|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 14 October 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 07:11 am |        | Just to reiterate - either Albert must be a liar, or the above scenario featuring Robbie must be true, or the diary must be old - unless someone can come up with another alternative.
If either of the first two scenarios is true, I am a banana. And if Feldy had come up with the second, does anyone here honestly think he would have been allowed to get away with such silly nonsense, by the likes of Melvin Harris, or Peter Birchwood, for starters? Well - do you?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 08:30 am | | Hi Peter,
You wrote:
"What I think Paul Feldman HAS achieved is to show a link between Maybrick's known writing, the diary AND the JTR letters."
OK. Let's start being specific here. In terms of the actual handwriting on all of these separate documents, what exactly is that link?
--John
PS: (For after you answer the question above) -- If you're going to tell me that the September 17th "I am a Yid / "pretty necklace" letter must have been written by the same guy who wrote the September 25th letter and that therefore, since the hadwriting of the two letters is noticeably and completely different, the writer must have been able to disguise his handwriting effectively... You have a long way to go before you arrive at any conclusion which suggests the letters were written by the same guy (people at Central News, for instance, would have seen the 17th letter well before the 25th) and of course there's no real evidence that either of these missives were written by the Ripper or by Maybrick. If the idea is that the diarist knew of the 17th letter even though it was not made widely available until after the diary was released, then we'll have to do some careful reading of diary pages in order to prove that any diarist would have needed to have seen this little letter to compose his pages. Finally, if this is your way of building, a la Feldman, to the Scotland letter of October 8, and the whole "match with the Baltic letter from Maybrick" thing, look at the first character in each letter, the upper case "D," and I think you'll see the problem. And neither of these two documents come anywhere close to matching the diary writing. Oh, right, I forgot about the disguising the handwriting theory.... At some point the proof has to become linear rather than circular. |
Author: R.J.P.
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 10:02 am | | Looking at the trial transcripts, Ryan's book, Morland's book, and once again questioning the historical accuracy of the Grand National as described in the diary...
'the thrill of seeing the whore with the bastard thrilled me more so than knowing his Royal Highness was but a few feet away from yours truly ha ha what a laugh, if the greedy bastard would have known he was less than a few feet away from the name all England was talking about he would have died there and then...'
Question: Was Maybrick ever "a few feet" from his Royal Highness? Was he ever even in the grand stands? The Maybricks along with their friends the Samuelsons and the Janions rented an omnibus to watch the Grand National. They viewed the race from this. As far as I can tell, Maybrick appears to have never been in the Grand Stands; indeed, it was the very fact that Brierly (who bought some grand stand tickets) had taken Florrie over into the stands to get a closer peek at the royal party [leaving Sir Jim back in the omnibus with Gertrude Janion for such a long time] that so infuriated him. It seems unlikely that the diary's passage could represent reality. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 11:00 am | | Hi, Peter:
The September 17, 1888 letter is a forgery derived from both the Dear Boss letters and the Lusk letter. It begins Dear Boss and ends "Catch me if you can"--an obvious takeoff on the Lusk letter's "Catch me when you can." The letter was located only relatively recently in the Scotland Yard files and the theory is that it was placed there by a hoaxer. There is no indication that the Central News Agency received any letter prior to the September 25 Dear Boss letter, and the earliest letter in the Scotland Yards files overall is one dated September 24 that was sent to Sir Charles Warren, Metropolitan Police, in which the writer claimed to be a "slauterer" [sic]. Evans and Skinner in their definitive book on the JtR letters view this letter as the first genuine letter to be considered in the official files and do not give credence to the September 17 letter.
As for the Saucy Jacky postcard, as Evans and Skinner note, the original postcard has been lost. In their book, they reproduce a color facscimile of the postcard. I doubt if anything could be done with the smudge that is on there in terms of determining a finger- or thumbprint suitable for comparison to any suspect. It would be nice to nail the Ripper but I doubt that it could be done using the letters. That having been said, I have heard that American mystery writer Patricia Cornwell has a nonfiction book in the works in which she discusses using DNA analysis on the JtR letters. It will be fascinating to see what if anything she has been able to determine! Perhaps she has a surprise in store for us?
Hi, Caz:
Please thank Keith for his clarification of the confused listings for the timings of the Grand National races in 1888 and 1889. I accept that Paul Feldman wrote that the 1889 race was the fastest in 17 years because the 1888 race as shown in the listing in The Liverpolitan was shown to be slower. Also I appreciate his kind words about my noticing that the races in the 1860s, at under 10 minutes, were faster than those in the 1870s and 1880s so the 1889 time was definitely not one of the fastest on record by a long way. I understand by the way that the record for the fastest Grand National run in recent years in now under 9 minutes.
Also, Caz, please relay to Keith that it was a pleasure to meet him and Coral in Oxford on October 2 and that I hope shortly to have a consensus statement draughted on the status of our talks on the Diary investigation.
Hi, R.J.:
Excellent points about how close Maybrick could have been to the heir apparent at the Grand National. More likely the historical James Maybrick saw Bertie from afar but not from "but a few feet away" as our Dear Diary writer would have us believe. The omnibus would have been some distance from the grandstand and would have been hired to give the racegoers height over the general spectators. It would have been, I think, a horsedrawn doubledecker similar to the horsedrawn commercial doubledecker omnibuses seen in the period shots of London.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 11:46 am | | So, RJ and Chris, don't we now have to look again at what sources our forger could have been using for his Maybrick information? If he got it broadly correct, but fell down on some of the details, he obviously wasn't using any of the sources that you have used to get the facts straight.
And why won't either of you come out and say it - Albert must know more about the Maybrick scratches in his watch that he is letting on, mustn't he, if the diary is a post-1987 forgery? Or do you believe my Robbie scenario?
Don't be shy - you know it makes sense. 
Love,
Caz
PS Chris, you say that you think the watch is immaterial. But I'm afraid the bottom line here is that, every time you maintain that the diary was created after 1987, it is the same as saying you think Albert has been putting on a big act - unless you believe my Robbie scenario could be true. |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 02:03 pm | | Caz,
You're right, there's ALWAYS the watch. I have thought for a while, now, that the Watch came before the Diary was written. But, I don't have anything to explain the when, where, why and how the Diary and Watch came about. It just doesn't make sense that TWO scientists could be wrong about how long bits of corroded brass have been imbedded in that watch. One of then has to be right.
-Mark |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 02:21 pm | | Hi, all:
I do have a possible explanation why the scientists found the bits of corroded brass imbedded at the bottom of the offending scratches that allegedly constitution a "confession" by Jack. If whomever made the "Maybrick" scratches did the scratches over already existing scratches, then what is found at the base of the scratches may have been there a long time and not be contemporaneous with the new scratches that are of controversial interest.
I agree with Caz that it is well-nigh impossible to see anything on the inside cover of the watch where the scratches are. I was looking over Bob Hinton's shoulder at the Bournemouth convention as he examined the watch at the end of the Maybrick panel session and it was only when the watch was held at a certain angle that I could get some idea that there were scratches there.
Two other observations. 1) It occurs to me also that the buffing out of the scratches using jeweller's rouge or similar may have been done to make the scratches appear old, and 2) the scratches may have been more prominent before the buffing took place. Hinton's opinion was that no jeweller would fail to see markings if there were any, because it is their job to notice any markings. If Bob is around perhaps he would care to expand on that observation or correct me if I have misquoted him.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 03:29 pm | | Dear Everyone,
Having seen the watch and heard the story for the first time at the conference I have no hesitation in saying that it has no connection with either James Maybrick or JTR.
I briefly discussed this with Chris George. This is the story.
When a pocket watch is taken in for cleaning servicing or repair the craftsman doing the work scratches his mark on the inside of the watch, often with the date and a coded reference to what had been done.
Any jeweller obtaining a watch for the first time would minutely check it for these marks. It is akin to a car dealer checking the service record of a car he has just brought. It is inconceivable that this would not be done.
Secondly the psychology is all wrong. The initials are meant to be those of the victims together with the name of the killer - James Maybrick. A sort of trophy. But trophies are very personal things having relevance only to the killer. Think of Christie and his tobacco tin of pubic hair. He would take this and run his fingers through the contents, gloating over his memories. What he didn't do was put Christie on the tin. There was no need to - the trophies were his and of value only to him.
If the watch had been found with only the victims names or initials on it I would say there was a possibility, but with the name as well - absolutely not.
The only reason the name is on there is so that a clear connection would be made between the victims and James Maybrick. The only reason for that would be to convince someone a fake was genuine.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 03:52 pm | | | Hi Bob and C.G., Very good post and good comments. It may be of interest to you both to learn that Robbie Johnston was spouting off to someone I know telling them that the Diary was a HOAX yet the watch was not!!! Robbie was involved with that watch up to his neck. Mr Dundas repaired that watch and took it apart and cleaned it yet he said no marks ( JTR etc ) were in evidence. If there were marks he would have spotted them. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 03:59 pm | | Hi, Bob:
Why do you have to go and dispell all our illusions?!!  Would you have believed it more if the watch was signed, "Yours truly, James Maybrick (Jack the Ripper)"?
Seriously, thank you, Bob, for your detailed account of your thoughts about the scratches in the watch, which I had tried to sketch based on our brief consultation in Bournemouth. It was also great to meet you at the conference. It was a memorable weekend. Since I am making a summary of the Maybrick panel and the subsequent Oxford get together for Ripper Notes, I hope you don't mind me quoting your above explanation in my write-up? I would also be happy to send you a copy of the issue as well once it is out.
Best regards
Chris George
Co-Editor, Ripper Notes |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 04:02 pm | | Hi, Ivor:
Thanks for your kind words. I think the clear light of reason and truth will win out eventually.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 05:13 pm | | Caroline, Yes I did indeed walk out of that Maybrick panel talk for several reasons.And the Sickert talk as well. This is the man to whom I sent information many years ago and who has since been trying to peddle it off as his own work. He even went so far as to go onto a radio programme and mention details of my research trying to make it appear to fit his story.Prison staff at Wandsworth heard the programme and informed me simply because they knew the work was mine. In fact a person approached me at the conference stating that Sickett had sent him certain information which was mine. This information was indeed mine and the person mailed it back to me. I recieved it today in fact.I did not intend to stand up at the conference and make a fool and liar out of some old man who lives in his own little world. I have some scruples.Most people in the game know what Mr Sickert is like anyway they dont need me to prove it.Also the book sales room was open and selling my books was more important to me than listening to a load of Bulls**t. I did get back however when Alan Norton questioned Mr Sickert and accused him of not telling the truth. I also spoke to Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison. She asked if I had seen the watch.Look at my post to Bob Hinton and C.G. and note the remark made by Robbie.It may interest you to know that some people who spoke with Albert and Robbie got the impression that it was Robbie who was pulling all the strings because he was doing all the talking. I could go on but I wont. Robbie as far as I am concerned was involved in the watch hoax. I noted in a previous post that you made a comment in relation to waiting to read the truth about JTR and that you expected to wait a long time. Why dont you do as I did and go out and look for the truth yourself rather than relying on others to find it for you.That takes motivation, dedication, before time or money even comes into it. Would you even know what the truth was if you were faced with it?
Some people dont know the truth when faced with it.Neither do they know the difference between a silk purse and a sows ear. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 05:41 pm | | | Ivor , Joseph Sickert was not on the Maybrick panel - surely you mean Melvin Fairclough ? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 05:46 pm | | | Hi Chris, Yes it will, only because of the likes of you.I have a fighter pilot's pocket watch from France 1914-15. The pilots name has been scratched in the back along with the fighter aircraft he flew.Locations of his service airfields are also included. I mentioned this to Keith Skinner and if in the future any tests are done on the Maybrick Hoax Watch they can use mine to do a comparison test on.And yes my watch is indeed genuine.The person I obtained my watch from does know the difference between a silk purse and a sows ear. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 05:52 pm | | | Sorry Simon, Got the two confused Sickert was at the table when I walked back in the room.This was an audience with Joseph Sickert. The same thing happened with the Maybrick Diary panel as well I left then went back.This is why I was confused. Sickert and the Maybrick panel are enough to confuse the best of us. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 05:59 pm | | That was a different talk Ivor , Joseph did his own talk on the Sunday afternoon.
The Maybrick Diary discussion was on the Sunday morning and the panel consisted of ( from left to right facing the audience ) Albert Johnson , Robert Smith , Shirley Harrison and Melvin Fairclough.
I'm sure that Caz will be able to confirm this for me , if not I have an undeveloped photo of the panel which I will be able to produce when I finish my film off. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 06:15 pm | | | Dear Simon, Yes I know, because I did the same thing at both panel talks I got confused and got them mixed up. When I think Sickert I think hoax and when I think hoax I think Diary.This is what they have done to me. I should sue them!!!! I have corrected the mistake on the post in question. Thank you for pointing it out to me I am very grateful. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 06:22 pm | | Dear All
I have been biding my time whilst you have all busied yourselves with discussions over the watch and it's scratches, repair marks and provenance. Frankly, to say that because Robbie had a criminal record then he must have forged it is not only ludicrous but disrespectful.
You claim to be researchers, well tonight is the first time that I have been SERIOUSLY disappointed with you all, notwithstanding that we don't agree on other points. So Mr Timothy Dundas didn't see the marks in the back of the watch, huh?
To quote Bob: "When a pocket watch is taken in for cleaning servicing or repair the craftsman doing the work scratches his mark on the inside of the watch, often with the date and a coded reference to what had been done".
No 1) Shirley's book, p249, quote Ron Murphy who sold the watch to Albert "He (Tim Dundas) was asked only to repair the movement, not clean the watch - he would not have needed to look inside the back at all".
No 2)Tim Dundas, in a telephone conversation with Paul Feldman, described the watch he had repaired as having the word Verity in black, same colour as the numbers on a porcelain dial and there were NO engravings on the OUTSIDE of the watch. Paul called Mr Murphy who confirmed that the watch was white faced, with black numbers and 'Verity' engraved in black on the face.
Quote PHF p241: "The watch in the possession of Albert Johnson does not have a porcelain face, does not have Verity written in black, or any other colour, on the face, and the numerals are not in black. Albert's watch is Gold. The face, the numbers, the front, the back and the inside.
The answer to your debating is simple - there were two watches, why are you debating the scratches on Albert's watch when Tim Dundas saw a completely different watch. A Verity watch, according to Tim Dundas, is rare to come across and that is why he was so certain of it in his description to Paul Feldman. Come on John! Try to tell me there was only one watch. I feel bound to point out that PHF cleared Murphy and Dundas of any complicity in a cover up.
John,
Your 'pre-emptive' response to my query on the 17 September letter was way off the mark, I simply wanted to know when you thought the name 'Jack The Ripper' first became known, as the 17 September letter refers to 'your old pal Jacky'.
CTG: Why does the use of 'Catch me if you can' and 'Catch me when you can' make the letter a forgery? What is inconsistent with both letters being genuine OR the other letter being the fake? Once again you bend the evidence to suit your needs.......but that's o.k., I'm getting used to it now. Your remarks regarding the brass particles being embedded on a prior engraving and somebody else engraving over them is not worthy of you. Don't you think that would have been noticed?
Ivor, good to see you here again, hope that bit of business with the police settled down nicely. Just so people don't think you and I are in a pact as we have started being nice to each other -sorry to report, but it was PAUL FELDMAN who reported Robbie Johnson's belief that the watch was genuine whilst the diary was a fake. That proved to Paul that there was no way the Johnson's could be in league with the Barretts. The relevant section is on Page 35 of Paul's book.
Caroline - I don't care any more which side of the fence you are on, at least you are posing the right questions.
John - Remember I said I knew NOTHING about MPD? Well I have a friend who is a clinical psychologist (no, I'm NOT in therapy!) and her initial reports to me suggest that Maybrick COULD have had MPD. I stress that they are only very early observations, but it is the opinion of an expert.
TTFN
Peter. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 06:27 pm | | | Thanks for the clarification Ivor !!! |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 06:28 pm | | Hi All,
So we are all (almost) agreed apparently that the watch is a hoax and was neither Maybrick's nor the Ripper's.
But of course, this doesn't begin to solve our problem.
The question is, how is it possible that the diary and the watch were both created to link Maybrick to the Ripper case without either forger knowing what the other had done or was doing?
Of course, it's probably not possible.
So then, if the diary is a post-'87 forgery and there was no link before '92 between the Johnsons and the Barretts, then the watch scratches must have been made following the diary's release in '92. And therefore, one or both of the Johnsons must have done it, no?
Can we prove this?
Because if the watch engravings do pre-date the Hillsborough Soccer Disaster (1987?), then either the watch scratches were made before the diary (which would seem highly unlikely if the diarist didn't already know that a watch existed linking Maybrick to the case), or the diary was written before the soccer disaster (which means the Crashaw quote could not have come from the Sphere volume).
What do we know for sure?
--John
Peter -- I think you got mixed up a bit in a post above. Your "Come on, John!" to me is misplaced as I hadn't written anything about Dundas at all.
Now then, I noticed that you never got around to answering my earlier question. So here it is again.
You wrote:
"What I think Paul Feldman HAS achieved is to show a link between Maybrick's known writing, the diary AND the JTR letters."
OK. Let's start being specific here. In terms of the actual handwriting on all of these separate documents, what exactly is that link? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 06:48 pm | | | Hi Peter, I dont believe for one moment that the Johnsons were in league with the Barretts and I concur with you on that point.I had the police around again today over that affair. The old chap concerned has been found. He is 88 years old and an old serving soldier. They are not taking the youths to court but want to deal with it by warning them off.Have you seen the comments Melvin Harris has made in relation to the watch ? they can be found on the casebook.They are worth a look.Also Feldman was not the only person Robbie told that the diary was a fake while the watch was genuine. He also told Melvin Harris. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 09:51 pm | | | Hi Simon, If you got confused how do you think I feel!!!! Between Sickert, the watch,and the diary they have pushed me over the edge my brain cant take it anymore. I had a nightmare last night I saw Caroline, Joe Sickert,Anne and Mike Barrett, and Albert Johnston all in one room. Albert was sitting in the corner reading a book entilted, How to fool people without really trying while Caroline was sitting on his lap dressed like a banana. Joe was painting a 'paint by numbers' picture and it was most definitely not his signature in the corner. Not unless he changed his name to 'Turner' since last week. Mike was drunk and had his hands around Anne's throat screaming abuse at her, apparently it was all over something called a diary.I awoke in a cold sweat. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 10:03 pm | | Hi, Peter:
I am going to choose to ignore your remark that I "bend the evidence to suit [my] needs" and continue as if you had not said it. I think you ought to apologize because I am only trying to point you to the truth as I see it, not to bend the truth. I trust that the posters here with whom I have corresponded and interacted with over the years will verify my credentials and good standing as a writer and commentator on things Ripper.
In regard to the matter of there being two watches, Melvyn Fairclough told me an interesting tale when he and I were in private conversation in Bournemouth. As previously indicated, Fairclough was one of the researchers, along with Keith Skinner, for Paul Feldman's book. I may not have it word for word, but it was something along the lines of the following.
There was a letter sent in the 1960s. Sorry I don't recall if Melvyn said who was the sender or the recipient. But the gist of the letter was to the effect that "The Maybrick watch has gone to Liverpool." The implication was that Albert Johnson had the watch with the engravings much earlier than July 14, 1992, when he allegedly, according to Shirley Harrison's book, purchased the watch in Wallasey. He did buy a watch on that date but not the gold watch that is in question. Fairclough said that Johnson bought another watch to hide the fact that he had the Maybrick watch all along and so his family would have a receipt showing purchase of a watch to go along with the gold watch.
I have to admit that I don't know what to make of the above story. Possibly it has something to do with Paul Feldman's thought that Johnson may be a Maybrick. Remember the seemingly far-fetched photo caption which points to a possible "family resemblence" by comparing the faces of Albert Johnson, Johnson's grandmother, and some Whittlesey Maybricks (Feldman, Virgin hardback, photos facing p. 146)?
Perhaps Keith Skinner would care to comment on this story of Fairclough's. As Shirley Harrison is fond of telling us, according to Maybrick's motto, Time Reveals All. . .
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 10:42 pm | | Peter,
As a friend I will tell you the following,
Christopher does not need to bend the truth neither has his credibility ever been in question.
It would be fair to say that the quality of his work does the subject credit.As a ripper writer he can stand up with the best of them. He has no need to be anything but honest in his approach to the subject. I am just telling the truth to you as I see it. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 11:35 am | | From Keith Skinner To R.J.P.
Dear R.J.
Thank you for your post of Wednesday, 10 October 2001 – 03.54 pm. Look forward to reading your resolution on that Grand National race time for 1888.
Looking back over my notes, I see that in November 1995, I had a long discussion with Anne Graham about the Grand National. Afterwards, I jotted down the following:-
“AEG said if she had forged diary she probably would have included the name of the horse – or what the odds were.”
KS thought afterwards of the irony of discussing with AEG the mind of a modern hoaxer!”
How I wish that the dissimilarity of Maybrick’s authenticated handwriting versus the Diary handwriting conclusively proved that he “didn’t write the thing.”
How I wish I could be that positive and confident.
Do you bring the same degree of certainty to your belief that the handwriting of Mike Barrett, Anne Graham, Tony Devereux, Billy Graham or Gerry Kane proves that one of them did “write the thing”?
Incidentally, I know you give weight to Tim Dundas’s affidavit of July 3rd 1996 where Mr Dundas states that the scratches on the watch were made after he had overhauled it. But how much weight do you give to the two statements given by Ronald Murphy:-
“Having now seen the watch for the first time since selling it, I am almost certain that the markings were present when the watch was sold but they were not markings that I would have taken any notice of.”
[October 20th 1993]
“I actually polished the watch after it was returned from overhaul by Mr Dundas. On the rear case, inside I noticed scratch marks, there were several marks. I did not scrutinise them closely so I am unable to say exactly what they were.”
[July 5th 1996]
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 12:29 pm | | Hi All,
Bob Hinton wrote:
'Any jeweller obtaining a watch for the first time would minutely check it for these marks. It is akin to a car dealer checking the service record of a car he has just brought. It is inconceivable that this would not be done.'
Well, Ronald Murphy's statements tell a different story. But is there any reason for doubting his word? Why would he say that he saw some marks, but admit that he didn't bother checking them minutely, if this wasn't the case?
A less honest, but more understandable reaction from someone in the business might have been to categorically deny any such marks could possibly have gone unnoticed or unchecked, while the watch was in their professional care.
Just a thought.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 02:04 pm | | Dear Chris T George
You're absolutely right, of course, it was grossly unfair of me to accuse you of 'bending the rules', but Chris, please bear in mind that when I come on here at the end of the day there are always several more messages than there were the day before, so in referring to 'you' I am encapsulating ALL the replies I have read and indicating the plural 'you'. Still, I shouldn't have said it, bad day at the office. What I meant to say - and I hope you don't mind this - is that I don't agree with your assessment of the two letters concerned. That isn't to say that I have a definite opinion on either of them, just trying to chew the fat, as it were and keep all options open.
Chris, you do have my respect as an authority on the Ripper, and I hope you will accord me the privilege of debating points with you for a long time to come. Looking back on the point in question, do you still stand by your assertion that the 17 September letter was a forgery off the back of the Lusk letter? All I really wanted you to do was acknowledge that the opposite COULD be true. I'm really sorry for any offence I may have caused you, it wasn't my intention, although it is a point I have made privately to Ivor before now that I am trying to establish myself on these boards and I wouldn't waste your time posting here if I didn't genuinely think my points were worthy of being aired.
On a general note to everyone, please read between the lines occasionally, the words sometimes look harsher than they are - I do smile sometimes! A line which looks critical isn't always meant to be percieved that way - imagine it more as a mild rebuke from an old school friend and then you'll have the gist of it.
John: As regards 'come on John!' - I know you didn't raise that particular point, but you have been ever present during my formative days on these boards and I knew that you would be reading - so rather than getting confused I was issuing a challenge to you to debate the point with me. Go back and look again, the point is still worthy of debate.
Right then John, the link between the diary, Maybrick's writing and the JTR letters which I have previously asserted that PHF has managed to establish; here goes:
Paul has, arguably, maintained a link (I hesitate to say proven) that there are probabilities that certain letters amongst the thousands that were sent to the police in 1888 were written by the same person. That is of course not proof that they were sent by JTR, as indeed they could have been sent by the same man who was just a sad little forger with nothing else to do. But! Paul has revealed letters which show knowledge of the murders which only the murderer could have known and they link in to the other letters, thus creating a chain. Paul has made a connection between at least ONE of the ripper letters in his chain (thus also connecting the others, with me?) with a letter in Maybrick's own undeniable handwriting. Therefore we have established the link between Maybrick's handwriting and the Ripper's. Shirley was also of the opinion that the writing in the bible of Sarah Anne's was not disimilar to the diary, and, although the jury is still out, some experts believe there is a link between Maybrick's signature on other documents and the diary.
Thereby John I have answered your question. It's not neat and tidy, but then again if the diary had been revealed in a perfect copy of the 25 September letter handwriting, would you have believed it any the more? I have already stated my own view that the writing is not as important as has been said - I would be more suspicious if the writing matched the letters perfectly! That would indicate to me a copy by a forger.
Ivor,
I think it would be better punishment for the scum involved to make them tidy the old man's garden or clean his toilet with their toothbrushes. I wish we could reintroduce national service. Try to show them the error of their ways, after all they are our future lawyers, teachers, factory workers etc.
As for your comments on CTG, I think by now you know me well enough to sense when I am being serious (hardly ever) and light hearted (most of the time). The problem in here is that nobody can read body language (you can't see me!), but to get an idea of the sort of person I am read my profile.
I look forward to debating with you all soon and will let Caz throw in the points which I have forgotten.
TTFN
Peter |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 02:52 pm | | Hello, Peter:
Apology accepted. Let's continue to debate. I do concede that the September 17 letter may not have borrowed "Catch me if you can" from the Lusk (From Hell) letter's "Catch me when you can" although I consider that likely since the writer (forger) picked up the salutation "Dear Boss" from the Dear Boss series. I am still of the mind that the letter is a forgery, as Skinner and Evans also contend.
In regard to Maybrick's writing, I think we can all agree that the writing in Maybrick's letters, on the will, the application to be Freeman of the City of Liverpool, and the inscription to Sarah Robertson in the Bible are all very similar and consistent with being written by the same individual. It is the writing in the Diary that is at variance with these acknowledged samples of Maybrick's handwriting. I might also add that although my sense is that the Maybrick watch is a fake, the name "Ja Maybrick" in the watch seems more consistent with those samples than does the Diary writing!!!
Now, then, Peter, I looked at your profile. Is that a picture of your son, or of you??? Are you Joanne (going by your e-mail address) or Peter??? Were you a P.C. or a W.P.C.? Sorry if that question is not P.C.! . I see you are a poet as well as a Mancunian. I will have to send you some of my Liverpool and Merseyside poems written about the area at the "other" end of the Manchester Ship Canal.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 03:20 pm | | | Hi Peter, Great idea you came up with about what those louts should do.I have spoken to the elderly chap and some sort of justice should be seen to be done.Not just a warning that is not good enough. When the police call round with the boys and parents I will insist that if such action ( you mentioned ) is not forthcoming then the elderly chap and myself will be prepared to take action in the civil courts.I have informed the former that my sense of justice has been so outraged that I am prepared to do all I can to help him. Caz has been a naughty banana Peter.She has taken it into her head to argue with anyone who is not pro diary just for the sake of it regardless of what they say. Her street cred is now under question!!!. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 03:33 pm | | Ivor , I wasn't confused - you were ! Oh never mind...
I cannot understand the connection between Caz and a banana ( unless you know something about her we don't...) as during the Conference Caz was dressed in black throughout and never wore yellow : she does not look anything like a banana. Please explain.
P.S. To dream of bananas means you will be lucky in some small matter.
Simon |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 04:07 pm | | Hi Simon:
I am sorry that I did not get to meet you in Bournemouth. I do wish to correct you, however, in your statement that "Caz was dressed in black throughout." On the night of the Saturday night banquet, she was wearing a red or rust red dress, as I recall, when she was up dancing to "She Loves You," etc. This is a good test of memory when we think about witnesses giving descriptions of clothes worn by suspects, etc.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 06:52 pm | | Chris
Your 'forger' needn't have 'borrowed' "Dear Boss" from any series of letters. It could be genuine! It could be part of the series!
The photograph on my profile is indeed my 7 year old son - Matthew, can you see where he gets the good looks from? I might update it periodically to show my other two children. I fear that the camera and I are not best of friends and may seek to post a doctored photograph of myself sometime!
Finally Chris, the e mail address on the profile is my wife's, don't ask why, but it defaulted to that when I set the profile up. I don't know if it works or not, but to get me you just put peterwood in place of joannewood. Is it p.c. to talk about w.p.c.'s on your p.c. with an ex p.c?
And all of you, leave Caroline alone! She is my only ally right now - for however long it lasts!
TTFN
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 09:13 pm | | | Peter, I did think when I saw the photo, That they seem to be getting younger and younger in the police force these days!! I was going to refer to you as 'BABY FACE'!!! I'm glad you cleared that one up. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 09:19 pm | | | Simon, Looks like you were confused at the conference after all. I'm glad I wasn't the only one. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 03:58 am | | You are all wrong - the dress was black with pinky red roses and dark green leaves.
And yes, we have no bananas...
Love,
Caz
PS Off to a friend's wedding today. See you all on Monday. Gosh, I've just realised, it's October 13th - my own wedding day (to my first husband) 28 years ago. God, I feel old... |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 08:33 am | | Hey Caz,
Thats the very same day my girlfriend was born.
Bet ya feel older now !
Monty
 |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 09:36 am | | Hi Peter,
In re-drawing the tenuous link between Maybrick's handwriting and the alleged Ripper letters you mention two things that do not seem to me to have been accomplished by Paul Feldman and you forget one thing.
First -- the two things which do not seem to me to have been accomplished.
1. You write: "Paul has revealed letters which show knowledge of the murders which only the murderer could have known."
No, he hasn't. Paul has revealed letters that he might think show such knowledge, but indeed Chris George and (if I am hearing the rumors correctly) Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner have argued quite thoroughly that none of the Ripper letters actually do clearly or demonstrably show knowledge that only the killer could have had. In fact, if Paul actually had proved that even a single letter demonstrated otherwise unavailable knowledge and was therefore genuinely and verifiably written by the Ripper -- that it had to have been penned by the killer himself -- I think this discussion would be entirely different (as would these boards).
2.) You also write: "Paul has made a connection between at least ONE of the Ripper letters in his chain (thus also connecting the others, with me?) with a letter in Maybrick's own undeniable handwriting."
No, he hasn't. The "connection" about which you speak consist of Paul looking at the two letters in question and saying "see, doesn't the handwriting look similar?" or including pictures of the two letters in his book. This is not a real, scientifically established or even in any way thoroughly established connection whatsoever. It's simple, quick, and easy speculation. No experts were used to verify that these two letters were in fact written by the same hand. No professional comparisons were made and no findings were offered. All Paul has done is suggest that he thinks the writing in these two letters is similar. That is not, in any way, "establishing a connection" -- no more than my suggesting that, since Chris George has lived in Liverpool, researched Maybrick and the Ripper, published his own Ripper work and was once writing a book on Maybrick, that he must have been connected to the writing of the diary. It's just an idea. A reaction. Like Paul's. I can suggest it and I can believe it. I can even put it in a book and try and get others to believe it. But I have in no way "established a connection" in any meaningful or reliable or thorough or scholarly or responsible sense between Chris and the production of the diary. Likewise, Paul can suggest that he thinks the handwriting on the two letters might look similar to him -- but unless he then seeks to verify this professionally or in some way go beyond his own speculation and reaction, then he has not actually "established a connection" between the Maybrick letter and any "Ripper letter" whatsoever.
So in fact, Paul has not proven that any letter was written by the Ripper and Paul has not established any connection between any alleged Ripper letter and Maybrick's writing. And therefore, we are exactly where we started -- with no real reason, supported by any material or reliable evidence, to suspect, because of the handwriting, that Maybrick had any link at all to any of the Ripper missives.
Finally, the thing you forgot.
Neither the letters that Paul thinks the Ripper might have written nor the letter in Maybrick's hand that Paul thinks looks similar to the Ripper letter look anything at all like the writing in the diary.
Thus, even if by some miraculous leap of faith someone were to begin to believe numbers 1 and 2 above, neither of those things would in any way link Maybrick's handwriting (or the Ripper's) to the writing in the diary.
Indeed, even if for some reason, someone were to be convinced, because of Paul's reaching and unverified speculation about the letters, that some of the Ripper letters were genuine and that Maybrick wrote them and that Maybrick really was the Ripper --
the diary would still be a problem since the handwriting there doesn't match either Maybrick's or the writing in the Ripper letters.
Bummer,
-- John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 07:14 pm | | | Peter,The subject you mentioned of people being innocent until proven guilty brought someone to mind. Lord Lucan for example has yet to be tried for murder but it is excepted that he is indeed guilty.He has been judged guilty by the public before being found so by a jury. |
Author: Judith Stock
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 04:39 am | | But then, Dear Ivor......there is ALWAYS the OJ case.......into what category does that one go?
It was lovely finally meeting you in Bournemouth. Hope you and Emily had a safe trip home and that you both are keeping well. Is there any chance you might make it to Baltimore? It should be another great weekend of chats and pub talks and well-fought battles with no hard feelings. We would love to see the both of you there.
Regards,
Judy |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 12:50 pm | | Ivor
Please read later, because I have a great deal to discuss with John and the other detractors, not forgetting that you too are a detractor!
John
A great deal of your arguments against the diary boil down to the issue of handwriting. I wonder if you have read what Hannah Koren wrote on the subject. Page 327, Shirley's book:
"The diary shows an unstable personality. Inner conflicts lack of social adaptability and a tendency to schizophrenia. The author's feelings of inferiority, emotional repression and lack of inner confidence may cause him to lose control every now and then and he may explode very violently.
Tendencies to despotism, irascibility and brutality are clearly discernible. He is affected by unconscious instincts and aggression is the constant companion of his instincts.
A tendency towards hypochondria and a use of drugs or alcohol is evident.
.........He suffers from psychological disorders, which produce illogical, obsessive, destructive and aggressive behaviour......".
And there are still some people who would say that Mike Barrett forged the diary!
John, I don't know how much store you lay by H.K., but her words are powerful. What was that? ".......A TENDENCY TO SCHIZOPHRENIA...". What else? ".......lose control....explode very violently.....".
Hannah knew nothing of Jack The Ripper, but she is a respected analyst of handwriting. She also spotted tendencies to drug abuse as well as the violence. And her comments on shizophrenia are interesting in light of previous remarks regarding Maybrick/MPD's.
Hannah Koren's evidence is strong enough to link the writer of the diary with violent criminal activity, drug taking and paranoia. We know Maybrick took drugs, but what about the violent criminal activity and the paranoia?
I believe your argument against the handwriting is that it matches no known sample of Maybrick's. I think you would have been even more suspicious if it had been a perfect carbon copy of the 25 September letter. There are few enough examples of Maybrick's handwriting that survive and, though you like to deny it, they have been linked to letters which could have come from the murderer.
You say, if I remember correctly, that the JTR letters aren't genuine, but the only other real alternative is that they were written by journalists. I'm not arguing that everyone of the thousands of letter sent is genuine, just that the Ripper sent some of them. There seems to be a consensus now that the 25 September letter and it's postcard were written by the same person, what is in dispute is whether or not that person was the murderer. The postcard echoed the letter and both revealed knowledge of the murders which would otherwise have required an incredible amount of luck on the parts of any journalists involved in a forgery. Do you think they would have written "........you will soon hear of me....."? And yet five days later they did hear of him! And it was also reported in the postcard! Now if that letter had said you will soon hear of me and then nothing had happened for a whole month, i.e. October, then you might have had a case, but the argument seems to rest on '.....postcard was written after the murders were in the papers',but we already know the letter was written before the murders and we all seem to agree that one person wrote both, so why the need to argue? Jack the Ripper wrote both letter and postcard. Now we need to find out if Maybrick wrote both letter and postcard.
As I remember, the tin match box empty entry has been dismissed with a flourish of a hand, waving it away like a troublesome wasp. But that entry alone proves the diary is either a modern forgery or is genuine. And if you think it was copied from police lists then that contrasts sharply with the scientific evaluation of the ink and paper.
The Grand National debate has raged backwards and forwards and there seems to be some input that the Maybricks attending the G.N. was already reported in at least two books. The argument over the exact timing of the race is a red herring. The diarist saw it as a fast race, end of story. Would you prefer it if the diary contained NO evidence which could be evaluated against known historical events? The diary may look suspicious because it may look like certain passages have been deliberately dropped in, in the same way that we might drop names into a conversation to attract attention. But that doesn't make the diary a forgery! The diarist was writing about his life! And, although the entries are obviously chronological it doesn't contain reference to every event in his life! There are gaps, we just get glimpses. Have you ever considered the stuff that has been left out of the diary that we do know about Maybrick's life, that a forger could have made use of? Would that have improved or further disproved the diaries standing in your eyes?
Along with the entry about the tin match box empty, the entries where the diarist refers to himself as 'Sir Jim' are powerful evidence of it's authenticity. To my mind the only other place where Maybrick is referred to as 'Sir Jim' is in the Christie collection, uncovered by PHF and Keith Skinner - and yet, incredulously, this entry is dismissed with another wave of the hand and an 'it could have been common knowledge', or '....if I were forging the diary I would call myself Sir Jim if my name was James'. Please! The entries referring to 'Sir Jim' are obviously there for a reason. Either a forger is drawing attention to them for the reason that he knows we will find the entry in the Christie collection OR they are there because they are important to the writer. There is no other explanation!
And now to the entry regarding the treble event. How many people in 113 years thought to allude to a treble event? Answer: Two - our diarist and Jack the Ripper in one of his letters(or, of course, a forger in one of his letters). And yet again the entry is dismissed with a cursory ' ........it's an obvious connection to make...'. How can it be that obvious? No one else made the connection! Again, that entry, like the Sir Jim entries, is there for a reason. Either our forger is bringing our attention to it in a desperate attempt to gain credibility or it is genuine.
You can't dismiss such entries lightly. They are worthy of much more thought. If the diary is a forgery then we know where the reference to 'Sir Jim' came from. It came from the Christie collection. So tell me how our forger got to read that collection (unless you want to nominate Christie for the Ripper). If the diary is a forgery then we know where our forger got the reference to 'treble event' from, don't we? Yes, it MUST have come from the letter, signed Jack The Ripper in which he denies responsibility for a murder which may otherwise have been attributed to him. But how is that possible? Explain these two entries to me, if you can.
Are you not impressed of the diarist's intimate knowledge of Maybrick's personal life and his constant references to his 'medicine'? Does that not suggest to you something more than a cheap forgery?
John, you know you have my utmost respect as an academic and a researcher, but you cannot abuse that respect and expect me to take what you say for granted. If you are to convince me that the diary is a forgery then I need answers on the points of the treble event and 'Sir Jim'. Not the answers I have been given before, but sensible, credible answers, after all the entries, if not genuine, could only have come from the sources named.
your buddy
Peter |
|
|
|
|
