|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 27, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through April 27, 2000
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 05:03 am |        | | Nice pictures to the article though. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 07:57 am | | By the way , where is everyone today ? ( 24th April 2000 ). I'm sitting here with tumbleweed blowing around me , crows circling in the sky , crickets chirping , the bark of a lonely dog etc. Its as quiet as the grave ! It would be interesting to see if Professor Rubinstein is able to reply to Melvin and Peter's rebuttals , something tells me this will not be possible. If he had read the criticism of the Diary in the Casebook then I hope he would not have gone ahead and published the article. In the end however , I hope evidence will come forward to prove the identity of the Ripper conclusively and that the Diary will be forgotten as a cheap and shoddy forgery. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 03:01 pm | | Hi Simon and all anti - diarists,
Well thank god he didnt listen to you then.
And thankgod for freedom of speech.
I have been following the conversation in the last few days and would really like to know why Rubensteins story seems to of upset you all.
I mean peter asks why Rubenstein didnt refer to the Casebook.
Interesting huh?
SIMON on the other hand says if Rubenstein had read the criticism of the diary in the casebook,
he may not have written his article in the first place.
Pretty arrogant stuff eh?
I even witnessed two people discussing writing a rebuttal .
Why start writing a rebuttal before even seeing the document first?
Weird Weird stuff.
I thought the idea was to let people read whatever they want and make their own decisions on what they may or may not believe.
If you had it your way, the public would only read what you believe in.
Rubesteins story is not valid because Melvin Harris said so.
Melvin Harris also said the forger could have written the whole diary on 2 or 3 ripper books.
( of course "Jack the Ripper, the bloody truth" by Harris himself).
We all know that cant be true dont we?
Or did Melvin know about the empty tin box?
Or did he notice the "M" ?
Or the farthings?
Or the missing heart?
etc, etc, etc.
I think you all know that the ONLY thing to prove the diary is real would be if James Maybrick could stand here and tell you its true.
That is what it wil take.
I have also asked many people if they had their own theory as the thr Rippers identity.
Nearly all of them said NO!!It doesnt really matter to them who it could have been.
How many people can believe that?
Thats why we are here
( at least I think so ) :o)
Mark |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 04:21 pm | | Mark -
Professor Rubenstein's article is not valid because it is full of mistakes, not because Melvin Harris or Peter Birchwood say so. If you would take the trouble to read the article (as I did), you would see this to be true.
And yes, I discussed writing a rebuttal before seeing the article. I shall tell you why: to my mind, the case for Maybrick being the Ripper is a non-starter. Before I saw the article, I drew up a list of points which I predicted would be used as proof of the Diary's authenticity, and most of them were used in the article. Thus, I had an idea what pro-Diary arguments to expect. I am neither so arrogant or foolish as to write a full rebuttal to an article I have never seen.
People are perfectly free to make up their own minds and to read whatever they want, but when an admitted scholar presents a case, intellectual rigour demands the argument stand up to questioning. Professor Rubenstein's article does not. I shall not even discuss the tin box, farthings, missing heart and supposed "M." All of these "facts" have been dissected before, by people far better qualified than I to state their truth or falsity. Each of those "facts" is capable of simple explanation without reference to the Diary, and you would do well to read the arguments against them, even if later on you fold your arms and say "I still believe."
Do you think Messrs. Harris and Birchwood simply say these things off the tops of their head because they are "anti-Diary?" I can assure you that is not the case. Each of these gentlemen is committed to the truth, and I am sure that if they considered that a case could be made for the Diary or Maybrick, they would be happy to do so. Their conclusions are based on fact and deductive reasoning, not prejudice, spleen or amorphous "feelings." Certainly they have personal perspectives on the Diary; any investigator carries their own preferences and biases to a case. The best ones, however, do their best to drop their bias and approach each problem with as open a mind as possible.
Read Professor Rubenstein's article. Then read the Harris/Birchwood rebuttals, and compare their points to the article. If you think they are in error, please point the errors out. Otherwise, comments such as "if you had it your way, the public would only read what you believe in" do no-one any good.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 07:58 pm | | Hi all.
Christopher-Michael: well said.
Chris George- many thanks for the pointing me to the rest of the 'Cloak and Dagger' conversation. I was feeling as confused as one of Sir Charles Warren's bloodhounds. I'll be diplomatic and only say that I now have a good idea of Mike Barrett's 'demeanor'!
Mark: the diary aside, doesn't the 'provenance' (or lack thereof) or the actions of the Barretts make you even slightly nervous?
RJP |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 04:20 am | | Hi Christopher Michael,
It seems that arrogance can turn into ignorance.
Dear Chrhistopher, do you really think I would really make a statement like that WITHOUT reading the article first?
I ask you now, " who isnt open minded" ?
I am.
I read the article whe it first appeared.I also read it backwoods to make sure I didnt miss anything.
You accuse me of not being open minded.
Im sure its the other way around.
You see, I waited a week before making any kind of statement.
You were thinking about writing a rebuttal before reading the article because you are "Anti - diary"
Thats all.
You are so sure its a fake.
Nothing and no proof on this world will be enough to convince you. Thats fair and I respect it.
But how about you opening your mind and have a good look whats happening.
I would like to know from you who you think Jack the Ripper was and why.
I hope you dont say what everyone else has said so far(they dont really care who is was anyway)
If you are only interested in proving the diary as a hoax, then I would like to know why.
What amuses me is the way most of you attacked Rubensteins article like a pack of hungry wolves.
Forget all the " admitted scholar " stuff and keep to the facts.
I know that most of them have been dissected.
Even people more qualified than yourself, wont be able to prove its a fake.
You can only speculate.
If you firmly believe the diary is a fake, why keep discussing it at such length?
Why not devote more of your time to the Druitt saga for example?
What makes the diary so fascinating?
What are you going to do IF you prove its a fake?
Where will you stand IF it can be proved authentic?
These seem to be the only 2 options.
What exactly dont you believe in?:
1.That Maybrick was the killer
2.That Maybrick wrote the diary.
3.Both.
I would like to know.
I wont ask you about the contents of the TIN BOX or about the "M" or the FARTHINGS or the MISSING HEART again.
Try to ignore that stuff!
Its probably a waste of time
I wont ask you about the " SIR JIM " too
The closer we get to proving the diary, the more
uncomfortable its going to get.
My last question( I ve asked before but am still waiting for an answer) is:
What kind of evidence are you looking for then?
Like I said before, I think what you are looking for just doesnt exist.
The case is too old.
The witnesses are all dead.
That is a matter of fact.
The case wont be solved in my lifetime, or yours.
I still think that most people just dont really want the case solved.
Why kill an important part of English heritage?
Why destroy a legend?
Howe many TITANIC fans were dissapointed when the wreck was found?
Most of the TITANIC fans thought the legend would
die, but it didnt.Its only just started.
In due respect
Mark |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 05:39 am | | Marc , I personally don't believe that Maybrick wrote the Diary or that Maybrick was the Ripper. And I said that if Professor Rubinstein had read the criticism of the Diary he might not have written his article too ; this is because there are a lot of mistakes and assumptions based on spurious logic in it. Peter Birchwood and Melvyn Harris together have written an incredible rebuttal of the Diary and the article as well, which those who believe in the Diary must address and ask themselves about. It should not be ignored. Personally , I believe that there is some truth in the Joseph Sickert story about the Royal Conspiracy , but I can understand that a lot of people don't : thats their truth , and this is mine. But I can't say ' It's true because Stephen Knight said so ' - that's ridiculous. You need evidence to prove a case. Even though its difficult I am trying to research the case myself. If thats not possible then you have to make a case as best you can from the books you have availible , but then you have to understand other people are going to question what you are saying. Thats only fair. And this is what is happening with the Diary - its been discussed and debated and it comes out badly. Very badly. If the Diary COULD be proved true and Maybrick WAS the Ripper, I would be really happy because the case would be solved. I'm open minded enough to accept that because like everyone else I want the truth to come out over this. And I believe , IMHO , that the mystery will be solved soon , that something will come to light to solve it , and I don't personally care about the legend or whatever. There are brilliant minds at work on this mystery , you can see some of them at work here , and they have seen through the Diary. Sorry Marc. I do agree with you on one thing though , that people should name their suspect and not sit on the fence over this. I can understand well how frustrating it is to have your theory criticised by someone who won't name a suspect of their own ( no disrepect to anyone personally ) and I'm sure others feel the same way. We should set up a seperate board where people could name their suspect of choice. Good idea ? |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 05:47 am | | Mark,
Which farthings from which victim? I remember there was a newspaperstory about farthings (but not to which victim it belonged), but I also remember that when in the late 80's, that is after the diary was written, some missing police files were found again it was clear there never had existed any farthings. Since my memory is not reliable enough at the time, could you be so kind to mention the details of the diaries farthings again, so I can look it up again. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 06:20 am | | Jill , the farthings were supposed to have been found at the body of Annie Chapman and were brightly polished to look like half sovereigns( Sugden p.110 ). There is no mention of them in the police files of the case. However a similar farthing was found later under the body of Alice Mackenzie and at this inquest Inspector Reid stated that this was similar to those found with Annie. Those who believe in them state that the existence of the farthings was kept hidden by the police as a ' control ' , something that could catch the Ripper out and prove his identity. However its more likely Reid was mistaken about this. When Chapman was murdered he had been on leave and it was Inspector Chandler who handled the case. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 06:25 am | | Hi Simon,
Thanx for your honesty and I agree with your proposal to set up an extra board where people can name their suspects.
I also agree with you that the case could be solved soon, but on another level.
I believe very strongly that the Diary will lead us to the truth.If not directly then through the back door.There are too many coincidences linking one fact to another.
Something is missing though.
I believe the key is still hidden but will soon be found.
Mark |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 06:38 am | | Mark - How lucky for they key-finder then, that it not can be tested to the lock of the door, any old key would suffice then to be the right one.
Simon - Thank you. I thought it was Chapman, but was not sure of it anymore. Reid made a lot of statements about the cases he wasn't on. Many of them were not correct.
Jill |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 09:27 am | | G'day Jill,
When Mark said the 'key' would soon be found, I don't think he was suggesting the key to Kelly's door. I think it may have been a figure of speech!
Leanne! |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 12:05 pm | | Hi there Jill,
Im sorry for the confusion, but I didnt mean the KEY to kellys door.It was only a figure of speech.
Thanx Leanne for helping me there.
Simon was right about one thing though.
It would really interest me to find out who most of think the Ripper was. Not that it would change anything, but it woulod really interest me.
The Sickert story is a fairytail but that is only MY opinion.
Why go to all that trouble taking the risk and mutilating a few Women when the easiest thing to do would have been to shoot them or throw them in the river.
It just defies all logic.
These are only my thoughts.
There is absolutely nothing to link poor old Mr Sickert to the Ripper killings.
Whats your story Jill?.
Let me in on your theory.
Schöne Grüße aus Frankfurt
Mark |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 01:15 pm | | For those living within the Harlech TV area, there should be an interview with Prof. Bill Rubinstein on the Six-o-Clock news Friday, providing the Welsh Assembly doesn't get blown up in which case it might be postponed.
Peter |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 05:33 pm | | G'day Mark,
The Sickert story is a load of ••••!!!!!!
The Royal Family could have just paid 4 blackmailers with their spare-change. They didn't have to get someone to mutilate them and leave the bodies for all to see, and create such a nightmare in the East End! All it would have took, to destroy peoples faith in the Royals, was for someone to see or even hear a carriage!
Leanne! |
Author: Mark Goeder
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 06:39 pm | | hi there Leanne,
Wow!!, that really came from the bottom of your heart there.
I hope you didnt get me wrong.I find the Sickert story pathetic too.
I am a little uneasy now after learning that some of the Anti - Diarists seem to find comfort in the Sickert/Royal story.
ALL YOU SICKERTS OUT THERE....HANDS UP !!!!!
Just joking..
We are here to discuss the MAYBRICK diary, not the Sickert story.
At the moment Im outnumbered 1000/1 , but Im getting there.
I have the bad feeling that even if the diary can be proved to be a forgery, it will eventualy lead the saga to an end.
Barnett didnt forge the diary.
He just didnt have the means and the background knowledge to forge something of this historical importance.
It doesnt matter how often he changes his story,the Diary wasnt written by him or anyone he knows.
Whoever wrote it knew what to write, and knew how to write it.
Whoever wrote it must of had first hand Knowledge of the murders and even more knowledge on the personal life of Maybrick and the rest of the family.
If someone wanted to forge a ripper diary why pick Maybrick as the killer?
Why not someone more likely, for example Mr Druitt.
It would make more sense.There wasnt too much information on Druitt anyway and that would make it harder to trace back.
If I am right the police had Druitt down as a possible supect.
Other than his body being found in the Thames weeks after kellys murder, there is really nothing linking him with the murders.
He even managed to play cricket AND kill at the same time.
Anyway, the guy was a strong suspect(if we are to believe Macnaughten), so why not forge his diary?
There must have been hundreds of people more likely to fit the Ripper than Maybrick.
If Maybrick WAS the Ripper and the diary a FORGERY, then things will get very complicated.
Someone must have wrote it.Someone very close to Maybrick.
I believe no one else could have had that much "inside knowledge" regarding the Maybrick family other than someone close to the Maybricks.
Anyway, Barnett didnt write the godamm thing.At least agree with me on that one :o)
Who did then?
If the forgery is old ( say 1900 to 1920)then it means either 2 things.
1. The diary was written by or some one related to Maybrick
2. The diary was forged.
Someone clever enough to forge a diary on that scale certainly would have made some money at the same time.
Why go to all that trouble writing a diary and then hiding for the next 90 odd years?
If you forged it, wouldnt you like to see it surface and watch all the commotion?
I would.
Thats the reason it was wrote I suppose.
If you dont like the idea, then maybe Maybrick did write it after all.
good night
Mark |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 27 April 2000 - 05:31 am | | Mark
Why not pick Druitt as a the Diary writer in a forgery? Because it would be just to obvious? He has been discussed already for decades.
But pick a person, that is known in history, thus has a proof of existence, but without any obvious relationship to the murders besides the period of time.
And as mentioned in a post of Melvin Harris on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 - 07:56 pm: There are some pointers linking the tale of Florie and Maybrick to the legend of JtR. From sharing history time together to eventually a murder connection. In the same post Melvin also argues that there have been other forgeries. This is not the first Diary, only this seems with a less obvious client.
You could pick three murderer-names for a forged Diary: you pick a suspect like Druitt (too obvious, cheap and easy), you pick just a name (a regular John Doe, where everyone would rise their eyebrows and think that's sneaky since you can not check any of the things to tales of his life) or you go for someone of whom certain things can be traced (like existence and way of living), rings a bell with people without being obvious.
If I was really trying to make a good forgery, I would first make a list of what choices have to be made, like a suspect and inspect the reactions per choice. Then Maybrick is excellently chosen.
Sorry, about the key misinterpretation. I was in a certain train of thought, so I overlooked your meaning.
Jill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 27 April 2000 - 08:22 am | | Hi All,
The final sentence of Peter Birchwood's post of April 20th @ 01-18pm is the one which reaches the parts hundreds of other sentences can't (IMHO):
'If Professor Rubinstein...., interviewing the persons concerned....'
Well Peter, oughtn't someone be doing exactly what Professor R failed to do here, and round up a few potential interviewees among the team of diary investigators and alleged forgers?
Poor old CMD is already moaning about the 'series of weary explanations' he feels 'we all have to go through' to prevent more people being taken in by the 'silly thing'. IMHO, a less tiresome and more productive alternative (which is what I have been banging on about like Mrs. Invisible for the last few weeks :-)) might be to focus our combined energies on getting at the identities of the forger(s).
Peter, you started the ball rolling by bringing to the message boards' notice some mysteries which ought to be easily solved by more questions to the appropriate parties:
You brought up Keith Skinner's involvement with doctored documents; you brought up his letter and mysterious phone call to Anne (yet you suggest I am 'getting obsessive about poor old Keith'!); you brought up the document, signed by Anne and Mike, transferring ownership of the diary from them to an unknown company.
We can add in R.J's recent question: '...why wasn't any legal action taken when Mike Barrett swore in an affidavit that he wrote the diary?'
Or, for that matter, when he first made his confession statements to the newspapers?
CMD asked Paul Begg the same question in New Jersey, but unfortunately can't recall Paul's exact reply. (Shame on you CM, fancy being tiddled in the presence of Beggy, that creature of such moderate drinking habits. ;-))
Until we hear some satisfactory answers from those most able to provide them, shouldn't we continue to ask the questions?
I too would like to know the answer to R.J's 'Has a crime been committed?' I would add 'Who by, and at what point in time?' before asking how and why.
Would it be at the point that Mike Barrett, provided he knew it was forged at the time, took the diary to be published in 1992?
And I think it would be important to know if Anne either encouraged him or, at the very least, didn't try to stand in his way. She stated in 1994 that the diary was never meant for publication, and that she had a big argument with Mike, trying to destroy it rather than let him get it published. Was this a clever ploy to avoid future prosecution? Has Mike or Caroline ever confirmed or denied the argument and Anne's attitude?
My whole point is that 'the persons concerned' could be asked a heck of a lot more questions concerning their involvement. Since no one reading this discussion appears to know any more juicy titbits, I shall bugger off and leave you all in peace, pursuing my enquiries elsewhere.
Oh, BTW Mark, before anyone tells you it's Barrett, not Barnett, who may have forged the diary, don't worry, I've seen a few others make the same slip of the typing finger, so you are in jolly good company!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Mark Goeder
Thursday, 27 April 2000 - 09:40 am | | Hi Caz
Ooooooooops!!
Of course, I meant BARRET.
Glad to know Im not alone
Mark |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 27 April 2000 - 09:40 am | | | The Sickert story is a load of...WHAT!? Leanne ! Thats not being very open minded is it ? |
|
|
|
|
