|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 23 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 23 October 2001
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 06:34 am |        | Excuse my interference at this point,I promise I wo'nt do it often,But Madeleine,what police force do you describe.Seek Evidence for the defence?.Tell that to the innocents in custody.
Peter(Wood),
It may not be a Question of whether it can be proved Maybrick was in London the night Kelly died,rather can it be proved he was in Commercial street with her at about 2A.M.the night she was killed.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 09:02 am | | Hi, John:
Thanks again for another well argued, clear, and informative treatise about the lack of evidence that the Diary is genuine and of evidence that proves Maybrick was the Ripper, as well as the lack of definitive proof that Barrett or anyone forged the Diary. As you and I know, the indicators are that the Diary is forged, but the truth is that no one can be positively identified as the forger based on what evidence we have.
As you have pointed out repeatedly to Peter Wood, the logical flaw in his argument is that he is trying to use the Diary to prove the document genuine. He is basing most of his arguments on the Maybrick portrayed in the Diary but that Maybrick may have no relationship with the historical James Maybrick.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 10:38 am | | Hi Harry,
I expect the innocents in custody are often there because the police make the mistake of looking for confirmation, instead of testing it. In that post I'd originally mentioned the case of the Birmingham Six, who despite their protests that they were on a train playing cards at the time of the bombing, were convicted largely on the strength of forensic evidence that said their hands tested positive for residue left by explosives. Proof positive, if you take the Feldman approach! Unfortunately, it turns out that the laminate on playing cards also leaves the same residue, as does the cellophane on cig packets (they all smoked).
Just the kind of thing you miss, if you don't try to disprove your arguments. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 10:45 am | | Hi Chris and John,
I have noticed that the great majority of my students make the mistake of using the diary to authenticate the diary. They point to the picture of Maybrick that it paints and say, "But it fits what we know about JR and JM! It must be true!" When I ask them why the author can't have been someone who read a few books and did a bit of research, they often reply "It would be way too hard to do all that work."
I think it reveals that to a lot of people today (I'm not talking about you Peter!), it's easier to believe in two celebrity murders being secretly connected in the person of a chortling serial killer, than to believe that someone would actually spend a few months in the libary doing research. !!
madeleine |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 02:14 pm | | I've done it again! Written a @!**$! long post and then deleted it before I could post it. Aaaaaaggggggggggggghhhhhhhh!
Try again \( ) |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 02:38 pm | | Oh you see, Peter, there must have been some unfounded hypotheses in there!  |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 07:14 pm | | Hi guys (),
Just a quick one for Madeleine before I get down to business with John Omlor and his little sidekick.
Madeleine, I believe you will find that Paul Feldman did challenge the diary from all angles of interpretation before having his book published. Indeed Paul was insistent on working with people who had an opposite point of view to his own and constantly urged them to challenge his findings. I think you will find Paul either worked closely with, or made contact with, many of the leading Ripper authors of the day - and only once in his book does he come close to even mildly rebuking one of the authors for a viewpoint he held against the diary. That person was Martin Fido - and considering that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Martin's works on the Ripper case, and am currently re-reading his theory on David Cohen and The Polish Jew, I am surprised that Paul found it necessary to show any animosity whatsoever towards Martin Fido. In essence I find Martin Fido somewhat similar to John Omlor, but - he makes some 'leaps' in reasoning which are way in excess of anything Paul Feldman attempts to make in his book, and yet doesn't suffer any of the vitriol with which Paul has been beaten and scarred. They are all good theories, I find Martin Fido's theory interesting but I can see the holes in it, and the parts where he wants it to work. Now, in essence my next part of what I wanted to write will take me into the realms of my discussion and disagreements with John Omlor, so for tonight I will say goodbye to you Madeleine.
John
You once questioned my accusation that you take logic to it's extremes, but you failed to see how that is possible.
Well, what I was trying to say is that I think once you have got the bit between your teeth you are so fixed on your 'logical' argument that you fail to see anything else outside of the realm of that discussion, or rather outside of your viewpoint. You are, in effect, blinkered. And therein lies the problem, because you won't accept other possibilities. Statement, argument, conclusion, end of story. That's how John Omlor works. And that's fine John, but not everything is this world is logical. Occasionally we have to think laterally, brainstorm even, to find other possibilities - and with your approach you are unlikely to see those possibilities, let alone consider them.
Your minute and purposeful dissection of my text will only serve to show the other posters how clever you are with the English language in all it's forms. But to anyone prepared to read between the lines, they may see that I am not as gifted with the technical side of our good language as yourself, but you must allow me my little errors in syntax and attempt to grasp my intended meaning.
For instance instead of rebuking me when I stated Mike Barrett as "the only person capable of forging the diary for financial gain", you should have accepted that I meant Mike was the only person likely to have done so. In my opinion. Naturally anyone could have written the diary, that is if we don't examine the internal evidence and take account of the research that would have had to be done on materials etc. Yes, anyone could have written it - Bill Clinton maybe, Garth Brooks, one of the Spice Girls even. But John, in making our arguments in here, and expressing our opinions, we don't have to add to every post "in my opinion", it's just taken as read. Likewise I shouldn't have to go into the minute avenues of reasoning that could lead to other people who could have forged the diary for financial benefit. So come on John, lets have a little more understanding here. If you've got something against the diary - fine, lets here it, but if not then don't resort to using my tactical naivety as a basis for your attacks upon my postings.
When we were discussing the odds of a document not existing to put Maybrick outside of London in November 1888, you said "the odds are pretty good". The odds, John? Are you prepared to put a wager on it? Wait a minute, I didn't mean that we should let cash change hands here, not for one minute, but if you are prepared to start talking odds, then you have to accept that you can see at least two possible outcomes, otherwise there would be no 'odds' and the book would be closed.
"The diarist has no more historically placed Maybrick in Whitechapel than I have placed him somewhere else".
And the key word for your purposes there John is.........'historically'. Actually John, that is exactly what the diarist has done, as Maybrick had to be in London to have committed the murders. Now at this point it actually becomes almost immaterial as to whether or not the diary is a forgery, because our diarist, forger or Maybrick (there is no other option), has placed Maybrick in Whitechapel.
The 'historically' part of your argument John, should come later - i.e. someone presents a diary as a genuine representation of Jack the Ripper's thoughts and feelings. We can't argue the content of that diary historically, because John you would then be guilty of doing exactly what you have accused me of doing - that is using the diary to judge it on it's own contents.
As for the Crashaw quote, if you are of a like mind to Paul Begg - well, Paul would have you believe that it's possible that any of Mike's drinking buddies from the saddle, or perhaps some of the mums who were outside school when he was picking Caroline up - could have read that quote from the Sphere guide whilst they were visiting Mike's house. Firstly, what is the likelihood of your average modern scouser taking more of an interest in obscure poetry by Crashaw than Maybrick would have done. Secondly, how on earth are they supposed to see that guide when Mike stated that it was put away in his attic soon after it arrived in his house, because he couldn't find a taker for it. Your average scouser is more likely to take an interest in the terrace chants at Anfield or Goodison, the respective homes of Liverpool and Everton football clubs, than they are in the finer points of obscure baroque poets.
And John, notwithstanding all that you have written about the Crashaw quote - what is there about that entry that in anyway suggests to you that Maybrick was an expert on Crashaw? Or that he was enamoured with the subject of obscure baroque poetry? Isn't it more likely that he had a penchant for quoting other people's work and during one of his flights of fancy in the diary a few words from a poem he had once read entered his mind and he jotted them down in an attempt to boost his ego?
There is nothing about the Crashaw entry in the diary that would suggest Maybrick had an overt interest in the subject. Just a few words quoted, that's all. You have also yet to suggest why a forger would be any more likely than a nineteenth century Victorian cotton merchant to put that quote in the diary.
It's still one - nil to the diarist John, simply because you cannot prove the diary to be a fake. Fakes are easy to spot, aren't they? And yet here we are reduced to talking about tin match boxes and obscure baroque poetry - is that sensible? Where is the big gaping hole in the diarist/forger's reasoning? Where is the scientific analysis that screams 'twentieth century'? Until you can prove the diary to be a forgery then you have to accept that the forger is ahead of the game and therefore, fake or real, it's one - nil to the diarist.
John, I know you are not really afraid of failure, I suspect in your case it is more a case of apathy - but generally speaking there should be more of a concerted effort on the part of the diary sceptics to place Maybrick where he shouldn't have been in 1888. I keep giving you all the pointers and still.........nothing.
Chris
Good to see that you are still agreeing with every word that John says, now just curl up and go to sleep on his lap and maybe he will take you for a walk later. Simply agreeing with every word that John says is not an argument in itself, no matter how often or how forcefully you do it. Do you actually have any points on the diary that you wish to discuss? Or are you just here to agree with John? Down boy.
One more thing Madeleine
From my time as a police officer I know that it was common knowledge amongst the judiciary that the Birmingham Six were as guilty as hell and that they got off on a technicality. They used one of John's arguments - i.e. 'it could have come from somewhere else' and it worked for them. Only the argument that 'it could have come from somewhere else' is not good enough, because it didn't come from somewhere else, it came from the explosives that they handled. This all smacks to me of Melvin Harris' analysis of the diary ink and his conclusion that it contained chloroacetamide, therefore proving it to be diamine and the diary to be a modern forgery. But the amount he found was equivalent to one part per billion whereas Diamine would tell you that chloroacetamide constitutes 0.26% of their ink. So Melvin's argument that the ink was diamine is a 'possibility' but in view of the amounts it isn't really likely is it?
One point that you have made me think of though, Madeleine, is what could the authorities have done in 1888 if they knew they had Jack The Ripper in their custody, but just could not prove it? I can tell you from experience that it is very easy to ascertain a man's guilt of a crime, but infinitely more difficult to prove it in a court of law, if not only for all the smart defence lawyers who argue that black is white and go into areas of 'technicalities' and playing cards. That is one of the reasons that I am still interested in Martin Fido's Polish Jew theory, because it seems likely that at one point some of the 1888 Metropolitan police force thought they had JTR in their custody, but he didn't stand trial because they couldn't prove it. However the line of reasoning does tend to fall apart somewhat when you bear in mind that in later years they all seemed to express pretty diverse opinions on the identity of the Ripper - so maybe they didn't know after all.
Regards to all ()
Peter. |
Author: Ally
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 07:39 pm | | Hello Peter,
You know, I once wondered the same question--why when authors such as [insert well-known writer here] or [other well-known writer here] made leaps in their reason, they were not slammed as the diary was. The basic reason is this..most of the well-known guys believe in their theory and have researched it and labored writing it..they are profiting from honest effort. Now some may argue that Feldman researched and labored over (writing? )the diary...but he is profiting from what most people consider a fraudulent document. And whether they are right or wrong, a lot of people think that Feldman knows it is a fake and profits anyway. [shrugs] People tend to argue more about the diary than any thing else related with Jack the Ripper..non-believers argue with non-believers about who forged it or when it was forged. It is one of those great subjects where it doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on, you can find a cow patty to fling at someone...even if they are on your side. Should I describe what happens to those who sit on the fence?
Duck!!
Ally |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 07:55 pm | | Ally
There is a clique that exists in here and if you are not with them, they assume you must be against them.
Remember that great movie tag line? It's not paranoia if they're really after you.
Personally I like to be part of the minority, that's why I enjoy believing in the diary and arguing it as genuine.
Some people just like to anonymous members of the crowd - and you will find them in here agreeing with each other and slapping each other on the back, and thinking that in doing so they have 'proved' the diary as a fake. i.e. we believe it is a fake, therefore it is.
There are some people who will consider both sides, and they tend to be the females of the species.
Quick note to John Omlor: John, have you got any more questions you wanted to pose me? By the way I went through the archives and found the entries on the examination of the ink. It seems that Alec Voller told the truth as he saw it, but other people think the bronzing could be the result of one or two years ageing. Once again we have a dichotomy of opinion. No surprise there then.
Hope you enjoy your weekend John, what was it tonight? Chinese? Mexican? Italian? (). |
Author: Scott Weidman
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 08:23 pm | | Peter,
"Personally I like to be part of the minority, that's why I enjoy believing in the diary and arguing it as genuine."
Is that truly your sole reason for believing the diary was not a fake and that Maybrick was the Ripper? Just because you enjoy swimming upstream doesn't mean that the stream is running backwards. Fight it all you want, Peter, but the diary is a hoax and Maybrick was not the Ripper. It makes for a nice story, but that's about it.
In the lap of the gods.
Scott |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 12:06 am | | Hi Peter,
I don't doubt that Paul F discussed, researched and did a ton of research, and of course I don't doubt his motives: why shouldn't he have a theory, pursue it and write about it? Good luck to him, say I.
But he didn't find any evidence that connects Maybrick to the Ripper, the diary, or the Grahams. What he does do is find lots of dots, assume that they are connected, and think of stories that connect them in a way that fits the theory. So when Billy Graham vaguely suggested that his father might have been illegitimate, Feldman picked it up as "possibly" meaning that "maybe" Florie had a child. And maybe that was why she called herself Graham, and said "children" when she had only one surviving child, and...!!
But thinking up such possibilities is easy. The real question is, are these dots connected at all?That's what is in question here. He's done so much work, yet I never feel like it really helps establish his theory, and I suspect it's a problem of method.
I have a feeling this post doesn't make good sense, but I just sat in traffic on the Bay Bridge for an hour today: Curse the San Francisco commute!
madeleine |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 06:46 am | | From Keith Skinner To R.J.
Dear R.J.
Thank you for posting the results of your investigation into the respective times of the 1888 and 1889 Grand National Races. The fact that the Diary may have “scored a hit” is of no real consequence to me as I have never argued for its authenticity.
Do you have any response to the other two observations I floated in your direction concerning the handwriting and the statements given by Mr Murphy?
Finally…
“This is a piece of fiction with a clever marketing scheme.”
Does the launch of this “clever marketing scheme” commence with Mike and Anne simply being the placers of a Diary forged by others?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 06:50 am | | Hi, Madeleine:
I agree with you about the nature of Feldman's research. I went to Feldman's book with a lot of anticipation hoping to find some solid research but came away empty. If his book has value, it is probably in telling us the story of his meetings with the Johnsons, the Barretts, etc., but the actual results of the investigation are disappointing. I also dislike Feldman's scattergun approach, this may be so, that may be so, as if he wants to cover all his bases.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 10:52 am | | Hi there, Peter.
Ribs, last night, and then I saw From Hell. (Unlike so many others, I didn't like it at all. Not because of its silly history, but as a film. Much of the dialogue could have been written by a high-school kid, there were enough spoken and visual clichés to fill a book, not a single character was developed beyond cartoon sketch level, the melodrama wasn't particularly well-presented or suspenseful, the relationships between the characters were established with cheap running gags the way they do on TV, the violence was, it seemed to me, surprisingly bland and unaffective for the topic, the music was clichéd and heavy-handed and, worst of all, it was dreadfully boring. It took an interesting and naturally suspenseful and intriguing moment in history and made it simply dull. That is a serious crime in filmmaking. Besides, not one character ever said anything of any real interest to any other character in the entire film. The script was the simplistic stuff of television movies of the week. Most of the performances were stilted and showed no dramatic range whatsoever, neither they nor the events nor the editing held my interest for a moment. It was a thin and obvious and formulaic and mundane piece of filmmaking, I thought. And then there's the history... How did Catherine Eddowes lose her kidney while she was still alive anyway? Anyway, all that's for another board.)
Now then,
I will pass over all the stuff about me being too logical, etc., and just get to your arguments about the text.
First:
"When we were discussing the odds of a document not existing to put Maybrick outside of London in November 1888, you said "the odds are pretty good". The odds, John? Are you prepared to put a wager on it? Wait a minute, I didn't mean that we should let cash change hands here, not for one minute, but if you are prepared to start talking odds, then you have to accept that you can see at least two possible outcomes, otherwise there would be no 'odds' and the book would be closed."
Sure, I'd be happy to wager. There are two possibilities. Either there is an available document from 1888 somewhere that accounts for James Maybrick's whereabouts on four weekends in his life or there is not.
James Maybrick lived 51 years. That's about 2,650 weekends. You want a document that is still around after 113 years and that happens to account for one of 4 of those 2,650 weekends in the life of one guy -- 4 specific ones in one year of his life? And you are telling me that the odds somehow favor its existing? How? James Maybrick lived for roughly 18,600 days. For how many of those 18,600 days do you think one can find still existent documentary proof of his whereabouts. Half? Even if that were true, the odds are still against you finding a single piece of paper that specifies where in he was on any of four random autumn weekends in the last full year of his 51 year long life.
So yes, I'd wager the chances, literally, remain at least as good that there is no such document available as that there is.
Then you write, about our diarist "placing him in Whitechapel."
"Now at this point it actually becomes almost immaterial as to whether or not the diary is a forgery, because our diarist, forger or Maybrick (there is no other option), has placed Maybrick in Whitechapel."
Ah. OK. So the diarist has placed Maybrick in Whitechapel. Cool. Watch this:
"On the four weekends that the Jack the Ripper murders took place, James Maybrick was in Florida."
See that? I just placed James Maybrick right here in Florida on those weekends. But, you say, you haven't really. All you've done is write a sentence.
Exactly! And that's all the diarist has done. And his placing Maybrick in Whitechapel has not one little bit more significance than my placing him in Florida. I haven't offered any evidence that he was in Florida. Neither has the diarist offered any that he was in Whitechapel. I haven't produced any proof or even any evidence that suggests he was in Florida on those days. Neither has the diarist or Paul or anyone that he was in Whitechapel. I certainly can't prove he was in Florida. Neither can you nor the diarist nor Paul nor anyone prove he was in Whitechapel. But the diarist placed him Whitechapel. Right. I placed him in Florida using exactly the same technique. So the score is now tied, one-one. Only thing is: neither of us have any idea where the hell James Maybrick was on those weekends.
See the problem? But, you will say, we know Maybrick went to Whitechapel. He never went to Florida. Fine. Substitute Liverpool or Manchester or anywhere else Maybrick regularly went, for Florida in my example above and you'll see that it still does exactly the same thing the diarist has done and neither of us has really placed James Maybrick anywhere.
By the way, the diarist does not place James Maybrick in Whitechapel on the murder nights. He places "James Maybrick" there. The former is a real person who actually lived. The latter is a fictional creation and literary character, who, since he is made up, could have been anywhere the author wanted him to be on those days. The diarist, like you and like Paul and like everyone, has not placed James Maybrick (without the quotation marks) anywhere on those nights. So we're back to nil-nil really.
And Peter,
I have not said that the Crashaw quote came from the Sphere Guide, nor that Mike nor any of his buddies saw it (although all these things remain possible, of course).
I have said that it is utterly unlikely that James Maybrick, in 1888, when Crashaw was hardly being read anywhere, let alone in Liverpool by Maybrick, would quote a poem that is not even one by that author that is anthologized or taught or oft-cited and quote only the middle line of a middle stanza of it. This is a historical objection. Crashaw and his fellow metaphysicals were hardly popular or well-known in the 19th Century or until after Grierson and Eliot "rediscovered" them in 1921. And Crashaw especially was read almost exclusively in Catholic circles and this particular poem hardly at all anywhere. And yet, there it is in the diary allegedly written by James Maybrick.
I never suggested Maybrick had to be a Crashaw scholar, Peter. I was wondering where and how he would have come across such an utterly obscure line in the first place. You talk about slim chances... And what evidence do you have that the real James Maybrick "had a penchant for quoting other people's work?" Have you ever seen this is any historical record, or is it just more wishful thinking?
As to why a forger might be more likely to have heard of Crashaw or to have read something by him than Maybrick.. Well, the fact is that after around 1930 Crashaw and his fellow Metaphysicals became part of the standard Brit Lit. canon and were taught in most Lit Survey courses of the period (thought not this poem). There was a lot more stuff written about them (like the work of Christopher Ricks, for instance) and their work was much more readily available in 1988 than it was in 1888. But none of this is to the point, really. There is still is no real, likely explanation for Maybrick quoting this line from this particular poem and nothing else, or his even knowing it -- since he was not, as you properly point out, a poetry scholar.
Finally, one last logical point, Peter.
"Until you can prove the diary to be a forgery then you have to accept that the forger is ahead of the game and therefore, fake or real, it's one - nil to the diarist."
Wait. How did our diarist get his "one?" He certainly has not done anything at all to prove the diary is real. Nor has Paul nor have you. No one has offered even one piece of reliable, material evidence which links this book in any way at all to James Maybrick or to Jack the Ripper.
Just writing the document doesn't give him one. Especially if it is fake. Writing the document does not establish it as real in any way, not even a little. It must be authenticated, and its provenance must be authenticated, and no one has done either of those things. So no, the diarist is not ahead. The document retains its status as a fictional artifact until it can be linked in at least some reliable and independent way to something, anything, in history.
No one, Peter, "has to accept" anything about the diary or its claims to authenticity. These claims must be established and independently verified. Until then, the diary remains a suspicious document at best, whether anyone had proven it to be a forgery or not.
And so it remains.
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 12:46 pm | | Scott
"Personally I like to be part of the minority, that's why I enjoy believing in the diary and arguing it as genuine".
Now come on Scott, there's a big leap in reasoning from my statement above to your asking me if that is my 'sole' reason for believing the diary to be genuine. Of course it isn't, in fact I fail to see how you can logically make your observation. I could have said "Personally I like to be part of the minority, that's why I like Christina Aguilera and not Britney Spears". From that would you infer that I only have one reason for preferring Christina to Britney? Of course you wouldn't. You have just become guilty of what the majority of posters in here do, they bend words to their advantage. I stand by my "I like to be part of the minority" quote because I do, pure and simple, I didn't then say "thats why I believe the diary to be genuine", I said "that's why I enjoy believing the diary to be genuine". And Scott, I don't always swim against the tide, for instance I am a Manchester United supporter and right now they are the biggest football team on the planet.......but it wasn't always so. I followed them in the 70's and 80's when they couldn't win a thing, save a few cups, and yes I did enjoy feeling part of a special group of supporters who would follow a team even if they weren't winning a thing. It's very easy for people to come out of the woodwork these days and say they support Man United, because they are so successful and the team is full of stars, but ask Chris G to confirm this, back in the 70's and 80's his hometown team of Liverpool was winning everything in sight, and yes I do believe I was part of the minority back then and yes I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Chris
I am a little surprised you didn't at least enjoy reading Feldman's book, after all at the beginning he does issue what almost amounts to a disclaimer when he states it as not being like any other Jack the Ripper book and sets the scene for what is really the story of his investigations into the diary, rather than a re hashing of old accounts of the victims lives etc etc. I was fascinated with the way Paul's book tells the story of his research as much as I was with the story of the diary that was contained within the covers of Paul's book. That's not to say that I took everything he said as gospel. I find it quite right that someone once accused Paul of "basing a hypothesis upon a speculation and sinking it deep in mystery", or some words to that effect. I haven't quite come to grips with Paul's story of the Peterborough Maybricks and Florie's secret child, because this all stems from where the diarist writes of visiting Manchester. Paul, for his purposes, twists this to mean "Godmanchester". The connection, I am sorry to say, just isn't there for me. And though I have read and re-read the book time and again I simply cannot agree with Paul's reading of the "Manchester" passage. So there you have it Chris, I have dared to criticize PHF. It's not the only thing with which I disagree regarding Paul's book. Florie may or may not have had a love child. One thing I am sure of though, a few hundred quid spent on D.N.A. tests would clear that argument up once and for all. I'm not even sure that all the stuff about secret children etc advances Paul's cause in the book, it is one of the parts of the book that I wish he hadn't become involved with, to be frank.
That in itself does not detract from a thoroughly entertaining read, the developing relationship with Robbie Johnson (why do I always find myself about to type 'Jackson' instead of Johnson?), the stories of smoke filled nights with other Ripper luminaries, the superfluous accounts of arriving on Anne's doorstep with whisky and chocolates and Disney videos. Take the diary bit out of Paul's book, substitute any other subject matter and you still have a great book - a great story.
And Chris, I stand by my statement that Maybrick is a perfectly viable Ripper candidate without the diary. In fact in many ways I believe the emergence of the diary has damaged the claim of Maybrick as the Ripper. Just suppose for one moment that the diary didn't exist....................
There are still Maybrick/Whitechapel connections to be seen which don't rely on the diary for authentication. There are even connections with the series of Whitechapel murders through the judge in Florie's trial and Michael Maybrick's connections with Royalty. And Chris, without the diary we would still have the account from the chemist in Liverpool who suspected Maybrick of being the Ripper, and made a note to say so. All in all, without the diary there is still more to link Maybrick with the Whitechapel murders than there is for many other candidates, whose "guilt" is based upon nothing more than, for the purposes of Joe Barnett, the fact that his girlfriend was the (supposedly) last victim. The real reason that the diary is of some importance is that is the vehicle which has brought Maybrick to the attention of the masses, without it he could have been one of the anonymous 'possibilities'. If it is a forgery then maybe somebody forged it because they knew he was guilty and they wanted to fit him up. I don't believe that for one minute personally, but if we play the forgery game then it has to be considered as an option.
All in all PHF's book is a good read, and if he does make some 'leaps' of faith then he is no more guilty of doing so than many more experienced Ripper researchers who quote the distant memories of retired police officers to provide 'proof' for their suspects.
To this day I believe that the Macnaghten memoranda has been more of a red herring in the world of ripperology than the 25 September letter or any of it's subsequent correspondences. At one time we have certain police officers quoted as saying the Ripper's identity was "definitely ascertained", others as saying he "died in an asylum", one who debunks all those theories and goes for George Chapman and then, of course, there is the official line, i.e. the fact that many years after David Cohen was incarcerated, many years after Kosminski was last seen on the streets of Whitechapel, many years after Druitt went for his final swim - the Police officers in the metropolitan police force were still receiving correspondence alleging to have come from the murder - and were still examining it and comparing it to the original letter from 25 September. Now, if the Ripper's identity had been definitely ascertained, if he was locked in an asylum, or had even died in one, if he had drowned in the Thames or any of the many other avenues down which the Mcnaghten memoranda leads us, then why was the investigation not officially closed immediately? The answer is of course that, like us in here, the police officers of the time were merely stating their opinions. And in doing so, like us, they were open to lapses in memory and filling the gaps with whatever mortar they could find to substantiate their claims.
There is no way that the police would have held "positive" proof that the Ripper had been either killed or incarcerated and then still allowed special patrols to run in Whitechapel, and wasted time examining communications which could NOT have come from the Ripper, if as they believed, he was dead/locked up.
You must remember that the senior police officers of the time hadn't risen through the ranks. Today anyone who joins the police force has to do a minimum two years as a constable, back then that wasn't the case. There was a corrupt old boys network where appointments were made for political expediency in dingy smoke filled rooms in privileged clubs to which the masses could not gain access. Neither Anderson, McNaghten nor their contemporaries were selected on their abilities, they were selected because they had scratched someone's back hard enough. So to think that these men - who were merely figureheads for the police force - could in any way have held any reasonable opinions as to the identity of the Ripper is stretching things a little too far.
You wish the diary would go away. I wish the McNaghten memoranda had never been written. In all it's various forms it has led us on more of a wild goose chase then any 63 page document ever could have done. It has foisted upon us suspects who have wasted our time and reams and reams of paper. It has encouraged the amateur detective to set his stall out according to various police officer's opinions.
And it isn't even accurate! Nor are the comments made by other officers about it! They allude to a doctor who drowned in the Thames, there wasn't one - but there was a school teacher, hell he'll do, it's pretty close. They talk of a Polish Jew, who has at various times been taken as David Cohen, Nathan Kaminski, Aaron Kosminski and even Severin Klosowski, our very own George Chapman. The historical innacuracies in that document are so much to the fore that I am surprised any intelligent researcher has ever taken it seriously.
And yet I find myself fascinated with Martin Fido's account of David Cohen. Not least because of some of the leaps of faith he gets away with. And not one person criticizes him. Not one.
Like you I am still looking for answers. I would like to believe Martin Fido had the answers, but is very unlikely. I would love to believe Ivor's proposition of D'Onston. I would dearly love to believe that Joe Barnett murdered Kelly after failing to keep her off the streets by murdering her friends. But I can't.
The reason the diary is still so prominent in my mind is because no-one has yet been able to prove it to be a fake. The arguments against it vary from wishful thinking to utterly ridiculous. We find ourselves discussing ink bronzing, ink constituents, multiple personality disorders. If the diary is a forgery can someone just please prove it!
And now to you John Omlor, I'll 'wager' that you thought I had forgotten you, huh? My contribution to yourself tonight is but small, and it is this. If, as we know to be true, the police left the 'tin match box' off the published list of Catherine Eddowes' possessions and 'if' we play the forgery theory and assume that the forger copied the entry from the police list after 1987, how could our forger have possibly known that the tin match box was not mentioned in any of the newspapers of the day. Wasn't he taking a 50/50 chance with his entry about Abberline "Keeping back all that he can"?
Oh stuff it, I've just re - read your post and can't resist adding a few more comments. I didn't realise that 'From Hell' was on general release in the states yet. I must admit that I am not looking forward to seeing it as I have heard rumour that in it Abberline has an affair with Mary Kelly. So much for Hollywood respecting history! To compare it to a made for television movie is probably about right although I will have to reserve final judgement until I have actually seen it, after all it's not fair to criticise something which you haven't actually seen, is it?
I still don't see why any forger, modern or Victorian, is any more or less likely than Maybrick to have read or been interested in Crashaw. I don't even see how the entry of the Crashaw quote in any way proves that Maybrick read his work. There are one hundred and one possible explanations for the quote being there, but they are all pure speculation, and you don't allow speculation John, you like proof positive. Maybe James' dad liked obscure poetry and James picked it up from him, I don't know and I don't really care, because it neither proves the diary one way or t'other.
Enjoy your weekend all of you. It's 'Indian' for me tonight, Chicken Korma with Basmati Rice, Naan Bread and then coconut ice cream. What are you having?
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 01:43 pm | | Hi Peter,
You write to Chris about the diary:
"The arguments against it vary from wishful thinking to utterly ridiculous. We find ourselves discussing ink bronzing, ink constituents, multiple personality disorders. If the diary is a forgery can someone just please prove it!"
Consider the following sentences:
"The arguments in favor of it vary from wishful thinking to utterly ridiculous. We find ourselves discussing ink bronzing, ink constituents, multiple personality disorders. If the diary is authentic can someone just please prove it!"
Still works.
Then you ask me a question that I'm not sure I understand:
"If, as we know to be true, the police left the 'tin match box' off the published list of Catherine Eddowes' possessions and 'if' we play the forgery theory and assume that the forger copied the entry from the police list after 1987, how could our forger have possibly known that the tin match box was not mentioned in any of the newspapers of the day. Wasn't he taking a 50/50 chance with his entry about Abberline "Keeping back all that he can"?
I'm not sure why our forger would have had to have known that the "tin match box" was not mentioned in any of the papers of the day. But in any case, I seem to recall this fact was mentioned in several books when the list was finally made public. Still, I'm not sure of the point here. The modern forger could have copied the phrase from the list as one of the things his "James as Jack" recalled from the Eddowes crime scene, without worrying about what had or had not been in the papers. And as to the line about Abberline holding things back -- that too was readily available information in the 1980s, wasn't it? And certainly our forger would have known that the police had not released all the details of the crime scenes, so it was safe sentence to write, no? But perhaps I am missing your point here, Peter, since this seems too easy.
Finally, Peter, you are absolutely right when you say the existence of the Crashaw quote does not prove the diary to be either authentic or a fogery. No question about that. But, it does seem out of place. Not only because there isn't a single other literary reference or citation or old poetry reference or even a thought about such things anywhere else in the diary (an allegedly private journal kept routinely by the guy who cites Crashaw), but also because it's by a poet who was barely read in 1888 and much more widely read in the second part of the 20th Century (at least after 1935 or so) and a poem which is obscure even in the collection of that poet's work and one of a highly Latinate and Catholic tradition (Maybrick's father!? -- Check that one again, Peter). It's a poem far more likely to show up in scholarly essays on Crashaw or studies of Metaphysical poetry than on anyone's tongue, and certainly than on anyone's tongue in 1888.
But I agree that this is proof of nothing. Because the diary remains completely unlinked by reliable, independent evidence to any moment in history whatsoever, especially London in 1888.
It's probably Italian for me tonight, Peter, and then another movie -- this time one I am looking forward to much more than the unfortunate From Hell, a film called Mulholland Drive. It's the newest offering by David Lynch, whose work I often find interesting and enjoyable.
'Night,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 02:09 pm | | Hi Peter:
You wrote: "And Chris, without the diary we would still have the account from the chemist in Liverpool who suspected Maybrick of being the Ripper, and made a note to say so."
This is new to me. What is the reference for that? Thanks in advance for pointing it out for me.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J.P.
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 06:03 pm | | To Keith Skinner---Hello. Yes, I do find the 'dissimilarity' between the diary and Maybrick's authenticated handwriting [and the Dear Boss letters] to be conclusive proof that he didn't write it. The handwriting is, after all, the prime standard by which one judges a questioned document. [And I might suggest that "dissimilarity" is somewhat of an understatement]. I don't take the multiple personality disorder or the 'fraudulent will' theories seriously. But to answer your more important question: Do I have a similar certainty that the handwriting of Mike Barrett, Anne Graham, Tony Devereux, Billy Graham, or Gerrard Kane proves "they wrote the thing"? Simply put: of course not. I don't know that any of them wrote the thing. Nor have I even seen handwriting samples of most of those listed above. Mike's signature did appear once in the London Times, if I recall. And of course there is the "embarrassing Kane relic", as John likes to call it. Undecided and uncertain. I have come to believe that Mike knows the origin of the diary. Though, I admit, I can see why some people might doubt this.
As for Tim Dundas. He signed an affidavit saying that the watch didn't have the scratches on the back when he worked on it, and, I believe, that he also used a pair of magnifying loupes. So I'd have to agree with Bob Hinton that it is difficult to understand how he could have missed seeing them. But you make a valid point. Quite rightly, you remind us that Ronald Murphy stated that he did remember seeing scratches of some sort on the back of the watch. So we have conflicting testimonies. [And, though you didn't explicitly make the remark, I think you were pointing out that Mr. Dundas' testimony was made several years after the fact. Which is true]. But I'm still at a loss to understand how---if the scratches are so remarkably faint to be missed by Tim Dundas ---- Albert's workmates happened to find them, and, after finding them, were lucky enough to realize their meaning. Not to mention the timing of this discovery. I think I'm right in saying that this also bothered Paul Feldman.
But let me ask a question to those who have seen the watch in Bournemouth. I've always been a little confused about the location of the scratches. Could someone describe exactly where they are? Does the watch proper come out of it's case, or are the scratches on an inside cover that needs to be detatched?
Finally, Keith, your last question: I'm not sure where you're going with it. It's possible, but unlikely, and, to be honest, I don't know. I'm not exactly sure what Melvin Harris meant by "mere handlers"; he seems to imply elsewhere that Mike at least had contact with the "others" while the diary was being composed....[because he offered up the Crashaw quote]. Or at least that's how I interpretted it. If Steve Powell can confirm his story [and I don't know that he can] it would suggest, to me anyway, something different. Currently, I have severe reservations for believing that Anne Graham has any connection whatsoever to the diary. I think the diary came through Mike Barrett. But, of course, I could be wrong, and my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's.
I recently saw a certain book in the bookstores here in American dealing with the Ripper letters. It looks entirely impressive. Best wishes, RP |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 07:58 pm | | Chris
I got only slightly confused about the connection that was made between Maybrick and the Ripper.
Basically the relevant passage is on page 180/181 of Shirley's book. It concerns a meeting she had with the grandaughter in law of Arthur Siminson Wokes, the chemist who supplied Florie with her fly papers. Apparently Arthur Wokes' son - Sam Wokes - was a hoarder of scraps of paper. He died in 1993 but would talk to Gill Wokes (the grandaughter in law) of his belief in Florie's innocence and his own belief that the Maybricks, he mentioned Michael, were linked to the Ripper case.
Page 181: "Most importantly, she sent me a copy of a scrap of paper she had found amongst Sam's possessions. In Sam's handwriting at the top (and written before publication of my book in 1993) are the words 'James Maybrick died May 11 1888'. He has the date wrong but beneath follows an excerpt from a book by Melvin Harris on Jack The Ripper published in 1989".
Chris, the passage wasn't exactly as my memory recalled it, but the premise still appears to be that Sam Wokes, son of the guy who supplied Florie with the fly papers, thought that the Maybricks were connected to the Ripper case and seems to have variously suspected BOTH Michael and James.
What do you think?
John, I ate too much Indian food, although the ice cream was nice. Back to bananas and tuna fish for the whole of next week!
Sleep tight
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 08:40 pm | |
Regarding the did he/didn't he argument as to whether or not Michael Maybrick wrote any of the lyrics to his songs I found a couple of entries in PHF's book which whilst not conclusive because they aren't ascribed to a particular person, are useful to read. Thus, page 347:
"His phrasing is artistic and he knows how to lend unusual expression to his tones".
It may interest you further to note that PHF has Michael Maybrick down as writing popular songs, but doesn't quote his source.
Another thing for you both, this time concerning the Crashaw quote and from p.283 in Shirley's book. Thus:
"I wrote to the British library to ask if a Victorian merchant would have known of Crashaw. R.J. Goulden replied on 25 March 1998: "Several editions of Crashaw's poetry were in fact published between 1857 and 1887........James Maybrick could have picked up second hand copies of any of these works or else he could have subscribed to a circulating library and come across Crashaw's works in it.............there is another possibility that Maybrick heard of Crashaw through Adams (Michael Maybrick)".
Now back to Shirley's own words, still p.283:
"Crashaw's works were much better known in 1888/9 than they are today". I'm assuming Shirley is using the British library as her source here.
Comments please, gentlemen.
Goodnight
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 10:03 am | | Peter,
Shirley's wrong. Completely wrong about this one, I'm afraid. Crashaw's work is much more widely studied, much better known, and much more available today than it was in 1888. The 17th century poets we now call the Metaphysicals (Crashaw, Donne, Herbert, etc.) were languishing in relative obscurity throughout most of the 19th century and their reputations and their positions in the canon were reestablished and revived only after T.S. Eliot reviewed Herbert Grierson's 1929 anthology of them and then began championing their cause as extraordinary poets. By the 1950's, when New Criticism had taken over English departments and the literary critical world was reading Cleanth Brooks on Donne's "The Canonization," the Metaphysicals, Crashaw included, had become major players in the history of British Literature. They were (and still are) taught in survey course and intro to poetry courses, as well as the subjects their own seminars and conferences and journals and associations. This is a completely and utterly different set of circumstances than would have existed in 1888. In fact, I too have researched how many editions of Crashaw's works that would have included our poem were published back then. In fact, there were only five separate editions of his work published the whole second half of the century, and several of them were largely private publications by religious (Catholic) groups and scholars. If you do a search in the Diary Board archives, you will find a series of discussions about the history of Crashaw's reception.
You'll also find this:
"Five important editions of Crashaw's poetry also appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1857, The Reverend George Gilfillan published The Poetical Work of Richard Crashaw and Quarles' Emblems.
also
"In 1857, William B. Turnbull, barrister and convert to Catholicism, published The Complete Works, an edition neither scholarly nor critical, merely appreciative. It was superseded in 1872 by the Reverend Alexander P. Grosart's edition, done for The Fuller Worthies Library and dedicated to John Henry Cardinal Newman because, as the editor noted, Crashaw was a poet Newman loved 'as an Englishman and a Catholic.'" (12)
However: A quick look at the notes reveals that Grosart's edition of Complete Works was only "Printed for private circulation by Robson and Sons" as was J.R.Tutin's collection of Crashaw also printed for private circulation. Tutin did later publish a collection of the Sacred Poems (including, one suspects, "The Mother of Sorrows") for general readers, but not until 1895.
The Victorian critics Edmund Gosse and Canon H. C. Beeching each wrote studies of Crashaw , though Beeching's full length work also does not come out until 1895.
The lesson here, I think, is that Crashaw's work was at least a bit difficult to find in general during the second half of the 19th Century, even among Catholic enthusiasts as many of these critics and editors clearly are, such that several people felt the need to put together collections strictly for private circulation. I guess this is perhaps one of the troubling things about the appearance of the lines in the diary. However, I did find a work from 1939 by Austin Warren that does call "The Mother of Sorrows" one of Crashaw's few masterpieces and it is clear that the poem is a much more discussed one among Crashaw scholars of the 1940's, 50's, and 60's."
I wrote all of that on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 12:34 pm, over on the Diary Board.
I'm not sure who Shirley's source was for the idea that Crashaw was better known in the 1800's, but they were wrong. My source for this, by the way, is me (Ph.D. in Literature and Professor of Literature, Univ. of South Florida and person who had to take too many exams on 17th Century poetry and who wrote at least three long papers on Crashaw during his grad school days and who has been, for many years now, romantically involved with a scholar of the period who has published on Crashaw at least twice....)
As to Michael's "phrasing..." As Chris will tell you, I'm sure, this is a musical term describing musical composition in this sentence and not the use of written language or lyrics.
And Michael did "write" popular songs. He wrote the music for them. Check them out; there is, I know, at least one web page devoted to his work.
His partners always wrote the lyrics.
Now it's off to a big stadium full of crazy people and today's Tampa Bay Buccaneer's game. I'll have a sore throat when I return.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 11:59 am | | Hi, Peter:
Well I don't find that bit of evidence persuasive that Arthur Siminson Wokes, the chemist who supplied Florie with her fly papers, thought that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, but thanks for pointing out the reference. The source is somewhat second-hand and, as you put it, Wokes' belief, if indeed he held it, seems to have been that the Maybricks, and specifically Michael Maybrick not James Maybrick, had some connection to the murders. I appreciate you clarifying the matter.
Hi, John:
As you say, "phrasing" in musical terms can refer to the music itself not to the lyrics.
Vide Webster's Dictionary:
"Phrase." noun. "A brief, expressive passage, usually having four or eight measures."
"Phrase, phrasing." verb. "To divide (a composition) into phrases."
The question though is whether whomever penned the Diary was sophisticated enough to know that "phrasing" is a musical term. My sense is that they would not have known this and that their reference was probably (as they thought) to the use of "phrasing" in terms of words and lyrics. I base this of course on their apparent misconception elsewhere that Michael Maybrick wrote rhymes and thus song lyrics. I don't think our penman was a sophisticate either in terms of music or poetry, which again makes the sudden appearance of the line from Crashaw all the more surprising and out of place.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 12:05 pm | | John
I hope the Tampa Bay Buccaneers fair better than my Manchester United hopefuls have done of late. We always cling to our manager's claim that 'the team doesn't really start playing until after Christmas'.
Remember our discussions on the 'tin match box' John? My assertion that the diarist took a 50/50 guess and got it right was done on the assumption that the diarist did not check all the publications of 1888 to ascertain that the police had withheld any mention of a tin match box amongst Kate Eddowes' possessions. There may have been an entry somewhere that said something along the lines of 'the police withheld mention of the tin match box in the popular press', and if there was then we assume he went with that statement, but without checking the newspapers of the time for himself he was relying heavily on someone else's quoted word and therefore took a 50/50 gamble and got it right. PHF checked every newspaper of the time to be absolutely sure that no mention of the tin match box had been made in the press. And some people would still have us believe that Paul did little research of any value, and worse still - that he didn't challenge his own beliefs!
Why so few posts lately? Do you Yanks take the weekend off or something?
Cheers
Peter
P.S. It's nice to know that I am in a discussion with an academic. My own interests in poetry only extend so far as reading the lyric sheet on Lloyd Cole and Gary Numan albums. I think you will find that Kate Bush is also an excellent lyricist. The Crashaw poem quoted in the diary is quite interesting, but not as good as 'The Man with the child in his eyes'. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 12:14 pm | | Chris
It wasn't the diarist who spoke of Michael's phrasing, it was an unquoted source in PHF's book.
PHF makes no more of it than that, I'm not even sure that he was aware that MM was a musician rather than a lyricist, I just pointed it out for your interest, nothing more, nothing less. I am still sticking to my line that our thicko Victorian cotton merchant thought his brother wrote the words as well as the music.
As for the chemist who supplied Florie with the fly papers, I believe it was his son who connected the Maybricks with the Ripper murders, this having been done apparently after 1989, viz the Melvin Harris quotation, but before the diary came to London. It just goes towards proving my point that even without the diary there were some people who connected the Maybricks with the Ripper murders.
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 12:49 pm | | One more thing Chris
The press at the time would obviously have been full of reports concerning both the Ripper and the Maybrick trial, although how much they overlapped isn't clear, due to the accepted cessation of the murders well before James died, if we stick to the known canon of five.
Anyway, P.342 PHF's book has this entry:
On 19 August 1889, the Illustrated Mirror published, under a heading MAYBRICKISM, this:
Liverpool
Sir,
You call yourself a thought-reader and claim to know all about that blood-thirsty scoundrel 'Jack the Ripper; but up to the present I have seen no sign from you respecting the innocent woman who lies in agonised suspense in Walton gaol........
You can have visions about the Whitechapel murderer, but poor Mrs Maybrick in your idea is apparently unworthy of a dream. It ought all to be clear to you, but perhaps you don't want it to be so.......
A lover of justice
Chris, it isn't made clear who this letter is from, or if indeed that information was ever ascertained, but what do you make of It ought all to be clear to you...?
And please note that that letter, posted in Liverpool makes a connection between the Maybricks and Jack The Ripper in 1889.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 06:03 pm | | Hi Peter,
Today, the Bucs sucked. And I got rained on.
Now I must make dinner.
Yes, I suspect the forger might very well have read that there had been no mention of the box in the papers of the times. And I suspect the forger probably assumed that what he read in his Ripper books was true. But I have no way of knowing whether this is what happened or not. In any case, it wouldn't have been much of a risk to include the line once the list was published.
Gotta' run.
--John
PS: You write to Chris:
"I am still sticking to my line that our thicko Victorian cotton merchant thought his brother wrote the words as well as the music."
And you still need at least one little tiny piece of evidence for this assumption. Remember, it can't come from the diary. Otherwise, you are still engaged in wishful thinking.
|
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 09:26 am | | Hi All,
Hi John,
You wrote:
‘I'm not sure why our forger would have had to have known that the "tin match box" was not mentioned in any of the papers of the day. But in any case, I seem to recall this fact was mentioned in several books when the list was finally made public.’
Then Peter Wood conceded that:
‘There may have been an entry somewhere that said something along the lines of 'the police withheld mention of the tin match box in the popular press’.'
Then John, you replied:
‘Yes, I suspect the forger might very well have read that there had been no mention of the box in the papers of the times. And I suspect the forger probably assumed that what he read in his Ripper books was true.’
(My emphasis)
Well, we know that Martin Fido published the full list, including the empty tin match box, in his 1987 ripper book. But I was unaware that this, or any other publication prior to the diary’s emergence, referred to the fact that this particular item had not previously been in the public domain. Can you recall any of the ‘several books’ by name? Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 12:12 pm | | Hi Caz,
I'll have to go back and check which book I read this little fact in (that the list had not found its way into the contemporary newspaper reports). I'm at work now, though, and my Ripper books are unavailable.
That's not the same, of course, as saying the list had not been in the public domain. I don't know whether that info appeared in print prior to 1992. My recollection was just that the fact that "the list was kept out of the papers at the time" seemed to be known prior to 1992. I might very well be wrong, though.
Perhaps someone who has the Fido book on hand can look and see if he mentions this at all.
I'll let you know what I find tomorrow, if no one else has any info.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 02:03 pm | | Hi, John and Caz:
Why would a boring bureaucratic list of the possessions of a dead woman have been published in the press in 1888? As far as I can see, the "tin match box empty" has only achieved significance because of its appearance in the Diary. I don't think the police necessarily withheld that piece of information either. I believe it is only in retrospect, in wrangling over this little detail in respect to the Diary, that the notion that the police might not have released the list to the press has arisen.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 04:34 pm | | Hi Chris,
Thanks. You're probably right. But I thought Martin or someone mentioned the fact in a book published before 1992. Maybe not. I'll have to check when I get home.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 05:47 pm | | Gentlemen and Caz
Point one) The list of Kate Eddowes' possessions was released to the press after her murder.
Point two) The 'tin match box' was the only item on the police inventory that was not mentioned in the list published in the newspapers.
Point three) Paul Feldman read every publication of that period in 1888 to ascertain that the 'tin match box' wasn't mentioned in any of them.
Now then John, I can accept your proposition that the diarist/forger may (no pun intended) have read Martin Fido's book, or some such similar, and learned from there that the 'tin match box' was withheld from the list of possessions given by the police to the press.
The question is John/Chris: "How did the forger know that statement to be true?" After all many statements have been made about the ripper murders only to be disputed some years later. The only way that the forger could have been absolutely sure that the 'tin match box' appeared in none of the newspaper reports was to check said newspaper reports, something which PHF was forced to do. Otherwise our forger was taking a 50/50 gamble.
And he got it right.
Put it another way John. Imagine you are in England on a visit, we have dinner and I just happen to mention that Martin O'Neill will be the next manager of Manchester United. Let's assume you know nothing of the English game of football and are far from au fait with the intricacies of the managerial merry go round.
Then John, back in the States you and your good lady are taking part in a pub quiz and your opponents are Chris and his good lady. The scores are tied at 10 all. The final question to decide the game is "Who is the new manager of Manchester United football club?"
Chris, all you've got to go on is my word, remember you know nothing about football (for the purposes of this discussion). To give the wrong answer would cost you first prize. Would you trust me? It's a 50/50 gamble, right?
Therefore you have to accept that our diarist took a 50/50 gamble and won. It matters not, in all honesty, how many books - including Martin Fido's, the information regarding the absence of the tin match box from published lists appeared in. Our diarist would have still been trusting those researchers and taking them at their word.
Either he forged it and guessed.
Or he wrote it and he knew.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 05:56 pm | | Hi Peter,
You're right.
Much of what our forger knew about Maybrick and the Ripper case probably came from books. The forger had to decide whether to trust what he read in those books.
He probably did.
Are you saying this is unlikely? Are you saying this is evidence that there was no forger and that the diary is genuine?
I'm still not sure I understand the point here.
Dazed and confused, I remain,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:11 pm | | John
I'm shocked and dazed myself! Please let me bask in the reflected glory of you telling me -and I quote "You're right".
So then John, do we accept that the diarist took a 50/50 risk in the matter of the tin match box? How many other 50/50 risks or greater did he take? Put them all together and you have one very lucky forger!
Nice to know you agree with me.
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:39 pm | | Hi Peter,
Sorry. Your math only works if there is a 50/50 chance that each thing in all of the Maybrick and Ripper books is wrong.
Is there?
How do you know?
--John |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 04:36 am | | Hi Peter,
When major details (up to and including even the number of victims!) remain contentious, it is hard to say with any certainty that anything is "right" in a purely objective sense. A small detail like this is exactly the kind of thing our putative forger can reasonably hope to get away with, as there will always be gaps in our knowledge and places where the historical record is too vague for absolutes.
Whilst I agree with John and others that the writer's literary abilities are suspect, they certainly knew enough about Ripper lore to know that if they didn't stray too far from mainstream opinion on the case, that they stood a good chance of committing no error so large that the hoax would be instantly obvious. There are no outright howlers, just a few questionable things here and there which, as we are seeing, can be argued either way.
That is precisely why I feel that the Diary is a fake - everything contained within it can be located in a handful of readily available books published within a few years prior to the diary's 'discovery.' Far better if the diary could say something that we genuinely didn't know and that these could be verified.
For everything that he seems to get right, we can point and say: "it is verified. It is true."
For everything that he seems to get wrong, we can point and say: "the history cannot be verified - it could still be true."
I would be far more likely to believe the diary if someone could prove that the Manchester murders happened - which are the only things I can recall from the diary that stand outside any known Ripper history.
Regards,
Carps
BTW - you say: "Paul Feldman read every publication of that period in 1888"
I think what you mean is that Paul Feldman read every surviving publication of that period that was available to him. There is, potentially, a world of difference. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 06:55 am | | Hi All,
Anyone found that pre-1992 reference yet?
I thought the whole thrust of Feldy's argument was that the diary author had no way of knowing, from any of the ripper books, including Martin Fido's, that the empty tin match box was a previously unpublished item.
The diary author goes on about Abberline holding something back from a crime scene, which could have been a reasonable guess, and one that wouldn’t have got a forger into any trouble. But he goes further than that and chooses the Eddowes crime scene, with the longest list of possessions for any of the victims. And from that long list, he mentions only a few items in the diary, the very first one being the empty tin match box - which turns out to be the one item we now know (and I have a feeling we have Feldy to thank for that) was indeed held back.
Where could a modern forger have got this information from? I’m quite certain that if it turns out that he couldn’t have got it from anything published before 1992, it’ll be put down to another rather lucky coincidence - just like the one where the diary author plucked Crashaw out of obscurity, dumping him unceremoniously into a faked diary of the Whitechapel murders, without having a clue about the poet’s connections with the place.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 07:47 am | | Caz,
The "diary" authors quote about holding something back occurs several "paragraphs" down from the tin box reference. He blathers on about cold kidney before getting to talking about Abberline holding something back. There is nothing in the text to suggest a link between the tin box reference and bit about Abberline keeping things back. This is a case of Paul Feldman's wishful thinking I believe.
But in any case, I did a quick search of the Casebook newspaper archives last night and I was unable to find any paper that references more than 3 or 4 of that long list of possessions. If there was a paper that printed the whole list except for the tin box, his argument would have more merit (Not a lot more though). If anyone can send me a reference to a paper containing such a list I would be grateful.
But notice that Paul never suggests that such is the case, "However one thing on the official police list never published was the 'Tin Match Box, empty'." One thing, not the only thing.
I don't think it's a question of Abberline holding anything back but the simple fact that a long list of fabric bits simply isn't interesting or lurid enough to print.
I can't imagine that holding back an item that was in her pockets would be at all helpful in any case, it's a long list. Usually when the police hold back small details like that it's to help sort out false confessions. But why would there be any reasonable expectation that the killer would remember that one item out of the huge amount of items there? "What, you want to confess to the Ripper crimes? Great! But first, what was in Eddowes pockets? Nope you're one item short you faker! Quit wasting our time." It simply doesn't make any sense to me.
Paul makes a big deal out checking all the papers to show that it wasn't in any of them. Supposedly this is significant because of the huge amount of work that the forger would have had to go through to come up with the tin box/keeping things back link (Which again, is linked in Paul's mind perhaps, but not in the 'diarys' text.)
The huge flaw here is that unless he is suggesting that "JM" read every single paper available at that time, compared the partial lists available in many of them and came up with one missing item, which he then immediately assumes that Abberline held back (!?!?), his whole argument disappears into the smoke it's made out of.
Regards,
John |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 08:35 am | | Hi Caz,
You may be right. A quick look at Martin's book seems to reveal that he does not announce that the tin match box did not appear in the press. He does however refer to a published list of the time.
"The official list of her clothes is interesting, offering more detail and some variants from the familiar inventory published in the press."
So there must have been some list published somewhere at the time.
Now, the Times of October 2, does mention the other "small tin box," which held the pawn tickets. So we know that Abberline did not hold that information back.
Here's another little piece of info:
In Martin's book, the list reads:
"1 Tin MatchBox, empty."
In The Ultimate..., the list reads:
"1 Tin Match Box. empty."
Besides having MatchBox as one word with two upper case letters, Martin's list has a comma.
The Sourcebook list has a period between "Box" and "empty."
The diary, of course, has:
"tin match box empty"
in it's working out of some poetry lines.
I draw no conclusions. I just offer what I've found. I'll check other pre-'92 books to see if anyone suggests that the item was deliberately held back. I still can't say for sure if it was included on the list Martin is making reference to.
But here's one final note -- Don Rumbelow's book (1988 ed.) has the following wording:
"In her pockets was everything she owned; this included two small blue bed ticking bags, two short black clay pipes, one tin box containing sugar and another tea, onepiece of flannel and six pieces of soap, a small tooth comb. a blunt white bone handle table knife together with a metal teaspoon, a red cigarette case with a white metal fitting, en empty tin match box, a piece of red flannel containing pins and needles, a ball of hemp, a piece of old white apron, a portion of a pair of spectacles, and two handkerchiefs, one with a red border."
Please notice that in Rumbelow all the words are in lower case and unpunctuated in the phrase "empty tin match box" and that the phrase immediately follows the cigarette case description in the prose. In the diary, the "tin match box" line is immediately followed by the line about the "cigarette case" (struck out), the line about the "whore's knife," and very shortly thereafter by the "sugar" and "tea" lines.
So I'm not at all sure our diarist didn't have page 65 of Don's book (Penguin Paperback) open on his desk when he wrote this particular funny little rhyme.
Which book was the other one to break the list? I forget.
But now I must grade papers. All day. Ugh.
--John
PS: Rumbelow also describes the bonnet in detail in the preceeding paragraph, of course. |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 04:00 pm | | John Hacker
'But notice that Paul never suggests that such is the case. "However one thing on the official police list never published was the - tin match box empty" - One thing, not the only thing.
Come on John, how much clearer could Paul be, witness P. 61 of Paul's excellent book:
"From the evidence we had it was clear that the police had not informed the press of this particular item only".
This particular item only, John. Sounds pretty clear to me.
And what was his evidence? Well, Paul quite rightly points out that although the list of Kate Eddowes' possessions was published by Don Rumbelow and Martin Fido, neither of those two gentlemen nor anyone else made the connection that the 'tin match box' had been held back from the list given to the press. Quote Paul again:
He (the forger) may have read the list of Catherine Eddowes' belongings in the books published in 1987, but could not have known that the 'Tin Match Box, empty' was held back from the media without checking every newspaper report of the period - something we were forced to do. This is a hugely time consuming undertaking on which we embarked in order to verify the diary's references to the tin box and Abberline's withholding details. Why would a forger have bothered to check the list of belongings against the newspaper reports? The forger would not have known that Abberline had not released the entire list of belongings to the press. Would he really have done all that research on the off chance that he just might find something that might give him a couple of throaway lines in his sixty three page masterpiece".
That sounds pretty unequivocal to me. And convincing too. Nobody in over a hundred years of Ripper research had commented on the discrepancies between the police list of Kate's possessions and the published list. Except the diarist............. Quote Carps: "Far better if the diary could say something that we genuinely didn't know and these could be verified". Well there you have it Carps, the diarist told you something you didn't know. And PHF verified it.
Oh and Carps, whilst we are on the subject, did you know that Maybrick was referred to as Sir Jim in his own home? The diarist told us that, and yet again PHF verified it. Did you know that a letter signed Jack The Ripper and speculating on a 'treble event' existed? The diarist did and he echoed the words of that letter. PHF verified it. Three - Nil to the diarist.
Back to you
Peter.
Caz, thanks for your continued excellent questioning of these 'experts'. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 04:19 pm | | Hi, Peter:
Once more, I don't think you recognize what was pointed out to you by Peter Birchwood, that the evidence from the Christie files at the University of Wyoming showed that a servant referred to James Maybrick as Sir Jim but that the only "evidence" that Maybrick called himself by this name is in the Diary. There is a difference. Again, since the Diary is a questionable document you cannot contend that James Maybrick actually called himself Sir Jim.
Best regards
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
