 10:35 am
Hi, Carps: You are quite correct that the inference from the wording is that the race was viewed by the writer to have been fast from their perspective. I believe RJ gave the correct wording as it appears in the Diary: "True it was the fastest race I have seen..." The imputation of course is that even though he was known to be a gambling man, Maybrick had not seen all of the Grand Nationals during his adulthood. Indeed, he almost certainly had not, having lived in the United States for some years, and possibly not having seen every Grand National even when he was living in Liverpool for one reason or another. The wording thus gives the writer a "get out" since he is not saying the race was the fastest in memory or anything like that, only the fastest Maybrick can remember seeing. However, as John has remarked, the writer would have been taking a chance if the race proved to be an unusually slow time, and as Caz infers it would seem that the forger (sorry, Peter!) got the information on the actual race time from somewhere. Possibly if the writer was a Liverpudlian they might have seen or owned the 1939 copy of The Liverpolitan giving all the race times back to 1837 that Feldman's researchers located, or it might have come from some other source yet to be identified. I don't think a web page listing the National winners existed either at the end of the nineteenth century or through most of the twentieth century for that matter! Hi, Caz: Your scenario for our wordsmith first experimenting with writing "tin match box empty" to lead to his final "tin match box was empty" is reasonable and you make an excellent parallel between "tin match box [was] empty" and "first whore [was] no good." Are you ready for some invective from Mr. Harris? Perhaps you might with a bit of luck garner the attention from Sir Mel that so eludes John Omlor? Hi, John and everyone: I see no one has commented on my point about the Diary making no mention of Mrs. Maybrick being an American. Perhaps this makes sense for a private Diary, and would be exactly how Maybrick would have handled it. On the other hand, I would have thought a fiction writer might have worked some description or characterization of Maybrick's wife into the narrative. As it is, Florie is a bit player with little or no depth of character except a name, i.e., "bitch" or "whore" or at the artificially loving end, "Bunny." It is noticeable that all other characters in the narrative also are similarly one dimensional, being simply for the most part the butt of Maybrick's anger, e.g., Florie (most times except again at the end), Lowry, Mrs. Hammersmith, Abberline, the Queen, the whoremaster (i.e., Brierley), and even Michael Maybrick--though there is clearly a love-hate relationship here. Does this one dimensionality betoken the limits of our writer? I think it does. I think a more accomplished writer would have done more, perhaps put in actual dialogue and made these bit players live more rather than being simply names that "Maybrick" tosses around. Best regards Chris George
Author: Paul Carpenter Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 12:04 pm
John, Chris: Thanks for clarifying. I know it was dreadfully remiss of me to not be bothered to check the full quote before posting. You have my permission to hang me by my toes and kick my face around my head. The other thing that puzzles me though is why "race", and not "Grand National"? The Grand National is not in itself a race of notable speed, is it? It is a more prestigious event for sure, but the horses that run are no faster than the horses that run at any other event. Would any regular racegoer make the mistake of thinking that the National is faster than any other race? Surely an avid follower (which, I presume, we are intended to infer that Maybrick was, for a little bit of character rounding) wouldn't be so "gee-whizz, wasn't that the fastest?" about a race. I think we may again be finding an example of slightly slipshod workmanship in our writer here. Find a race track near Liverpool in order to add some local colour to Maybrick's life - and glory be there's a famous race run there that we could have our hero visit! A casual glance at the records reveals that 1889's race was the fastest for some time (if you aren't looking closely and notice that 1888's was equally fast) and we can make a reference to that in our text to make it more convincing. It doesn't take a great deal of research, and adds some detail to Maybrick's life. But, like the unconvincing nature of most of our author's statements in the diary, it doesn't quite ring true, does it? It is suggestive to me of someone who doesn't know about horse racing pretending to be someone who does. Admittedly, I know very little of horse-racing, but my Grandad - who is a fanatic - never watches a race and breathlessly enthuses about the speed of it all. His conversation generally revolves around whether or not his horse won. I don't think I'm saying this particularly well, and I have to go for the bus so don't have time to edit it. You try and figure out what I mean!!! Anon, Carps
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 12:55 pm
Hi, Carps: The Grand National is a steeplechase not a flat race, but I would think that a racegoer or a gambler would still term it a "race." To Americans unfamiliar with the race, it is a famous event akin to the Super Bowl. Only thoroughbred horses are entered, and a number of whom don't even make it round the racecourse because of the height and difficulty of the fences such as the infamous Beecher's Brook. Yet this difficulty in the course is what might make a faster time more interesting, I should think, to a racegoer or gambler--that a horse could make it round such a hazardous course and win in a fast time. However, Carps, the race is not in the Diary to add color to the narrative because it was a famous race that happened to be run annually near Maybrick's home. Rather, we might expect it to be included because there was a well-documented scene on the racecourse at the time of the March 29, 1889 Grand National when Maybrick created a scene over Alfred Brierley being with Florie at the racecourse. This public scene is recounted in the books on the Maybrick Case and was also a matter of record, as I recall, at Florence Maybrick's trial. It was also after this public spectactle that on getting home to Battlecrease Mansion that evening James gave Florie the black eye, which is the keystone of the contention of the proponents of the Maybrick Diary that he was a monster capable of being Jack the Ripper. Best regards Chris George
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:28 pm
To Scott and Peter : Hi there ! This is off-topic but since you two gentlemen have experience with crime-scenes , I wonder if you could answer me a question about murder in general ? How rare is murder by cutting of the throat ? I mean , have either of you come across many cases in which the throat of the victim was cut ? Remember also , this is a case in which a knife was used and not a ' cutthroat ' razor as a 19th century gentleman might use for shaving ; we can thus set aside cases using such an implement and concentrate on cases where the throat was cut by a knife. Simon
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:29 pm
Hi guys, Why do I feel like I have to keep on apologizing to Ivor? Did someone just stand on your corns? Wow, you are really sensitive! Get back in the spirit of things and remember that just because someone holds a different view to yours doesn't make them 'brain dead'! Your view MIGHT be right, but then again so might MINE! And bear in mind that at this moment in time there is far more evidence to support Maybrick being the ripper than there is to support D'Onston. After all I don't see much of a strand discussing D'Onston in here, do you? Start one, see how many posts you get, then compare it to this strand. Peter
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:34 pm
Chris G Sorry to contradict you and I hope you don't have an Ivoresque reaction to this but there IS evidence in the diary that Florie was an American. Witness: p455 Shirley's book "I miss Edwin. I have received but one letter from him since his arrival in THE WHORE'S COUNTRY". 'nuff said Peter
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:39 pm
Chris The Grand National? A race only for thoroughbreds? Ever heard of Foyenaven? I have no idea if the spelling is correct, but it was in the 1970's and was the horse belonging to the Queen Mother. It 'romped' home at 100 to 1 when the rest of the field fell, either Canal turn or Beechers I think. There are plenty of 'donkeys' that enter that race. One more thought has occurred to me regarding the grand national. Maybrick, oops - the diarist, DID NOT say "True it was the fastest Grand National I have seen", just "It was the fastest race I have seen". There is evidence of Maybrick going to race meetings regularly, i.e. very close to his death when he attended the Wirral race meeting. So all these arguments bounding back and forwards over race records are entirely spurious! I am thoroughly looking forward to reading the letters from hell book, am going to buy it this weekend in fact.But you have spoiled the ending for me by telling me who wrote them! (Just in case Ivor is reading - I am writing this with a smile on my face). Peter.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:46 pm
Hi, Peter: Thanks for pointing out that there is indeed mention of Florie's American origins in the Diary. I had missed that reference. I appreciate you drawing my attention to the passage. Now, Peter, in telling Ivor that Maybrick gets more attention on these boards than does D'Onston, I would caution you not to confuse amount of traffic on the Maybrick boards with viability of Maybrick as a suspect. The Maybrick threads get many messages because of the storm of controversy over the Diary not because James Maybrick makes a better suspect than do other suspects. Best regards Chris George
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:57 pm
RJP I have to agree with others' postings, the tin match box is in the diary and omitted from the Published police list because it is intimated to belong to Maybrick. This doesn't prove it's authenticity of course, nor that of the diary, but that is why it is there. Good point though, he wouldn't have been able to see everything in her pockets, so going by your own logic, the tin match box must belong to the ripper! Carps Keep arguing the Grand National, one day you'll understand yourself! Keep smiling, John Omlor I believe I have answered one of your points assuming it came from Chris G, apologies for that old boy, but there are so many postings since I last came here. Do you know what John? I believe it is almost time for a re evaluation of the re evaluation! I am in the process of compiling a list of points we have discussed so far and our differing views on them. You may not hear from me for a while as I delve through the archives, but I believe it will be worth it! Simon Owen - sorry mate, but in Hertfordshire, England, where I was based when I was a copper, there were few murders. Historically there are some very interesting cases that emanate from there, but not many serial murders. Watford is the place where I was, you may have heard of the football team owned by Elton John? Nearby is Leavesden Asylum where Kosminski went and Colney Hatch Asylum. Best wishes to all Peter. P.S. Ivor, I really WAS NOT being serious when I accused you of showing no interest in my book. It was said so tongue in cheek that my tongue was nearly out of the other side of my face! My book has nothing to do with the Ripper, it is purely fictional and is more political than anything else. A bit Jeffrey Archer, really. The second one I have just written is more in the realms of Stephen King, funny that because I don't LIKE Stephen King. You'll wait a long time to read either of them, as I am currently encouraging agents to take me seriously. How did you manage it? Regards Peter.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 03:06 pm
Hi Scott, I was very interested to read of your past experiences. I am sure you have a great deal to offer us all. It is most refreshing to get people like yourself on the boards. There is no substitute for experience of which you have a great deal.I am really looking foward to knowing your opinions on various matters.I bet you have some very interesing stories you could tell as well. Very best wishes. Caz, The problem is with Mike that after my conversations with him (when he told me he was a con man) he has told so many lies I cant take anything thing he says anymore as being the truth. I am sorry but I cant believe anything anymore from the boy who cried 'wolf'. I do know that a court of law would take no notice of what he said with his track record.He would be concidered as an unreliable witness. To me he is a liability.He cant even be straight with himself let alone other people. It is pity but there it is. Give him a polygraph test and the machine would blow up.I would like to see Anne take one though.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 03:10 pm
Hi, again Peter: It would be undutiful of me as a true Royalist to deign to say that the Queen Mother would have in training any horse other than a thoroughbred. Remember that Dick Francis's autobiography is called The Sport of Queens. In fact, it was in the 1956 Grand National when he was riding for the Queen Mum, that Francis's horse Devon Loch collapsed, apparently spooked, when he was winning the race within 25 yards of the winning post. Peter, I did though think that after writing my prior post that not all horses entered in the National are thoroughbreds. Look at National Velvet, for example, where the horse "Pie" ridden by a young farmgirl played by Elizabeth Taylor competes in the famous race in the 1944 film that made Taylor a star, based on the 1935 Enid Bagnold novel. Or is that another example of Hollywood magic? All the best Chris George
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 04:00 pm
Hi Peter, Maybe you should write a book on the ripper.I never went through an agent. I wrote and published my book off my own back. I was dealing with a publisher but he turned out to be dishonest so I got rid of him and did the job myself. I tackled the subject from an angle not taken by most people. With this subject I found that a suspect would be taken from an endless list and a story would then be woven around the suspect to fit as best as possible. I also found that people were asking the question, Who was Jack the Ripper?. My work was based on why and how he committed the murders rather than who he was.I walked before I ran so to speak.Finding the motive came before the suspect with me. So I spent many years working out how Jack committed the murders and why. Only after this was achieved did I bother to look for the killer. In all it took me nine years full time.I went into the area many times and reconstructed all that I could. Also I surveyed all the sites I could and the general area which included, Aldgate, Spitalfields,and Whitechapel.I timed myself over all the distances with a stop watch and a standard wrist watch twice or even three times. I really went over the top to find the answers I wanted. I used all my experiences to do the job. Many people were also consulted during my research. The police stopped me many a time and wanted to know what I was up to with my surveyers wheel and stop watch.Then when I told them about my work they would not go away. They wanted to know all about my research. One beat constable in Mitre Square said to me, I am just going of duty can you wait here until I get back in twenty minutes? So I waited until he got back from Bishopgate Station which was about 4.00am and we were still talking in Mitre Square at 6.00am. He even gave me his address.It was very interesting all in all I must admit.Also I was helped by a friend of mine who was once a Policeman at Bishipsgate Police Station.He also spent 20 years working at the Coroners Office in London. I had all the right people involved.I owe them all a great deal.I am not the type to dislike the police etc just because of my background.Many friends I have work in the prison service or in the police. I have met bad ones but you will get bad people in any profession and in all walks of life.