|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 27 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 27 October 2001
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 06:26 pm |        | Chris
Having made note of your comment regarding the 'Sir Jim' part of the diary previously, you should read my post again. Let me quote you the relevant part: "Did you know that Maybrick was referred to in his own home as Sir Jim?"
That seems pretty clear to me Chris. I am of course delighted that such a small part of my posting is the only part you found to quibble with - and you got it wrong. Again.
The simple fact is that Maybrick was referred to in his own home as 'Sir Jim'. Regardless of what anyone says that is not a common way of addressing your acquaintances, unless they happen to be a knight of the realm. Therefore the diary scores a hit there. And the score remains Three - Nil to the diarist, coincidentally the same score that Manchester United won by tonight.
Keep 'em coming.
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 06:59 pm | | Hi Caz and everyone,
Caz -- some more information regarding the diarist's claim that Abberline is "keeping back all that he can."
These lines are written in a poem about the Stride and Eddowes murders. We know this because the poem itself talks about being interrupted by a horse and runs down a chunk of the police list, including the empty tin match box, the cigarette case and the knife (later crossed out), the sugar and the tea, and possibly the pawn tickets. The poem also mentions the kidney.
The second stanza of this poem turns out to begin:
"Oh, Mr, Abberline he is a clever little man,
he keeps back all that he can."
Here, Peter, Paul and others have suggested that this is evidence that the diarist knew that the police were deliberately withholding information from the press. We know the forger-diarist could have learned about the empty tin match box from Rumbelow or from Fido. But where would he have learned that the police were holding back information and clues?
The diarist does not say it is the tin match box that Abberline is holding back, just "all that he can." Paul F. "discovers" that the contemporary reports never mention the match box and assumes this is what the diarist is saying that Abberline is holding back.
But Paul's account is not the only possible explanation. There is a simpler one. Assume that the forger is simply saying that the police ("Abberline") are withholding information and do not assume he means specifically the match box (we know the newspapers had already gotten word of the pawn tickets and a number of other items). This is, after all, all the diary says, right? "He keeps back all that he can."
We can then ask, where would our forger learn that the police were holding back information?
And so we turn to Paul Begg's The Uncensored Facts. 1988.
On pages 121-122, Paul informs the reader:
"On 1 October, the Evening News reported 'The police are extraordinarily reticent with reference to the Mitre Square tragedy. The Yorkshire Post on the same day reported: 'The police apparently have strict order to close all channels of information to members of the press.' Even the New York Times of 1 October was moved to complain of the police that 'they devote their entire energies to preventing the press from getting at the facts.'"
Paul goes on a bit further about police reticence to give information, but I think you get the idea.
It seems significant and possibly important that these published references to the police withholding information appear immediately after, and in connection with, the Mitre Square murder. Paul's citations make this conjunction clear. This, indeed, matches the diary entry precisely. The "keeping back all that he can" is conjoined with the Mitre Square murder and the possessions list.
But there is a problem here, for our diarist. It is one of jurisdiction. His nemesis Abberline couldn't have held anything back concerning the Eddowes murder. That crime and the crime scene associated with it were a City of London Police matter and did not fall under the control of Abberline at all. Abberline would have had no authority whatsoever to hold back any information in relation to a City Police case which did not fall under his jurisdiction. His authority extended to the Metropolitan Police area
only.
So if there was anything kept back in the Eddowes case, including any report of any tin match box, it would have been withheld by the City Police and not by our "clever little man," Mr. Abberline.
No doubt our forger liked playing off Abberline as his nemesis character (a dramatic convention) and so didn't bother with the historical details on this one. But it is clear that a reading of Paul Begg's 1988 book would have told him that the police had been reticent to provide the press with information about this particular murder. And there, in the diary, in the midst of this murder and discussions of the items on the very list that is in Rumbelow and Fido in 1988, appears the idea of the police (or arch-enemy Abberline as the representative of police authority) holding stuff back -- just as it occurs in Paul Begg's book (also 1988).
Just thought this was worth mentioning.
By the way, I have no doubt, just to be clear, that Keith and Stewart got the transcription of the original list correct ("1 Tin Match Box. empty." -- with the two separate words and the period). The Ultimate Source Book has proven to be painstaking in things like this, and I'm sure it is here, as well. Martin's transcription, with a comma and a single word for "MatchBox" is probably the less exact one. In Rumbelow, of course, it appears all in lower case and as separate words, just like it does in the diary.
Is there anywhere in the diary where the diarist specifies that the "tin match box" was what was withheld by the police? I don't think there is. Consequently, the line about Abberline keeping "back all that he can" might very well have been written with these pages from Paul's book in front of the author.
More stuff for thought,
--John
PS: Peter -- regarding your scorekeeping: the above should demonstrate that Paul F. has it wrong when he insists that the only way for the forger to know that the police were witholding information would have been to check all the historical documents of the period against the list. He could have just read Paul Begg's book. And the diarist and Paul Feldman apparently have it wrong when they suggest that Abberline was responsible for holding back any word of the tin match box. Abberline couldn't have been. And the diarist, as far as I can see, never tells us that the police or Abberline specifically witheld the match box -- that was Paul's assumption, but it's not in the diary. The diary just says that stuff was "kept back." And Paul Begg's book tells us that.
Chris is right that there is no evidence that the real Maybrick ever called himself "Sir Jim," whether or not a servant is on record as calling him that. And the literary conceit follows logically from the idea of being knighted, which is also in the diary.
Finally, the fact that the creator of diary of Jack the Ripper -- famous for his "double event" -- has his diarist character think of the possibility of a "treble event" is not at all extraordinary. In fact, it could have been expected. And the fact that one of the many, many alleged Ripper letters from the time also mentions a treble event is also completely predicatable. In fact, there are some that talk of more than a treble event. Nothing at all can be logically inferred from this, in any evidentiary or reliable or responsible way, concerning any so-called established "link" between any letter (which does not match Maybrick's handwriting) and the diary (which also does not match Maybrick's handwriting). Nothing, except perhaps that Maybrick wrote neither that particular fake Ripper letter nor the diary. So there is no link whatsoever, still, between the real Maybrick and this document, either historically or in terms of any known evidence. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 07:29 pm | | Hi, Peter:
As usual, I disagree with you. Being British and a northerner you will know the term "Lord Muck." I wonder how many servants called their master behind his back "Lord Muck" to designate a high and mighty gent who was ordering them about? I should think the servant calling Mr. Maybrick "Sir Jim" might well fall in the same sort of category, so not unusual at all given the master-servant relationship in Victorian households. 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 08:20 pm | | Hi, John:
Excellent point that our clever little man Abberline would not have been holding back anything about the Mitre Square murder since that murder did not take place in his jurisdiction! I guess this was a point on which the diarist did not luck out? I wonder how Peter Wood will react to your perceptive comment? One nil to the anti-Diarists perhaps?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J.P.
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 08:37 pm | | Hi. To be technical, the servant didn't even call Maybrick 'Sir Jim'. It was 'Sir James'-- and as far as we know it was a one-time sarcasm behind Maybrick's back, of which he might have been totally unaware. So I'd say Peter is still looking for that elusive goal. Meanwhile...
A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Imagine you're a simple working-class fellow. Now & again you like to stumble down to the corner pub for a pint. One day a friend named Tommy hands you a mysterious package. Once home, you unwrap it and find it's a 60-odd page manuscript. In the middle of the manuscript is the phrase "the red right hand of slaughter". After studying the document, you realize it is the diary of Dr. Crippen. It's published and is quite successful.
A year or so passes. For some cryptic reason, you decide to claim that you wrote the diary yourself. But how do you prove it? You have an inspiration. Remembering the phrase "the red right hand of slaughter" it occurs to you that if you could find out where this phrase came from it would be very impressive. But where to start? Is it a phrase from Shakespeare? The King James Bible? A poem? A play? One of the thousands of sermons published in the English language?
It doesn's seem to be in any anthology of quotations. But somehow, you manage to find it. But, what is more impressive, you also manage to find it in a secondary source, a book of rather obscure critical essays. And lucky for you, the essay in question was written after the days of Dr. Crippen, so it suggests that the diary must be a hoax.
But your problems aren't over yet. Now you need to go out and find a used copy of the book of essays. Then, you need to convince your family that you owned the book prior to Tommy having given you the diary of Crippen.
But you succeed. Indeed, you find the book in your own attic! Not only that, but you're very lucky indeed because the book just happens to have a defect in the sewing that tends to make it pop right open at the page where "the red right hand of slaughter" occurs...
See any potential problems with this scenerio?
And yet, Mike Barrett made this same remarkable achievement. But how? Take the phrase "the red right hand of slaughter" [a real quote] and see how far you get...
In all probability, if it wasn't for Mike, we'd all still be wondering where the phrase 'O costly intercourse of death' came from. Maybe something worth thinking about. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 10:05 pm | | Hi, RJ:
Interesting thought experiment. I do think Mike Barrett was trying to find a way to make himself seem important so finding the source of the line "O costly intercourse of death", presuming he did not already know where it came from, could well have been a way of drawing attention to himself and making him seem like an insider and not just a guy who received the Diary in a pub.
No idea where your quote "the red right hand of slaughter" comes from. Interesting. Maybe someone else will know!
All the best
Chris |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 07:30 am | | HI RJ,
There's a small problem with your thought experiment, if it is meant to apply to Mike. If Mike did get the book, as he says, for the charity event, and then put it up in his attic, then he had the book and didn't need to go find a used copy and convince anyone that he had it before he was given the diary.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Mike went out and found a copy of the Sphere Guide only after the quote was spotted in the diary. Have they? I might have missed it.
I assume the Guide was in the Barrett house before the diary was (thus I still think the quote is the one piece of evidence we have that links Mike to its production in some way). But I cannot say yet that Mike himself used the Guide to write the diary. That would be a leap from evidence to wishful speculation.
So in your thought experiment we would have to imagine that we read the diary we were given, recognized or found the line's source somewhere (perhaps in the same book we had upstairs, perhaps not) and then convinced everyone that we researched and "discovered" the source in the library. Or, we'd have to imagine that we did discover the source in the library. Then, in either case, that we announced this to everyone with great pride and self-promotion.
If Mike didn't forge the diary, then the quote got there some other way (either from the Sphere Guide but not via Mike or from some other means entirely) and Mike still had the book before he was given the diary and could still have produced it.
As to "red right hand of slaughter..."
I haven't had a chance to look (or even eat breakfast yet), but off the top of my head I'm thinking maybe Lady Gregory, or something similarly Irish? Perhaps not.
All the best,
--John |
Author: R.J.P.
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 09:05 am | | John--Hi. Yes, there is a problem with the thought experiment, but then this is intentional. There seems to be no way around it: it would have been impossible for our friend to have found a copy of the essays with the proper binding defect. So let's dismiss that idea. The book in question was in his attic [or living room or wherever] the whole time.
Now continuing... Our fellow knows that he got the Diary of Crippen from his friend Tommy. His confession is false. But then he finds the 'red right hand of slaughter' quote in his own house. Tell me, what is he going to think? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 09:32 am | | | Is he going to think that somebody else in his house provided the quote to the forger? Or is the forger? |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 12:22 pm | | Maybe, Paul. Maybe he is going to think, "Geez, I wonder if my wife or someone around here put this thing together and used that book I have upstairs?" Or he's going to think, "Hey, I recognize this from somewhere. I've seen it before... (perhaps). Oh yeah, cool, this line is also in that book I have upstairs. I can make myself look real smart here. I can pretend to 'research' this and 'find' the source and look downright clever, even brilliant." Or he's going to think, "where's this quote from?" and he's not going to remember it was also in a book in his own house, so he's not going to know where it came from. Or he knows that his confession is false but he doesn't know where the diary came from and he knows that he's had this book for some time so of course he's going to use it in his false confession (to give it some circumstantial credence) and then he's going to think "But damn, I wonder where the hell this stupid book really did come from?"
Or, if we alter the premise, he's going to think, "Oh yeah, here's where I used that quote from that book I have upstairs when I forged the diary." And then, when he decides he wants to confess, he's going to mention proudly to the newspaper man receiving his confession for the public press that he used that book he had upstairs to forge the diary and he has the quote and the book and everything.... Whoops. Maybe not. Sorry.
Or he's going to think, "Oh yeah, here's that quote I used when I forged the diary. It was from that book upstairs." And then, when he decides to confess under oath, he'll be able to tell not only how he used that quote from that book, but exactly how he went about doing everything else, including writing the diary in a handwriting other than his own, researching the diary (naming all of the books he used), composing it, and producing the finished volume, all in convincing, consistent, and verifiable detail... Whoops. Maybe not. Sorry.
I don't know. What is Mike going to think? Ever?
The real flaw in the thought experiment is that I think one way and Mike thinks another, apparently, and no matter how hard I try I can't seem to think like Mike (not without making my brain hurt a whole hell of a lot).
Someone else try.
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 12:29 pm | | Peter,
I'm going to have to try to keep this kind of brief, I'm a mite under the weather and I want to toddle back off to sleep.
You're absolutely right, Paul does express his opinion that the empty tin box was the only item not listed in the press at the time. I completely missed that in his text. However in my opinion any sentence from Paul that contains "it was clear" or "it is clear" must be treated with extreme suspicion because it represents his conclusion, and not a demonstrable fact. If you could provide press refaces that include all the items but the tin box I would be very grateful.
"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."
Let's turn that around, how would "JM", having just killed Eddowes know that the Tin Match Box was "held back" from the press without checking all available press reports as Paul was "forced" to do. We know that papers published partial lists. Why would he think that it was "held back"?
Indeed, I see no reason to believe that it was held back from the press as I stated in my previous post. To summarize, when police hold back small pieces of information like that it usually to help weed out false confessions. It would be ridiculous for the police to assume that JtR would be able to remember one item off that long list of possessions. A point that Paul recognizes and tries to rectify with his speculation that JM left the tin box there. An idea not supported by the text of the "diary" or the historical record.
"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"."
He didn't do all that research IMO. He added a few items from the list, a couple paragraphs down makes a generic remark about Abberline holding things back and Paul simply seeing connections that aren't supported by the "diary's" text.
Regards,
John |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 01:40 pm | | In good old Blighty we used to have a programme called "The two Ronnies", now I see we have a comedy double act called "The two Johnnies".
Messrs Omlor and Hacker. And Christopher, you needn't think I'm going to leave you out of this.
Who on earth started that appalling 'mind game' nonsense? What on earth was that all about? Here's a thought for you though. Those kind of reference guides, like encyclopedias contain information on hundreds of thousands of subjects. And you want me to believe that Mike Barrett pulled that one little Crashaw quote out of a book that contained references to thousands of subjects? It's no more likely than our C.of E. Victorian cotton merchant hearing of Crashaw through his brother. Therefore we will call that particular argument a draw and it is now Four - One to the diarist.
And so to The Two Johnnies. Regarding the argument about Abberline 'keeping back all that he can'. I think the only conclusion to be had is that the diarist was referring to the tin match box. In the same 'clever little rhyme' where he refers to Abberline 'keeping back all that he can', in fact in the previous verse we find, and I quote: "Damn it the tin box was empty". Then in the next verse we get: Did I not leave him a very good clue?.
That question is posed in the singular. It is quite clear that the diarist is referring to the tin match box. Quite why he thought it to be "a very good clue" we can only speculate. PHF thought that maybe it contained some cotton, but I would dispute that because there is a mention of the diarist looking for some light followed by 'Damn it the tin box was empty'. No, I think that purely and simply it was a match box. Could it be that James Maybrick had his match box engraved with his initials? On finding it empty did he decide to discard it as part of his 'funny games'?
Now then John (Hacker), the reason that James Maybrick went looking for a reference to the tin match box amongst the popular press of the day is that which I have put forward above, and which is reflected in the diary. He left it there as a clue, and therefore it is perfectly logical that he should check the newspapers to see if the police have made any mention of his clue. Upon finding that the police have not mentioned his match box he has every right to feel proud of himself. He left it there as a clue. They took it as such. Our diarist knew they took it as such because it was held back from the press.
And the diarist doesn't say the tin match box is the ONLY item held back from the press. It was Feldman who discovered that.
John, if you want those press reports of the day try asking Paul Feldman, I'm sure he would be only too pleased to hear from you.
Chris, that's a good interpretation of 'Sir Jim'. Of course you are right to make the point that we don't know if it was used in jest or as a compliment, but either way it is likely that the origin of the saying was Maybrick himself.
With regards from a very happy Mancunian
Peter |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 02:30 pm | | I am sorry. I am really trying to follow this but all the hypotheticals are confusing as all Hades.
Peter,
You say
"And you want me to believe that Mike Barrett pulled that one little Crashaw quote out of a book that contained references to thousands of subjects? It's no more likely than our C.of E. Victorian cotton merchant hearing of Crashaw through his brother. Therefore we will call that particular argument a draw and it is now Four - One to the diarist."
Do you mean that you doubt
a.) that Mike couldn't have forged it because it was not likely he would have been able to find that quote to include it in his forgery.
b.) he couldn't have just found it when he was looking for it while he was researching the origin of the diary.
Because a.) makes no sense and b.) suggests that he did forge it and I am not sure what you are trying to say.
So I have to disagree with you adding a point to the Diarist as of yet.
Next:
"Could it be that James Maybrick had his match box engraved with his initials? On finding it empty did he decide to discard it as part of his 'funny games'?"
Why would someone go to the trouble of having a tin match box engraved with your initials and then discard it? And considering that the police noticed letters on the corner of a torn piece of envelope, why not on a box?
"And the diarist doesn't say the tin match box is the ONLY item held back from the press. It was Feldman who discovered that."
Where is it again that he found that the box was the only thing held back from the press? Reading newspapers which contained partial lists is not proof. Is there a newspaper that contains every item on Eddowes except the box? Or a memo from police saying that they are witholding evidence and this is what it is?
Sorry if that has already been said, I told you I'm confused. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 02:53 pm | | Hi all,
Who forged the diary and how has been a debate spinning round and round, as we all know, since its emergence. The problem is there are no agreed upon facts as to the circumstances surrounding its creation.
Mr Barrett's story has changed repeatedly. The question is which, if any, of his explanations do you accept for these inconsistencies.
My personal opinion is that many of the "facts" in the diary were cribbed. However, the author also decorated his text with unrelated scrawl written in haphazard fashion.
I think many are giving the forger too much credit - seeking to discover what each phrase in the diary was lifted from.
My view is that much of the text are mere ramblings. However, those who seem to have some hostility to Mr. Barrett are seeking to prove that he lifted material from various sources.
My opinion, for what is worth, is that whether Mr. Barrett is the forger is still an open quesiton.
I believe many of the descriptions in the book were lifted from very general references on the Ripper and Maybrick cases. The rest is mere creative writing to which now amateur sleuths are seeking to divine greater meaning.
I could be wrong. But in any case, happy hunting!
Rich |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 03:00 pm | | Ally
Thanks for the 'meaty' questions. If you want proof that there is a publication that printed every possession of Kate Eddowes' in 1888 except the tin match box then I am afraid you will have to write to Paul Feldman for that. Until one of you can prove he is either lying or mistaken then I am doing no more or less than hundreds of people before me - i.e. quoting from a secondary source. I'm sure Paul didn't lie.
Back to Mike Barrett and the Crashaw quote again. John Omlor would have us believe it was highly improbable for Maybrick to have even heard of Crashaw, let alone quoted him, as Maybrick was of C. of E. persuasion and Crashaw is apparently studied only by catholics. My argument re: the sphere guide is, if we play the forgery game, why is Mike Barrett any more likely to have an interest in Crashaw than Maybrick? Fair enough he has the sphere guide, but those kind of books aren't specialist - they contain information on hundreds and thousands of subjects. Why would Mike hone in on the Crashaw quote? Answer: He isn't any more likely to have done so than Maybrick.
Why would someone go to the trouble of having a tin match box engraved with your initials and then discard it?
Ally, our diarist wasn't a very straight forward kind of guy, was he? Or rather 'Jack the Ripper' wasn't a very straight forward kind of guy. He butchered women and pulled their insides out. Do you think he would give a monkey's about his match box whilst revelling in the afterglow of having cut Kate Eddowes up? I rather think he wouldn't. And I think it certain that he left the match box at the scene as a 'clue'. Quite why it is a 'clue', I don't know. I was only speculating re: the engravings but it's a good possibility. More than that, I would say it is likely.
Regards
Peter |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 03:20 pm | | Hi Peter:
You are theorizing that the tin match box had initials on it but you have no evidence whatsoever for that speculation. Don't you think the match box would have been noted in the police list as "1 tin match box with initials 'J.M.'" if that had been the case, just as the calling card found with Eddowes body was said to have the name "Frank Cater, 405 Bethnal Green Road" on it, or the corner of the envelope found with Annie Chapman's body was stated to have the crest of the Sussex Regiment on it? Our presumption has to be that the tin match box was plain and not adorned with initials, doesn't it? I realize you are trying to make a case for the notion that the police kept this item back from the press for some reason but the evidence does not allow you to make the assumption that, if they did so (and I have yet to be persuaded that either you or Paul Feldman is correct), it was because the case was engraved with initials.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J.P.
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 03:43 pm | | Paul/John--Hello. Thanks for the responses. Like any half-witted theorist, I'm just trying to look at other possibilities. So...testing the theory... If Mike only knew that the diary came from Devereux, what would he think when he found the quote he was looking for in his own home? Most probably Paul is right: that the diary came from Anne. Does this lead us anywhere? Is there anything to suggest that Mike really believed this?
Well, it does make sense out of Caroline's point about the private letter from Mike---the one with the curious accusation: "I know you wrote the diary".
And it might make sense of Mike's confessions being less than satisfactory.
The one trouble I have with the Sphere discovery is this: it is compelling, but it's odd. Anyway you look at it, it's a damned round-about way of 'proving' that you've written the diary. Why didn't Mike just produce the receipt for the album that he claims he had? Or why not that photo of the donkey by the grave? Or anything else? Is it possible that the Sphere guide is all he ever had? He certainly didn't impress Harold Brough or many others.
For me, if Mike was truly a dupe, then it only points in one direction, that is, unless I believe the Sphere guide was just an astonishing coincidence. In some ways, this theory might answer a lot of the nagging questions, but could it really be the answer, that the diary came from Anne? It's just very hard to swallow...who would try to pull such a stunt? It stretches the limit of one's credulity, and it doesn't explain the purchase of the maroon diary unless this really was Mike's idea of 'research'.
Best wishes, RP |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:02 pm | | The maroon diary?
You mean the one bought after Maybrick's diary was taken to London?
Or is there another one?
Peter. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:11 pm | | Hi Peter:
Yes that is the maroon diary, only it was bought just before the Diary was taken to London. I held it in my hands in Bournemouth, and believe me it is ridiculously small (about the size of a man's palm) for it to have held the entries in the Diary that we know and love, if that was ever Mike's intention to transfer the Diary text to it.... not to mention that it is a diary for 1891.
Hi, R.J.:
You state:
Why didn't Mike just produce the receipt for the album that he claims he had? Or why not that photo of the donkey by the grave?
Please refresh my memory. Is there supposed to be a photograph of a donkey by Henry Finn's grave or some such? This story of Anne Graham and her father visiting Finn's grave is one of the items that remains unsubstantiated, tantalizingly ephemeral and unprovable, and I would like to know more about the photo if the photograph is supposedly linked to that story. Thanks in advance for clarifying.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J.P.
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:32 pm | | | Hi Chris--No. This was a different piece of ephemera! It would hardly be proof---but Mike claimed that there were photos in the diary before he cut out the missing pages. One of these was of a donkey by a grave, and he kept it as "proof" of his purchase. A strange detail in a strange confession. Cheers, RP |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 05:01 pm | | Ah, fun.
Peter,
You write:
"It is quite clear that the diarist is referring to the tin match box."
No. It isn't.
Read what the words actually say.
Nowhere in the diary is this clear at all. In fact, the "clue" referred to in the diary is never named and could just as easily mean whatever is being discussed in the "redeem" line in that same verse or the flesh-carvings or any one of a number of things.
All the diary actually says is that Abberline kept back "all that he can."
But...
1. Abberline could not have kept anything back, since the Eddowes case was not his. The diarist is wrong.
2. We already know the police kept back lots of stuff about the Eddowes murder (the one the diarist is discussing) initially -- we have read it in Paul Begg's 1988 book. And so might our forger have, as well. He then turned "the police" into Abberline, since in the drama of the book , that's "Jack's" arch-enemy. (More evidence not only of historical inconsistency but of conscious dramatic construction as well.)
The diarist therefore tells us nothing here at all that was new or unknown information in 1992, despite Paul F.'s creative and wishful reading. And the diarist makes a simple historical error besides, concerning Abberline.
Also, Peter, I think you have the wrong idea about the Sphere Guide. It is not a general reference book or encyclopedia. It is a collection of critical essays on literature. It is, in fact, a fairly specialized book (one of the reasons Mike didn't think it would sell at the charity event, perhaps) about a limited number of things.
As to "honing in" on the quote in that book -- if such a thing was done by someone, it might very well have been because the book allegedly has a binding defect that causes it to fall open on just this page.
Oh yeah -- "it is now Four - One to the diarist"
Four? Where did that come from? As to your "score," please see the PS to you in my previous post to Caz, dated Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 06:59 pm, above, to learn specifically why the first three goals, one by one, were sadly disallowed.
And then there are these wonderful rhetorical questions:
"Could it be that James Maybrick had his match box engraved with his initials? On finding it empty did he decide to discard it as part of his 'funny games'?"
Uh. Hello. Remember the record? Is there any evidence at all for even the slightest hint of speculation concerning any match box with Maybrick's initials on it? Anywhere? The Eddowes list describes the match box. It was "tin." It was "empty." That's it. That's all we know about it. It was listed as one of her possessions. And now suddenly we are supposed to start speculating that it really belonged to James Maybrick and it had his initials on it? Why? Just because you say so? This is absurd. Talk about trying to make the history fit the diary rather than the other way around... You can't just rewrite history to conveniently fit your theory via the asking of leading questions.
And by the way, this is something Paul Feldman has never learned: posing a leading question is not the same as responsibly making a claim. It establishes nothing. It is not even an offering of evidence. Asking "Could it be that James Maybrick had his match box engraved with his initials? On finding it empty did he decide to discard it as part of his 'funny games'?" with regard to the Eddowes murder is no different than asking "Could it have been that Eddowes really mutilated and killed herself and that's why no one saw her killer?" There is no evidence at all that would allow one to responsibly ask such a question. It comes right out of the thin air. It's like ending a conversation by asking, "But wait, could it have been that Eddowes really had no possessions at all and that after she was killed but before police found her a midget in a red suit danced by and placed those objects by her body because that's just what he did at nights but we have no record of his ever existing because the police hushed it all up?" Uh. No.
Finally, you write, concerning "Sir Jim,"
"either way it is likely that the origin of the saying was Maybrick himself."
No. It's not. (Why do you keep saying these things which cannot be fairly concluded from the evidence?)
The documentary evidence shows that a servant referred to his employer, not as "Sir Jim," but as "Sir James." And there is no evidence, either documentary or anecdotal, whatsoever, that this originated with Maybrick. There's not even any evidence that he knew about it. There's not even any reason to begin to assume that he was the source for this idea. There's not even a hint anywhere in any way that the real Maybrick had anything at all to do with the origin of this idea or even knew that the servant talked about him in such a way. Let's be accurate. You must separate reading from desire. Nowhere, at no time, has anything ever appeared that suggests that the real James Maybrick ever called himself any such thing or knew that anyone else called him any such thing, let alone that he created the name for himself.
That is the record.
We do have some responsibility to try and avoid just making things up.
--John
PS: Speaking about random and utter speculation and what might be "likely" -- if the real James Maybrick ever really did have a match box onto which he had his initials engraved, how "likely" is it that it would have only been made of tin? |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 05:13 pm | | Hi All,
A while back, RJ posted a list of things in the diary and their corresponding passages in a Maybrick book.
I have no idea exactly which books our forgers used, of course. But I thought I'd offer the following and see what people think.
What follows, needless to say, can be done with other Ripper books as well. But since I mentioned Paul Begg's Uncensored Facts, try this...
On page 32 of the 'diary' it states,
"but I could still smell her [Stride] sweet scented breath"
page 108 of 'The Uncensored Facts' it states, "Her left arm was extended and there was a packet of cachous - a pill used by smokers to sweeten the breath - in her hand."
On page 32 of the 'diary' it states,
"Oh, Mr Abberline he is a clever little man
he keeps back all that he can..."
page 122 of 'The Uncensored Facts' states, concerning the same murder the diarist is discussing: "The police apparently have strict orders to close all channels of information to members of the press."
Page 35 of the 'diary' states,
"Left them [Kelly's breasts] on the table with some of the other stuff. Thought they belonged there."
page 158 of 'The Uncensored Facts' states, "The first thing he saw was two lumps of flesh on the bedside table. These were Mary Kelly's breasts."
Page 36 of the 'diary' states,
"With the key I did flee
I had the key
and with it did flee..."
pages 160-161 of 'The Uncensored Facts' states, "Had Kelly found the key and neglected to tell Barnett? Did the killer have the key?"
Page 37 of the 'diary' states,
"A handkerchief red,
led to the bed
and I thought of the whoring mother"
page 154 of 'The Uncensored Facts' states, "The man pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to her"; and on page 162, "The inference seems to be that Kelly had gone to sleep. The question is, had she permitted a client to spend the night with her, or had she
gone to bed alone?"
And notice that as the diary proceeds in sequence, so do the quotes from Paul's book, all, actually from a fairly small segment of Paul's book, in fact (108-162).
Just a bit more grist for the mill...
--John |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 05:13 pm | | Hi Peter,
I think I should have put emphasis on *tin*. If someone would go to the trouble of engraving *tin* then it would have to be fairly special,...because why whould you engrave tin? If it was special enough to engrave, then it is special enough to keep. And we can't say well maybe he engraved it for the specific purpose of leaving it at the scene, because then it would be likely that it was a recent acquisition and he would be aware that it was empty.
As for the quote you say "Why would Mike hone in on the Crashaw quote? Answer: He isn't any more likely to have done so than Maybrick. " This makes it sound as if the quote itself has some significance outside of the Diary. It doesn't. If I am going to forge something, I want to find a quote to put in there, I pick up a book, it happens to have a binding defect, I open it to that page.."Heh, that's pretty good.." copy it down. Whether Mike was likely to find *that* quote is not the point,...it could have beeen a million other quotes that we would be here discussing.
Cheers,
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 05:56 am | | But Ally, it wasn't a million other quotes. These were two lines by an obscure poet who just happened to have strong links with - not one of a million other places, but a tiny place called Whitechapel. Think about it. The book allegedly falls open at the quote the first time Mike (or Anne) decides to look inside this particular volume for inspiration for the diary. Volume 2 is called 'English Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674'. If the Barretts had the whole set in the attic, I wonder why volume 6 - 'The Victorians' wasn't chosen instead.
I still think the spine of Mike's Sphere Guide probably received most, if not all, of its punishment as a result of him finding the quote there sometime in 1994 and repeatedly staring at it in disbelief - "They won't believe this in a million years - not in a million years." Didn't Mike use words like those on tape to describe his reaction to the discovery?
I agree with RJ if he has changed his mind and is now suggesting that everything we've heard points to Anne knowing something about the diary that Mike doesn't. But does anyone seriously think she could have secretly helped create the diary with a penman who didn't want paying and who could be trusted never to sell his story, dumped it all on an unsuspecting Mike, and to top it all, left the incriminating and defective vol 2 around the house after the cry of 'hoax' went up?
None of it works, does it? Any more than the scenario with Robbie and the watch.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 07:48 am | | Hi Caz,
I really don't know whether we can discern anything by attempting to get at the motivations of the forgers. Asking why they chose a particular volume from the Sphere guides over another is something that we will not be able to detect until our forger is found and explains it themself.
Every aspect of the text takes on a weight proportional to that ascribed to it by the reader. But the text itself is bound to be a mixture of planning enlivened by serendipitious slips of the pen or flashes of inspiration. In every phrase like "tin matchbox empty" or the Crashaw quote, we come up against a more or less insurmountable barrier in terms of reading author motive.
It can either mean that there was a forger who has used a particular source, <i>or equally</i> that the quote is simply a real recollection by a real killer. And, of course, believers see the latter possibility, non-believers see the former.
So I think that we are danger of falling into a rhetorical trap of asking questions like: "but why would x do this?" and "how could x know this?"
Because it cannot be adequately explained by any of us here is not really proof of anything, either way.
On a related tip, some months ago, I posted the story of the clearwater penguin to illustrate the strange mixture of investigative culpability and hoaxer's luck to prove that the ascribed motives and preconceptions about hoaxers very rarely apply...
John O - you'll probably find that Peter's dubious 'scoring' system stems from his years as a Man Utd supporter, who have been performing much the same trick at football grounds up and down this country for many years now. Never mind, on Saturday the mighty Leeds Utd will at least beat the irritating red b****ds!
Cheers,
C |
Author: R.J.P.
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 10:55 am | | | Caz--Hi. I'm not quite saying that I changed my mind. Just doing a little theorizing that might explain some odd details, like the letter you quote. But we do know that Mike has a 'taste' for collecting quotes from unexpected places [Harrison, p281] and Mike even gives an example of this in the tape that has been circulating around--the Colin Dexter bit. So, considering the oddness of the Crashaw quote, and Mike's ability to come up with the Sphere reference, it's pretty reasonable to suggest that that is exactly how it ended up appearing in the Maybrick diary--Mike found this 'snippet' and put it in. But if this is the case, then Mike surely has more inside information he could give us. Unless his signed affidavit is a LOT more accurate than it appears, Mike hasn't done this. If he wants to confess, I think Mike owes us the favor of crossing the t's and dotting the i's. But how many times has he been interviewed? A dozen? Two dozen? Three dozen? He hasn't given us much, and it is doubtful that he ever will. Unless someone comes forward with more 'evidence' I think we've reached the end--a whimper, not a bang. Cheers RP |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 12:50 pm | | Hi RJP
The problem, as you isolated, is that whilst we may assume that Mike knows a lot more than he has said, we have to explain why he never said it when he was desperate to prove the ‘diary’ a forgery.
My difficulty is that Mike was phoning me several times nightly around about the time he confessed to Harold Brough and I am also aware of the answerphone messages he left for Feldy, and I know how ‘desperate’ he actually was to prove the diary a forgery. I therefore find it very difficult to believe that Mike didn’t use anything he had or knew of that would support his claim. And that includes naming whoever the forger, the penman, or whoever, and producing the Sphere book.
As you say, ‘Unless his signed affidavit is a LOT more accurate than it appears’ Mike hasn’t actually ever come up with a coherent and believable narrative of how the ‘diary’ was conceived and executed. Why?
Was it because he genuinely didn’t know? As hard as it is to think that this might be the case, what real factual problems inhibit it? The Sphere book? What else?
On the other hand, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts as you follow through the idea that Mike didn’t know the origin of the ‘diary’. What questions does this theory resolve? What problems does it throw up?
As for a whimper, not a bang, may I suggest that perhaps you are guiding the inquiry towards new and more profitable lines of inquiry. If so, not a bang maybe, but a tremor. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 01:49 pm | | Carps
I had you pegged right, yorkshire born and bred, eh? Your boys are in for a whupping on Saturday and then your manager will crawl the length of the M62 on his hands and knees to take over from Sir Alex Ferguson next season and you'll probably end up with someone like Malcolm Allison!
John Omlor - forever sitting on the fence dear Johnny, you'd better be careful - it could give you piles. If we follow your line of reasoning John we will never decide anything. In light of the recent posts concerning the 'tin match box' I stand by my assertion that it was left there by the murderer of Eddowes. Why? Simply because the diarist accused Abberline of holding something back - and that is the only verifiable detail that was held back. And don't even dream of accusing me of trying to use the diary to prove itself! The tin match box was held back, that has been ascertained. Proven.
As you all well know I was only speculating re: engravings on the match box. Whatever it was that was 'held back' by the police was of some importance to the diarist and possibly held a clue to his identity. Instead of saying what it couldn't have been, try saying what it may have been.
Regarding 'Sir Jim'. John, there is ample documented evidence that James Maybrick was referred to as any of the following: Jim, James, May, Mr James........ there is even a telegraph that PHF discovered which gives his address as 'BRICKMAY'. Therefore it is only reasonable to speculate on entries such as 'Sir Jim' and 'Mibrac'. It will always remain speculation John, that is unless science ever finds a way of nailing a murderer that we can't.
Aah now then John, I see you are really entering into the spirit of things! You think that the diarist has made a mistake by referring to Abberline 'holding back all that he can'? And to back this up you say Abberline wasn't in charge of the investigation into Eddowes' murder.
Well, you are quite possibly correct that Abberline wasn't in charge of that particular investigation - but John, surely you know that police forces do communicate with each other? Especially neighbouring police forces that share the common bond of having a psychopath murdering on their territory.
Then of course you are assuming that the diarist/murderer knew he had crossed the boundary into the area governed by a different police force. It may be different in the States, but over here we don't go in for all that 'boundary' nonsense, if the police here want to go into a neighbouring county to pursue a suspect then they will do it and ask questions later.
And on the subject of 'Abberline' John, what proof have you got that JTR/the diarist/our forger knew Abberline wasn't in charge of the Eddowes' investigation? He may just have assumed it to be the case, due to his ignorance on the boundaries of police divisions. Therefore John our diarist has not made a mistake at all.
John, thanks for pointing out the content of the Sphere guides, but I think my question remains a fair one in so far as Caz has pointed out that one of the volumes covered the Victorians, which surely would have been more attractive to a forger. You see what you want to see, but you won't explain why a forger is more likely to be attracted to the Crashaw quote than Maybrick.
As for the 'tin' match box. Was James Maybrick known to be ostentatious? No, I didn't think so. In fact he was a businessman, and businessmen will always look after the pennies and let the pounds look after themselves. Would you have been more convinced if the match box had been gold plated and stated as being engraved?
There is no anomaly with Maybrick owning a tin match box. None at all. It could have been a present from a poor relation. It might have been a favourite of his. It might not have been his only one, he could have had hundreds of them at home that he bought from that little midget in the red suit! And they might have all been gold plated and engraved with his initials. Who cares? It was tin! Big deal! But you detractors have to find something to argue against...............
John, your listing of 'quotes' from the diary against the 'quotes' from Paul Begg's uncensored facts is tenuous to say the least. But at least it is another volume you can add to the list our forger is supposed to have used.
If we assume Hutchinson's sighting was accurate, then the ripper was in possession of a red handkerchief, why shouldn't the diarist comment on that? What do cachous do? They sweeten the breath! You'd have jumped on the diarist if he'd said "God, her breath smelt of dog food!" Have you got nothing better than that John?
I think Paul Begg, in his posting, has just about dispelled the 'Mike for forger' myth. Mike wasn't a forger anymore than Leeds United are a good footbal team, he just wanted some of the fame or infamy that would go to whoever could prove the diary a forgery. Perhaps Mike believes the diary to be a forgery? I don't know.
Therefore gentlemen you have yet to come up with a reasonably thought out argument against the tin matchbox, 'Sir Jim'and the Crashaw quote.
If the tin match box is really of no significance, why is it in the diary at all? PHF has proven that it was the only item on the police list that was not mentioned in the press. Paul Begg was in on Feldy's research, perhaps you can confirm my above statement, Paul? The tin match box is there for a reason, whether the diary is genuine or not.
Hey, who's keeping score anymore, this game was over a long time ago!
Regards to you all
Peter.
Lord help me if Leeds beat Man U on Saturday. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 02:53 pm | | Hi Peter:
You had better watch it. Jon Smyth is a Yorkshireman and a Leeds fan, too! They will be ganging up on you.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 04:05 pm | | Ganging up on me? Heaven forbid that anyone should even dream of ganging up on me in here!
Cheers
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 07:48 pm | | Hi Peter,
Let's see if I can explain this more clearly.
First, the tin match box:
The match box was found in Eddowes' pocket. It was found when she was searched at the mortuary. There is no mention anywhere in any of the police reports of any initials on it. The Times and The Star, in reports of the murder, both do mention a "matchbox," without saying that it was "tin" or "empty.". Abberline simply did not have the authority to hold anything back in the Eddowes case.
So the diarist was wrong on all counts. And there was no "clue" deliberately left by any killer.
The fact that the diary says there was is completely and utterly irrelevant to our discussion concerning the actual crime scene, since nothing in the diary can be counted as evidence of anything that really happened, since we have no idea when the diary was written or by whom.
Once again, there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world that James Maybrick was ever called "Sir Jim" by anyone or ever called himself that. None. Nothing. And the diary, of course, does not count. You can "speculate" (dream) all you like. That won't produce an ounce of evidence that James was ever called "Sir Jim" anywhere other than in the literary conceit of knighthood in the diary.
That's the record. That's the available evidence.
What you are doing, Peter, is writing fictions.
1.) Maybrick had a matchbox,
2.) it was tin, it had his initials on it,
3.) he left it at the crime scene,
4.) Abberline held it back,
5.) Maybrick called himself "Sir Jim."
Everyone of these claims is not only completely and utterly unsubstantiated, each is also completely unevidenced. Each of these claims represent a fiction built out of desire, but not one of them has any correspondence to any of the evidence. Not one.
You ask me:
"Would you have been more convinced if the match box had been gold plated and stated as being engraved?"
Oh yes. I think if it had been recorded that the matchbox was gold and engraved with the initials JM, I would certainly have considered it solid evidence. But it wasn't. It was an empty, unmarked, tin match box found in the victims' pocket at the mortuary. To think, for some unknown and groundless reason, that this is a clue left by the killer is simply wishful story-telling. Especially considering that even the diary itself never once ever mentions that the match box was left by Maybrick or was a clue. Never. It speaks of a clue vaguely, the way it speaks of everything vaguely and lets the reader do the rest.
And they do. They really do. Watch the fiction grow:
"It could have been a present from a poor relation. It might have been a favourite of his. It might not have been his only one..."
What the hell are you talking about? There is not a single bit of evidence that "it" (an engraved matchbox belonging to Maybrick) ever existed. We are in the world of make-believe and that is no way to conduct a reading of a text, let alone a historical investigation. You have to argue from the reliable evidence (not in the diary) and there is none that posits this alleged engraved matchbox as ever having existed anywhere in any way. It is the stuff of fantasy, and if this is the sort of thing one needs in order to argue in favor of the diary's authenticity, then the case was lost a long time ago.
There is no argument whatsoever that would establish or even suggest that there was any matchbox left by any killer at the scene or that Maybrick ever called himself "Sir Jim" or that he ever read Crashaw.
You have, and I want to be very clear about this, not one single piece of documentary, anecdotal, or even whispered evidence whatsoever, anywhere in the world, of any sort, that James Maybrick ever owned an engraved tin matchbox, that James Maybrick ever called himself "Sir Jim," or that James Maybrick ever read Crashaw.
None.
Not a single piece. Anywhere.
These are fantasies. They have no historical evidence behind them anywhere and therefore they have no significance whatsoever.
And of course, you have not one single piece of documentary, anecdotal, or even whispered evidence whatsoever, anywhere in the world, of any sort, that James Maybrick wrote this diary or was Jack the Ripper. In fact, there is still nothing at all anywhere in the world that in any way links the real James Maybrick to this document. Nothing.
Finally, you ask:
"If the tin match box is really of no significance, why is it in the diary at all?"
Peter, Peter, please read the diary pages again.
The tin match box is there alongside the cigarette case, the knife, the handkerchief, the pawn tickets, the sugar, and the tea. Every one of these items is on the police list. Everyone of these items is in the verse the diarist is writing, in his words about the Eddowes murder.
Simple and obvious conclusion: The diarist was looking at the list of Eddowes' belongings. The list was published in several places and in several forms, all of which included these items, and one of which included that fact that police held stuff back -- so the diarist didn't "know" that either. He just read it -- just like he read the list.
None of this, none of these items, including the matchbox, which is simply listed in the diary just like the other items on the list, demonstrates any hidden knowledge at all and none of it links the writer in any way with the real James Maybrick.
If you actually read the pages, you see that the match box is right there with the other Eddowes stuff. And it is never named as any clue or as being held back anywhere in the diary.
In fact the non-specific nature of the diary's reference to having "left a clue" also allows for the ridiculous speculation that the two inverted v's on Eddowes' cheeks should be moved together to form an 'M' for Maybrick. What? Another creative and wishful Feldmanism.
There is a historical record here and nothing in your post or in Paul's dreams links the real Maybrick to it in any material or reliable way. That is the sad truth, and that is why this diary remains a completely unfounded document with no progress whatsoever made towards any verification (quite the contrary, actually) and a completely and utterly disastrous provenance.
Sorry,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 04:10 am | | Hi All,
Talking of the inverted v's, have you seen the postcard on page 22 of 'Letters From Hell' by Stewart and Keith? It was dated 11th November 1888 and addressed to Kings X Police Station:
'Sir,
Being an accomplice of "Jack the ripper" I am able to tell you that he will sail for "New York" from Liverpool on Thursday next
"L L" Yours truly
M Baynard'
When did the inverted v's first appear in the press? Your question for the weekend. (I don't know the answer, I'm just asking.)
All the argument under the sun, over which late 1980s sources our forger could have used for his funny little game, won't be of any use whatsoever unless we can somehow break Albert Johnson's story. If he and his workmates have not been hiding anything from us about the discovery of those near-invisible Maybrickian scratches on the troublesome timepiece (and there is absolutely no reason for anyone, apart from wishful thinking, to believe they have), I'm afraid our diarist could not have been reading 1987 Fido or 1988 Begg - and we will need to look for other, perhaps much earlier sources.
Now I'm off to regain my sanity. I should have done so a long time ago.
Have fun everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 07:25 am | | Hi Caz,
I'm afraid I won't get Letters from Hell until November 15th, (four days after the "accomplice" sent the letter and, coincidentally, my birthday). But the post card is a hoot.
Important Question -- How did you make those cool inverted V's? That was excellent.
I don't know when reports of the markings appear in the press -- perhaps as part of a summary of the coroner's report. The papers seemed to carry those in each case. I can check the Casebook records later.
You are partially right, of course, that the watch remains a problem unless someone can clearly show us some reliable evidence that the scratches on the watch were made at least after 1987. I say partially, because it is still theoretically possible that the watch and the diary are completely separate items. That there were two separate hoaxers. In which case, the diary could have been written post 1987 by someone completely unaware of the watch, which had been forged (scratched) well before that but which had, for some reason or another, never seen the light of day. That's at least possible.
Of course, our own expectations for order tell us the watch and the diary could not have been created completely separately (two people get the same idea to frame Maybrick for the Ripper murders in hoaxes? Not very likely) -- and that therefore, one was made in response to the other. But which? Since there's no evidence that the Barrett's knew about the Johnsons or the watch, most people, I guess, suppose the diary came first. But this is not a necessity. Not yet.
Still it remains another problem. But now I too am off for the weekend and a golf tournament.
All the best, everyone,
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 09:11 am | | | There are still a few people out there - lacrimae rerum! - who still believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. So to those few I address this: if we came across a definite provable alibi for JM - for example that on the 8th-9th November he was sleeping it off in the drunk tank at Liverpool nick- would you agree that he was innocent, insist that the new evidence was a lie or say: "OK he didn't kill Kelly but he must have killed the others? |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 01:57 pm | | Firstly to Peter Birchwood: This is exactly the evidence that I have been asking John Omlor to produce. Go for it Peter! And remember it's only Barnettites and Tumbletyites who leave victims out of the accepted canon.
John
"Let's see if I can explain this more clearly"
And then, John, you proceed into one of the most unstructured and unclear rambles which you have so far posted in our debates.
Clear it ain't, but it's sure getting to be fun.
Why fun?
Because you're rattled John and you're resorting to the sort of invective that I would have thought beneath you. Still, if you insist on making me appear to say things that I haven't then we must go back over the evidence one more time.
And remember....s-l-o-w-l-y...........
Remember John, the 'engravings' on the match box are a pure figment of my imagination. I was just speculating as to why the diarist may have thought it to be a very good clue. And this part is important John, whether the diary is a forgery or not, I believe that the diarist, whomsoever that may be, was calling attention to the 'tin match box empty' as his 'very good clue'.
And then John you posit that the 'Times' and the 'Star' mention a match box without saying it was 'tin' or 'empty'. So what exactly do you think that proves? Simply that there was a reference to a box amongst Eddowes' possessions. And it may or may not have contained matches. It says 'matchbox' right, not 'box full of matches'. So is there any evidence anywhere for this mention of a box amongst Eddowes' possessions - apart from our obvious suspect, the one which Paul Feldman has proved was held back from the press? Whoops! It's there John! And once again I have been more diligent in my research than the detractors, witness:
1 Tin box containing tea.
1 " " " " containing sugar.
Just accept it John, the diarist is referring to the 'tin match box empty' when he makes claims that Abberline 'held something back'.
"And there was no 'clue' deliberately left by any killer.............the fact that the diary says there was is completely and utterly irrelevant..".
What's that John? You've proved the diary to be a forgery? No, I didn't think so, therefore the diary is not irrelevant, quite the reverse in fact - it is a genuine historical document worthy of debate as to it's provenance. You're welcome to join in any time you choose, John.
"Once again there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere that Maybrick was called 'Sir Jim'".
Well, apart from Trevor Christie's records, maybe not. But I have produced solid proof that Maybrick was called other things besides plain old 'James Maybrick', i.e. Jim, May, etc etc. So it is only fair that we should be allowed to speculate on other forms of his name. That apart I could always return to the Trevor Christie papers.............
John, I didn't ever say that the killer had an empty tin match box and left it at the scene of the Eddowes murder, but the fact is that there was one there. The police drew attention to it by omitting it from the list of items given to the press. And the diarist drew attention to it. Therefore it becomes fair game for people like me to speculate on it.
No evidence that Maybrick ever read Crashaw? Thank God for that! I didn't ever say there was, and I have no interest in that being proven either way. By the way John, we have no proof that James Maybrick ever went to the toilet, but he probably did.
And then John to cap it all, and as part of your answer to Caz, you write this:
"I don't know when the reports of the markings appear in the press--perhaps as part of a summary of the coroners report".
So now we have the ludicrous situation where John Omlor is allowed to speculate (perhaps), and I'm not?
There is very little factually speaking which pertains to the identity of the Whitechapel murderer, so consequently we speculate John. It's what we do. It's why we are here. In short it's called theories.
I hope your golf is better than your Ripper debating and remember to take two pairs of trousers with you - just in case you get a hole in one.
Best regards
Peter
P.S. Chris George - do you see why I enjoy this so much now?! |
Author: R.J.P.
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 03:40 pm | | To Paul Begg--Hello. Thanks for the response. My speculations are based on the assumption that the Maybrick diary is a recent forgery; I'm not too interested in exploring other possibilities. That said, I don't think it does me much good not to ask 'tough questions' about my own theory, and to see where it might falter. So here's some potential problems.
As noted, there is Mike's inability to give a compelling confession. Harold Brough, Richard Bark-Jones, many others have made note of this. It might be dangerous, though, to assume that this necessarily means that Mike doesn't know the origins of the diary. One factor I have to consider is that Mike might be protecting somebody. Another is that Mike might have had a very real fear of criminal prosecution back in 1994-95. The Scotland Yard investigation was still fresh in his mind. So, even if he wanted very badly to 'derail' Feldman, he might have been astute enough to realize that a bogus confession would have achieved as much harm as a 'real' confession--without the risk of incriminating himself with evidence that was 'proveable' in court. [Now, I don't know. Perhaps this doesn't seem like a very satisfactory explanation to you & the others that actually listened to Mike at the time. But it seems like a possibility.]
The weakness of this, as I see it, is that I might have to eventually concede that Mike never 'proved' his case to Alan Gray either. On the other hand, he might have, and we're all just waiting for the story to break. The trouble is, that I'm not sure exactly why Mike was still working with Gray in 1995--and why he needed Gray to help him "prove" the diary was a forgery. Because, with my limited knowledge, this seems like a very odd situation. If Mike knew precisely where the diary came from, he wouldn't have needed Gray's help, would he? Caroline Morris has quoted a private letter from Mike to Anne. Let me, one more time, put up the Gray letter that Shirley Harrison has already published [dated 15 Oct 1996]:
Be assured that if we can possibly prove without a doubt where you brought the Diary from I can almost gaurantee you will make 'money'. I have a National Newspaper ready to do business BUT we must get the evidence that will support you.
It doesn't take much imagination to assume that this is the same National newspaper that had the reporters that tracked down Kane. The big question is whether or not the lure of 'money' is what made Mike spill this story to Gray or whether this was something that the investigation "discovered"...that Mike needed Gray's help in 'discovering' the truth. From the context of the letter, it certain appears that the former is true--that Mike is telling Gray and not the other way around.
Problems. Prior to Mike's sworn affidavits in Jan 1995, Gray had Mike lodge the Sphere book with his solicitor. But the Sphere book speaks to composition of the diary. And that's how Mike used it in his confession. This makes sense to me: the prior ownership of the book might suggest that Mike and/or Anne used it to compose the Maybrick diary. But how does this exactly fit with the later idea of Mike being a mere handler as might be suspected by Gray's 15 October statement "if you can prove without a doubt from where you brought the Diary "?
So is it at least POSSIBLE to assume from what is currently available in the public arena, that Mike was feeding Alan Gray two contradicting stories? And also, that in the letter that Caroline quotes, that Mike was suggesting a third provenance, ie., that it came from Anne?
How does it all fit together? Or does it? Or are all of Mike's stories just a great heap of nonsense? If your suspicions that Mike never knew the true provenance are correct...where does this lead if I refuse to except the 'Sphere' as a coincidence? Might all the facts still fit together somehow, as unlikely as it seems?
I don't know. But to answer this, I think the first thing I would try to find out is who exactly the "A. Graham" is on Tony's will.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 04:17 pm | | Hi, Peter:
I think you are getting carried away at the supposed significance of the tin match box.
A number of the newspapers published a list of items recovered with Catherine Eddowes' body but not as a list, just as part of the article. It would only be in a list such as a police list where things would be definitively given piece by piece. I think you and Feldman are making the assumption that the "tin match box, empty" was kept back, but there could be other reasons why it is not given in the newspapers. Reporters may simply have left it out.
Here is a list of articles found on the body of Annie Chapman as reported in The Times of 15 September 1888:
"On being searched perhaps one of the most extraordinary accumulation of articles were discovered--a heap of rags, comprising pieces of dress fabrics, old and dirty linen, two purses of a kind usually used by women, two or three pocket handkerchiefs, one a comparatively clean white one, and a white one with a red spotted border; two small tin boxes [emphasis mine], a small cardboard box, a small leather strap, which might serve the purpose of a garterstring, and one spring onion. The person to whom this curious assortment belongs is slightly built, about 5ft. 7in. or 5ft. 8in. in height, and dressed shabbily."
If we want to get really hypothetical, Peter, why not prognosticate that the "two small tin boxes" found on the body of Annie Chapman were planted by Maybrick too? The point is that these women were street women, bag women, and they needed containers like tin boxes to carry their stuff around with them. So rather than think that Maybrick might have planted the tin match box on Eddowes or left it at the murder scene, it is more probable to be true that the box was one she already owned and carried round with her as she walked the streets.
One other aside, you theorize, without basis, that the tin match box had initials engraved on it. Presumably you mean, again without basis, Maybrick's initials, "J.M." Might I remind you that Maybrick's alleged gold watch has the initials "J.O." on it not "J.M."!!!!
Best regards
Chris George
P.S. What about that spring onion then? What would we have done if it had not been a spring onion but a sprig of may, hey, hey?  |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 04:36 pm | | Hi Peter,
I must reply too quickly, as I am pressed for time. (It's cute, by the way, that you think I'm somehow "rattled" and that my last post was "unstructured." I think I'll let it stand as is, in any case.)
You write:
"Remember John, the 'engravings' on the match box are a pure figment of my imagination.
Yes, and so is the idea that Maybrick left any matchbox at the scene and the idea that Maybrick ever called himself "Sir Jim" and the idea that Maybrick ever read any Crashaw and the idea that Maybrick didn't know what his famous brother did for a living and the idea that Maybrick ever killed anybody and the idea that Maybrick wrote any Ripper letters and the idea that Maybrick wrote this diary.
You write:
"And then John you posit that the 'Times' and the 'Star' mention a match box without saying it was 'tin' or 'empty'. So what exactly do you think that proves?"
It proves that the existence of the matchbox was not "held back" from the press. It proves that two papers list a matchbox as among Eddowes' possessions. Check out the Times from October 1st, for instance, over on the Casebook.
You then write:
"Just accept it John, the diarist is referring to the 'tin match box empty' when he makes claims that Abberline 'held something back'."
A.) The diary never says this at all. It remains utterly vague as to the "clue" and what Abberline supposedly held back and it is you who are saying the clue is some matchbox -- the diary makes no such claim.
B.) If the diary did make such a claim, it would be wrong. The matchbox was not held back, not by Abberline (who couldn't have anyway) or anyone. And there is certainly no evidence that any matchbox was found anywhere other than in Eddowes' pocket at the mortuary and the press listed that one. Anything else is yet another figment.
And what the diary says about it is completely unusable and worthless as evidence of anything at all, because the diary remains completely and utterly unverified.
And, Peter, there is no record anywhere, including in Trevor Christie's documents, that Maybrick was ever called "Sir Jim" or ever knew anything about ever being called "Sir Jim" or ever called himself "Sir Jim." The only place where we have any record whatsoever of any "James Maybrick" ever being called "Sir Jim" is in the diary (and as another figment of your imagination). And since the James Maybrick in the diary remains as of yet a completely fictional character, despite being loosely derived from a historical one, that simply doesn't count as evidence.
You then write:
"No evidence that Maybrick ever read Crashaw? Thank God for that! I didn't ever say there was, and I have no interest in that being proven either way. By the way John, we have no proof that James Maybrick ever went to the toilet, but he probably did."
Peter, I do hope this is not meant to imply that it is just as likely that the real James Maybrick read Crashaw as it is that he went to the toilet. And if it's not meant to imply that, then it is a completely invalid comparison and therefore utterly useless.
You then cite me saying to Caz:
"I don't know when the reports of the markings appear in the press--perhaps as part of a summary of the coroners report".
And you criticize me for speculating. I was hoping you would notice this. I can now clearly demonstrate the difference between what we do.
There are several cases of actual documented evidence, historical evidence, wherein the coroner's reports are cited in the papers. I have that evidence. It's even over on the Casebook. I can cite the dates and papers and page numbers even. Therefore, my speculation is based on reliable historical precedent and material evidence.
You claim (or "speculate" as you say) that James Maybrick had a tin match box and left it at the Eddowes murder as a clue and that he called himself "Sir Jim" and that he didn't know what his brother did for a living and that he quoted Crashaw in his diary and that he killed prostitutes and that he wrote Ripper letters.
The problem is, unlike me, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, either historical, material, documentary or even anecdotal, to support any of these claims. Not a single piece of material evidence exists in favor of even a single one of these "figments of your imagination." This is not speculation, this is fiction writing. I speculated to Caz based on recorded and verifiable documentary and historical evidence. You speculate here based on nothing at all except wish-fulfillment, since you cannot point to one single solitary piece of material or reliable evidence that shows that the real Maybrick ever had any such matchbox, ever called himself "Sir Jim," ever quoted Crashaw, was mistaken about his brother's occupation, ever wrote any Ripper letters, ever wrote a diary, ever killed anyone.
You can't Peter. Try. Just one piece. Just to link it to the real Maybrick. But there is none. Because the real, historical James Maybrick remains, after years and years, completely and utterly unlinked to this diary in any way, shape or form. That is why you are reduced to dreaming dreams and writing fictions like the ones listed above. But that is not the way to undertake to prove a historical case.
And so, the case that James Maybrick had anything at all to do with diary remains completely unfounded.
Historical speculation is one of the things we do, Peter, of course. But it has to be based on at least one or two pieces of the record. And here nothing you have advanced as possibly linking the real Maybrick to this document is in any way, shape, or form, based on any real record whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the provenance for the diary continues to suck.
Now I am off to dinner.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 07:34 pm | | But John, you forgot to say how the game of golf went!!!
The reason I have no historical evidence to back up the claims I make for the diary is that you, dear John, refuse outright to accept any of Paul Feldman's or Shirley's evidence.
For instance John we have the problem of the handwriting. You (the detractors)jumped on this as proof positive that Maybrick could not have written the diary as the handwriting contained within it did not match his own, and yet you withhold mention that the diary handwriting does not match with the handwriting of any of the supposed forgers either.
Yes, John, the handwriting has always been a problem. But not as much of a problem as you would have us believe. Put simply we all have different hands, formal, informal, casual etc etc. And therefore it would bother me more if the diary matched the handwriting of JM's will exactly.
I don't expect the handwriting to match exactly. And yet when PHF produced a letter signed by someone claiming to be the Ripper you argue against it on the grounds that it was not signed Jack The Ripper! Just 'the ripper'! And yet that letter showed a clear connection to one written by James Maybrick.
There is also a resemblance between the Galashiels letter (quoted above) and the diary. Shirley Harrison even quotes Bill Waddell, a former curator of Scotland Yard Black Museum and a man with a lifetime's experience of forgery as saying they are one and the same.
Pretty strong words John.
Then there is Maybrick's 'natural' handwriting discovered in the bible given to Sarah Anne, which also matches the handwriting of other ripper documents.
But you will argue against it, as you always do. And yet the connection is there. Hannah Koren's analysis of the likely psychology of the diarist is easily shoved to one side by saying it also accurately portrays Mike Barrett. But does it? And does anyone here seriously think Mike wrote the diary? Mike can't prove it!
I have studied some of the letter formations myself on Maybrick's letters and letters allegedly sent by JTR, and the resemblances are there for all to see. Sue Iremonger argued that a person will always retain certain characteristics in their writing even if they think they are trying to disguise it, even if they write with their other hand. Those characteristics are there.
I don't think that after 113 years anyone really expects 'proof final' that the diary was written by Maybrick and I am sure that even if the diary writing matched the will exactly, you would put forward an argument that it was just a good copy.
So the writing argument hangs in the balance. You say it doesn't match Maybrick's, I say it does match some of Maybrick's, but none of the other supposed forgers, Mike, Anne etc etc.
The tin match box. Ahhh, that so small an article could cause such trouble. John, all I want to say on this little artefact is that attention is brought to it in the diary for a reason. Even if the diary is proven to be a forgery I will stand by my claim that the diarist/forger was referring to the 'tin match box' when talking about Abberline 'holding things back'.
And we have already been through the argument of why Maybrick would have seen Abberline as the leader of the investigation. Let me give you a good example, even though his name eludes me for now, the detective who was in charge of the Yorkshire Ripper murders in the late 1970's/early 1980's was a Yorkshireman and for argument's sake we will call him 'Bill'.
Sutcliffe didn't just murder in Yorkshire though, he murdered in several different counties, one of his murders was in the car park of the Manchester Royal Infirmary which, as we speak, is about five miles away from me as the crow flies. To get there from Yorkshire Sutcliffe would have had to exit the motorway for Manchester and pass within 100 yards of my house. Anyway, back to Bill.
Bill made it his aim to catch Sutcliffe, even to the detriment of his health. His name was everywhere. Every newspaper. Every T.V. report. Even now, when Sutcliffe has been banged up for 20 years, the latest T.V. account of the Yorkshire Ripper murders refers to just one police officer in charge - that's right, our Bill.
So it is not unreasonable to expect that Maybrick or the Ripper should fix his attention on Abberline as representing the embodiment of the establishment, especially as his murders were so close together. I do think that your argument on that score is very weak.
Again John, 'Sir Jim' is in the diary for a reason, and if the diary is proven to be a forgery then I fully expect our forger to confess that he got the idea by looking at Trevor Christie's notes. But because you and I both know that it is impossible for a forger to have seen those notes you choose to ignore the validity of my argument regarding 'Sir Jim'. And yet we know he was called 'Sir James' by a servant and we know he was called many things and not just 'James Maybrick'. We know he played games with his names, we know he travelled to America and we can't find his name on the passenger lists, so what name do you think he travelled by? Diego Laurenz perhaps?
There is absolutely no reliable evidence to suggest that in order for Maybrick to quote a few words of Crashaw in his diary he must therefore have been a scholar of obscure baroque poetry. It's just a few words John. I could quote you a few words from a Lennon/McCartney song, it doesn't mean I study them (as it happens I think they were very over rated, but that's a different board, a different time - apologies to CTG).
The provenance for the diary continues to suck? Why don't you just come straight out with it and accuse Anne Graham of being a liar? Could it be that the Americans, being a notoriously litigious race of people, know full well the consequences of making unfounded accusations. Anne has given the diary a provenance back to the 1960's, her father to the 1940's. PHF has done a remarkable job bringing together the strands of the story, but whether or not he is right on the illegitimate children and the relationship of Albert Johnson to the Maybricks, you have to accept that if Anne Graham is telling the truth then the diary is most likely genuine, and if she is not telling the truth then you should come out and say so, and not hide behind tin match boxes.
For the record Anne, I believe you are telling the truth.
There is the possibility that Anne is telling the truth and that the diary could be an old forgery, but that makes it even more difficult for you detractors to cope with, even though the scientific evaluation of the ink would point to this as being your only way out. The reason it makes it difficult for you is because of the modern tomes you believe our 'forger' used to compile his masterpiece, and yet when he writes something which isn't in one of those books you dismiss it with a cursory 'can't be verified, therefore it ain't worth jack'.
I dangle the occasional tit bit in front of you, but you choose not to eat. I threw in my supposition that 'Mrs Hammersmith' could have been related to 'T.A. Hamer' who attended Maybrick's funeral, I will even concede that if the diary is a forgery then it is possible he created his Hammersmith character around T. A. Hamer, but no - you choose not to go there.
The fact is John that the diary does exist and you have in no way at all even remotely proven it to be a forgery. Naturally there are concerns with it, but we would expect that. Look at the handwriting again John, I think you will be pleasantly surprised - or perhaps not, as the case may be.
And to all of you - I throw in now the question of the 17 September letter.
It is a fact that the diarist refers to an earlier correspondence with the Central News Agency than the 25 September letter which has for years been thought to be the first document sent by the Ripper. Then PHF uncovered the 17 September letter and at the time that the diary was published only six people in the whole world knew of that particular letter. Come on John, even you must accept that the diarist was referring to that when he talks of sending Central another. What about you Chris? Are you going to say the 17 September letter has to be a forgery, because it doesn't fit in with your story? Carps? R.J?
The fact is that the 17 September letter exists and although John will argue that we can't prove the diarist referred to it, he will not be able to explain why the 'forger' would muddy his own waters by 'inventing' an earlier correspondence to the 25 September letter and then, what do you know, we actually find an earlier correspondence!
John, I stand by my arguments, even if they are not rock solid evidence as you would like. But, as PHF says in his book, there comes a time when circumstantial evidence is no longer circumstantial.
You come up with no name for a forger.
You can't tell me when it was forged.
You can't properly explain away Sir Jim and treble event. No, not even the tin match box.
I hope you enjoyed dinner.
Regards
Peter.
P.S.Man Utd play Leeds Utd at 11:30 a.m. our time tomorrow, so depending on the result you may never hear from me again.......or you may never be able to get rid of me. \ |
Author: MaryLynn McCloskey
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 01:20 am | | | Im sorry, I just have to comment: Americans are all races of people and I happen to be your race. My family came to the U.S. in 1914. Now I'm a different RACE from you? |
|
|
|
|
