|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 24, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through April 24, 2000
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 11:01 am |        | They say you can judge the value of an argument by the nature of its supporters.
I always thought that was a little sweeping.
Until now.
Mark dear, you are being treated with respect - try to show a little in return.
And _do_ work on that syntax - otherwise your harangues tend to start looking like those letters sent to newspapers by people who live alone and talk to themselves in libraries about how everyone is out to get them.
Not good for general credibility
Karoline |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 11:27 am | | Mark
You are a crusader! You say you don't believe in the bible, your bible is the diary. That was what I was implying, and you have proven it again with your last post. I back up CMD, totally.
As far as I know a defendent has to be proven guilty (otherwise we resolve back to the witch hunts). Maybrick wouldn't even have to appear in court, with solely the diary as proof. Every prosecutor would encourage investigators to search for hard back-up material that will stand on its own. That is what we are trying to do, and so far not any has come up.
You accuse us of denying the diary because it interferes with our pet-suspects. I don't even have a suspect. And I haven't come accross one of which I haven't a lot of doubts.
This is my last post on the subject, until you are willing to debate facts. Take an example of Simon, Leanne, Caz and so many others who have their opinions and beliefs (that sometimes go against the majority opinion of the message boardmembers), but they try to back them up with factual material. Fine heated discussions it are, and often enough they can make the majority wonder "I hadn't thought about that, well maybe they have a point". |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 11:33 am | | Karoline,
Im sorry my English isnt better.
This is what happens when youve spent the last 22 years in Germany.
Ive lostt all contact with English speakers.
Its been nearly 20 odd years since last speaking the language.
Respect isnt laughing at people who think the Diary is real.
Please dont forget, I am not a Historian or forensic Scientist.
I respect everyones right to their own opinion.
Maybe some of you should start doing the same.
Its pretty hard for someone like me(Salesman) to voice an opinion when you know that everyone is trying to prove you wrong.
I dont mind if you think Im wrong.But when everyone things your wrong it starts getting ugly.
Dont only point your finger at me karoline.
look at some of the things written in the last few days.
e.g. Simons sarcasm ( even if he makes it seem nice).
Even if I believed in the Sickert story, it gives no one the right feel important or "Überheblich"
I dont know the English word for it Im afraid.
If not agreeing with all of you is disrespect, then call me what you want.That is no reason for me to think any different.
If I have been rude or anything, then I am sorry.
It wasnt meant to be that way.
Hope you understand Karoline
Mark |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 11:40 am | | Jill
I hope the message I just posted ( to Karoline)
helps clear things up a bit.
You want me to prove the Diary is real....I cant do that you know.
But there is still more than meets the eye.
I will keep my mouth shut if it will keep the peace.
bye again
Mark |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 12:46 pm | | Karoline:
Do you realise that confessing to reading the Observer is only one step away from confessing that you forged "The Diary of Florence Nightingale?"
As Chris George has already said, the author of the History Today piece is Bill Rubinstein, Professor of this Parish. I have tried to get hold of him but he's well protected by his secretary. I understand that at one point he became enthusiastic about a letter quoted in Feldy's book addressed to the Liverpool Echo and signed "Diego Laurenz" (p294) He was under the impression that Diego was the Spanish equivalent of James (it isn't) and that the letter was from Maybrick. Hopefully he's taken that out. It'll be interesting to see the article. I understand that he's submitted stuff (sorry!) on the Kennedy assasination before: this is just a progression.
Assuming that Bill's article doesn't come up with important information showing conclusively that Maybrick was JtR, I think a rebuttal would be reasonable. If it's ok with CMD let's do it.
(How about: "We are such stuff as dreams are made on..." W. Shakespeare.)
Caroline Anne:
I am beginning to have the awful feeling that you actually believe that the diary has been in Graham family possession for many years. Can this be true?
As to Keith's letter, he has never denied its existence but I really think that you need to contact him in order to get a copy of it. The reason that I'm not putting the whole letter on the internet is that I believe that although I am justified in using pieces from it that help to explain the situation at that time, the whole letter should only be published with the agreement of its writer. I have no reason to believe that Keith would deny that agreement: in a letter to me dated 3/9/1998 he says: "I have absolutely no reservations about sharing correspondence, as long as it can be assessed in context, because, it seems to me, direct contact and openness is a prerequisite in trying to determine the truth." I'm still surprised that you could have assumed from what I wrote that I believed that Keith had any part in the writing of the Diary.
The passing of ownership of the diary is as far as I am concerned, a mystery. I have seen a copy of the agreement signed by both Barretts and (I believe) Robert Smith and the company involved was names "Beststart Ltd.," which has the appearance of an off-the-shelf company name. Why it was done, I don't know but maybe someone out there does. All it tells me is that both Barretts were prepared to act together on diary matters although they had been separated pretty finally for over four months by then. You really seem to be getting obsessive about poor old Keith: I really don't see him as the eminence gris behind the whole diary affair. I do thaink that he believes the Anne Graham story about the origin of the diary but whether he actually believes it to be the true confession of James Maybrick is something else.
Concerning the Formby story, it's probable that Keith never found the census entries for the family. I don't think the 1881 census was surname-indexed at the time he did the research.
Lastly, in my extensive genealogical researches concerning the diary, I have come across an ancestor of Mike Barrett in 1888 who was an agricultural worker in Ireland named John Barrett who was commonly called, during harvest time: "Jack the Reaper." He was, of course, a Cereal Killer.
Peter. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 06:18 pm | | Dear Mark, All
I'm not a historian or professional researcher neither, I neither have I primar reference material in hands. So I'm much in the same position as you.
You do not have to 'shut' up and you do not have to stop believing Maybrick was JTR. Actually I believe we were constantly inviting you to discuss the FM and other writings of the diary on a serious tone. And I still invite you to it.
You can for example investigate the worth of the allegations of the diary, by discussing them murder by murder perhaps on the victims board, and then find out what still stands, and what not. Take what is left, and then ponder for its answers yourself. Or mention what material is needed to answer the problem. And take the risk to be 'shot' down once in a while.
Maybe we cannot (by time or location) go in search for this material ourselves, but we can at least help other researchers to look into possibilities. Do not keep the diary as faith, bacause of time-lack or profession. You have a mind of your own. Use it.
With respect,
Jill |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 06:24 pm | | | PS: I hope I'm not 'shot' down by you all, because of an invitation to spread the allegations of the diary all over the board now. (the 'Devil's' at work in me now, the beer that is, grin) |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 06:54 pm | | Hi Jill,
Thanx for bringing me back down to earth.
what happens if you trap a dog in the corner?
He starts barking like a madman.
Im sorry, Im afraid I started biting too.
Didnt mean it.
Maybe I ve been brought up different.
I was taught to weigh up my facts before making a decision.And that is what I was doing.Weighing up all I have and trying to come up with an answer.
I always thought there had to be an answer to everything.obviously I want to find an answer in my lifetime.
I am not what one would call a Ripperologist, I dont have access to all the information I need here in Germany.Ive read many books,spent long nights up studying,tv, etc etc, but there comes a time when the material starts getting a little low.
Thats where I stop thinking logic and start looking in areas where logic cant help me anymore.
Many questions have been answered this way.
It came to a point where I said (to myself) diary speaks the truth.Nothing else seemed to make sense anymore.
Someone pointed out my "syntax" mistakes.
When I wrote this afternoon (response to simons message),I was writing from the bottom of my gut.
I probably got over emotional and started to fling some indirect insults around.Thats where things started to get mixed up and spekkings mistakes started to crop up.
This is a style I found often in the diary.The mood changes too often.This is not something typical for a hoaxer.Most of the diarys mistakes happen when the emotions are cooking high.
His jealousy was his greatest enemy.
When he thought about His wife possibly having sex with Brierly, his emotions started to play tricks with his imagination and the result is written in the diary.
These are justsome examples of what I think contributes to it being authentic
Now that I ve been shot down(he he) I ll try to keep my flag flying.....ok?
Mark the Crusader |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 19 April 2000 - 07:35 am | | Hi All,
Before I leave you all to your Maybrick witch hunts and dead horse flogging, for the more pleasurable pursuits of hot cross bun scoffing and ma-in-law entertaining, I’ll do my best to keep this last post as short and to the point as possible (ha ha).
Simon,
For further info on that period diary, why not ask Peter Birchwood nicely for the results of the investigation, or better still, check it out for yourself under: General Discussion: Misc.: Cloak & Dagger Gasbags, at the end of July 1999.
While Anne seems to have co-operated with producing proof of this purchase, it’s a great pity we don’t have similar proof from Mike for the purchase of the scrapbook in which THE diary was written. The dead horses should have rested in peace a long while back.
Mark,
Peter wrote: ‘There is no reason to believe that the historical James Maybrick was "near death." If he was, there would presumably be no motive for Florrie to poison him. Only the diary implies that he was on his last legs.’
Well, far be it from me to preach about going back to primary sources, but why don’t we get it straight from the horse’s mouth (yeah, that same dead one being flogged)?
Page 360 of Feldman gives us a letter from James to brother Michael, the content of which rather tends to show James’ own feelings on the subject: ‘Yesterday morning [28th April 1889] I felt more like dying than living so much so that Florry called in another Doctor….’ He goes on to suggest only a postmortem will tell future generations what caused his illness. It reminds me of the old joke about the hypochondriac’s epitaph: "I told you I wasn’t well."
Christopher-Michael,
I do hope you are still reading, even though you have decided not to contribute further.
Loved your little drama, can we make it into a best-seller, with me in the role of hapless forger?
Seriously though, we have a living breathing primary source for those "constantly changing stories" in Anne Graham herself, so perhaps we should not need to rely so heavily on secondary sources? I can’t prove she hasn’t changed her story constantly, it is up to you to prove she has, if that is what you are asking us to believe, from what you have read in her statements. (Funny that, I’ve just used the old onus of proof thingy again, hopefully in a way which meets with general approval.) The only change I have read concerning the diary’s origins is that, until July 1994, Anne was not claiming any knowledge prior to Mike’s arrival home with it in 1991. From July 1994 it ‘became’ an old family possession which she gave to Mike via Devereux. I can’t remember reading any more of Anne’s statements which show deviation from this. Her reasons for her actions are what we need to probe further, because they are unclear and illogical as things stand.
But I would need more proof before I brand her a forger and criminal from the evidence I’ve been shown thus far.
But if I have missed anything, perhaps you or Peter, who may have seen more than I have of Anne’s testimony, could remind me or bring new evidence into this discussion. I do like to have it out in the open (Simon’s fnarr fnarr).
Peter,
It would be far more productive to explore the real possibilities of Anne or Mike creating the diary, rather than to explore in any depth what I, you or an unruly rabble of dead horse floggers believe. All our beliefs will become redundant as soon as they are replaced by proof.
If Keith Skinner himself has ‘no reservations about sharing correspondence, as long as it can be assessed in context’, then I cannot understand how this tallies with what you have done. You say the whole letter should not be published without the writer’s agreement (very honourable, but unnecessary according to Keith’s own words), yet you have taken a piece out of its broader context, leaving us unable to assess it for ourselves, which is precisely what Keith had reservations about!
‘I’m still surprised that you could have assumed from what I wrote that I believed that Keith had any part in the writing of the Diary.’
Could you tell me exactly where I made this assumption please?
Or are you assuming my assumption? Again, we are getting bogged down in exploring each other’s beliefs instead of getting anything productive from our efforts.
Do you have any more inside knowledge to add to your original revival of the dead horse back in January? If so, is it unreasonable of me to ask you about it? Is there any reason not to ‘spill your guts’, as David Radka so elegantly puts it? Or is there really nothing up your sleeve which can help us link Anne or Mike conclusively with the creation of the diary or watch?
I’d appreciate other people’s comments as to whether I’m wrong to be asking any of the questions left unanswered here. Peter’s reason for starting the discussion was to ‘recap’ for new posters who may not have read a lot of the earlier stuff. Well, looking at the latest postings, what do people think the recap has achieved?
Happy Easter everyone!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 19 April 2000 - 12:20 pm | | Hi, all:
Now available on line is the pro-Maybrick Diary article by Professor William D. Rubinstein on "The Hunt for Jack the Ripper" in the May 2000 issue of History Today. Go to http://www.historytoday.com/article/article.cfm?article_id=1679
And yes, Peter, the part you wished Rubinstein had not included in the final published article about the Jack the Ripper letter to the Liverpool Echo is included.
Rubinstein states:
'The case that Maybrick was the Ripper is strong even without the diary. Perhaps the most striking evidence for this is to be found in a number of unknown letters discovered by Paul Feldman from Liverpool sources. On October 9th, 1888, the Liverpool Echo printed a story (based on a letter it had received) that Jack the Ripper was about to strike in Dublin. The following day the same newspaper published the following, written on a postcard:
'I beg to state that the letters published in yours of yesterday are lies. It is somebody gulling the public. I am the Whitechapel purger. On 13th, at 3pm, will be on Stage, as am going to New York. But will have some business before I go.
Yours Truly,
Jack the Ripper DIEGO LAURENZ
(Genuine)
'Feldman asks "What does Diego Laurenz mean? I have no idea. Is it a clue?" In my opinion, indeed it is – arguably the most important clue that we have. "Diego" is Spanish for James, while "Laurenz" is meant to rhyme with "Florence". If this is what it means, then this constitutes virtual proof that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.'
As Peter states, and presumably is correct in saying, Diego is not Spanish for "James" -- and as for "Laurenz" rhyming with "Florence"? Isn't that a stretch? As mentioned before by me, there were upwards of 2,000 obviously mostly hoax letters allegedly sent by the Ripper from numerous postal areas in the United Kingdom and abroad--all in different handwriting--so there is no reason to think these particular letters are authentic.
The other thing that Rubinstein appears to identify as positive proof that Maybrick was the Ripper is a notation found by Keith Skinner in the Trevor Christie archive in Wyoming which indicates that Maybrick may have called himself "Sir Jim" or "Sir Jack":
'. . . the diary appears to contain information that is virtually impossible for any recent forger to have known. In particular, Maybrick often refers to himself in the diary as "Sir Jim" or "Sir Jack". In 1993, the researcher Paul Feldman, who has done more than anyone else to investigate the diary, found that in the summer of 1888 the Maybricks had as their guest an eight-year-old American girl, Florence Aunspaugh, the daughter of a business friend of James. In 1941-42, following Florence Maybrick's death, Trevor Christie, a New York journalist, conducted a correspondence with Aunspaugh, then aged sixty-two and living in Dallas, as background material for the book he was writing on the Florence Maybrick poisoning case. Neither Christie nor Aunspaugh had any idea that Maybrick might have been the Ripper. In 1970 Christie's widow deposited the Aunspaugh correspondence in the American Heritage Center in the University of Wyoming at Cheyenne. Feldman sent Keith Skinner, an eminent authority on the Ripper case, to photostat the whole Aunspaugh files. Buried in a long, handwritten, unpublished letter there, Florence Aunspaugh recalled that Alice Yapp had said "she certainly would be glad when that damned little American left Battlecrease . . . she did not see why Sir James (Mr Maybrick) ever brought me there any way." (Aunspaugh also recalled in 1941-42 that "a current of mystery seemed to circulate all around" at Battlecrease, and that Maybrick, though charming, had a "morose, gloomy disposition and extremely high temper" and was an "arsenic addict [who] craved it like a narcotic fiend.") There is no evidence that anyone read these papers prior to Skinner and Feldman. There are three possible explanations: the forger made use of an unpublished source in an obscure archive; that by sheer chance the forger hit upon the unusual nickname actually used by Maybrick in his own household; or that the diary is authentic, or at least written by someone completely familiar with the secrets of the Maybrick family.'
A lucky guess on the part of the hoaxer? As lucky perhaps as the writer of the Saucy Jacky postcard writer when he (or she) "predicted" the Double Event?
I leave it to everyone here to read the article by Rubinstein. However, for me personally, I don't think Professor Rubinstein produces the necessary goods to justify an article that declares that proof exists that James Maybrick was the Whitechapel murderer.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 19 April 2000 - 01:46 pm | | Hi all:
Yes I should clarify that the Aunspaugh correspondence indicates that Maybrick referred to himself as "Sir James." It is the Diary that uses the terms "Sir Jack" and "Sir Jim."
Chris |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 19 April 2000 - 01:53 pm | | Caroline Anne:
James Maybrick was "a healthy man of fifty" ("Famous Trials" Earl of Birkenhead) at the end of March 1889 although he was known by his doctors to be a hypochondriac. He took various drugs throughout his adult life in the belief that they were tonics. These drugs probably included arsenic but may have been taken in homeopathic strengths.In April he went to London to stay with his brother Michael. While he was there he was told that Florrie had written to Michael to say that her husband was taking strychnine, something which James said was a "damned lie."
Shortly after his return to Liverpool, Florrie bought flypapers which contained arsenic. On the 27th April he vomited but then went to a race-meeting where he got very wet. He was certainly very ill on that day and on the 28th, which is shown by the letter Caz has quoted. He did however improve later on the 28th and by the 1st May was well enough to return to work. However, by this time Florrie had bought more flypapers and her subsequent trial showed that Maybrick's lunch for the 1st and 2nd of May, which was prepared at his home and ate at his office contained arsenic.
So my evidence that Maybrick was not at the time of the Ripper murders "near death" is based on doctors opinions that although he consulted his doctors pretty often, he was actually in good health for a man of his years. His health only deteriorated from April 27th to his death on 10th May.
Regarding Keith's letter to Anne, I've already said what my opinion is. You are certainly on better terms with Keith Skinner, Paul Begg and Shirley Harrison than I am at the moment: ask if you can see it and get permission to publish it.
Let me quote from your earlier piece:
"On the face of it I can't see why Feldy would feel the need to keep quiet about Keith's efforts to check on Anne's family background. It seems like a logical step to take, since you say that Mike and Tony's family trees had been scoured for Maybrick links. I do hope I'm not readinganything too sinister into all this, but as you say, it was Keith who alerted Feldy to Morland's Mrs Graham, Keith who went to the trouble of getting Anne's phone number withoutreference to Feldy, and Keith who made it his business to write to Anne about her family! So what was going on? Have you reason to believe there was collusion between Anne and Keith to find a better provenance? I got the impression from some of your previous posts that you were suspicious about Keith's involvement with Anne. Is this what you meant when you wrote: 'But the introduction of the Graham family link story might have been an almost-impossible to resist suggestion to someone who saw the diary situation ending up rather like the Hitler Diaries and leading to the stop of what had become a very welcome income.'
You had earlier pointed out that none of Mike's 50% royalty cheque was 'apparentlypercolating through to Anne', so she could not be your 'someone', whose 'welcome income' was in danger of stopping. Neither could Mike, because he went and told the world he forged it! So surely that only leaves Keith as your 'someone'."
It seemed to me at the time that you were implying an involvement by Keith very early on in diary production. If I misread you and you were only suggesting that Keith had helped with the provenance, my apologies.
Peter |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 19 April 2000 - 02:02 pm | | Hi Mark,
If I understand you well, you see the diary as the emotional outlet of JTR, much the same way another one goes sporting.
Since we are discussing then the emotional state of a person (nothing to do with facts, very dangerous grounds) I would rather say that the murders were the emotional outlet, and the diary then should be his faithful account to help him relive it.
I agree that a diary is coloured. Mine were too as a teenager. But they weren't coloured in a way that they didn't told the facts of what happened around me. The colouring is to be found in my interpretation of them: I made a big deal of those facts, and saw them only in relation to me, which of course after rereading them some 10 years later is laughable. They had some worth after all. I was laughing so hard in tears afterwards, that my mother had to ask what was so funny. "The seriousness, and self-importance of a teenager!" I replied. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 19 April 2000 - 07:56 pm | | AN OPEN LETTER TO PROF RUBINSTEIN
Dear Prof Rubinstein,
Sorry I have to say this, but your piece does you no credit. It is an affront to the basic tenets of scholarship. The research that should have been mandatory has been avoided. The questions that should have been raised and addressed have been neglected. You have allowed yourself to be bemused and deceived by what you describe as "...really extraordinary research". But an objective and thorough study of that 'research' would have revealed that some of it is bogus; that it is marred by deliberate distortions of primary sources; that many of the claims are invalid; and that much of the remaining material is irrelevant.
You may think that harsh, but you are not a novice or a callow college 'fresher', and you have put a great deal of defective material into the public domain, thus you have to be judged by the highest possible standards. And by those standards you fail. In brief detail here is why.
First of all, it was your duty to find out if any in-depth study had been made of the Feldman/Harrison material. Such a study had been made and publicly presented on the Internet, but you did not know of this. Harrison knew this, so did Feldman and so did almost everyone else who took an interest in this hoax. But you remained in the dark, until I told you about those postings. Yet what happened? Nothing! You chose to stay unenlightened. You opted to avoid material that is fair and exhaustive. If you had troubled to look at it with fresh eyes you would have seen that it proves that ALL the Diary material was easily gleaned from a few popular books that were freely available.
Too bad and far from polite and scholarly. But before you try to make amends and press the right keys, let me touch on a few specific points in your article. You attach importance to the letter signed 'DIEGO LAURENZ'. You even give your opinion that "...it is, arguably the most important clue [as to the identity of Jack the Ripper] that we have. "Diego" is Spanish for James, while "Laurenz" is meant to rhyme with "Florence". If this is what it means, then this constitutes virtual proof that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper." Really? What it really means is that (flawed logic apart) you were blind to the fact that DIEGO is not the Spanish for James. The Spanish form is JAIME, this was confirmed by my Spanish friends; by colleagues at the BBC World Service and by the Press Office of the Spanish Embassy in London.
Again you attach importance to Billy Graham's claim that Battlecrease House was linked with Jack the Ripper in his childhood. The great absurdity, ignored by those who have been taken in by Billy's statement, involves his attitude to the Diary. we are asked to believe that he knew about Battlecrease and Jack the Ripper as a mere boy, but as an adult failed to take notice of a document owned by him which mentioned Battlecrease and was clearly signed "Jack the Ripper". The idea that the signature was too small to read is nonsense. It is boldly written and is almost two-and-a-half inches long!
As for his 'boyhood memory', it is clear that you have never made any serious attempt to check if there was such a tradition. Yet another dereliction of duty! The obvious person to have consulted on that question was crime-historian, Richard Whittington-Egan. Richard is very well known; in fact he was one of the people visited by Mrs Harrison when she was writing her book. He was born in Liverpool in 1924 and lived there until 1957. He is an authority on crime in Liverpool, and the author of 'A Casebook on Jack the Ripper' (1975). He knows all the details of the Maybrick case inside out and has written about it. Indeed his interest is a long-standing one, sparked off by the fact that his grandfather knew both James and Florence and entertained them at his house. Richard would have told you at once that THERE NEVER WAS a tradition that linked Battlecrease House and its neighbourhood with the Ripper. But there WAS a tradition that linked the nearby 'Cast Iron Shore' with a loathsome criminal with the name 'Jack'. The fiend in question was SPRING-HEELED JACK, whose last reported appearance was on the steeple of Liverpool's Everton Church.
This character was a real-life criminal whose antics became grossly exaggerated and then enshrined in popular literature. His name resonated with that of the Whitechapel killer quite often. Indeed Michel Parry wrote this in 1975: "Whoever chose the name Jack as the Ripper's nom-de-guerre knew what he was about. For impact it could not have been bettered ... Firstly it brought to mind Jack Shepherd, the slippery 'boy criminal'...Even more sinister, it it conjured up visions of Spring-heeled Jack, a demonic villain of Victorian horror literature...When Jack the Ripper embarked on his reign of terror it must have seemed to many Londoners that Spring-heeled Jack had sprung right out of the pages of the horror stories into real life." And we may add to many in Liverpool as well.
(Richard has not only written about the Ripper and the Maybricks, but he has also written about Spring-Heeled Jack. And when the police visited Devereux's daughters they were actually shown one of Richard's books. This was his "Liverpool: Murder, Mayhem and Mystery". The copy belonged to Mike Barrett and included chapters on both the Maybrick case and Spring-Heel.)
Now the chronological links between Mrs Maybrick and the Ripper are obvious. Her case was the next great headline-grabber and came at a time when the Ripper was still believed to be active. But if you had looked hard you would have found that the first definitely asserted links between the Mrs Maybrick and the Ripper did not emerge until 1972, when Michael Harrison claimed that Florence's fate had been directly influenced by Jack the Ripper! He argued that the Ripper was James, son of Mr Justice Stephen, the very Judge who conducted Mrs Maybrick's trial. He further argued that James had murdered Alice McKenzie exactly a fortnight before the trial opened. He then stated that Justice Stephen came to know of his son's crimes and this pushed him over the edge "...his mind lost in the horror of contemplating what his own son was and had done." He continued "The shock of J.K.'s murderous actions, and perhaps even more, the shock of having to conceal them; to act as accessories before, during and after the murder; had broken up the Stephens." Thus Florence Maybrick's life sentence was "...yet another crime which must be fairly charged to the mental instability of the Stephens in general and of J.K. [Ripper] Stephen in particular."
In short, a clear connection had been made between Florence and the Ripper some twenty years before the Diary reached the London agency. This too was a bogus proposition, but it did weld the two cases together. So the later Diary union was publicly foreshadowed ages earlier, then taken just that one step further in Liverpool itself. Thus the Ripper/Maybrick dimension was not original; only the husband and wife tangle had novelty.
You also nurse the illusion that the writing has been dated back to Victorian times. This is untrue. There is no known established method which is able to date an iron-gall ink.
As for the reference to Eddowes' property, this is extra proof that the Diary is a fake. 'Tin match box empty' and all the other Diary items are taken from the City of London Police inventory which was not made public until 1987. They are not drawn on from the experience of a real-life encounter, or from any other source, since the forger has used the very sequence decided on by the policeman who drew up the inventory. This sequence was quite arbitrary and could never have been known to the real killer.
As for that watch; you obviously have not read the reports with enough care. Check my Internet report and see what I mean. And remember that the scratches were not seen until weeks AFTER the Maybrick/Ripper connection gained space in the 'Liverpool Post'.
Next, on reflection, are you really convinced that the fakers took a big risk in fitting up James Maybrick? There were only four dates to account for and all at weekends. Apart from that, James was not important enough to merit passages in the Liverpool press. He was just one of many undistinguished business men of the city. If he had been a newsworthy character then this would have been certainly picked up by modern writers on the subject and commented on, together with press quotes. No, the fakers could paint him into the picture without any fear of conflict of dates. Since no accurate record of his movements was used by any writer, they rightly assumed that no such record existed.
In the case of the nickname 'Sir James' you seem to have lost your sense of proportion when you write of "...by sheer chance the forger hit upon the unusual nickname used by James Maybrick in his own household...". Where is the document that entitles you to say that? All we have is the record of a SINGLE INSTANCE of a servant using the name to a young girl who had angered her. And that single instance has to be put into its historic context.
In Britain, for centuries, the term 'Sir' has had another, well-known use. It has often been used ironically and scornfully as a mock title. In Nurse Yapp's case she disliked her work and it is on record that she disobeyed orders and left the two young children unattended in an unlighted nursery, way out of earshot. This lazy woman plainly resented having yet another brat forced on her. James Maybrick's actions were seen by her as high handed; the actions of a haughty overlord- hence her mock title. (My maternal grandfather was often called "Sir Thomas" when he grew too pompous! And I know of many other such examples)
The Diary entries using 'Sir Jim' or 'Sir James' have no bearing on that solitary use in the past. They are simply tied in with the ideas of Queen Victoria's interest in the crimes and a fantasy knighthood. The Queen's interest in the murders is clearly stated in the main Ripper book used to create the fake: "Jack the Ripper" by Peter Underwood.
That very same book also makes a direct connection between Whitechapel, Liverpool and Whitechapel, London. It states that the Ripper intended to tie the two together as a savage, mocking jest, since he came from Liverpool but killed in London. So the connection made in the Diary is not original but simply follows a line laid down in 1987, anly in that 1987 book 'James, the Ripper from Liverpool' was a different James altogether. But read my Internet pieces for fuller details.
What you are looking at in the Diary text is nothing more than a crude but cunning piece of fiction. The criminal confession form is an old one, with many examples around. These include confessions by Cream and Crippen and, more importantly, Ripper confessions that foreshadow the Diary, but are better written.
A number of these involve discovered papers or diaries. Among these we have Freud's Ripper diary; Mary Kelly's diary; a diary kept by the Ripper's brother; a Ripper manuscript found hidden in a Cambridge College; a microfiche of the Ripper's journals found hidden in a Bible and discovered by his great-grandson.
One even involves a man called Mayhew who finds the Ripper's gold watch! Yet another records the finding of a metal box with the dates of the Ripper murders scratched on the lid.
And don't forget the fake documents cited by Woodhall, Matters, McCormick, Spiering, Sickert and Melvyn Fairclough.
Finally, if this Diary had only existed as a typescript would you have taken it seriously? I doubt it very much. It is simply because it was handwritten that people suspended their caution and fell for it, even though it was NOT Maybrick's handwriting! Do you honestly want to remain among those who have been well and truly duped?
Yours, in defence of scholarship,
MELVIN HARRIS |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 01:18 pm | | It doesn't take long before we find an interesting ommission in Bill Rubinsteins' :The Hunt for Jack the Ripper": no mention of the major internet source, "Casebook..." His introductory paragraphs give the sort of persons who were and are suspected: Dukes, dustmen, Oxford Scholars lunatics and...millionaires? Maybe someone can help out with the last category; I can't think of any of the very rich who have been fingered for this crime apart, perhaps, for Gladstone!
Rubinstein does state clearly that Whitechapel was neither as poor or as violent as we today might believe, giving the statistic that in 1887 there were no murders at all in that area, and his words are valuable in emphasising the social conditions of the time. He does however make the first of a number of minor mistakes when he says that the name "Jack the Ripper" derives from a postcard sent to Central News on the 25th September 1888. The name of course came from a letter dated 25th September but apparently sent on the 27th. The postcard wasn't sent until the 1st October. Mistakes like this should not be made by an academic who one must suppose has conducted at least the bare minimum of research.
Rubinstein says: "...many amateur Ripper historians are Londoners, often with ancestral roots in the East End. For them, Jack the Ripper is part of their heritage." Although a Londoner myself (Greenwich, South London so not classed as an East-Ender,) I would tend to doubt that. I believe Ripper students are pretty much an international breed, united by their interest in this case but not particularly by ancestral background. He then starts concentrating on "leading suspects" of whom he says there are about 15 with one being "highly convincing." We shall learn who that is soon.
When Rubinstein is examining Druitt as a suspect, he makes other perhaps minor mistakes. He says that Druitt drowned around November 30th although most researchers would suggest that a date of about 3rd December would be more likely. He mentions Druitt's "cousin," a "doctor with offices in the Minories..." Lionel Druitt was a locum in the Minories for a very short time.
Concerning Kosminski, Rubinstein says: "If the Ripper had been a local Jewish lunatic, it is difficult to believe that Montague (Whitechapels' MP, Samuel Montague) and other Anglo-Jewish leaders would not have heard rumours about his identity and moved to have him placed in an asylum as quickly as possible." This seems a very facile way of disparaging the possibility of a Jewish Jack.
When discussing the Royal conspiracies, Rubinstein tells us that the theory: "...dates from a work published in French in 1962 by Dr. Thomas Stowell and given wide publicity before his death in 1970. This is sloppy research: he's actually referring to the book published in 1962 by Phillipe Jullien titled "Edouard VII" which suggests that the Duke of Clarence and the Duke of Bedford were responsible for the murders. Colin Wilson of course does say that he heard the theory directly from Stowell about 1960. Rubinstein also says that: "Stowell was the son-in-law of the son-in-law of Sir William Gull..." I believe that Theodore Dyke Acland was Gull's son-in-law and Stowell was Acland's executor and trustee; not a relation. Maybe some one can correct me on that. Lastly, in this section, Rubinstein runs through a list of unlikely candidates: Lewis Carroll, Dr. Barnardo etc. But he also includes here the three insane medical students who were most certainly official suspects at the time.
And now to Maybrick. Firstly, Rubinstein says of the handwriting in the diary that it: "...appears to resemble some, but not all of Maybrick's own writings..." I don't believe that anyone involved in the matter: Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner etc., have ever said this. Has Rubinstein found other, unknown specimens of Maybrick's handwriting? He doesn't say. What he does say is that: "Numerous scientific tests have concluded that the diary appears to date from the late nineteenth century or soon after." This is just not so: Melvin Harris who has studied this aspect of the diary more than any of us and who was involved in the affair almost from the beginning is clear that reliable tests place it as a modern forgery.
Rubinstein gives us (albeit with a number of "allegedly's" the story of its provenance as told by Anne Graham from 1943 to date. He also says that Mike's claims to have forged it are:"...not now accepted, even by those who are sceptical of its authenticity." He shows us that he has accepted Anne's story completely by saying:"The key question is the diary's whereabouts between Maybrick's death in 1889 and William Graham's sighting in 1943." Surely it is hardly good academic practice to accept one persons word about this with absolutely no independent evidence to back it up.He also suggests the alternative "theories that the diary was passed down either through the Yapp-Formby connection or the Florence Maybrick-Henry Flinn descent, both of which are extremely dubious, the Flinn story probably being the most outrageous.
Rather mysteriously, Rubinstein suggests that if the diary was forged about 1990 it should contain "...pornographic descriptions of sexual arousal..." And as it doesn't, this must mean that it's more likely to be genuine. He also says:"...all attempts to show that the diary is a forgery and who its creator may be have failed." If this statement proves one thing, it's that he has not bothered to read the Casebook, the Message Boards or Melvin Harris' writings on the subject. He suggests that the forger would have taken "...an enormous risk.," in that Maybrick's whereabouts at the time of a murder could be proven beyond doubt to be somewhere other than Whitechapel. Surely he doesn't have the impression that Maybrick was such a prominent member of the business community that he would have been mentioned in the newspapers? Certainly, considering that the murders encompassed four separate nights, it would not be beyond a forgers capability to search copies of the local Liverpool newspapers for those four nights to make certain that there was no Maybrick reference?
Do "...many of the ripperologists who continue to doubt the authenticity of the diary now believe that it is an old forgery..."? Can we name any apart from those concerned in the two books? And is it sensible to suggest that the author of a forged diary could be Michael Maybrick, James' brother? Does the diary really show that a forger must have done intensive research in both the life and death of Maybrick and the Whitechapel murders? Surely not. The information needed can be found in a very few books all of which are publically available. Rubinstein's example of the "1 tin match box, empty" is not a sign of a genuine diary but of a modern forgery. And Rubinstein goes on in the way that I have criticised so much in the past of using the diary to prove itself, surely not proper academic procedure. But Rubinstein actually caps matters by saying:"The case that Maybrick was the Ripper is strong even without the diary." Brushing aside the fact that without the diary Maybrick was never and could never be accused of being Jack, we must examine Rubinstein's strong case and it is something that I have mentioned briefly before: the "Diego Laurenz" letter. Now I suspect that Rubinstein has not seen the actual newspaper but is relying (as he has done so much here) on Feldman's book. What Rubinstein says is: "...the most important clue that we have.," is simply his statement that "Diego is Spanish for James while Laurenz is meant to rhyme with Florence." Now I can see where his confusion lies. Hanks and Hodges "Dictionary of First Names" (consulted in the National Library of Wales next door to Professor Rubinstein's College) says of Diego: "Although it is often claimed to be an aphetic form of Santiago, it is clear that its regular Latin form...was Didacus." "Aphetic" refers to the practice of dropping first letters of words in speech, thus Diego might be rendered as "iego." Now "Santiago (name chosen to invoke the protection of {Saint}James on a son) contains the obsolete form of James in Spanish:"Iago." Where is there any proof that Maybrick knew enough about Spanish to confuse Diego with Santiago. Indeed, for several hundred years the Spanish equivalent of the name James has been "Jaime" surely a name that would have been much more obvious to Maybrick had he wanted to play this word-game. Rubinstein compounds this by saying: "Anyone familiar with the diary will know Maybrick's penchant for puns and word-games." This may be true if we make the capital mistake of assuming the diary to be the true word of James Maybrick. If we found, in the words of the historical Maybrick that he delighted in this sort of game we might have evidence for the truth of the diary but we don't. Again Rubinstein is trying to prove the diary by its own content.
And to close this lengthy post I have to say that this article, which has received the accolade of a cover story is based on sloppy research which does not seem to have been done on original material and where several really basic errors have been made.
Was James Maybrick Jack the Ripper? Almost certainly not. The only "evidence" putting his name forward is a book of dubious provenance and unlikely content. If Professor Rubinstein had examined Maybrick in a scholarly light being careful to check all his references, interviewing the persons concerned and using original material he might have come to a different conclusion.
Peter |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 03:10 pm | | Congratulations, Mr Harris and Peter for excellent rebuttals to Prof Rubinstein's lamentable article. One can only assume that the editorial staff of "History Today" are not knowledgeable enough to criticse a Maybrick article (though one would expect they would make certain of such a supposed "clue" as "Diego"); more likely, they assume that an academic will do the barest of research and background check before putting forth such a proposal. In any event, now more people will be taken in by the silly thing and we all have to go through a series of weary explanations as to why the case is not yet solved.
By the by, Peter, I believe that Dr Stowell was a student of Dr Acland, and this was one of the reasons Lady Caroline Acland asked him to look over Sir William Gull's papers. He was not related to the Aclands or Gulls by marriage.
Regards,
CMD |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 23 April 2000 - 06:55 pm | | My submission for Ignorant Question of the Month: How likely is it that the forger would face criminal prosecution? Smith Gryphon no doubt paid a fair amount of money for the copyrights to the diary, but they certainly suffered no financial loss; they made money off the sales of the diary. I'm not even entirely convinced that THEY felt the diary was genuine. In an afterward to Shirley Harrison's book, the spokesperson for Smith Gryphon, though arguing for its authenticity, goes as far as to show "delight" in the ongoing "debate" of the whether or not it is a forgery.
Has a crime been committed? If so, why wasn't any legal action taken when Mike Barrett swore in an affidavit that he wrote the diary?
Finally, I was following an old conversation on one of the other Maybrick boards that talked of the impending visit of Barrett to a meeting of The Cloak and Dagger Club. But the posts end, and I haven't been able to find where they started up again. Did Barrett show up for the meeting? Were any of you there? What was his general demeanor?
(As usual I'm all questions, and no answers)
RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 23 April 2000 - 06:57 pm | | | P.S. Very much enjoyed these last few posts! |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 24 April 2000 - 11:01 am | | Hi, R.J.:
Indeed, Michael Barrett did make an appearance at the Cloak & Dagger meeting a year ago, and you can find archived reactions to his appearance on these message boards if you look under "Cloak & Dagger Gasbags 10th April Meeting" under "General Discussion" after you call up the topics under "Tree View." As you will probably gather from the postings, his appearance did little to shed light on the controversy about the origins of the Diary. I was not there, but I gather that the evening proved unsatisfactory on a number of bases, with Barrett promising much but ultimately not producing the goods that might prove once and for all that the document is forged.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 24 April 2000 - 02:46 pm | | R.J. -
Oddly enough, I asked Paul Begg the same question during a break at the US Conference, suggesting that perhaps the reason we have not seen the forgers come out to crow over the Diary is because he/she/they/Sooty are afraid of being hauled off to gaol.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact gist of his answer, though I believe (and this is my alcohol-addled brain talking) he felt the chances of a successful prosecution were unlikely, even with all the monies Smith Gryphon had put out. Although as I recall, in the Hitler Diaries fiasco both Konrad Kujau - the forger - and Gerd Heidemann - the journalist who acted as intermiediary - both received prison terms, though Heidemann's was more from stealing money from "Stern" magazine than from perpetrating a forgery.
It occurs to me that Peter Birchwood, Melvin Harris or even PB himself have answered this question before here on the boards, and I am about to go trawling to see if I find the proper reference. In the meantime, if anyone can speak authoritatively on this, please do!
Sorry for many words but no sense,
CMD |
|
|
|
|
