|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 11 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 11 October 2001
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 04:01 pm |        | Is there any reason, that Mike or Anne haven't had "tougher" interviews? I mean, I believe that pulling a scam here in the States is pretty bad, and if one wishes the authorities can get involved. Is there a reason(s) that the issue with Mike, Anne, and the Diary has remained in the realm of uncertainty? Could anyone get Mike to take a Polygraph? Is that something that is plausible?
Mark |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 04:14 pm | | Hello Scotts (Medine & Weidman)
Scott M, I was interested to see that you worked at Quantico: your assessment of the Ripper murders reminded me of John Douglas' comments about the likely Ripper profile. It's an extremely valuable point. We're apt to assume that any behavior which is obviously abnormal, like cutting up women in variously hideous ways, is therefore *all the same.* As the other Scott says: "If JD could put together a full sentence and function in society, then why couldn't the Ripper have done the same?" The implication is that because both are loonies by ordinary standards, they are unclassifiable. What I thought was so interesting about the profiling work you do at Quantico is that it doesn't really speculate on why people do these things. It starts, not with psychology but with induction: looking for the kind of behavior which typically accompanies a type of crime. THe explanations--lack of self-esteem, domineering mum, childhood abuse etc.--comes later. It's inductive, the real first basis of a good scientific theory.
JD was a very different kind of killer, it seems to me. Didn't he lure people to his place and sort of entertain himself by posing them around? JR didn't do anything like that.
mm |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 04:20 pm | | Hi Mark!
That's a good question. Having just listened to some interviews with Mike B., I think it's because journalists and historians have been doing the investigating, not the cops. If there is any crime here, it's certainly not of sufficient magnitude to merit a full-scale investigation. If it did, I reckon the police would have taken a very different approach to the interviewing process.
madeleine |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 04:24 pm | | | Hi Simon to answer your question, I have personally worked 147 homicides total as a homicide detective and 128 homicides where I was the lead detective. Of the 128 I have worked I have worked 42 cases where edged weapons were responsible for the cause of death. Of the 42 edged weapons cases 12 were domestic violence situations with another 10 being gang related killings( Crips, Bloods, Black Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings etc.). That leaves 20 cases that do not fit in either category. Three of those were with an axe or cane knife. Not insulting anyone’s intelligence, but in Louisiana , Florida and Hawaii where sugar cane is king, a cane knife is a rather large and intimidating looking machete used to cut down the sugar cane. Many people now use it to do their edging in their gardens and yards as you may guess, it makes for a real formidable attitude adjuster. That gives me 17 cases where knives or box cutters were the weapon of choice. I have worked 8 cases, all of which I was the lead detective, where throats were cut on the vics. Two of those belonged to Raymond Pitre who liked to slit the throats of his vics while in the middle of sex. He claimed their death spasms helped him climax. Pitre never mutilated his vics. One of which was a twisted case of murder for hire that involved gambling interest in Louisiana’s legal gambling industry and a virtual who’s - who of big money in New Orleans and crooked Louisiana Politics in which the Governor of the State is implemented. The vic was an 80 year old woman in a retirement village. We were told by the Mayor of New Orleans and the New Orleans Chief of Police to leave the case alone and turn it over to the state police and let them “play with it.” We know who did it but since he is a high profile defense attorney the state police claim they cannot touch him since he has taken the fifth. Once again not to insult anyone ‘s intelligence, but for those who not U.S. citizens, or familiar with our court system, he has decided to shut up because he doesn’t want to accidentally say anything that will incriminate him. It’s the same tactic being used by John and Patsy Ramsey. The other five vics belonged to Dominick Hassleman. Dominick was a paranoid schizophrenic who believed he had to kill because the gas pumps and cash registers at the convenient store across the street from him was turning his brain into powder. He believed that bathing in blood would re-constitute his brain. Dominick used a knife to slice his vics throat to the point of near decapitation. He would then gather the blood in a tupper ware dish and begin dissecting his vics and straining the blood out of the organs. He could complete the whole process within 10 minutes and be gone leaving his vics lying in their house. He would then drive two blocks back to his government subsidized home in the Desire St. Projects. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 04:43 pm | | Scott--
the right to silence and pleading the fifth are different, aren't they?
madeleine |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 04:47 pm | | Hi Madeleine
Yes, JD was different. He could still function in society. He was not delusional. He would lure young men into his apartment for sex and then kill them. Not all the time in that order. As we also know he tried to dispose of the bodies. He performed the crimes in the seclusion of his own home.
Our dear friend Jack slit the throats of his vics in the street. A dark alley way or other place out of the way but he did it in the open. He left the body where it could be found with ease. He did not try to dispose of the bodies or hide the bodies. If he would have covered them with garbage it would shed a whole new light on the matter of his mental stability. He also disemboweled them in public. Very risky indeed. No care to rather he was caught or not. This to me and others who have studied these types of crimes leaves no doubt that the perp has a serious short in his connection. Now taking all of this into consideration, I am in no way saying that Jack was a blithering idiot. Richard Trenton Chase California’s Vampire Killer had an IQ that was almost genius level, he was just a paranoid schizophrenic that would ramble in his thoughts and could not hold a conversation with anyone. And as far as Jack holding a serious conversation with his vics? How much of a conversation is needed to get a price out of a prostitute for her services? |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 04:49 pm | | Nope they are one in the same. The right to remain silent and not make any statements to incriminate yourself is the Fifth Admendment.
Right to counsel is the fourth admendment. |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 05:42 pm | | Chris G
At last you have unmasked me! I shouldn't have made my post about the Queen Mother's horse without doing some research, but hey, I think you know what I was getting at. Thanks for letting me off so lightly!
And finally Chris we have found something to agree on, i.e. we are both fervent royalists. I wonder if you might vote Conservative if you still lived in this country? Isn't Bush the American equivalent of a Conservative?
Actually Chris, mentioning politics has got me thinking - didn't Florie's family have connections to someone high up in U.S. politics? Admittedly it might have been a tenuous connection and I'm taking a risk here by not doing any research, but I remember when reading Feldman's book that I was a little bit surprised at the lack of inventiveness from the American Government in attempting (or not) to get Florie out of jail. Do you have anything to say on that?
John Omlor/Chris G/Uncle Tom Cobbley.... which one of you (or more) was it arguing against Maybrick having a MPD? I recall in one of the earlier postings somebody saying something along the lines of 'the handwriting in the diary doesn't vary that much', but earlier someone else had written 'I wouldn't be surprised to find two people had written the diary'.
Now, as regards MPD I can only reiterate that I am far from an expert on that subject; BUT to argue that the writing in the diary doesn't vary widely enough to indicate an MPD and THEN to use as your main plank AGAINST the diary the fact that it's handwriting doesn't match any of Maybrick's known examples strikes me as very illogical. You seem to be saying 'The diary is a fake because it doesn't match Maybrick's handwriting', whilst also relying on 'The handwriting in the diary doesn't vary widely enough to indicate an MPD'. Do you see what I'm getting at here? You've just blown your own argument against the diary AND the MPD theory WIDE APART! We have two different sources of writing (the diary and Maybrick's letters) which indicate they MAY have come from different people - and yet you can't accept that someone with a MPD wrote both? The answer is staring you in the face:- Maybrick wrote the diary AND Maybrick wrote the business letters, the Jack the Ripper letters (not all 4000, granted) etc etc. Thereby you have your serial killer with a MPD. Case proven. (I'm off down the pub for a drink with Paul Feldman).
Peter. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 06:20 pm | | Dear Scott,
A curve-ball...do you know a serial-killer who got away with it and became the most celebrated killer in the world?
Thats the difference twixt Quantico and the Casebook...Jack the Ripper! Be seeing you around kid.
Rosey O'Ryan:-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 06:26 pm | | Hi Mark,
Polygraph tests should have been brought into play a long time ago. I have also said that more pressure or more tougher questioning should have taken place. A couple of people with a lot of experience in such matters should have been brought in. As far as I am aware 99% of people who have questioned the Barrets have no experience in such matters.Some people seemed to think they knew best though and look where it has led.People with no experience in dealing in such matters have been running amok. They have had no experience with forgers or forgery, crime or criminals and they have been making themselves busy all to no avail. Those with the experience who have made inquiries or comments have been ignored. I hate to say the following but it is the truth. Many people involved in the study of the diary and the Ripper could not organize a pi** up in a brewery and that is a fact. Far too many people involved in this lark see themselves as the 21st century's answer to Sherlock Holmes.This subject needs a bloody big bulldozer driven though it and some of these people who see themselves as the worlds foremost experts on the subject need a good kick up the arse to bring them into the realms of reality.THE DUMB, DEAF, AND BLIND LEADING THE BLIND is what we are dealing with here. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 07:03 pm | | Hi Peter,
Let's go slowly.
You write:
"to argue that the writing in the diary doesn't vary widely enough to indicate an MPD and THEN to use as your main plank AGAINST the diary the fact that it's handwriting doesn't match any of Maybrick's known examples strikes me as very illogical."
What? There is nothing illogical about this at all. Actually, these two premises are completely consistent.
Watch:
1. The diary writing does not vary significantly either in its speaking voice or in its style to indicate that the writer suffered from multiple personality disorder. Indeed, only one actual character or personality is revealed within the diary's voice and by the diary's handwriting.
2. James Maybrick's known handwriting also does not match the handwriting in the diary.
Consequently, it seems likely that the diary was written by a person who did not have MPD and was also not James Maybrick.
Nothing illogical or inconsistent about that whatsoever.
As to the speculation that two hands might have written the diary, this had more to do with the change in the size of the handwriting -- the character's narrative voice within the text remains singular and consistent and the characterization remains in place throughout. At no time does the narrative voice reveal multiple, fully developed, speaking personalities the way an MPD patient would.
This tells us nothing at all, of course, about the writer, except that they apparently did not have MPD.
An entirely separate fact -- we have samples of Maybrick's writing and they do not match the writing in the diary -- leads us to think that Maybrick did not write the diary.
That fact is in no way inconsistent with anything that we have just written nor is it in any way illogical.
But, Peter, you spell this out for us yourself, unaware, perhaps, that you have made my case quite clearly:
"You seem to be saying 'The diary is a fake because it doesn't match Maybrick's handwriting', whilst also relying on 'The handwriting in the diary doesn't vary widely enough to indicate an MPD'."
Yes. And these two sentences are in no way in conflict.
Look:
1. The diary writing does not match Maybrick's.
2. The diary writing does not indicate MPD.
No inconsistency here.
Logical conclusion: The diary was written by someone who did not have MPD and was not Maybrick.
The only reason, by the way, for even writing sentence number 2 is Paul Feldman's reaching attempt to explain sentence #1 by suddenly claiming that people with MPD might have widely varying handwriting and that therefore, if Maybrick happened to have MPD (no reliable or verified evidence for this), it might account for the handwriting not matching (except that the diary voice itself doesn't indicate MPD in any case).
Please understand the logic here. Saying that the diary indicates a writer without MPD in no way suggests that Maybrick (a writer without MPD) was our writer. Not in the least. No more than it suggests that I (a writer without MPD) wrote the thing. Therefore, the two statements are not in conflict and the argument remains perfectly consistent and logically valid.
You conclude with upper case and an exclamation:
"You've just blown your own argument against the diary AND the MPD theory WIDE APART!"
Nonsense. All we've said is that
1.) the text of the diary shows no real signs of MPD
and 2.) its handwriting also does not match Maybrick's.
Nothing is blown apart by asserting those two perfectly consistent premises. Someone who did not have MPD and who was not Maybrick probably wrote the diary. That would easily explain both premises.
Consequently, your "Case Proven" remark remains unintelligible.
*********************************
Here is the set up and our differing conclusions.
1. The diary text does not indicate a writer with MPD.
2. The diary text does not match Maybrick's handwriting.
Two possible conclusions:
1. Someone without MPD and who was not Maybrick probably wrote the diary.
or 2. Maybrick must have had a secret case of MPD, wrote the letters in one personality, without revealing in them his multiple personalities, wrote his entire diary in a single other personality without revealing his MPD in the diary either, and that would account for the inconvenient handwriting discrepancy.
One of these two conclusions follows from the two premises you yourself laid out. The other is a major league stretch and evidence of seriously trying to make the facts fit a desired conclusion without any supportable or verifiable evidence.
I think we can all guess which is which.
Enjoy the evening,
--John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 07:25 pm | | Hi Peter,
More evidence to show Maybrick was the killer than D'Onston you write. You are a card Peter you amuse me.At least D'Onston was arrested as a police suspect for the murders and he was located a two minute walk from the first murder. As for me instilling my beliefs on others by opening a thread on the lines of D'Onston V Maybrick suffice to say, I am not in the business of leading horses to water. Neither do I intend to waste my time on those who have not the ability to distinguish the difference between the facts and a fairy story.I dont know where you have been lately but more people believe the diary to be a forgery than those who believe otherwise. I do know many writers and researchers etc on the subject and the general consensus is among them that the diary is a forgery. Also many such people inform me that D'Onston is a far better suspect than Maybrick.Keith Skinner was the last person to inform me of that fact. My work will speak for itself and people can take it or leave it. I have neither the time, inclination, nor the desire to promote D'Onston on these boards.Believe in your fairy story if you must but you are in a very small minority. In fact they are being compared to the Flat Earth Society which now has a membership of 3 people you being two of them. You make silly remarks about D'Onston without knowing the evidence againest him. That is nothing but sheer ignorance on your part. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 07:25 pm | | Thanks for your answer Scott , its possible that Hassleman might be reasonably close to what the Ripper might have been like.
Heres the rub though ( as Shakespeare might have said ):
(i) Even Hassleman wasn't mad enough to murder somebody in the street.
(ii) I bet there was a hell of a mess in the houses of the victims , another reason for not committing murder on the street.
(iii) This sort of person doesn't sound at all like James Maybrick.
'The Encylopedia of Forensic Science ' by Brian Lane (Headline , London 1992 ) suggests that throatcutting "...is still occasionally encountered but as a homicide it has almost ritualistic qualities , and because of the difficulty of cutting the throat of a struggling person , it is usually caried out while the victim is helplessly bound or unconscious. " ( p.263)
It would be interesting to know how Hassleman managed to overpower his victims in order to cut their throats - were his victims bound and gagged ?
Hassleman's killings , and Pitre's too , certainly seem to have a pseudo-ritualistic element to them.
Simon |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 08:16 pm | | Scott M -- I'm sure you're right. I guess I'd always filed them under different headings: I'd always understood the right to silence as having no implication of guilt or liability to guilt. But then, what other amendment could it come from but the 5th?
madeleine |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 08:20 pm | | John--
Can I use your logical demonstration above as an example of deduction?
Or rather, since class is taking place in about ten minutes--Thanks for (unknowingly) providing a useful demonstration of deduction.
madeleine |
Author: R.J.P.
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 10:13 pm | | Chris--"Florrie and James enjoyed going out together in their horse and carriage, and liked to play whist. Their shared passion, however, was racing and every year they attended the Grand National at Liverpool's Aintree." --Paul Feldman, p 79. Maybrick lived in Liverpool all during the 40s, 50's, 60's, up until the mid 70s. Jim & Florie were living in Liverpool in 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, and 1889. The correct line in the diary is "True the race was the fastest I have seen"--[Harrison, p. 465] which certainly doesn't sound subject to me, and one hell of an odd thing to say if it was exactly the same time as the previous year. I take an opposing view to those who commented above. Why assume complex research? It's certainly not proven by this statement. Someone who rearched the facts wouldn't have said something so vague. Why not say something like---"damn, it didn't pay as well as that 40 to 1 last year". And I don't buy the argument that the diarist didn't take risks, or didn't really assume (or care) that people would try to hunt down 'flubs'. The use of 'Dear Boss' was certainly lax, considering solid research would have shown that at least three police officials suspecting the journalist Bulling wrote the thing. No attempt at matching the handwriting. Screw-ups about the crime scenes. I keep hearing arguments that [as Karoline pointed out ages ago] sound an awful lot like "It's so damn bad that it has to be real! Why would a forger have made such a statement!" Yes, I think the diarist is clever in some respects, but no one has ever convinced me yet that there was any quality research involved in this project.
Peter--sorry, but I have to inform you that the London police said that the match box belonged to Eddowes. Best wishes, RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 12:27 am | | John:
Your logical and very reasoned argument that James Maybrick did not have multiple personality disorder (MPD) is, I fear, lost on Peter, because he thinks the Diary is in James Maybrick's handwriting, as are the samples of Maybrick's writing in a different handwriting style from Richmond Chancery Court, and the, again, different hand displayed in the Jack the Ripper letters, which he feels were also written by Maybrick. Thus, to Peter it is perfectly logical to say Maybrick had MPD. Comprendé?
Peter:
I do find it interesting, and hopefully to not to cause a battle, that you as an ex-policeman believe Maybrick was the Ripper. The other ex-policemen who follow the Ripper case, e.g., Messrs. Donald Rumbelow and Stewart P. Evans in the U.K., and Carl Dodd here in the United States, do not believe the Diary is genuine and they reject Maybrick as a legitimate Ripper suspect.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 01:23 am | | Hi, RJ:
I bet Feldman does not have the goods to show that Florie and Jim were at the Grand National every year. And they certainly could not have attended if they were in Norfolk, Virginia, as they were 1881 to 1884, living part of the time in Liverpool and part of the time in the United States during the cotton season. Possibly their time in Norfolk was during the summer months after the spring running of the Grand National at Aintree though.
Also, RJ, the use of the Dear Boss letters is not lax because everyone knows that Jack the Ripper wrote letters. This is after all a document for the masses, and the masses know that the Ripper wrote taunting letters to the press as well as chalked messages on walls.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 09:43 am | | Hi All,
How did we get into MPD, Aintree and the Queen Mum, and kicks up the arse by dear Ivor?
Everyone who believes the diary to be a post-1987 hoax must address this very simple question: how did the scratches get inside the watch after Albert bought it in 1992? You have to think this one through, and come up with a plausible scenario that takes all the available evidence into account. No amount of arguing over empty tin match boxes, lie detectors, and personal experience with criminals will crack the code, and reveal when the diary was penned, if the opportunity simply didn't exist for anyone to apply those scratches between Albert's purchase and the discovery when he decided to take his timepiece into work.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 10:45 am | | Hi Caz:
I told you in Bournemouth and still believe now that the watch is immaterial. I frankly don't care about the watch and its enigmatic markings which may or may not be old. I continue to contend that the main artifact at issue here is the Diary, and I don't think debate on the authenticity of the Diary is dependent on the watch as you appear to think. So whether Albert Johnson is or is not the most honest man in the world and how the scratches got into the watch, I don't know and don't much care. It has been inferred that Albert's brother Robbie had a criminal past, so perhaps that is the answer.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 12:11 pm | | Hi Caz,
We got into MPD because Peter invoked Paul Feldman's idea that the handwriting discrepancies between Maybrick's letters and will on the one hand and the diary on the other might be because Maybrick suffered from it (I think Paul actually came up with this idea because someone pointed out to him that MPD sufferer's sometimes have handwriting which varies dramatically as they go in and out of different personalities -- thus the picture of the writing page in Paul's book). Of course, not only is there no evidence, written or anecdotal or historical) that Maybrick ever suffered from this condition; the diary itself does not indicate its author had MPD in any case -- so Paul's reach obviously has exceeded his grasp once again and MPD is really a non-issue.
Chris,
But the watch becomes relevant to the diary issue in this way. The watch has Maybrick's name in it and the initials of the canonical victims. This suggests that someone somewhere linked Maybrick to the Ripper case just like our diary authors did. Is there much of a chance that these two projects to link Maybrick to the Ripper case were conceived, developed, and executed entirely independent of one another simultaneously or even separately in time and then came to light right on the heels of each other? I wouldn't think so.
So, how do we proceed....
I think that's the reason why the watch must at least be considered as part of the diary discussion.
At work and must rush away,
--John |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 12:59 pm | | Hi all,
It might be worth mentioning that we DON'T know necessarily that people with MPD can write in hands so distinct that they defeat professional analysis. The example offered by Koren is meaningless. Sure, to my untrained eye they looked different, but then, I can make my own writing vary to easily the same degree--to another untrained eye. As I understand it, handwriting analysts look for things that aren't so obvious, but which reveal the way you hold the pen, apply pressure etc. which are a lot harder to change than the shape of the letters.
Also, MPD is a controversial and rare diagnosis. Only in movies does every third person have another personality called "Bob" just waiting to emerge and speak in a gravelly voice. In real life, the cases have been extremely rare, and every one of them hotly debated by the many professionals who remain skeptical that there even IS such a medical condition.
To imitate John's logical layout: Here we have a problem, the discrepancy between handwritings. This could be explained one of two ways:
1. The documents are by the same person who suffers, inexplicably and unnoticed, from an extremely rare and still controversial medical disorder, which has had the even rarer side-effect of giving him different handwritings (even when working within one personality).
2. They're written by different people.
Okham's razor dictates that the argument requiring the least speculation wins.
Sorry, everyone, I just gave a class on "reasonable inferences" and am indulging myself a bit--
madeleine |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 01:12 pm | | From Keith Skinner to RJ and Chris George
I suspect the reason Paul Feldman did not take the 1888 Grand National race time into account is because The Liverpolitan Statistical Guide (March 1939) lists the time as 10 minutes 12 seconds.
The Grand National website source lists the 1888 time as 10 minutes 01 seconds (as well as for 1889). So one of the sources is incorrect. On past experience I would predict that, if it transpires Feldy’s source is wrong, then this will be highly significant and extremely damaging for the Diary. If, however, the website source is wrong, then it will only be a minor point, hardly worth mentioning, and of no real consequence.
The other point not to lose sight of is what the writer of the journal (purporting to be James Maybrick) actually says:
“…true the race was the fastest I have seen…”
Chris’s comparison with previous race times in the 1860s is an argument against Paul Feldman’s interpretation, and not what is stated in the journal. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 01:20 pm | | Dear All
Just an observation on my part, but Ivor seems to be resorting to personal abuse, and that has always indicated to me someone who is losing control of the argument. Perhaps we should all examine IVOR's handwriting?
Ivor, you think you are right and I respect you for that. But after nine years of writing your book I still think that if by some miracle of time travel somebody was able to show you a video of James Maybrick standing over Mary Kelly's body with blood dripping from his knife and shouting "I, James Maybrick, killed this whore!" then you would still stick by the line of your book - after all you've invested too much time in it for it not to be the truth, right?
You stick to your opinions and I'll stick to mine. At least I don't feel the need to belittle others. Were you bullied at school?
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Ivor
Just a quick 'p.s.'
How did you know that I believe the earth is flat and the lunar landings were shot in hollywood?
That's the most observant thing you've written.
Peter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 01:33 pm | | Hi All,
Regarding Keith's message, I had in fact wondered if there could have been a misprint in the website source - or a transcription error from an older source - when I saw the identical race times for two consecutive years. So I printed off the website race times to send to Keith along with all the latest posts.
It just shows that none of us can afford to take what we read for gospel.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 01:42 pm | | RJP
Could you please refer me to your reference for asserting that the London police believed the tin match box to be Eddowes'. Thanks
Chris
As I have said before I know virtually Zilch about Multiple Personality Disorder. My argument on the handwriting stems from the arguments that YOU are using against it. To summarise:
1) The diary writing isn't in Maybrick's known hand.
2)The JTR letters don't match the diary or Maybrick's known hand.
Page 332 Shirley's book: "The handwriting of the german murderer, Peter Kurten, ......changed completely after each murder, so much so, indeed, that he used to point out to his wife the anonymous letters that he wrote to the police.......so confident was he that she would never recognise them....nor did she".
What's that? A serial murderer who was married and wrote letters to the police? Where have I heard that one before?
All I want is for you to acknowledge that Maybrick didn't need to have suffered from FULL BLOWN MPD to exhibit SOME of it's symptoms or some related disease of the mind. I am not an expert in mental illnesses, but I think it possible that Maybrick could have written all the mentioned communications - I refer you back several postings to my arguments re: writing a letter to your bank manager and writing a love note to your wife/significant other.
It has been PROVEN that people can exhibit different styles of handwriting without suffering MPD - so the whole MPD argument is a canard. Maybrick COULD have written the letters AND the diary. You HAVE to acknowledge that, surely?
The handwriting really is what bothers me least about the diary, simply because I know myself that I have about half a dozen different styles depending on occasion/ time/ speed etc. The more important arguments are the ones worthy of your consideration - perhaps we could return to them?
As for polygraph tests - they can be beaten with ease. What I would like to see, and I hope you support me on this, is DNA testing on Albert Johnson and known Maybrick descendants........or maybe exhume a few bodies, the DNA would still be there.
Finally, can someone help me on this point? There is supposed to be a finger mark in blood on the postcard signed Jack the Ripper, can any of you forensic experts say how easy/difficult it would be to blow that up alongside a blown up photograph of James Maybrick's hands or hand or finger if one were to exist? I know it's a long shot, but after 113 years................
See you all soon
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 01:54 pm | | Chris
Does it matter if I am the only ex police officer who believes the diary to be genuine? To use Stewart Evans as part of your argument is, I fear, laughable - after all he won't accept that Tumblety couldn't have been the Ripper even though it has been proven that Tumblety was in police custody at the time of Mary Kelly's murder. Tumblety is otherwise an excellent suspect and one that I would be interested in myself. But Stewart should address the fact that there is no way in the world that the 1888 Metropolitan police would give UNRECORDED bail to a Jack The Ripper suspect. His argument is blown out of the water, and yet he is always appearing on the History Channel expounding his views, and do you know why? Because like Ivor he has spent too much time on it for it NOT to be the truth.
My take on the diary all along is that it COULD be genuine. There are very few of you who will even accord it that privilege. After all unless you have proven it to be fake, not with hypotheses and discussions of race times differing by TEN SECONDS - but SOLID evidence then you must admit the possibility that it COULD be genuine, however small the possibility. Once you accept the possibility then you can start looking at the evidence - and some of the evidence is, to be honest, staggering.
You have already made up your minds on the diary. The only things that would change them now is for me to show you that video that I mentioned to Ivor.
Caroline, are you SURE you don't believe the diary to be genuine? Right now you are making some very good arguments which can't be harming it's case.
Peter |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 03:12 pm | | Hi Peter,
Stop being a big girls blouse.And dont try to drum up support for your lost cause from the readers over my posts to you.It shows a sneaky streak.I dont feel the need to involve others over your posts to me. Cant take it huh. Also I do not concider that my posts to you were abusive.While on the subject of posts your remarks to Peter Birchwood leave a lot to be desired you were rude and out of order. It is a pity you do not practise what you preach.At least he knows a sight more on the subject than you ever will.He happens to be a well respected researcher and many people have a high regard for his work. As for you knocking Stewart Evans you are a disgrace.It would appear that you attack anyone who does not agree with your barmy rantings that Maybrick was the Ripper. If someone was to show me concrete evidence that Jack was someone apart from my suspect I would be gracious enough to except it and so would Stewart Evans. Your know it all comments in regards to Maybrick tell me that what you know about the case insn't worth knowing. That comment is not abusive or rude it is simply the truth.But then you would not know what the truth is.Taking into concideration that you are an ex-policeman I find your attitude towards others who dont share your views obnoxious.You should be setting an example.
Your other remarks I will treat with the contempt they deserve.One needs not to inquire as to the type of policeman you were it stands out a mile. You can take your Maybrick diary theory and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.And as far as I am concerned you can join it.That is not rude or abusive it is simply sound advice. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 03:23 pm | | | Ps, Peter, Stop trying to instill your will on Caroline and cut out the flannel.She has a will of her own if you didn't notice. Has Feldman greased your grubby little palm to appear here to promote that pack of lies ? I hope you did not use the same reasoning on catching criminals as you do on the diary!!!!! |
Author: R.J.P.
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 03:54 pm | | To Keith Skinner--Hello. Thanks for your response. As you'll notice, though I admit that I've been critical of Paul Feldman in the past, I didn't accuse him of deception in regards to the Grand National time--I posted the information I found merely to question whether or not the diary is historically accurate. It did cross my mind that there may be differing statistics about the race times. Since, I brought the thing up, I think it is my responsibility to look into it further and see what I can come up with.
Either way, I don't think it's likely that the Grand National statement would disprove the Maybrick diary. We probably can't know with any degree of accuracy what other races Maybrick might have seen. That's not my purpose. The handwriting, to my mind, proves Maybrick didn't write the thing. My purpose is only to challenge the idea that this document shows signs of substantial research or 'inside' information, or, as many like to argue, that it is far too complex to have been written by Mike Barrett, Tony Devereux, or some other Liverpool local.
I'll see what I can come up with and either confirm or retract the report I've posted.
I've been reminded that both Bernard Ryan and Nigel Morland had discussed the Grand National race.
Best wishes, RJ Palmer. |
Author: R.J.P.
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 04:04 pm | | | To Peter Wood-- See Evans & Skinner's Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion p 203--"The official list of Eddowes's clothes and possessions", or, if you like, page 68-70 of Martin Fido's The Crimes, Detection, and Death of Jack the Ripper, where he describes the list as the "official police list of her clothes and property attached to the coroner's papers". The tin match box was stuffed away in her pockets, along with a ball of hemp, a piece of flannel containing pins, a comb, a spoon, a table knife, etc. etc. Best wishes, RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 05:07 pm | | Peter writes, several posts above:
"so the whole MPD argument is a canard"
Hurrah!
Now, since we can put aside, therefore, Paul's introduction of this canard via the picture in his book (and I agree with Madeleine's warning about how rare this condition actually is and the controversies surrounding its diagnosis), we can get to what Peter and Paul are really arguing -- that our handwriting changes all the time. Everyone's does. And therefore, it is still certainly possible that Maybrick wrote the business letters and will and then wrote the diary in a completely different hand (we won't mention the assorted Ripper letters and their handwriting for now). Basically, Peter and Paul are arguing simply that handwriting analysis is worthless, since everyone's handwriting changes over time and therefore you cannot compare one document verified as having been written by someone to another document and tell if the second document was also written by them.
So, finally, this becomes a simple debate over whether handwriting analysis is of any use or value and whether we have any right to expect the diary to match, in any way, known samples of Maybrick's writing.
Peter and Paul say no. Therefore, this issue does not exist any longer.
If the diary was forged, could the forgers have figured that this would be a likely response and that therefore they did not need to mime Maybrick's writing?
Or is the fact that the handwriting doesn't look anything like Maybrick's somehow a sign that there is no attempt to forge things here because Maybrick really wrote it?
Uh...What?
That's right...
Ironically, Paul Feldman ends up making the following argument:
"The handwriting in the diary does not need to look like Maybrick's because Maybrick wrote it!"
But if we are looking at the handwriting in order to determine whether Maybrick wrote it, Paul has invalidly assumed his conclusion before he has established it and his argument therefore is purely and delightfully circular.
It is a simple case of premature exclamation.
Sorry,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 05:39 pm | | John
Loved your points, will return to them shortly.
Ivor
Now I see where you are coming from. Did the Pope just issue a "Doctrine of Ivor's infallibility?". What is your problem, Ivor? I have not been rude to Peter Birchwood in the least, just merely pointed out that we live in a democracy and EVERYBODY, no matter what their view, is entitled to be represented. That includes you, Ivor. Why do you think I choose to debate the subject of Jack the Ripper with people who obviously disagree with me? And yes, those who know a damn sight more about it than me? Well Ivor, it's the same reason I choose to play pool against people who are better than me - because it IMPROVES me. I learn from you ALL. I enjoy the discussions, I like being questioned and I like to assume the right to question others, regardless of their 'saintly' status. I'm sure Peter Birchwood can fight his own battles and doesn't need you to follow him around like a little lap dog. No, my friend, it is you who needs to grow up and accept your part in the adult world. Leave all your childish comments behind, where they belong, in the playground - and join us in a reasoned debate where people are allowed to disagree. Wouldn't the world be boring if we were all the same?
Fortunately Ivor I still have something of a soft spot for you - so cut out the purility and pettiness and let's debate the issues. I don't care if you want to nominate George Clooney as Jack the Ripper, it's your right in a democracy to do that if you so wish. You do make a valid point that some of the nominated candidates for JTR are ludicrous, but NOT IN THE EYES OF THEIR NOMINATORS! You can't tell people what to think, Ivor, express your opinions yes, but stop resorting to personal abuse.
Ivor, I will give you a chance to withdraw your remark regarding myself and Paul Feldman, then - figuratively speaking - we can shake hands and join the debate again - but it just will not do to accuse someone of promulgating lies. As regards Caroline, come on Ivor! It's me against the world here! Aren't I entitled to try to drum up some support.
The olive branch is there, should you choose to grasp it.
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 05:58 pm | | RJP - thanks for the reference. Those books are in my attic right now, so I guess I will have to dig them out over the weekend, thanks again.
John Omlor - Woaaahhhh! To quote you:
"So finally, this becomes a simple debate over whether handwriting analysis is of any use or value and whether we have any right to expect the diary to match, in any way, known samples of Maybrick's writing".
Come on, John! Of course you have a RIGHT to expect at least SOME of Maybrick's writing to match that in the diary. I accept that handwriting analysis is something of an art rather than a science, but someone once pointed out that the more samples of Maybrick's handwriting you find, then the more chance you have of his writing matching the diary or JTR letters. Now John, that could be true for any of us couldn't it? I mean, seriously, my handwriting really does look like that in the diary. I mean, my immediate concern was that the handwriting looked TOO modern. But check out Feldy's book in the picture section, the index of Scotland Yard Ripper files, look at the handwriting there! That writing is UNDENIABLY Victorian and yet it looks reasonably modern. Agreed? What I think Paul Feldman HAS achieved is to show a link between Maybrick's known writing, the diary AND the JTR letters. O.k. so the connection may be TENUOUS, but it is still a connection. And as has been pointed out, IF the diary is a forgery why didn't the forger pen just one more letter, in the same hand, sign it James Maybrick and subject it to the same treatment as the diary to age it. Then, wahey! some ex policeman could have uncovered it at about the same time as the Littlechild Letter! And boy, wouldn't that have been fun!
Although I don't lay much store by the handwriting, I have to admit that if the diary is a forgery then a lot of research went into it - you don't just write 63 pages in an afternoon - so why do you think the forger wouldn't have forged just one more document to PROVE his diary was genuine?
Latest question for debating John: What do you make of the 17 September letter? Do you consider it a forgery? (By that I mean modern). And if so who do you think forged it? I will tell you soon why I am asking these questions.
Take Care
Peter |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:02 pm | | | Peter, I except your offer to grasp the olive branch. Suffice to say that I was in a rather bad mood tonight after the police came to see me. Some louts were shooting a catapult at some old man aged about 80 on a walking stick walking up the road. Not satisfied with that they run after him throwing stones.Then when I shouted at them to stop they pulled down their pants and did moonies in the street.Then the sh*t really hit the fan because I lost my temper. It was all sorted in the end though.One kids father gave him such a kick up the arse later in the street that my wife felt sorry for him. The police are bringing them around my house one at a time next week (with their parents) to say sorry. The police said I could verbally abuse them then but said that they would leave it a week to give me time to cool down. So Maybrick is off the agenda for tonight at least.Have you ever had that feeling when you wanted to kill someone, we'll I had it tonight. I saw the same thing happen once before many years ago and when the old man ran after the person responsible he dropped down dead from a heart attack. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:12 pm | | Ivor
Hope you got the e mail. I have, of course, been in touch with Stewart and offered my humblest apologies. Enough said.
Your observation on the youth of today is spot on, but you mustn't let them get to you, I find it best to ignore them.
Shall we rejoin the battle tomorrow? At which point I hope John will have given me his opinion on the 17 September letter!
Bye
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:22 pm | | Caroline, Lets use simple logic. Albert bought the watch and it had no marks in it according to the man in the shop when he sold it.
So I can only see two answers here.
1. Albert put the marks in the watch.
2. Someone with access to the watch put the marks in. Was Albert aware of this ? if this is what happened.
I do not count Albert out just because he seems such a nice guy. To me he is a suspect. That is all I can state on the matter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:26 pm | | | Hi Peter, Just read the e-mail will answer. Many thanks. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 06:50 am | | Hi All,
It would be nice if Chris George could now take back his suggestion that Paul Feldman and/or his researchers might have ‘conveniently’ not mentioned the 1888 Grand National race time, when in fact their 1939 source gave it as 11 seconds slower than the time given for 1889.
Hi Peter,
Yes of course - the forger could have penned any amount of letters and documents signed James Maybrick (using the same pen and ink as the diary), then left them to be discovered independently (especially as the diary was apparently put together in a couple of weeks by two or three scousers with two or three library books  ). But this could actually apply whether the diary was faked decades ago or in 1992. (Perhaps they will start turning up soon!) But then, we do have the watch….
Hi Ivor,
Yep, I’m up for using simple logic.
Firstly, did you take the opportunity at the conference to have a good look at the watch scratches? (I noticed you left the Maybrick Panel talk shortly after it began, and before Albert gave his own account.)
If you did see the watch, you will know that the marks are not visible to the naked eye, and are not easy to see even with a magnifying glass, and even if you know what you are looking for. (I still couldn’t see any marks at all, although others in a better light could just make them out.) And we know that when Albert and Robbie repeatedly took the watch back to the shop to ask about its history (a risky and unnecessary charade if either of them made the scratches), no obvious after-sale tampering was either noticed or suspected by the jeweller. You wrote: ‘…the watch…had no marks in it according to the man in the shop when he sold it.’ Can you source this for me please? I seem to remember Melvin Harris talking about the jeweller doing a gentle rouge job on some scratches before selling the watch to Albert. Can anyone say for certain that the jeweller could not have failed to see the Maybrick scratches for what they were, had they been inside the watch at the time?
If we assume for a moment that Albert has not been telling lies, and that, as far as he is aware, no one else had access to his watch before the discovery of the scratches, this leaves the modern hoax theorists with only one alternative scenario. Do you know what this is? Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin:
Robbie Johnson learns about the diary purporting to be by James Maybrick alias Jack the Ripper.
He decides to play a nasty little joke on his gentle, unsuspecting brother, Albert.
Without having seen the diary or knowing any of its contents, Robbie pinches his brother’s gold watch and makes a few crude scratches inside the back, skilfully enough to be invisible to the naked eye and to pass, or at least not fail, forensic tests by two independent metallurgy specialists.
Then he has a bit of luck that tops any skill he showed in making the scratches. Instead of having to draw Albert’s attention somehow to the invisible scratches now inside the watch, the BBC’s Antiques Roadshow finishes the job for him. The subject of gold content in old watches comes up, and Albert tells his workmates that he has one at home dating from 1846 and that he will bring it in to show them. The back is opened up at work, Robbie’s handiwork just happens to catch the light, and Bob’s your uncle – or rather, Robbie’s your rascally brother.
Not content with this, Robbie then lets Albert fork out hundreds of pounds for forensic tests, that should by rights have shown that a small-time criminal and practical joker had faked the scratches just a few weeks beforehand.
Simple logic tells me something ain’t quite right here. But what do I know?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
