|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 23 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
James Maybrick:
Archive through 23 January 2002
Author: Brian Irons
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 02:36 pm |        | I have a question. This may sound a little childish due to the fact that I'm quite new to this. I was sparked by A&E's movie starring Michael Cain and then when I bought the Diary. Since then I've bought just about every piece of material there is. My question is (and I don't even know who I'm asking) if the diary is a hoax, that is if it was forged, is it possible that Maybrick could still be a suspect? Up until the finding of the diary I don't think there was ever a mention of his name other then that of the trial of his wife. Even now it's very difficult for me to find any clear cut opinion on whether or not the diary is a hoax. I've read disscussions either way but the answer is allways vauge. I just think that it is possible for "JM" to be a suspect with out the diary. What do you think? Thank you for your help and for having a wonderful site.
Brian Irons |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 03:28 pm | | Hi, Brian:
I firmly believe Maybrick would not be a suspect without the dubious "evidence" of the Diary and watch. I find the idea that a man would murder prostitutes 200 miles from his home to get revenge on his unfaithful wife to be a ridiculous scenario. As I have remarked before, there were perfectly good prostitutes in Liverpool, on Lime Street and Scotland Road, but we are asked to believe that Maybrick hopped on a train to make a 400-mile roundtrip to carry out this campaign of revenge.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Brian Irons
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 05:10 pm | | Thanks Chris, I really appreciate it. I do have quite a few questions still lingering in my head. If you don't mind. Through all my readings there have been many officials and investigators that were involved with the case, but Fred Abberline seems to be the most popular. It seems to me that he took this more personal then the rest. That he in a way felt responsible for the way the west end was then. Like I said in my previous question I've seen the A&E movie with Michael Cain as Inspector Abberline but the conclusions they come to I find to be a bit ridicules. My Question to you is..... Who was Abberline's #1 Suspect? Who did he think was the Ripper?
I also have a request if you don't mind. I'm not a investigator by any means, but like a lot of us I am completely obsessed with this subject. So if you wouldn't mind I would like it if you could test me on the subject. Ask me a question and see if I can find it. I read all these messages and half the stuff I don't even understand. So if you would do that for me I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks again. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 08:57 pm | | Hi, Brian:
I am glad that my answer helped.
In regard to Inspector Abberline, we have two possible leads to his thinking about the Ripper. One comes from the Pall Mall Gazette at the time of the conviction in 1903 of George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) for the murder of several common law wives. Abberline apparently gave it as his opinion that Chapman's callous indifference to the poisoning death of his lady friends was consistent with the callousness shown by Jack the Ripper. However, apart from the fact that Chapman was evidently in the East End at the time of the murders there appears to be nothing else to tie him to the murders and a number of observers discount him because the modus operandi was so different. The latest issue of Ripperologist, which I recommend you subscribe to, reprints the two-part article Pall Mall Gazette giving Abberline's views about the candidacy of Chapman as the Whitechapel murderer.
The other indication of what Abberline was thinking leads us annoyingly in quite the opposite direction. Chapman was a low class Polish immigrant. However, in the 1970s, Nigel Morland, reported that when he was a young man of aged 20 or so, he went to see Abberline while the former Scotland Yard man was in retirement in Bournemouth. While tending his roses (!), Abberline told Morland apparently that the identity of the Ripper was known and that the killer was one of the highest in the land--or in the upper stratum of London society, depending which version by Morland you choose. Make of these two divergent stories what you will.
In the analysis of the Maybrick Diary text done by John Omlor and commented upon me and others (see the Maybrick boards) we felt that too much attention was given to Abberline in the Diary. My feeling is that the emphasis on Abberline in the Diary comes from the Michael Caine movie. That is, I believe the Diary is a fairly recent forgery, at least more recent than the Caine mini-series on British TV (1988) and that the forger was influenced by the inordinate attention given to Abberline in the TV show. In fact, Abberline, while important as the man in charge of the investigation, was only one of a number of prominent detectives on the case, e.g., the recent book by Nick Connell and Stewart P. Evans, The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper (Rupert Books, Cambridge, UK, 1999) is not about Abberline but about Detective Inspector Edmund Reid, another of the key officers who worked on the investigation.
Brian, I am not sure what you mean that you want me to ask you a question, so I believe I will leave this message as it is. I hope the information I have provided above is of use to you.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 07:43 pm | | Brian
Be careful about getting into a discussion with Christopher, it can cost you of your time and patience.
As an embryonic researcher you should at least attempt to read the Jack the Ripper A to Z and Philip Sugden's Complete History of Jack the Ripper. Another good book, which will give an overview of several Ripper theories without costing you too much is The Mammoth book of Jack the Ripper by Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund. I guarantee you will read each story between its covers and be convinced it is the answer to the Ripper query ............ until you read the next one!
Have you got Paul Feldman's 'Jack the Ripper, The Final Chapter'. He discusses James Maybrick in much depth.
Do not put any store by the t.v. movie with Michael Caine in it, it was grossly historically inaccurate.
By the way, keep in mind that some authors are factually inaccurate too, so read as many books as you can and form your own opinion.
I'm currently interested in James Maybrick first and foremost and am toying with Martin Fido's theory regarding David Cohen in my spare time.
Best regards
Peter.
P.s. You wanted a question? Here's one for you?
What do you make of the dates and days of the week on which each of the victims was killed?
Happy hunting ( ).
P.P.S Yes, I think you will find that James Maybrick is a very credible suspect without the diary to have brought him to the public's attention. In fact some times I think he would be a more believable candidate if the diary had never existed in the first place. He had Whitechapel connections before the murder. He had a wife/mistress - no one really knows if they married or not - before Florence and she lived in Whitechapel. And he had a business partner in Whitechapel. There is much to connect James Maybrick with Whitechapel. I often think it is possible that the diary could be a fake and yet Maybrick could still be the ripper. That then still leads us to ask who forged the diary. I'd start thinking about Michael Maybrick if I were you.
Peter. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 07:56 pm | | Peter. . . Peter. . . Peter. . .
No Diary. . . no Maybrick candidacy. James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper despite somebody fitting him up as Jack in the Diary. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 09:57 pm | | | Peter, The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper by Maxin Jakubowski and Nathan Braund is a disgrace.They have included D'Onston in the book and 90% of what has been written on this suspect is untrue.So what about the other suspects in the book? God knows where they got their information from.If this is the standard we can expect from many ripper books then I wont be buying many. You may expect one or two mistakes in a short piece about a suspect granted but when most of it is incorrect then it makes me wonder what the hell is going on. If my cat could write then I would get her to pen a book on the ripper.At least she could not do any worse.I dont know what this game is coming to. |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 11:21 am | | Ivor,
Thats exactly my opinion of the Diary.
Monty
|
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 02:18 pm | | | Hi Monty, Maybe it was not a person who penned the diary but someone's cat who could write!! Or maybe even a monkey.By jove I think I have it, an organ grinder's monkey in 1888 decided to put pen to paper just for jolly and a bit of monkey business.Maybe it was the same organ grinder's monkey who took the apron piece to Goulston Street from Mitre Square. Maybrick was framed by a monkey!!!!!! |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 05:09 am | | Ivor,
It was the organ grinder,who tried to shift the blame to the monkey,who tried to involve the cat,who was not even in London,but was with Dick Whitington in Oxford.
Cheers,Harry. |
Author: Brian Irons
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 02:53 pm | | I didn't mean to start an argument. But does anyone really know what truly is true and what is false, as far as this investigation goes?
And thank you Peter I will try and find that information. |
Author: Brian Irons
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 03:03 pm | | It seems to me that Peter makes a very good point Chris, The Diary may very wel be a hoax but historicaly Maybrick had a very good motive. Jealosy!! And he was taken Arsenic on top of it. And that woman (I can't remember her name) and Michael places him in london at the time of the murders. I am not an expert like you guys, but I can't dispell these facts.
Brian |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 03:07 pm | | Brian,
By asking that question you will probably start an argument in this chat room.
As you know, many of the circumstances regarding the diary and the Jack the Ripper case are ambiguous and open to personal interpretation.
There is not agreement on the number of victims, let alone suspects, and who authored the alleged diary.
I think the best general reference works on the case, if you have not already read them, are Sugden's book "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper", "The Jack the Ripper A to Z" and Donald Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper." There are other fine works but are more specific nature relating to more minute aspects of the crimes or
intending to propose some pet theory.
The general consensus, for various reasons, is that James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper and that the diary is a hoax. I won't bother to recount all the reasons here, but if you read the works of Melvyn Harris or Martin Fido you will see why.
Could, possibly, Maybrick have been Jack the Ripper even if the diary were forged? Possibly. The fact is, virtually anyone alive in London at the time COULD have been Jack the Ripper.
Brian, personally, I am skeptical of anyone, and there are many here on these message boards including authors, who claim to know who Jack the Ripper was. Invariably, they look at the facts of this case through their own prism and bias and discount any information that contradicts their claims.
The fact is, the police didn't know then and we really don't know now. And, sadly, we probably never will.
Rich |
Author: Brian Irons
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 03:56 pm | | My problem is that the first book I bought on the subject was the diary. I then bought the "Ulimate Jack the Ripper Companion" and I just bought The "Letters from Hell" That's all I have. In my area it has been impossible to obtain any of the books that you have sugjested. Not even my library has them. All of this information has been very helpfull to me but at the same time it's a bit overwhelming. Richard, I remember when A&E did a Biography on the subject and the well known author Caleb Carr came out in support of the Diary. But now I find out that his is now opposed to it. I understand all of the scientific reasons for it being false but it's hard for a student like me to make my own decision when there are so many to choose from.
Brian |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:13 pm | | Hi Brian,
Welcome to the environs of Ripper research. There is, without doubt, many competing and contradictory theories and information.
The books I mentioned, if you are interested, can be purchased on line. I live in America and have been able to order them via Barnes and Noble and Waldenbooks.
This website is a very good resource. As you know, outside the message boards, are many dissertations by leading authors and interview with the likes of Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Stewart Evans, Melvyn Harris and countless others etc.
It takes months just to explore all the information on this website and it is constantly being updated.
Unfortunately, as you have discovered, much of the Ripper case has been fictionalized. I found as I read more and more, it became fairly obvious who were the authors interested in finding truth and who was merely offering some theory. After reading material, you will also be able to evaluate the quality of the research.
Don't get discouraged. As you can see by the volume of people here, this is a fascinating topic.
Brian, many of the diary's initial proponents, or at least those who have claimed nuetrality, are now convinced the diary is a fake. There is a small minority that believes it to be genuine. This, of course, does not mean they are necessarily wrong. The bulk of serious scholarship today believes the diary to be a hoax.
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 02:53 pm | | Hi Harry, So it was the organ grinder all along!!!
Well blow me down, I do believe you may have cracked it my friend.What a dodgy monkey trying to stitch up the cat. |
Author: Monty
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 08:44 am | | Ivor,
I think we have all been stitched up by that monkey and his diary.
Monty
|
Author: Brian Irons
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 02:03 pm | | Richard,
I thank you for your respect, and for your pep talk I needed that. The one thing that I've learned while trying to get info is to not let my personal beliefs be know to all.
One more question please. The reason I am doing all of this is not just because I'm interested (I'm very interested) I'm doing a paper for school. My Major is 19th Century Lit. And I was just wondering if you might allow me to interview you? Let me know
Either way thank you very much.
Brian |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 03:07 pm | | Hi Brian,
No trouble at all. I would be glad to assist you in any way I can.
Rich |
Author: Brian Irons
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 03:13 pm | | I'm going to need to use your name and title if you don't mind.
Brian |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 03:46 pm | | Brian
Contrary to the advice you are being given, please please please steer clear of anything to do with Melvyn Harris. His is not an objective viewpoint.
And Brian, why do you say the scientific evidence opposes the diary? As far as I can see the scientific evidence supports the diary being genuine.
What you will find in here Brian is a lot of people who have set their minds against the diary, so if you were able to show them a video tape of James Maybrick plunging the knife into Mary Kelly they would still deny it!
And I don't agree that the 'consensus' of opinion is that the diary is a forgery. The detractors will only say it is a forgery because their minds are not open to the possibility of accepting it as genuine.
I too found it unbelievable when I heard that Jack the Ripper had written a diary. But lo and behold, it wasn't Jack the Ripper really, it was a previously unremarkable cotton merchant from Liverpool called James Maybrick. Try to think of it as James Maybrick's diary and it is not so hard to believe in.
The fact is that I will continue to believe the diary is genuine and that Maybrick was the Ripper until someone can prove otherwise. Unfortunately all you will get in here are rather tame arguments against the Crashaw quote, Diamine ink, and the empty tin match box.
Put in context Brian, the diary is a remarkable artefact. It has neither been proven genuine or fake, but there are some very intelligent people who believe it to be genuine, again the detractors think that if they shout loud enough then theirs will be the last voice to be heard.
Try getting a decent answer from one of them about 'The Treble Event' and you'll see how puerile some of the answers can get in here.
And one more piece of advice Brian, stand up for yourself! Stop apologizing for being new in here, we were all new at one time or another, and don't think you owe anybody anything, that includes me, just because they offer to guide you through the ripper maze. Collect the facts, do your research, ask your questions, but do not on any account take their answers as gospel, because they twist the facts to fit their own theories.
You don't even have to take what I say as fact, just check it out for yourself. It's all there in Shirley and Paul's books. If you have trouble getting them I can post them to you.
Happy reading.
Peter. |
Author: Brian Irons
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 04:53 pm | | Here it is. The problem at large. We as humans truly want to believe that the diary is geuine. Even if we don't now we did at one time or another. But the paradox is that if the diary is proven genuine then there goes our research. There goes our interesting conversations, our debates, our arguments. What I've learned from being in here is that everyone has there own opinion of who the Ripper was, and if your opinion contradicts thiers then YOU are wrong. Yes! I will admit it. I want the diary to be real. James Maybrick is the killer. That's what I believe. But also I think that he could just be another name to throw in the pot.
I read somewhere in here that one of the popular beliefs is that after the last killing the Ripper went to America. There are alot of references to the states and wasn't Maybrick's wife American herself. I have alot of questions that nobody seems to have the answer for, but everyone is so set on thier own opinion.
The "FM" on the wall, is it also a forgery? If not, doesn't it bolster the Maybrick theory? But on the other hand Peter, what about Barret's conffesion? I've havn't gotten this far but has anyone checked in to where the diary originated?
Or how about Maybrick's girlfriend/wife in London.
He definatly has connections there. And what of the watch?
Well, you see what I mean Peter. It's all a big mess. |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 08:40 pm | | Brian
I genuinely recommend you to get hold of Paul Feldman's book 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter'. I don't care what you have to do to get it, just get it!!! It will answer a lot of your questions and pose some others.
For a good overview on the other theories without having to buy a load of books at once I would recommend Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund's The mammoth book of Jack The Ripper. After all, Brian, you need to keep abreast of the other theories even though your heart is set on the diary.
Until you have read Feldy's book I would recommend you only 'argue' one point at a time, i.e. when you come on here don't ask more than one question at a time? If you do they tend to ignore the ones they find difficult and just hit you with the others. If you don't believe me then go over to 'Time for a re evaluation' on the diary board and have a look at how much stick I have been getting. Out of all the people who post there I am the only one who will even consider the possibility that the diary is genuine.
Yes there are some good points in it's favour. There are also some bad points against it.
Don't read too much into Mike Barrett's confession, I don't think even the detractors genuinely believed that. They argue that the diary isn't in Maybrick's handwriting, but then again it isn't in Mike's or his wife's either.
James' wife was an American and he did spend a lot of time over there, which could explain some of the Americanisms in the JTR letters.
If you are like me, you will read your books from cover to cover, then go straight back to the beginning and start again.
Don't let the @"!$%&*! get you down!
Take Care
Peter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 04:39 am | | Hi All,
I saved the latest messages to this board:
Author: david rhea
Friday, 21 December 2001 - 01:55 pm
Does anyone know of a case where a hypocondriac could commit the murders ascribed to Jack the Ripper?
Author: graziano
Friday, 21 December 2001 - 02:43 pm
Histerical or not ?
Author: angela h.
Friday, 21 December 2001 - 08:01 pm
I did a quick web search and came up with the following:
This URL: http://www.carpenoctem.tv/killers/gacy.html links Gacy with hypochondria.
This URL:
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc5.html mentions hypochondria as possible serial killer trait.
Also found a mention that John Christie was a hypochondriac. There may be more, I dunno, some of the more interesting hits that turned up I'm not able to reach from here.
For the record, I personally tend to lean in the direction of the diary being a hoax.
Author: david rhea
Friday, 21 December 2001 - 11:04 pm
Neither Gayce or Christie committed murders like the ripper .
Author: david rhea
Friday, 21 December 2001 - 11:07 pm
What do you mean by histerical?
Author: graziano
Friday, 21 December 2001 - 11:58 pm
Sorry, I supposed that knowing the meaning of hypocondriac you would also have known the one of histerical.
Never overestimate.
My fault.
Bye.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 06:20 am
Yes Angela, a hoax. But written by someone who knew, or at least imagined, that hypochondria might be a serial killer's companion. Did this influence his choice of subject for the diary? Or was the idea of Maybrick planted firmly for other reasons, with the hypochondria an added bonus?
Self-obsession and hypochondria are bed fellows. And all serial killers must be totally self-obsessed to do what they do.
Does any of this point to a forger who showed a touch of sophistication in his work?
Love,
Caz (must remember to take my tablets today  )
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 09:53 am
Graziano thanks for the insult,but you might spell the word correctly.Histerical or Hysterical?
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 10:16 am
The quote in 'Etched in Arsenic' is--"Maybrick was one of the straightest, most upright, honorable in a business transaction I have ever known".At the same time he had a hot temper and a morose disposition, was always expressing pessimism over business conditions, and was a notorious hypochondriac. By the testimony of his doctors and others he imagined himself the victim of every disease that came along, discussed his symptoms constantly with his friends, and gulped every patent nostrum he could lay his hands on. His associates bantered him about the number of medicine bottles littering his rooms and one of them exclaimed,"Maybrick has got a dozen drug stores in his stomach"(p.35).This person could not be Jack the ripper.His hypochondria was more than just a symptom of an abused life that that fed his obsessions.He seems actually to have constantly popped pills for his health.He took arsenic and strychnine to bolster his mania.He would not have murdered in this way.
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 11:00 am
Caroline, Chris et al
Going back on my promise not to post here.............
Do I have a problem with Maybrick eating the body parts of East End 1888 women? Umm, no.
Why not?
Well, lets put it this way. There are several documented cases of murderers eating their victims, so I have no problem in seeing Jack the Ripper eating parts of his victims.
Remember the diary indicates a 'build up' to the murders that would have made Maybrick do some pretty stupid things. I mean, how many of us have woken up in the wrong bed after a few too many beers?
Well, James Maybrick had his addictions and he had his adrenalin rush as well. And whoever Jack was,if he's mad enough to cut the women up then I can't see him suddenly stopping and thinking "....On second thoughts I'll go to the market and buy some real bacon off a pig...."
Maybe you are losing me here, but I don't really see the merits of your question. It goes no way at all to proving the diary one way or the other. I've made the point on another strand that you can attack the text all you like, but you have nothing with which to compare it.
The ink is not diamine. There is no longer any mystery over the Crashaw quote. The handwriting is Victorian. The text.......??? I don't think any of us are qualified to comment on that.
But the science leans towards the diary being genuine. And so far, despite repeated invitations from myself, not one of you has found one document, newspaper reference, letter, shipping list.....ANYTHING that places James, Florie, Hopper, Michael....or ANY of the diary players anywhere other than where the diary has them in 1888.
Frankly, your arguments against the diary are becoming circular. You produce nothing new and don't acknowledge when something occurs in favour of the diary. But I would expect nothing less.
Peter.
Author: graziano
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 11:37 am
Hello David Rhea,
it was very far away from my thoughts to insult you.
Some sort of sarchasm since I personnally doubt that in the Jack the Ripper case we are in presence of a serial killer, only a serie of crimes.
And I find that too many posters (overall americans or living there) rely on the solution of the case on the John Douglas' profile or on the characteristics of a psychopath, hypocondriac or any other big psycho-medical word.
I just find the crimes extremely intelligently done and well prepared.
I myself did not know what hypocondriac meant, so I went to look with the Terra/Lycos portal and I found a site where a guy defined himself like an hysterical hypocondriac.
That's all.
Hysterical of course, so much for me.
Speaking about the "Y"s, have you noticed the strange forms of some Ts in the Goulston street Graffito ?
Bie. Grazyano.
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 11:56 am
Graziano-Thanks, I'm enjoying myself.This to me is a relaxing diversion.I'm no JR scholar, but do like reading about him.What if you could find out his identity.That would take away from knowledge about a lot of rather interesting people.By the way-one of the discriptions of Jr was that he was wearing a 'wideawake' hat.What is that?I appreciate your reply.
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 12:05 pm
I think it is very relative to associate the diary with the man.A certain type person could not have written it unless he was pulling a Thomas Harris.There can be a difference in actuality and fantasy.
Author: graziano
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 01:33 pm
A wideawake hat is something like what in South France they call a "canotier".
A rather strange hat with a very large brim and a crown relatively low and with a circular shape, not very wide.
It may or may not have a hatband (the "canotier" has always).
It can be of all colours (the "canotier" is always yellow-hay).
Bye. Graziano.
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 02:20 pm
Thanks for the description.
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 03:33 pm
Hi, David and Graziano:
Graziano, you said the wideawake hat was not very wide. On the contrary, the wideawake hat, otherwise known as the Quaker hat, has a wide brim. You can see a picture of it at Wideawake hat.
Hi, Peter:
How can you state with such authority as one of the reasons you think the Diary is genuine, "The handwriting is Victorian." Come on! The handwriting is one of the shakier things about the document. As I recently noted, I have examined many period documents. I spent around five hours yesterday going over period documents here at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and to me the writing in the Diary, does not, repeat not, appear like nineteenth century writing. Rather, it looks like the writing of someone trying to make it look like 1888-1889 writing, and not really succeeding.
Best regards
Chris George
Author: Y2chromo
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 04:42 pm
Hi All
Just a quick note on Victorian hats - you are all correct in your own ways - The Vicorian Wideawake was indeed based on the old Quaker hat - but it wasn't a straight copy - it came in all widths of brim and crown heights - it was a cheap, mass produced hat usually made of soft felt and the fashionable wearer may even have dinted in the crown. The "billycock" is the "bowler" or for my American readers the "derby" hat - invented by William Coke. In fact given variations of manufacture, fashion and style both types of hat could be confused with one another in Victorian times.
Hope this is helpful
Y2
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 09:40 am
Dear everyone,
My two cents about wideawake hat. According to the Victorian costume department at the V & A the term wideawake refers to the material not the style.
Previous to this hats were often made of fur eg beaver or silk. These could be brushed with the nap of the material to produce a high gloss finish.
When they started to make hats out of cheaper felt(as referred to in Y2's) they found that this material didn't have a nap (British slang for a quick sleep) and was therefore always 'wideawake'.
all the best
Bob Hinton
Author: Y2chromo
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 01:42 pm
Hi all
Thanks Bob - I didn't know that - but the lack of nap hence wideawake seems to make sense - in English humour that is.
have a very merry Christmas everyone
Y2
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 02:04 pm
Hi, Bob:
Thanks for your input. However, what you are saying is not helpful because what you are describing while amusing does not give us the shape of the hat. Thus anybody telling us they saw a "wideawake hat" was probably telling us a style of hat not what material it was made of.
Best regards
Chris George
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 08:52 pm
Dear Chris,
That's exactly the point I am making, I don't think the term 'wideawake' describes any particular style of hat - merely the material it is made from.
It similar to calling all cowboy hats 'Stetson's' when in fact there are hundreds of different syles. In an old hat catalogue I have seen a low crowned wide brimmed (sometimes called a Quaker) hat called a wideawake and also a round crowned unrolled rimmed example similar to a bowler bearing the same description.
I think the nearest we are going to establish is what it wasn't. It isn't a peaked type of hat as these are generically known as caps, it isn't a top hat and it it isn't a deerstalker. Apart from that you're on your own!
all the best
Bob Hinton
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 07:56 am
Hi, Bob:
Please note the following dictionary definition which gives both a specific shape to the hat and mentions the anecdote about "nap" that you brought up. I think this definition tells us that it is the low crown and wide brim that is the main criterion here, but that both your explanation and the one I favor are involved in what makes up a "wideawake hat"!
From the New Oxford Dictionary of English:
wideawake> noun a soft felt hat with a low crown and a wide brim.
-ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: punningly so named, because the hat does not have a nap.
Best regards
Chris George
Author: david rhea
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 10:10 am
Thanks for a description of this hat.Now,is this hat close to any of the others Jack is said to have been wearing?Also, has the exact cause of James Maybrick's death ever been settled. Can you imagine an erotic evening at
ary's listening to "A flower from mother"s grave".There is something wrong with this unless it is a motive for murder.Merry Christmas! |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 08:13 am | | "To kill and to kill again" starting with our friend "Jack the ripper" wednesday 23rd Jan.
I`d like to get in discussion but i like my meat on my bones. Take care guys. |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 09:03 am | | I was looking through the net one night looking through pages on James Maybrick and i came across a page about mystical stuff like horrorscopes e.t.c and there were some guys on there saying that they did a scaence (excuse spelling) in liverpool and (not even knowing the story of the diary etc) said that the person heading the reading was transformed almost physically, they say that the face of the reader changed to a very very angry one, and the spirit or whatever that entered this reader claimed to be an outraged man naming himself as "James Maybrick" confessing that he never was the ripper and that he will never rest until he`s name is cleared of the whitechapel murders, and spoke of Battlecrease house.
after the spirit had left the body of the reader, they claim to have felt very bad stomach pain whils it was in her.
I am (sorry to all the profesionals on here) a believer in the diary and have been fascinated by it ever since a friend told me about the original tv programme on a uk tv station, All the other suspects just dont seem to hold the same excitment as "Sir Jim" the Guy in the Thames is the other closest theory "druitt"? and if you look on the met police . gov site you`ll see whom they thought was the ripper from their files.
But this appearance at a sceance (on a page that i ended up on by mistake) gave me a shudder, and had me thinking 1. the poor guy was murdered by his other half which was bad enough (if he simply didnt just O.D) and 2. know he is dead he`s being accused of the ripper killings. thats the only thing that gave me doubts, but i just cant tear myself from the ripper being Maybrick.
All i can say is that this wasnt written on their page to get us going, because it was just a weird hippee page about astrology, and all they was saying was that this particular scaence scared them to death nearly and that after hearing that James lived at "Battlecrease" clicked the connection between them being in liverpool (even though its not called battlecrease anymore) unless Feldy or anyone else has bought it for nostalgia.
Let me just state also that there is so much bickering going on here that it makes me laugh "almost". Not even the police knew who the ripper was so it isnt like we will ever know (and i have read the ripper A-Z) even though its not a reading book, but a reference book for the other ripper books we read and feldy`s and harrisons and howells and skinner. and there are ppl so sure they know, that they can actually argue peoples intelligence over it. Well if you know the answer guys from either way you look at it, its chinese whispers. but there will be no trial and conviction so no joy. I feel none of us want to really find out, or the game will be over. its like when i finished reading the diary of ... by "Harrison" i was gagging for something new, i wanted more, more, more, i am now at this moment, trying NOT to finish the final chapter by "Feldman" which i happen to think is a great book and i cant quite gather what has happened since the to change Mr.Beggs mind but from what i`m reading he seems to be convinced all down the line by Feldmans researchers discoveries. so if anyone can filll me in on whats happened between the day the book was written until today (or Mr,Begg please e-mail me if i have got this wrong?). And this is my thought, we dont want to end this game of trying to find, its a great mind boggler, we all love it. it reminds me of the would Tyson beat Ali IF they had been the same age at the same time ? it causes great arguments between people with the same interests, and can cause rifts, but it will always be asked. (and Tyson would of mullered him by the way.) Sorry for rambeling. Take care Guys. Tyler x |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 10:36 am | | At last a kindred spirit!
The seance is interesting - but only because you say the people involved knew nothing about the diary. I'm afraid I don't believe in spirits etc. You're born, you live, you die. End of story. But ...would we expect Maybrick's spirit to tell the truth?!
Now I am left wondering who you really are, as you are referring to our great Lord and the one true God of all time - Paul H. Feldman - as 'Feldy'. Only seasoned veterans do that, so I suspect you are John Omlor by any other name!
I think you are wrong on Paul Begg's stance by the way. I'm not sure who Paul's favoured candidate is to date, but he definitely thinks the diary is a forgery. You would have to look further afield to someone like Keith Skinner before you came remotely near to someone who doesn't think the diary is a modern forgery.
I think the only people who believe in it are you, me, PHF, Shirley and Robert.
I'll be watching on Wednesday.
Get yourself over to 'The diary of Jack the Ripper' strand on the boards. A post called 'Time for a re evaluation'. Make your views known there.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 10:37 am | | | P.S. I'd take Ali every day of the week and twice on a Sunday. Having said that, I still want to see Tyson lamp Lewis when they meet. I wonder if Iron Mike has still got the hunger? |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 11:44 am | | Ok chaps and Chapesses,
Who's gonna fill Tyler in on whats happened since the book was written.. till today ??
Peter,
The spirits or the diary ? Both the same I'd say.
One thing finding out the diary to be written by Jim, another to prove he was Jack, But wait I have been here before...round and around we go !
Monty
PS We are down and you are well on your way. Van the man eh? All you need now is a decent centre half & keeper to give you a chance of winning the European cup. Schmichael and Samuel (Roma) would be decent buys. I thought Sylvestre played really well at the back. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 01:12 pm | | Some Argie guy reckons he's on his way to Old Trafford. No problem, we'll stick with Blanc and a permutation of three others from about seven. Fergie's attitude this season seems to be "We're gonna score one more than you", so who needs a defence?
Van the man? Vantastic!
Groan!
Peter. |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 06:16 pm | | | To be honest i hate footie. I`m sure in the "final Chapter" Feldy brings up Mr. Beggs names plenty of times and from what i can recall on the book that has everyones cousins nephews aunts illegitamate uncle in there so it gets a little dissorientating. Mr. Begg seems to be interested in the material that Mr "Paul h Feldman" discovered, uncovered, But obviously i have missread it ???? He never once said look "Feldy" the book is a forgery so leave me alone, if you know what i mean. well i am Tyler as stated and i do have a pic and info on my profile sorry for confusion. And please lets not get into the Tyson, Ali debate cos i`m very sensitive on that subject. Well at least we both would like to see him beat Lewis the "chinny canadian", but knowing my luck Lewis will do of him as Douglas did, and make me cry for the rest of my life, but if Tyson gets the head on that he had on against Nielson he`ll hurt Lewis so bad and he`ll need the rematch just to prove it no fluke |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 06:22 pm | | Anyway thanks Pete. And i`d like to say i dont believe in all that hocus pocus either, but i just liked it, it was like i was the only one who knew it had happened. they didnt plug it to me, and it was an old post on a page that looked and was definately NOT on the serial killer vibe.
And well is anyone going to tell me whats happened then? i feel like i missed a year or so as i started reading posts on re evaluate and they was from like 99 or earlier then i just jumped to 01 and all of a sudden it was like it had been proven to be a forgery or something ????
Well if it is a forgery it aint Michael Barrets hand. but whomever it is they are an artist in their own right |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 05:17 pm | | It hasn't been proven to be a forgery. Far from it. It's just that there are a lot of 'blinkered' people who don't want to admit the possibility that the diary could be genuine.
See Ya over there.
Peter. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 08:17 am | | Peter,
It hasn't been proved to be authentic. Far from it. Its just that there are a lot of 'blinkered' people who don't want to admit the possibility that the diary could be forged.
There is a lot of possibles and could be's ain't there ?
Though there is very few definates.
Monty
|
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 12:48 pm | | Hi Monty,
How would you define 'a lot'?
How many people have you come across who are so blinkered that they don't want to admit the possibility that the diary could be forged?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 03:37 pm | | I'll admit it could be forged ...if you admit that it could be genuine.
In fact, my stance has always been that the diary 'could' be genuine. My opinion (today) is that it is.
And you ain't said anything to change that.
|
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 06:50 pm | | | Hi Monty, I agree with you. I have only come across 6 people who think it is genuine. And 3 of those have no street cred. You get the odd ball who would argue white was black when it wasnt but we all know who she is though!!! :-) As for Peter he should stick to sports and forget about the diary.People do exist who believe it has indeed been proven to be a forgery. Peter states it "COULD be genuine".Pigs COULD fly Peter---if they had wings. I COULD be the King of England and Monty COULD be my uncle.The best advice I can give to those misguided souls who believe the diary to be genuine is, Pull youselves together ( all 6 of you) and stop being so silly. THE DIARY IS DEAD. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 04:41 am | | Hi Ivor,
Could you name the six please? And do you know if they are still unwilling to admit the possibility that the diary is a fake? Even Peter doesn't go that far. And I've yet to come across anyone, apart from Feldy perhaps (though I don't know his current opinion), who have slammed their minds shut quite as firmly as Monty's words suggest.
I'm trying to get an accurate figure so I can plan my campaign to help you make this tiny tiny group see sense at last.
Thank you my dear.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 06:21 am | | Hi Ivor,
there is big difference in being an agnostic and being an atheist when dealing with the diary. Peter is a believer - fine! He has brought forward a lot of arguments for the diary being genuine - fine! BUT HE ADMITS THAT IT COULD BE A FORGERY! You on the other hand are a true atheist - fine! BUT WOULD YOU ADMIT THAT IT COULD BE GENUINE? I belong to the third group - an agnostic. Prove to me that it is genuine and I will follow, all I want is 100% proof. Up until then I think it is a fake, even though there are arguments for it being genuine...
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 08:16 am | | Caz,
"a lot" = large quantity.
Monty
|
|
|
|
|
