|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 16 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 16 October 2001
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 01:00 pm |        | John
A couple more points.
Firstly, I can't remember if it was you who raised the issue of Maybrick referring to Florie as 'Bunny', but somebody did, it may have been Chris G. Anyway, as a helping hand, there is a letter signed 'Bunny', from Florie to Maybrick. So, again, if the diary is a forgery we know where that entry came from..............
Second point. In England the expression 'Bummer' is used as an insult, as in 'You bummer!'. It alludes to two men indulging in.........well, I'll leave it to your imagination, but George Michael would understand me. It might be more politic in future to say 'Downer!', but then again you Yanks might have a rude meaning for that!
TTFN
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 01:12 pm | | Ivor
Regarding Lord Lucan, I MAY be correct in asserting that back then the verdict given by the coroner's court was one of 'Wilful murder by Lord Lucan' (obviously they would have used his real name), but the point is that, in the not too distant past, coroner's courts could still give out "verdicts" as was given in the Maybrick case where "Wilful murder against Florence E. Maybrick" was returned. Like I say, I MAY be right, could be entirely wrong as I was but a young pup when that all kicked off. Still there is something at the back of my mind......... any other serious researchers know about that?
In Britain, if you are interested in miscarriages of justice, you want to look at the case of Lynn and Megan Russell, where Michael Stone was convicted of their murder IN THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY FORENSIC EVIDENCE. Are we really expected to believe that after such a carnage there wouldn't be one drop of blood, not one piece of DNA? He was convicted on the say so of a fellow con who said Stone confessed to him. What was that about hearsay evidence........?
The choker ('scuse the pun) for me was that on a pencil case found at the scene of the crime there was a finger print IN BLOOD, which DID NOT belong to Stone and did not belong to any of the family members. The only conclusion there is that someone else was at the scene. Plus, the jury only returned a majority verdict, that meant that two people either thought he was innocent or the crown hadn't proven their case. And remember that even Lynn Russell's husband has expressed his concerns that Stone was the killer. I think that in ten years time, my friend, you will be watching a programme on Channel Four in which Michael Stone walks free from prison with half a million in compensation stuffed in his back pocket. British justice!
Judith, O.J. didn't do it. Didn't you know that Eminem had confessed to the murders?! Maybe we should open up an O.J. board!
Cheers
Peter |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 01:25 pm | | Peter Wood:
As I said to the group at Oxford, you can take all of Koren's statements (and please remember that she is a graphologist not an FDE) and most of them can apply not only to the fictitious Maybrick but to the very factual Mike Barrett. Now this is not to say that her opinions prove that MB transcribed the diary but the very fact that they can be applied to his acknowledged character must at the least prove the unreliability of her opinions. Also, most of her opinions apply to the James Maybrick character who is known from the diary and not from historical records. So you are therefore trying to prove that JM wrote the diary by its own contents, surely in itself an extremely illogical idea.
You and Feldman state that Koren knew nothing about Jack the Ripper. This is debateable: we are told how her work was used by the Israeli Defense Ministery and by organisations over Europe in fraud trials.It is hard to believe that someone in her position would not have known of the most famous serial killer of our age. Indeed it is Feldman who assumes that she knew little about the murders although she is quoted as remembering "something."
Saying that Maybrick took drugs is true only so far as his medicinal practices. He may well have taken a whole pharmacopea of drugs homeopathically but surely the Koren viewpoint here is that of "drugs or alcohol" very different from minute doses of arsenic. And of course Mike Barrett certainly drank an awful lot.
I think that most persons opinions certainly after the landmark Evans/Skinner book would be that there were almost as many ripper letter-writers as letters and there is no proof that any of them were from the murderer. Even the "Dear Boss" letter has no real proof especially as it may well have been written by a journalist to keep the story going. Do you feel that your opinion here is more likely than Stewart Evans or Keith Skinner to name only two of the many who now disbelieve that that letter was written by the killer?
The diarist does not show intimate knowledge of Maybrick's private life. Again what is happening is that the diarist is writing about a fictional Maybrick and showing knowledge of that man's life. You are trying once more to prove the book true by what is in the book. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 05:41 pm | | Hi Peter,
First, sorry about the "bummer." I didn't know the local usage. Here in the US, it's hippie talk for something disappointing.
Now then...
One by one.
First of all, I think Peter B. makes a fair point about Koren. But aside from that, even if everything she says is absolutely true, it tells us nothing at all about whether James Maybrick wrote the diary. It is not material evidence of authorial identity, even if her characterizations of the writer are all true. Nor is it evidence that Jack the Ripper wrote the diary. She is not, and cannot be anything like that specific. Truth is, I have more than one friend who fits the description you excerpted above. And we also have no reliable or material evidence whatsoever that James Maybrick ever had homicidal or criminal tendencies to go along with his drug habit. The diary of course does not count as evidence, since we don't know who wrote it.
You then write:
"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."
No, they haven't. You keep saying this, but you have yet to show me any reliable material evidence that links the known samples of Maybrick's writing to even a single alleged Ripper letter. As my previous post demonstrates clearly, neither has Paul Feldman done anything more than offer a wishful piece of "look, see, they seem similar to me" speculation, completely unsupported in any reliable way. No handwriting expert has ever said that any letter looks anything like the known samples of Maybrick's writing and no one has ever said that either Maybrick's writing or any Ripper letter look anything like the writing in the diary. Therefore, the most logical and likely available conclusion remains that neither James Maybrick nor the writers of the Ripper letters wrote the diary. It's simple, really. Until someone offers reliable and verifiable evidence that actually links Maybrick's writing to the diary (let alone any supposedly genuine but unverified Ripper letter), the handwriting remains a problem for those who still wish to claim that Maybrick wrote the diary.
And Paul Feldman has done nothing at all to change that. Please see the specific analysis of his claims in my previous post to you.
And to write the phrase "you will soon hear of me" in a fake Ripper letter after the Ripper had started ripping and then have him kill again does not actually require a great amount of luck or secret knowledge at all. It was a fairly safe bet. And even if it wasn't, it was a predictable rhetorical flourish in such a letter. In any case, it is certainly not proof that Jack the Ripper wrote any of the letters, that's for sure.
Also, nothing you say about the Grand National is evidence that the diary was written by James Maybrick, since nothing you say about it is evidence that a forger could not easily have written the exact same words. The fact, as RJ has pointed out, that the diary has Maybrick getting much closer to HRH than he actually was (on an omnibus, watching from a distance), on the other hand, does pose a problem for the claim of authenticity.
Then there is another marvellous moment of reductionism in your logic.
Watch.
You write:
"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!"
Sure there is. You can't reduce the possible interpretations down to just two because you say so.
For instance: another possible and even likely explanation is that the diarist thought of the Queen hearing about the Ripper exploits, has his character think of being knighted, and thereafter starts calling him "Sir Jim." And what do you know? That's exactly what happens in the text. And you wouldn't need knowledge of any Christie collection and the idea wouldn't need to be particularly important to you and you certainly wouldn't need to be James Maybrick. And you would then be pleased enough with the device to repeat it over and over the way you do everything else you write in the diary, perhaps because of your limited imagination. And what do you know? That's exactly what happens in the text, with this reference and with a whole host of others. This explanation makes perfect sense, is completely possible and does not fit either of your two offered explanations. Therefore, they are not the only two possible and your exclamation -- "There is no other explanation!" -- is simply and demonstrably false.
Then you ask:
"How many people in 113 years thought to allude to a treble event?"
How many people in 113 years have written a fake diary of Jack the Ripper.
Only one that I know of. And in that diary they are creating they have a main character known world-wide for his "double event." Lo and behold, they have him think about the possibility of a "treble event." Is this unusual? Is this telling? Is this evidence of some secret knowledge? Of course not. It's actually quite predictable if you are writing a diary of Jack the Ripper. And the fact that one of the many alleged Ripper letters also mentions such a thing is also to be expected, no? What surprises me is that more of the letters don't. But that's certainly not evidence that the diarist knew anything at all about the one letter that did. It is perfectly possible for a writer to come up with the simple and predicable idea completely independently. So unless you can somehow prove to me that the only way anyone could have thought of the idea of a treble event was to have read the September 25th letter (and you can't prove this, of course), any link you might wish to draw between the writer of the diary and the writer of that letter remains completely and utterly speculative and unestablished in any reliable or verifiable way.
Finally, you ask:
"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?"
If you are asking me whether I think the diarist read some things about Maybrick, then I'd say sure. If I was forging a diary that claimed that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, I'd be sure to look up stuff about Maybrick. A lot of stuff. I'd probably have my drug-addicted subject refer several times to his "medicine." Especially if the published transcript of testimony at his murder trial mentioned that that is what he called it. Actually, though, if I were doing this, I would have been more thorough and meticulous (and consequently, ironically, I probalby would have gotten caught). A close reading of the diary pages reveals very little specific information about Maybrick's private life, in fact. It's all vague and sketchy and deliberately avoids being verifiable. But this is supposedly the personal and private diary of a literate 19th century businessman with a family and friends and a very busy life (ripping whores aside), and his diary reveals almost nothing at all about the simple details of a life being led. Its entries could very well have been written by an outsider and they could very well have been fabricated on the page at only a few sittings. The story and the writing have nothing of the heterogeneous nature of a lived life chronicled for personal reasons. This has always been, for me, part of the largest problem with the diary -- its artificial structure and its appearance, in terms of its narrative movement, as a carefully created artifact.
Oddly though, the two details you leave off with, as your strongest evidence, "Sir Jim" and "treble event" are actually two parts of the diary that would not have needed any research whatsoever. They would have flowed quite naturally from the writing, and they do in fact, on the page. They are common sense references that could simply have been created out of whole cloth by the fiction writer whose words appear on the page. The Sir Jim thing could easily have been the result of the knighthood conceit and the treble event idea is a logical extension of the famous double event. The fact that Maybrick then turned out to call himself "Sir Jim" and the fact that one of the many, many alleged Ripper letters mentions a treble event are not, logically, proof that these are the only possible sources for these references. You cannot use these two facts as proof of such a thing unless you can link the production of the diary to the letter in question (which neither you nor Paul has actually done) or to Maybrick himself (and so far, no one has been able to do that in any reliable or verifiable way).
So we are where we started.
And the case for the authenticity of the document, the case for Maybrick as the writer and as the writer of some alleged Ripper letters and as Jack-the-Ripper remains purely speculative and reliant upon inferences which are neither thoroughly substantiated in any scholarly way nor supported in any material, reliable, or independently verifiable way.
Of course, that tells nothing at all about who wrote the book.
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 05:45 pm | | Well Peter, it is interesting to see you in here, and frankly - yes, I do consider my opinions to be as important as those of Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner, and as important as yours. I've said before that I will not be frightened of people's reputations in my search for the truth. Admittedly Stewart and Keith both have excellent reputations, but then again so do a hundred and one other ripperologists, not many of whom can agree on the identity of the murderer. And just because I am new in here does not mean I will be cowed down by an old boys network who justify their beliefs in the diary/forgery claim by backing each other up.
Maybrick? Fictitious? Come come Peter, he definitely existed, after all his wife was sentenced to death for murdering him! Mike Barrett? So you think he fits the profile which Hannah set for the diarist? Well, that in itself is interesting - at least you are not questioning Hannah's opinion, so I take it you are in agreement with her assessment. Remember therefore, that Hannah didn't state that the diary was written by Jack The Ripper, nor could she state it was written by Maybrick. All she could say were the character traits she detected in the writing, and with which you seem to concur.
Now let's get to the point where you accuse me of, and I quote "....trying to prove that JM wrote the diary by it's own contents, surely in itself an illogical idea".
I haven't done any primary research, all I have done is read the books, and I assume you have too otherwise you are not qualified to comment on them. (Calm down Ivor, I've not insulted him............yet). From reading the books I can see a clear connection between the diarist (purportedly James Maybrick) and the James Maybrick who lived at Battlecrease in 1888/89.
Let's start with the drugs: There are many many many entries I could refer to that would prove Maybrick was an addict, and no Peter we are not just talking of minute doses of Arsenic here, but I'm sure this one will suffice. Quote from Charles Ratcliffe in a letter to John Aunspaugh "James attended the Wirral races April 27th and came home sick. He began dosing himself as usual.............If they had only found the arsenic in Mrs Maybrick's room, as James was such an arsenic dope...........".
As I said there are many more references I could use to prove, yes prove, that James Maybrick was an arsenic addict. Minute amounts of arsenic? Pah! I suppose that George Best was an 'o.k.' footballer!
Quote you "The diarist does not show intimate knowledge of Maybrick's private life". What? By that I suppose you meant the diarist didn't know that Maybrick had a secret wife? Oops! Yes he did! Well, maybe he didn't know that Maybrick hardly ever saw his brother William? Wrong again! It's in there. O.k. Peter, last resort, maybe the diarist didn't know about James' wife coming from America. Damn! That's in there too.
Maybe we should have a look at the entries in the diary where our "forger" concerns himself with his 'violent outbursts'. Any evidence that Maybrick was violent? Well yes, plenty actually. Like the time he struck Florie after the Grand National, several witnesses to that one. And what about his temper? Go on Peter, you might as well admit that it's in there too! Remember the dinner party? The one where Florie was flirting with Edwin? The one where James "...dropped his knife, clenched his fist and his face flushed the colour of fire".
Yes Peter, we have all heard of Jack The Ripper. I dare say Hannah Koren had heard of him. In the same way I have heard of the American Bigfoot, but I couldn't write you more than two lines on the subject. She'd heard of him alright, but she didn't read the back page - just looked at some pages in the middle of the book, and the back page is where the signature of Jack The Ripper is, right? So Hannah's knowledge or lack of it on JTR is immaterial, she examined the handwriting and gave her opinion. End of story.
Oh, and Peter, I beg to differ, your assessment of Hannah Korean is way off beam - P.252 Feldman's book - "Hannah is not just a graphologist, as the detractors would like you to believe. She is a Forensic Document Examiner for the Israeli Ministry of Justice....". One - nil to Feldman/Wood, I believe.
Your assessment of the letters is about the only part where you begin to make some sense. Of course there were nearly as many authors as there were letters. But refer back to my previous posts, as far as I am concerned Feldman has proven LOGICALLY that the September 25 letter and it's associated postcard were written by the murderer. That just leaves us to debate if that murderer was also James Maybrick.
Ivor has told me in the past that you are well respected and has indeed chastised me for not respecting you. But reputations are not good enough. If you are going to come in here and debate the diary with me, then please do your research first.
Shirley Harrison - The Diary of Jack The Ripper
Paul Feldman - Jack The Ripper, The Final Chapter
Available at all good book stores.
Happy reading
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 05:59 pm | | Peter,
One quick problem.
You write:
"There are many many many entries I could refer to that would prove Maybrick was an addict..."
See, this is Peter B's point. Logically, you can't use diary entries to prove anything about the real Maybrick, since we don't know if the real Maybrick wrote the diary. You are trying to prove that Maybrick wrote the diary, remember? So you can't assume that to be true in order to construct your proof. That's the logical error. You can't assume a conclusion and then use that assumption as evidence of that conclusion.
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 06:10 pm | | John
Good to see you back on top form! As regards your first couple of points.......well, I guess we will never agree on the handwriting issue. We can only mount speculations, and like I averred previously I still think you would be suspicious if the writing in the diary was a carbon copy of Maybrick's will, or the September 25 letter. Right? As for Peter's assessment of Hannah Koren - read my reply to him for that.
The handwriting, assuming we could find enough examples of Maybrick's handwriting, there is a good book in there somewhere! Actually John I think you will find the writing in the diary is MORE of a problem for those who wish to aver that it is a fake, than it is for those who support the theory that it is genuine. We have the scientific evidence and text content on our side.
Taken individually all your points are valid, just about. But put them together and you are asking me to believe that 'Sir Jim' was a lucky guess, 'treble event' was a lucky guess and 'you will soon hear of me' was a lucky guess. Put them together and our forger is luckier than a lottery winner! If the diary is a forgery then the sources for those entries are the ones I named. I believe that, and whilst your explanations are possible, they are not rational. And as for your argument that 'Sir Jim' follows on from the daydreaming of being knighted........well, I'm sorry John, but it's the other way round. It's in there, it's in the diary. There are several entries where the diarist refers to himself as 'Sir Jim' BEFORE he alludes to the possibility of being knighted. Now, this suggests to me that the nick name was already in common use and then he thought "Wow! Maybe she'll knight me!". The nick name therefore leads to the daydream, and not the other way round.
To sum up, your argument still uses the writing as the main problem with the authenticity. So, if our diarist is intelligent enough to source 'Sir Jim' and 'Treble Event' then why is he not intelligent enough to copy a signature on a known letter. Not just a known letter, but one which he claims to have written! The handwriting obviously isn't a problem for the diarist.....
We, of course, don't have to prove anything. We have the diary. If you don't believe it, fine - go prove it a forgery. Something which you haven't done yet.
One clue as to how you may do that John - find me one, just one, example of a letter or document or anything that places James Maybrick in anywhere but London when any of the killings took place or any of the relevant communications were posted. It's that easy! If you can do it then I will concede to you and we can close this strand and pursue the real killer somewhere else. But somehow I don't think you'll be able to do it.........
John, I love debating with you - and lay off Ivor, he's having a hard time of it at the moment.
Take Care
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 06:13 pm | | John
One quick point. With the word 'entries' I was referring to entries in Paul and Shirley's respective books, NOT in the diary. Hope that clears it up for you. I will gladly quote more for you if you want - as you will see the entry I quoted obviously did NOT come from the diary. Just an overview on your part I hope.
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 06:18 pm | | John/Peter B
Shirley's book P. 42
Quote Nicholas Bateson, Maybrick's servant: "He was very nervous about his health.....He was afraid of paralysis......the last year I lived with him he became more ADDICTED to taking medicines".
It's in the book John, not the diary. It's not fiction on the part of a forger, but a statement from someone who knew Mabyrick many years before the Ripper murders. And what was it that they said about Arsenic addicts..................?
regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 07:17 pm | | Hi Peter,
Ah. OK. I misread your use of the word "entries" there. Sorry. I wasn't doubting that Maybrick used arsenic, by the way, just pointing out that nothing in the text of the diary can ever be used as evidence concerning the real Maybrick, since we don't know if the real Maybrick wrote the diary.
Now then, as to the points in your initial post...
You say to me:
"Taken individually all your points are valid, just about. But put them together and you are asking me to believe that 'Sir Jim' was a lucky guess, 'treble event' was a lucky guess and 'you will soon hear of me' was a lucky guess. Put them together and our forger is luckier than a lottery winner!"
No, Peter, I was not suggesting that any of these things were lucky guesses. I was saying that each of them might very logically have developed out of and flowed from the text itself, from its own movement, and from the known facts.
We know there was a double event. It makes sense to have my killer think of trying for a triple one.
We know that the Queen heard about Jack. It makes sense to have Jack think sarcastically about getting knighted and even calling himself "Sir Jim." (And the order of appearances in the text is indeed interesting -- nearly all of the Sir Jim references come after the imaginary knighting, except for two -- in verse experiments written on previous pages. And they are both crossed out. It is not fair, of course, to assume that the knighthood reference only occurred to the writer at the moment it appears in the text -- that there was no prior planning or composition involved in this project -- nor that the verse experiments were written before the writer ever thought of the knighthood scenario and the resulting "Sir Jim." So this is not an argument about when the references appear in print but rather where the writer got the idea. And I am claiming that it is perfectly possible and even likely that he got the idea independently, that he got the idea without having seen any Christie documents or knowing anything about Maybrick having used the phrase. As with any act of reading, we must be careful not to confuse the writing of this book, the process of composing it, with the written text.)
We know that various letters were written by people pretending to be the Ripper. It makes sense that one would say "you will soon hear of me" once the Ripper has started killing, and the fact that the Ripper then killed again simply does not mean that this letter is therefore genuine.
It just doesn't.
It isn't even a lucky guess. It's a predictable thing to write. As is the "treble event" thought a very predictable plot maneuver in a fake Ripper diary. And the idea of the Ripper being knighted by a Queen whose attention was, we all know, historically called to the Ripper crimes, also has a root in known facts. These were not lucky guesses, they followed naturally from the project and could easily have been written without any secret knowledge and without any real awareness of the documents you mention and certainly without the writer having to be James Maybrick or Jack the Ripper.
Consequently, the three references you mention simply do not prove, nor even logically infer, anything at all. And this has nothing to do with luck.
You then make an argument that I have seen Paul Feldman and others make. It astounds me.
You write:
"So, if our diarist is intelligent enough to source 'Sir Jim' and 'Treble Event' then why is he not intelligent enough to copy a signature on a known letter."
1.) We have no way of knowing if our diarist "sourced" either of these things and you certainly have not proven that they did. So your initial premise remains unsubstantiated in any meaningful or reliable way.
2.) You are actually now arguing that the fact that the handwriting in the diary doesn't look anything at all like Maybrick's means it must be Maybrick's.
I love this one. You are saying if it wasn't Maybrick writing the diary, then whoever did would have tried to forge Maybrick's writing. Therefore, since the writing doesn't look like Maybrick's, only Maybrick could have written it.
Again:
Since the writing doesn't look like Maybrick's, only Maybrick could have written it.
Is it just me, or is this completely twisted?
Only Maybrick could have written a text whose handwriting doesn't look anything like Maybrick's? How on earth is this a logically valid claim?
How about this:
Since the writing doesn't look like Maybrick's, Maybrick probably didn't write it.
You see the logic?
Isn't the simpler and more likely explanation that someone forged the diary, did not know what Maybrick's writing looked like, perhaps was unaware of known samples even, or did not have the necessary skill to forge it, and so wrote it in what they thought was a passable Victorian hand and hoped that willing readers would suspend their disbelief and come up with some weird reason why the writing didn't match?
They were right.
Because here I am, seriously being asked to believe that the fact that the writing doesn't look anything like Maybrick's known writing proves that he must have written it.
On what planet?
I give you a text signed by me.
I give you a sample of my own handwriting.
The text signed by me does not look anything like my own writing.
Conclusion: I didn't write the text signed by me.
Not the conclusion: I must have written the text signed by me.
Do you see?
Then there is this:
"We, of course, don't have to prove anything. We have the diary."
But you are making a claim for the diary's authenticity. You need to substantiate that claim with reliable, verifiable evidence in order to convince us of its legitimacy. You, in fact, do have to prove something. Just as we need to keep trying to show you why we think it is a forgery by calling attention to its artificial structure, its convenient opening page which establishes the scene and characters even though it pretends to already be underway, its neat plot structure, its handwriting inconsistencies with known examples of the supposed author, and, of course, its absolutely horrible provenance, in which it cannot be independently accounted for at all prior to 1992.
By the way, you are echoing me when you write about the fact that no one has been able to definitively prove that Maybrick could not have been in London at the time of the killings. I made that same case a few months ago to Peter and RJ, as evidence that at least the known accounts of Maybrick's whereabouts were probably checked out by the diarist right at the start to make sure there was nothing that would immediately render him unavailable as a suspect and thereby doom the project before it had even begun. They disagreed with me about that. But, in any case, such a fact certainly does not prove that Maybrick was the Ripper or the diarist.
Finally, Peter, I appreciate your concern for Ivor, but of course the same rules apply to all of us concerning how we write what we write and how we do or do not support what we write and if any of us make unsubstantiated statements and then refuse to give the supporting evidence, we should be held responsible for that refusal and the challenge it poses to our credibility. And that has nothing to do with anyone's penchant for insults and invectives, which I just find unfortunate.
But I will, of course, try not to be too harsh on him or on anyone in particular.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 07:22 pm | | Hi Judith,
Some people seem to think that OJ was lying to protect his son who has been known to attack people with a knife. Emily and I send our love to you both and hope you are also well. It was indeed a pleasure to meet you both. We caught the ferry right on time thanks but it was a filthy drive home in that weather.We will be in the states in November and will stay for about 15 days. I wanted to spend at least 6 weeks there but Emily's job means that she cant manage it.When is the Baltimore bash ? I would like to go if at all possible.Best Wishes, Ivor |
Author: R.J.P.
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 10:11 pm | | Peter Wood---Hello. Your continuing call for someone to produce documentation that Mayrick wasn't in Whitechapel is a particularly weak argument. Try reversing this. Can you produce a single shred of evidence that Maybrick was within 200 miles of Whitechapel on the dates of any of the murders, or on the dates the 'Dear Boss' letters were sent? It's been stated that Paul Feldman spent in excess of 100,000 pounds on research. But he utterly failed to place Maybrick in Whitechapel. Considering even a dead man is considered innocent until proven guilty, I suggest you release the prisoner until you can place him within 200 miles of a crime.
Incidently, can you cite any medical literature that suggests that arsenic is a drug known to alter ones personality?
And finally, as to the September 17th letter that you have been referring to. You might wish to click on the "Keyword Search" tab on the left of the screen and type in the word "McClelland". If you like, read the conversation that comes up. Note the bit about the ball point pen, and the paper not being stamped. If you still wish to argue that it's genuine, I'd be very much surprised. Best wishes, RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 12:24 am | | Hi, RJP:
But Maybrick had a wife in Whitechapel. But whoops that was twenty years before. Oh but he knew the East End though, didn't he. And he had an office in the Minories. Surely sufficient to put his hand on the bloody knife don't you think? 
Hi, John:
A minor point of correction, you say you are surprised more of the JtR letter writers did not prophesy doing three murders in a night. In fact a lot of the writers made such prophesies, that they would murder five or fifteen or whatever, up and down the country. The new book by Messrs. Evans and Skinner on the JtR letters makes fascinating reading into bizarre aspects of the psychology of the human condition that makes the Maybrick Diary look quite staid and predictable by comparison.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 07:27 am | | Thanks Chris,
I would have thought this was the case, but I didn't know for sure that a number of the letters mentioned such things. As I've said, it seems to me a fairly predictable thing to write in a faux Ripper letter and that's why I think that simply because such a line also appears in the Diary, it in no way links the diary to any of those letters (let alone to Maybrick, of course).
All the best,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 08:59 am | | Hi, John:
I agree entirely on your reading of the predictability of much of what is in the Diary, as the expected "thoughts" of the Ripper based on the letters. I think Peter Wood is being entirely too trusting in his reading of Harrison and Feldman and not allowing logic into the equation. As far as I can see, your rational approach to the evidence is having no impression on him whatsoever. This is shown by the fact that he buys the notion that Maybrick has multiple personality disorder and thus accepts that each JtR letter pointed out by Feldman as being by Maybrick is actually by Maybrick though the handwriting varies from the Diary and the known samples of Maybrick's writing. The variety of styles of handwriting, Peter appears to assume, is "evidence" of MPD but as both you and I believe it is more likely that the difference in handwriting is due to the more simple explanation that they were written by different individuals.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 11:58 am | | Peter Wood:
Come on now Peter, you're not as stupid as that. Let me put it very simply: the Maybrick in the diary is a fictional character bearing some resemblance to the real James Maybrick who got knocked off by his wife. Similarly the William Shakespeare in "No Bed for Bacon" (Caryl Brahms and SJ Simon) is a fictional characetr based on the real Shakespeare. I'm sure that many of you out there can think of a number of cases where real people have been used in novels; it's commonly used in literature.
Remember please that although I consider Koren's opinions to be unscientific and unproveable, to Feldy they were the absolute truth. He believed that they showed without doubt that Maybrick was the diary author; I have shown that if they could equally well apply to Mike Barrett (who has at least an equal claim to Maybrick as being diary author) then they could apply, as John Omlor has properly said, to many other people. Her opinion therefore goes nowhere near appointing the real Maybrick as diary author.
Arsenic is not a class a b or c drug but is, in very small doses, a tonic. Of course in larger doses it's a cumulative poison. What makes you think that its effects would have any similarity to those of alcohol which is what the actual quote implies.
You do seem to be very confused about what events can be properly connected with James Maybrick and what are only used in the diary supposedly referring to the author. Perhaps you should read it again and then go through the trial transcript or the several books on the Maybrick case. These primary sources together with contemporary news accounts are the closest we can come to the historic Maybrick. Perhaps you might say: "If the diary shows us that Maybrick was in London at the time Kelly was killed, that proves that the diarist is Maybrick because that information doesn't come from any other source. Or perhaps the alternative is that this is a complete invention. And perhaps you can also accuse Maybrick of being a violent and bestial serial killer on the strength of blacking his wife's eye when he sees her with her lover or getting upset when she flirts with his brother. Isn't the sad but human vice of jealosy more likely than a depraved desire to eat human flesh?
And thank you for your comments on my reputation. Perhaps if you are concerned enough to see my past efforts on this matter you should use the search facility on these boards. However I should warn you that you may have to read a lot more than you seem to have done so far in your researches.
Oh, and regarding the Sir Jim nonsence, if you actually read Feldy's book then you will find that on page 97 (Virgin edn.) you will find the reference: "She [Nurse Alice Yapp] did not see why Sir James (Mr. Maybrick) ever brought me there any way." Note please that this is not Maybrick giving himself the soubriquet "Sir Jim" it is actually a servant giving him the sort of title common to servants who might otherwise refer to their masters (out of their hearing of course) as "Lord Muck." Please note that as my mother was "in service" and my father a Royal Navy Steward I have plenty of experience in hearing servants talking about their masters. There is no evidence at all that the historic James Maybrick ever referred to himself like this. Of course the fictional (diary) James uses the expression many times. John Omlor's explanation is very probably the correct one. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 02:25 pm | | Having seen the Diary in the ' flesh ' now ( so-to-speak ) , and having previously seen texts written by mental patients and those alleged to have MPD , I can honestly say that the Diary bears no resemblance to these.
On the contrary , it is written in a clear and elegant hand with large blank spaces left on several pages : the mental patient's writings were all over the place , often written in columns of tiny writing , written very intensely on the page with deep indentation , and often with doodles or furious scribbling.
Nowhere do we find any evidence of MPD in the Diary text either , the writer does not appear to change personality and does not refer to himself as ' we '.
The claim that the Diary is not written in Maybrick's recognised handwriting because he had MPD , is in my opinion a bit lame.
More likely someone else wrote it and tried to pin the blame on Sir Jim. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 03:17 pm | | Hi, Simon:
Having also seen the Diary in Bournemouth I agree with you that the document has an artificial quality to it. Peter Wood will not agree with us on this, of course, and it is hard to explain but the book has a look to it that is not "right." My reaction, similar to yours, is quite apart from the content of the Diary. Such "vibes" hardly constitute scientific proof, I know! However, one's hunches and instincts often turn out to be true.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 04:35 pm | | Peters (Birchwood & Wood)& John:
Just chiming in on the Koren evaluation discussion: Feldman stresses that not only did Koren not know enough about the Ripper to make assumptions, but didn't even know enough English to be influenced by the content. A few pages later he places equal stress on his quoting her "verbatim". Look at the quotes he ascribes to her. Turns out her English is plenty good enough, as her interview for the Diary video also shows.
Graphology is cobblers. It's predicated on the preposterous notion that letter formation can act as a diagnostic for highly complex neurologically and chemically determined mental conditions (as opposed to revealing, for instance, the writer having sprained a finger, or having shortened tendons, or having been taught to hold a pen a certain way, or having learned at a certain age, etc. etc.) Of course Koren said the writer was a raving loon. The diary is all about eating kidneys and ripping open women. I'd be a lot more impressed if her "powerful words" had come in response to being shown perhaps exerpted sentences relating to Gladys and Bobo, the weather, and the running of the Grand National, and being told that these were the writings of a universally loved businessman!
Madeleine |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 05:57 pm | | Hi John
Once again you have surpassed yourself! And it was so interesting to see that, following your post, the world and his wife were queueing up to agree with you! Yes John, No John, Three Bags full John!
Analytically you are without doubt one of the cleverst people I have come across, but John - that doesn't make you right. You (and all the stray sheep that gather behind you) approach the diary with your minds already made up. I, however, approach it with an open mind. I am constantly being accused of believing this that or the other about Feldman or the letters or whatever - it's simply not true. I interpret the diary one way, you interpret it another. And as I have said before our opinions are two sides of the same coin. I am more OPEN to the concept of the diary being genuine, and therefore I believe I am more RECEPTIVE to any GENUINE clues that might be found in there. You and your flock however have closed your minds on the subject - but nevertheless I will keep on knocking at the door until you let me in.
To quote, you write: "It is not fair, of course, to assume that the knighthood reference only occurred to the writer at the moment it appeared in the text.......". Actually John, not only is it fair but it is completely logical. Read the passage again John, it FLOWS naturally, it is being written as it is being thought, it isn't a stored memory! I could use Koren to back up my argument here, but I wouldn't want to upset you. Not fair! Come on John!
John, you make a great deal of the "you will hear of me" reference and how it was 'perfectly logical' that it should follow in the scheme of things. I wonder, therefore what you make of the letter quoted on page 295 of PHF's book where the writer says "....I am very sorry that I did not have time to finish my work with the London whores and regret to state that I must leave them alone for a short while......".
That letter was signed Jack The Ripper and posted in October 1888......and guess what? Yes, you have guessed it! There were no murders in October. Don't accuse me of using this to prove anything John, but I wonder if that particular thought also 'flows naturally'? You can't have your cake and eat it mate.............
John, I believe you KNOW that I haven't tried to use the discrepancies in the writing between diary and letters and Maybrick's known writing to PROVE them genuine. Find me the passage where I have. That would be silly. All I have done is point out the possibility that just because the handwritings are different DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean that they are by different people, there are of course historical examples to prove this, witness Peter Kurten. This is the only part where you have really disappointed me John, and watch the sheep jump on the bandwagon! You have gone to great lengths to force upon me an argument that I have not used. So please withdraw it. Credit me with some sense, I believe it is POSSIBLE that Maybrick wrote the Jack The Ripper letters, POSSIBLE that Maybrick wrote the diary, POSSIBLE that Maybrick was Jack The Ripper. I am open to all ideas, right now the Maybrick/Ripper one is the only one that fits the known facts.
And John, I simply cannot believe that you would credit our 'forger' with the diligence to research every known piece of historical evidence so that nobody could prove Maybrick wasn't in London at the time of the killings - and then argue that he wasn't diligent enough to notice a FAMOUS letter in the public domain from which he could have copied the signature! Does this scenario make any sense to you:
Witness the scene: Mike Barrett is relaxing in his armchair watching the football on a Sunday afternoon whilst his wife slaves over a roast in the kitchen. Mike gets up out of his chair. Anne says "Where are you going?" and Mike replies "Well love, remember that idea you and I had about forging a diary for Jack the Ripper and pretending that James Maybrick wrote it? I thought it would be a good idea to spend a couple of hours down the library just in case there are any pieces of paper ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that prove Maybrick was somewhere else when the killings took place. After all love, we've got to get our research right!". Anne replies "Good idea love, and whilst you're at it why don't you jet off to Wyoming and have a look at Christie's notes.............". Doesn't hold much water, does it John? You wouldn't select a candidate and then be able to find EVERY piece of paper, every letter, every business transaction, every newspaper report, every hotel booking - and if you could, imagine your joy at learning that none of them placed Maybrick where he shouldn't have been! You guys don't believe the diary, you want to prove it a forgery - well find me just one teeny weeny itsy bitsy piece of evidence that even SUGGESTS that Maybrick was somewhere else during the killings. Go look through hotel records, shipping records, gossip columns - hey, there are loads aren't there? Not.
This now is the focus of our concern. PROVE to me that Maybrick wasn't in Whitechapel, wasn't even in London when the killings took place. Prove to me he wasn't there when just ONE of the letters to which Feldman refers was posted.
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 06:13 pm | | R.J.
You ask "Can you produce a single shred of evidence that Maybrick was within 200 miles of Whitechapel on the dates of any of the murders.....?". Well, to put it bluntly R.J. - Yes, I can. He lived in Liverpool, that's about 200 miles from London, as the crow flies.
You see R.J. - we can all play at being facetious. I happen to think that with his Whitechapel connections Maybrick is a good candidate for the Ripper EVEN WITHOUT the diary. Therefore I am perfectly reasonably and logically entitled to count the diary as evidence - and that places Maybrick not only within 200 miles, but actually at the scenes of the crimes...but aah, I hear John's words echoing in my ears, do not use the diary to prove it's own content. O.K. Fair comment - so here's the deal, I and Paul Feldman can produce evidence, not from within the confines of the diary, that places Maybrick in London, in Whitechapel indeed. That he was there at the time of the murders is a different matter, because then our evidence becomes circumstantial. But why are you asking me to prove anything? You will continually be asking me to dodge bullets, but all I am asking you to do is get ONE bullet on target, just ONE. Go on, PROVE to me that Maybrick was in Liverpool, was in America, was ANYWHERE BUT LONDON on just one occasion which is important to Feldman's case. Go on, prove it! But you won't, because you can't. Maybrick's visits to his doctors, Liverpool and London, are well documented. Does one of them place him where he shouldn't be at the relevant times? No, I didn't think so. Well, what about his sojourns to America? What? No record there either?
You can kill this argument over the diary once and for all with one tiny speck of evidence that even remotely suggests Maybrick was somewhere else when Feldman places him in Whitechapel. We don't have to discuss tin match boxes, Grand Nationals, Sir Jim, and Liz Stride's knife! Not if you produce just that ONE piece of evidence!
After all, John would have us believe that our 'forger' sourced every record on Maybrick to make sure that nothing conflicted with the idea of him being in Whitechapel during those few short weeks back in 1888.
And finally, R.J. Please refer me to the section where I have quoted the 17 September letter as being genuine. I have, of course, asked John for his opinion on it - that is some way from quoting it as genuine. Once again you have leapt in with both feet.........
Peter |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 06:21 pm | | CTG
"...But Maybrick had a wife in Whitechapel. But whoops that was twenty years before!....".
Chris, that wouldn't happen to be the same wife who was still alive when Maybrick died would it? The one of whom PHF reproduces a photograph taken in 1925? Surely not! Could it be the one who, in censuses taken both BEFORE AND AFTER the Ripper murders was found to be living in Whitechapel and London? The one who, therefore, MUST HAVE BEEN LIVING IN LONDON AT THE TIME OF THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS! And to think, I respected you as a serious researcher...........
So, the diary has a look to it that is not 'right'? Could that be because you've already made your mind up that it is a forgery? How would you expect Jack The Ripper's diary to look if it ever came to light?
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 06:29 pm | | Peter B
Of Koren's opinions you write, regarding PHF:
"He believed they showed without doubt that Maybrick was the diary author".
Er, excuse me? Is this the same Hannah Koren who couldn't authenticate the diary as being written by Jack the Ripper and couldn't conclusively prove a connection between Maybrick's writing and the diary?
Let's be absolutely honest about this, because Hannah was. She didn't say the diary was Maybrick's, nor did she say it was JTR's. She just made her analysis of the writer's characteristics, and her abiding opinion was one that the diary was 'written as it is thought', which led her to believe that the emotions expressed therein could not be forged. Now, Peter that is a long way from saying PHF believed she showed without doubt that Maybrick was the diary author. No, she didn't. And Paul Feldman didn't believe that either. She just detailed the psychological aspects of the writing - and they were what PHF subscribed to.
I am willing to submit that you probably know more about JTR than I do Peter, but don't even dare to believe that you understand the diary as well as I do. We all have our pet favourites. This is mine. I am willing to consider alternatives. I am not willing to exclude the diary.
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 07:25 pm | | | Hi Christopher,You wrote, One's hunches and instincts often turn out to be true.When crime is involved you had better believe it. When involved in crime you tend to be more on the ball because your liberty depends on it.You have to be one step ahead and the mind must be kept sharp.The better the thinker you are in matters of crime then the better chances you have of evading detection, or if detected then prosecution. Crime can really hone the instincts as I am sure other people involved on both sides of the fence can verify. To give you one such example of instincts at work I will relate the following. Many years ago my instincts told me that I was going to get a visit from the police. It was nothing more than an instinct I had no evidence to show that this was going to happen. In my house were several items which should not have been there so I moved them out as soon as possible due to my gut instincts. The next day the police turned up with a warrant to search the premises.Crime can sharpen the instincts far more than many other professions can. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 08:53 pm | | Hi Peter,
OK, let me clarify for the sake of us coming to a better understanding of each other's positions.
Once again, one thing at a time...
First, you should know that I too came to the diary with a completely open mind. In fact, I sort of wanted it to be authentic. I thought it was a great story and would have been a wonderful and historically significant find. And, in the name of the women who were murdered, I also would have been happy for the world to finally know their killer and to place their memories at peace.
But two things happened. I read the diary. It was stagy. It was completely Aristotelian in its structure. It spoke to an audience, unlike a private journal, and it had no qualities of the chronicle of a day to day lived life. It was, I thought immediately, very much like a set piece. And this was before I knew anything about handwriting or Maybrick's real life or anything else. It was just the one thing I was trained in professionally -- critical and rhetorical analysis of texts -- coming in to play as my ear heard the words.
Then I read Paul Feldman. And I was shocked at how often insinuations, exclamations, and dangling and mysterious ellipses were used to take the place of logical argument, thorough research, and rigorous scholarship. (One brief editorial aside -- in my own field, the field of literary studies, as subjective and wide-ranging as it is -- I do not believe that any self-respecting academic press would have published Paul's manuscript without serious additions, revisions, and further editing for thoroughness and soundness of critical interpretation and scholarly analysis.)
Slowly but surely, Peter, it became more and more apparent to me that the claims to authenticity were based on pure speculation and desire and were made almost exclusively by inference. Consequently, I could not simply accept the document as genuine. I still can't. That is not having a closed mind. That is making a critical decision based on close reading and detailed analysis. If you or Paul or anyone else comes up with a convincing argument, convincing documentation in support of authenticity, convincing research, or any other evidence that links the document directly to the historical James Maybrick or even to his history, I will be quite happy and quite ready to admit my own mistakes and accept the document as genuine. So no, even now, my mind is not closed.
Now to your reading:
Regarding the knighthood passage; you suggest you have evidence that this was written on the page at the very moment it was being thought. Let's see what that evidence is:
"it FLOWS naturally, it is being written as it is being thought, it isn't a stored memory!"
Evidence? I need evidence for this claim. A passage that is composed as it is being thought and then placed later in a forged document would of course "flow naturally." It was written first while it was being thought and then used in the diary (along with everything else). But to assume that it was put on the diary page at the moment it was first thought and written is to make an unsubstantiated leap of faith. And you have no textual evidence to support this reading, since there would be no way to tell when this passage was first thought and written -- especially since we are dealing with separate entries and fragments of attempted verse (which could in fact have been written at any time during the composition process). You have no way of knowing this, Peter. It's a simple function of reading. The text as it appears on the page simply does not equal the text as it was composed either in thought or in writing. And the differences always remain unknown to its readers. This is not just the case with this text, but with all texts. That is why it is unfair to simply assume that the fact that the phrase "Sir Jim" appears crossed out in two separate verse attempts means that the phrase was thought of before the knighthood scene was thought of. It would be impossible to know such a thing. In fact, it would actually be more "logical" to assume that the knighthood conceit came first and the "Sir Jims" cropped up and were crossed out in the attempted poetry because the writer had already had the cute little knighthood idea. But I would have no way of knowing this either. And that is my point.
Consequently, you cannot assume that the "Sir Jims" crossed out in the two attempts at verse indicate that the writer called himself Sir Jim in real life. It is perfectly possible and even likely that they are still purely fictional conceits that were developed completely independent of any knowledge of some Christie documents somewhere or of James Maybrick's having used the phrase.
Onward.
You then cite the New York letter (Philadelphia Docket Number 1157) and point out, like Paul does, that the letter says that there will be no murders for a "short while" and... there aren't. Amazing. Funny thing, though. That letter also says "I will let you hear of me before long with a little more cutting" and then mentions again a short delay. So the writer seems to have all his bases covered. If the Ripper kills again in a week, he says, "see I told you I would let you hear of me, and a week is a "short while." If the Ripper doesn't kill again for a few weeks, he says "see, I told you there would be a delay."
Seems like it is the letter writer who is trying to have his cake and eat it too -- perhaps the mark of a solid forgery. But in any case, Peter, you then say that I can't suggest that the idea of there not being a killing for a "short while" is the sort of thing that would be natural to write in a faux Ripper latter.
Sure I can.
Both "you will soon hear from me" and "I must leave them alone for a short while" (especially when the letter carries a US postmark) and even "I will let you hear of me before long with a little more cutting," all seem to me to be logical sorts of things to write in alleged Ripper letters. And if some nutcase in Philly wants to send a fake Ripper letter to the cops because he's read about the case in his local paper, of course he knows they're going to see where the letter came from, so he has to say something about not being able to get to the whores for a little while. And "a short while" is a wonderfully vague phrase which he no doubt thought would keep the police guessing.
I should point out that that the New York/Philly letter also threatened some rippings to come there, by the way. What happened?
Of course this letter is more likely a fake. It contains no knowledge whatsoever to indicate it is genuine. The fact that there was no murder in Whitechapel in October in no way suggests this letter is authentic (contra Feldman). The appearence of the phrase " a short while" in the letter is simply not evidence of its authenticity, by any standards of logic and scholarly proof.
And I should mention, this is a perfect example of Paul Feldman's strategy of insinuation.
Paul wants us to believe that Maybrick wrote the the New York/Philly letter. But Paul cannot place Maybrick in New York or Philadelphia in October of 1888.
So what does he do?
He mentions that Florrie has land in Virginia and that Maybrick often travelled to America and into New York (both true facts). He then mentions a letter that Maybrick wrote to a lawyer on 19 November 1881 that says "Please drop me a line with your address in Philadelphia and New York & the dates you will be there, & I will endeavor to run up to meet you." ("Up," we assume, from Virginia.)
Aha! Proof that Maybrick might have gone to New York and Philadelphia just like the writer of the Ripper letter!
But wait. The Ripper letter was written in October of 1888. The Maybrick letter was written in 1881. And there is no evidence that Maybrick was in New York or Philly in 1888. Paul and a detecetiv look for such evidence. They can find none. (But Paul says he might have been... you never know... Florrie still had land claims in the US until 1905... so it's possible.... you know?)
What Paul has insinuated is that Maybrick was sometimes in New York and Philadelphia and the letter writer mentions that he is in both of those places.... therefore... (dramatic music here)
But NO! Paul has in fact proven nothing at all. Because he has not linked Maybrick to the letter or to the time and place of the letter or to the writer of the letter in any way, shape or form. He has just offered a vague insinuation based on a line in a letter seven years earlier and then let it hang there is if it was a conclusion. It's not.
The fact that Maybrick had been in two cities in the Eastern US at times is in no way evidence that he wrote the alleged letter from one of those cities in October of 1888.
This is what I mean by slippery logic and less than thoroughly established scholarly conclusions.
Anyway, back to you, Peter...
You tell me that you know that I know that you "haven't tried to use the discrepancies in the writing between diary and letters and Maybrick's known writing to PROVE them genuine."
Let's be clear and honest here, Peter. Here is what you wrote:
"So, if our diarist is intelligent enough to source 'Sir Jim' and 'Treble Event' then why is he not intelligent enough to copy a signature on a known letter."
Now, I have heard this argument before. And you and I both know that the implication here is that if the writer was smart enough to get all this other stuff, he would have been smart enough to forge Maybrick's handwriting. You say as much in this last post, again.
Watch:
"And John, I simply cannot believe that you would credit our 'forger' with the diligence to research every known piece of historical evidence so that nobody could prove Maybrick wasn't in London at the time of the killings - and then argue that he wasn't diligent enough to notice a FAMOUS letter in the public domain from which he could have copied the signature!"
See? Here it is again. The clear implication here is that if our forger was smart enough to do all this research and get so much stuff right, he must have been smart enough to find known copies of Maybrick's handwriting and he would have copied them. And the further implication here, by those claiming authenticity, can only be that since there is no attempt to copy the signature or the handwriting, that is somehow evidence that there was no forger.
This is completely bogus.
First of all, of course I can imagine a forger who can do some effective historical research but not learn about a known copy of Maybrick's writing or not be skilled enough to forge the writing without giving himself away, and therefore who would decide to write the diary in his best attempt at a passable Victorian hand and hope that the discrepancy in handwriting can be somehow explained away. That scenario seems to be quite logical and even likely.
But that's not even my point. My point is that the initial argument is invalid. You cannot, under any circumstances, conclude that, because there is evidence of good research, and because there is no evidence of an attempt to copy Maybrick's handwriting, there consequently is probably no forger.
That doesn't make sense.
a.) There is evidence of good research.
b.) There is no attempt to copy Maybrick's handwriting.
therefore,
c.) ?
There is no forger? Come on.
You cannot conclude from the fact that there is no attempt to copy Maybrick's handwriting, there must not be a forger. You cannot conclude that because the handwriting does not look like Maybrick's it is suddenly more possible that Maybrick wrote it. And this is in fact what that conclusion implies when people argue that a good forger would have tried to copy Maybrick's writing (therefore, since no one has tried to copy Maybrick's writing there must not have been a forger). See?
It still doesn't work.
Because the more likely conclusion to be drawn from the fact that the handwriting doesn't look like Maybrick's remains that Maybrick didn't write it. That is simple.
And what you are doing by suggesting that a smart forger, who could do all this research, would have tried to copy the handwriting and then pointing out that the writing isn't copied, is tacitly suggesting that because the writing does not look like Maybrick's there must not have been a forger and Maybrick must have written it. Therefore, the argument really is finally reducible to "because the writing does not look like Maybrick's, it is probably Maybrick's."
And that is what I still find twisted.
Finally Peter, you come up with a ridiculous scenario starring Mike and Anne. Problem is, I don't necessarily think Mike and/or Anne wrote the diary. I have no idea who actually wrote the diary or how or why. I do not think they (whoever they were) did all the research you are suggesting (knowing about the Christie documents and the Ripper letters, etc) and nothing you have written here and nothing Paul has written has ever proven that they must have. So your scenario does not trouble me because it is unlikely. I don't think that is what happened.
And as to proving the negative (that Maybrick wasn't in Whitechapel the days of the murders) -- or proving the positive (that Maybrick was in Whitechapel the days in the murders)... no one can do either. That proves nothing at all.
Now I must run.
All the best,
--John
PS: Peter, since we're throwing out lines from the text, what do you make of the diarist claiming that "if Michael can succeed in rhyming verse then I can do better, a great deal better he shall not outdo me" and having James compete against his brother with his "funny little rhymes," when historically, Michael was a famous composer who only wrote the music for his songs and never the lyrics? Perhaps Michael wrote verse in private, and we wouldn't have known that -- but James would have! Therefore, this is somehow more proof that the diary is authentic, no? Of course not. This would be making the history fit the diary rather than the other way around. So how do we explain the diary mysteriously making Michael a rhymer? A simple historical mistake? Or is it more significant? (Oh yes, Paul's penchant for unanswered rhetorical questions in place of conclusions is also evidence of a less than scholarly methodology.) |
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 10:58 pm | | Dear Peter Wood--Hello again. I do suspect that you feel as though you are being 'ganged up on'--but let me assure you that there is no conspiracy here, and if you would but peek into the archives you'll see that I, John, Chris, and Peter have all butted heads on many occasions.
Let me also say that I was not being facetious. I may or may not be as dumb as I come across, but the reason I asked you whether or not you could place Maybrick within "200 miles of the murder sites" is becaue the mileage chart on my UK map shows the distance from central Liverpool to central London as 206 miles. But let's not quibble over geography. You can't place Maybrick in London on the dates of the murders. You have no credible argument for why the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting. The letters you site have been exploded and you can't show that Maybrick wrote any of them. You have offered no historical evidence to suggest that Maybrick had any sort of personality disorder. You can't link him to any crimes. You have no providence that links the diary to Maybrick or anyone near him. The two original owners of the diary--Anne Graham and Mike Barrett--- have changed their stories about the provenance; indeed, one evidently has complete contempt for the entire process, and the other has changed his story so many times that he lacks all credibility. Now please remind me---why I am supposed to take the diary seriously?
But what I am most interested in is your remarkable statement---"Maybrick is a good candidate for the Ripper EVEN WITHOUT the diary." Please expand on this. The claim has been made before. Maybrick occasionally travelled to London. He medicated himself with patent medicines. What else can you offer? What do you think?---does this place him in an exclusive group of 10,000 people? 150,000 people?
We're not against you, Peter, we just prefer to have some evidence. Kosminski isn't a bad suspect, stick with him. Best wishes, RP |
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 11:24 pm | | To Keith Skinner--Keith, hello. I spent much of this weekend in the local college library researching an entirely different matter, but managed to spend a little time looking into the Grand National steeplechase. I can now attest to the difficulty of finding any reliable information about the times of the races. It does look, however, that Paul Feldman's information was almost certainly correct. The London Times covered each race in minute detail [the race was always run the last Saturday of March, and so it was easy to find the appropriate articles] but never bothered to give the winning times. This might stike some as odd, but in the world of horseracing, the times are generally all pretty much standard, and the only real emphasis is on 'win, place, and show'. So, in some respects, the diary's comment on the quickness of the race is a little odd coming from a supposed race enthusiast. But to cut to the chase...
As I said, the times of the Grand Nationals were generally not reported. The one exception I could find in the Times was, coincidentally, the very race in question: 1888. It gave the time as 10:12...the same time as Paul Feldman's source. So I am assuming that the time listed in the web article that I had discovered [ie., 10:01]was a misprint. It does now look likely that the Grand National of 1889 was the fastest race in 18 years; so the diary does seem to have scored a 'hit' on this particular. Best wishes, RJ Palmer. |
Author: R.J.P.
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 12:08 am | | Dear Peter Wood--one last bur for your saddle. You talk of Maybrick's alleged 'Whitechapel connections'. How do you make this fit with the diary's entry just prior to the first murder:
"I have taken a small room in Middlesex Street, that in itself is a joke. * * * I have walked the streets and have become familiar with them. I said Whitechapel and Whitechapel it will be." (Harrison, p. 450)
If Maybrick indeed had Whitechapel connections, and a pre-existing knowledge of the area through his affair with Sarah Robertson, this passage surely doesn't suggest this. To me, it sounds like he's picked Whitechapel on a whim, is a new-comer in town, and needs to familiarize himself.
Whoever wrote the diary didn't have the faintest idea that Maybrick had East End connections or they would have played it 'to the hilt'.
RJP |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 01:01 am | | RJP--
Good point about Whitechapel! Of course. He doesn't say "I shall take rooms at Mr. Bloggs by Brick Lane as usual" or anything: he "familiarizes" himself with the place, like an outsider. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 04:02 am | | Hi RJP and Madeleine
‘I have walked the streets and have become familiar with them’ surely doesn’t allow us to infer that the supposed author had no previous familiarity with those streets does it? I mean, Middelsex Street was the boundary between the City and the East End and would have been a known thoroughfare to anyone working in the East of the City, but knowing a main thoroughfare like Middlesex Street doesn't mean that he would have been overly familiar with the intricacies of the surrounding streets. But even if he did know them, he may have walked them to simply re –acquainted himself with an area he knew. Living somewhere doesn’t necessarily mean that you are familiar with every road, court and passage, or, indeed, that you can precisely recall the details of the streets and courts and passages you once walked down every day. Personally, if I intended to commit a murder or series of murders in a city where I lived some years ago, I would still reacquaint myself with the district. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 05:43 am | | Hi RJ,
So, is it now your belief that the diary author: had no idea that Maybrick had any East End connections and just got lucky; had no idea that Crashaw had any Whitechapel connections and just got lucky; guessed that the going of the 1889 Grand National was fast compared with the previous 18 races - and just got lucky?
Or are you open to other possibilities that don't involve either luck or coincidence?
My belief, like Melvin Harris's, is that neither of the Barretts conceived, researched, composed or penned this diary. (For a start, their handwriting doesn't match the diary any more than Maybrick's does.)
I also believe that whoever did write the thing was not trusting to luck with the above three examples, and knew exactly what he was doing and how he wanted to go about it. If he had used Ryan as a source for the Maybrick info, he would have read about the will in James's hand. The only conclusion for me is that he either did not use Ryan, and had no idea that samples of James's handwriting were available when he was writing the diary, or he never had any intention of copying - ie forging - Maybrick's hand in the first place. I have no explanation for the latter, unless he never intended it to be taken seriously - a kind of spoof ripper diary, created just because he knew he could do one - a sort of 'Diarist pulls it off' affair, someone deeply interested in both cases - Flo's trial and the Whitechapel Murders - who thought it would be a wizard wheeze to splice the two together.
Just a thought - if the diary is old, and had surfaced many years ago, how would it have been received then?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J.P.
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 08:12 am | | Caz--First off, I'm not convinced Maybrick had substantial London or East End connections, at least not more so than any other active businessman that lived within a 200 mile radius of the world's greatest capital. Damn near everone probably had a cousin or an auntie living in London or had some sort of business dealings there on occasion. I don't think Paul Feldman or anyone else has proven that Maybrick frequented Whitechapel. And no, the diary's text doesn't indicate to me that the writer was aware of Sarah Robertson having lived in the vicinity once or that Maybrick had business dealings with some firm in the Minories. I don't think it was luck so much as a certain amount of probability. The diarist has Sir Jim saying something to the effect of 'do I not frequently visit the capitol?' and is also certainly well aware that brother Michael lived in London. But this is in all the various write-ups on the Maybrick case.'Men like Maybrick thought nothing of stepping aboard the London, Midland, and Scottis to go up to London for the day.' [Bernard Ryan, p 26].
He knew Maybrick went to London on occasion, that was all the luck he needed.
The Crashaw connection I think is a wonderful bit of coincidence, but I don't think the diarist was aware of it. As for the Grand National, I'm undecided. Maybe the Saddle pub has a horseracing theme, I don't know.
Cheers, RP
PS. What do you make of the comments of Chris and Simon about the diary looking 'artificial'? It seems to me that much of your belief about the diary's origins rely on Mike Barrett thinking the thing was genuine. Is this likely? But if he knew it was fake, why did he buy the maroon diary? And I still don't know how you or John or anyone else that believes that Mike wasn't somehow aware of the diary's composition could have come up with the Crashaw quote. |
Author: R.J.P.
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 08:21 am | | | PPS. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. No one has convinced me that the diarist cared whether or not he was historically accurate. Take the Grand National. Sure, if he had read Ryan closely, he would have known that the Maybricks rented an omnibus and the unlikeliness of Sir Jim sitting a couple rows back of His Royal Highness. But the diarist may have merely shrugged off this detail for the sake of the drama of having Jack the Ripper a few feet away from the His royalness, giving Jack a 'Sid Vicious moment' of being able to sneer at the aristocracy. It makes for a good story--that's what the diary is about. Not historic accuracy. This is a piece of fiction with a clever marketing scheme. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 09:32 am | | Hi RJP
If one assumes that the Crashaw quote is derived from the Sphere book and further assumes that it was derived from Mike’s personal copy of the Sphere book, then anyone who had access to that book could have found the quote – Anne, visitors to his house, anyone to whom he showed the book. So, even it is accepted that the Sphere book provided the quote, this does not itself show that Mike participated in or even knew that the ‘diary’ was a forgery.
As evidence that Mike knew the 'diary' was a forgery the quote has to be balanced against what appears to have been Mike's almost total ignorance of how the ‘diary’ was conceived and executed, which suggests that he did not know it was a forgery.
And, of course, there remain the possibility that the quote actually being in a book Mike possessed was a remarkable coincidence, as, indeed, so much else seems to have been.
'This is a piece of fiction with a clever marketing scheme.' Yes, but when was this fiction written? Isn't that what's being debated? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 10:12 am | | | Confucius says: "He who has open mind often has hole in head." |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 10:33 am | | But Peter,
He who has closed mind soon begins to suffer from mental constipation, no?
--John |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 11:29 am | | An open mind is one thing. An uncritical mind is another.
Hi Paul! -- While I agree that the Whitechapel reference doesn't *necessarily* mean anything, it does add to the cumulative sense of the diary's being bogus, I think, since he doesn't sound like someone who's ever been to Whitechapel much.
But like virtually every discussion conducted over the diary, we're interpreting rather than testing. Which is the real force behind all these "coincidences," I think. The diary itself offers so little by way of direct statement or hard reference that we're all left to make our own inferences--that, to my mind, is what makes it so transparently bogus.
madeleine |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 11:33 am | | Another good point Paul: How to find out when the diary was written?
To establish this, shouldn't we take a different tack from looking at the contents. It's clear that there's nothing sufficiently concrete here to really pinpoint the date of composition, at least not in itself.
Here's a question for those of you formerly or currently in the force--Scott M, Peter W etc. If you wanted to find out who wrote a document like this, and wanted to make as few assumptions as possible, how would you go about it? My guess is you'd start with people who were Victorian true-crime enthusiasts, then look for clubs, organizations, special interest groups (like this one) and start getting a shortlist of likely names. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 12:53 pm | | Hi Madeleine
If the pieces are put together cumulatively then they may produce a picture. The problem is that the picture often depends on who is choosing the pieces and what pieces are chosen.
Having an open mind means being willing to consider all alternatives. A closed mind is a mind unwilling to consider alternatives. The open mind may not always be critical, but at least the door isn't firmly shut, locked and bolted. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 02:02 pm | | Hi Paul!
Yes, exactly: an interpretation reflects the person who makes the interpretation, and consequently subjective. Which is why, I think, a different approach is needed to draw any concrete conclusions about the diary--as I think you've argued too, am I right? or am I putting words in your mouth. One would need to identify those areas in which one could ask questions with concrete answers, and I don't see us being able to do that by interpreting the tone of the text--however much I personally feel that the picture is rather damning!
That's actually a fascinating question about what it means to be open-minded.... I know what you mean, but I think I'd put it differently. I don't think having an open mind obligates you to consider all alternatives. It obligates you to try to see things as they are, however disagreeable that might be--to always try to overcome the limits of your own perspective. Often this does mean entertaining new ideas, of course. But not always. Being open-minded doesn't mean listening carefully to a white supremacist explain his daft conclusions, for instance--not because they're so horrible (though they are) but because they're based on flawed premises, and until the premises are sorted out, the conclusions are immaterial. That's why I don't mind dismissing graphology, for example, because I've yet to see that there's any reason to suppose that mental illness is reflected in handwriting; and until there is reason to suppose that, the whole thing is a literary exercise--the very thing you rightly say is too subjective to yield any conclusions.
madeleine |
|
|
|
|
