Archive through 26 January 2002

** 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 26 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: James Maybrick: Archive through 26 January 2002

Author: Ivor Edwards Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 03:18 pm
Jeremy Beadle believes the diary saga is genuine.Which may have something to do with his idea of holding the next ripper conference in Liverpool. Then we have Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison,and of course our Peter. That is a total of 4. The other two people who made the total 6 have seen the error of their ways.They have come to their senses at long last and have promised not be so silly in the future. Hi Philip, So you prefer to sit on the fence so to speak.Well that is fair enough I cant blame you for trying to play it safe.
Author: Peter Wood Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 03:21 pm
Aahh, my good friend Ivor. Yes, I did make the 'mistake' of saying the diary 'could' be genuine. Would 'may' be a better word? i.e. 'The diary "may" be genuine'. But once again the debate is being obscured with petty arguments. Could, May ...you know what I meant. Peter. And logically speaking by saying that the diary 'may' be genuine then by definition I am leaving room for the opposing argument that it 'may' be a forgery. I am convinced that the diary is genuine. But I can't prove it to you - and there are days when I get terribly depressed and, for just a few moments, believe that it is a forgery. When I went to visit Maybrick's grave I paid my respects and left some flowers (a very small amount), now you don't think I would have purposefully put flowers on the grave of a man that I knew to be a serial killer, do you? There is always an element of doubt ... Peter
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 03:36 pm
Hi, Peter W: Why weren't you in Bournemouth, then you could have seen the writing in your beloved Diary for yourself? I do agree with you that, as I tried to express in my previous post, Billy Graham's use of the words "small print" rather than "small writing" does not denote what he saw, only the way he chose to describe it. As we say here in the States, it's the same difference. Chris P.S. Sorry you are upset about your loss last night and you are right, one victory does not a season make, but maybe after your recent good run of results Van and his mates are about to hit a bad patch? And getting back to the opera metaphors of recent posts, possibly Becks and pals are about to fall on their arias?
Author: Philip C. Dowe Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:07 am
Hi Ivor, "sitting on the fence" sounds a bit negative (even though I don't think you ment it in that way). It reminds of people who will always support the current champion - you know the type who always want to be on the winning side. That's is not me - I won't wake up one day and say "Knew it all along". You and John have arguments against the diary - Peter has arguments for the diary. Let's talk to one another and compare them, that's why we are here. The diary is worth discussing and so is Maybrick - more than a lot of other suspects who come to mind. Yours, Philip PS Of course Liverpool are going to win the championship!
Author: Monty Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 08:08 am
Caz, Perhaps I should make myself clearer. I was referring to the 'lot' who do not want to admit to the diary being forged as those that would be best served by NOT revealing the truth. Again it boils down to £££ Monty
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 10:28 am
Hi, Philip: You are a man of good sense and good taste. All the best Chris
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:35 am
Hi Monty, Your actual words were 'Its just that there are a lot of 'blinkered' people who don't want to admit the possibility that the diary could be forged.' Now you say you were referring to the 'lot' who don't want to admit to the diary being forged because their financial interests would be best served by not revealing the truth. Either way, I'd say your idea of a lot differs 'a lot' from mine. Is it a bit like those men who try to convince their girlfriends that 3 inches are really six? Love, Caz
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 12:34 pm
Personally, I find Maybrick worthless as a suspect. I have to admit that I can't understand the argument suggested above by Philip or Peter W. Why would anyone consider Sir Jim without the diary? [Or with the diary, for that matter] Maybrick is nothing more than a very typical businessman living 200 miles away from Whitechapel. He evidently had a mistress at one point in his life, and he was addicted to prescription drugs. Is this really very uncommon among businessmen in 1888? In 2002? Bottom-line, there is nothing whatsoever to connect Maybrick to these crimes other than his name occurred side-by-side with Jack the Ripper's in a few popular anthologies of Victorian Crime. Someone came up with the idea of a forging a diary of the Jack the Ripper, dug through a few popular anthologies, and hit upon Maybrick. The diary's inane theory of a businessman killing Whitechapel whores because his wife's infidelity not only is exceedingly weak from a psychological view, it is historically a non-starter. Florie didn't start her affair with Brierly until after the Whitechapel murders were already over, and Maybrick's brother Michael testified at the trial that James Maybrick went to his grave unaware of his wife's infidelity. And it's very reasonable to argue that Maybrick didn't die of arsenic poisoning. In other words, the diary is clearly a hoax based on a very superficial knowledge of both the Whitechapel crimes and the Maybrick case. I really can't understand its appeal. Best wishes, RP
Author: Monty Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:22 pm
Caz, So you feel that its a few? Blinkered, tunnel visioned, call it what you want but they are not open to the fact that it may be forged simpley because that will mean the death of their Golden goose. Either way, money is being made and I bet its 'a lot'. And Im really sorry that your husband has deceived you in such a way. Monty
Author: Peter Wood Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:09 pm
R.J.'s evidence to 'prove' that the diary is a forgery: "Someone came up with the idea of a forging a diary of the Jack the Ripper, dug through a few popular anthologies, and hit upon Maybrick. The diary's inane theory of a businessman killing Whitechapel whores because his wife's infidelity not only is exceedingly weak from a psychological view, it is historically a non-starter. Florie didn't start her affair with Brierly until after the Whitechapel murders were already over ... What's that last bit again? Florie didn't start her affair with Brierly until after the Whitechapel murders were already over. Come come, R.J. The diary reflects that exact fact! The 'bastard' referred to at the beginning of the diary is not expressly referred to as Brierley. But wait a minute old boy, later on in the volume the diarist writes "A friend has turned". Wow! Diary turns out to be historically accurate! Cue the 'Twilight Zone' theme tune. The diary reflects exactly what R.J. has posted above, that Brierley wasn't the 'bastard' in the diary. But who was? Well, we know she was doing it with Edwin and some solicitor geezer. Maybe Lowry had been there as well. But thanks R.J. Your post afforded me the opportunity to make a point that his been irking me for some time. Maybe the 'anti diarist' brigade would like to argue that one. How common a knowledge was it that Florie had another 'suitor' before Brierley? What kind of a forger would have known that Brierley wasn't the first to tempt Florie to stray? This is compelling evidence. R.J. gets my 'poster of the day' award. Cheers Peter.
Author: david rhea Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:44 pm
Do we know that?
Author: david rhea Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:46 pm
Where do we find that?
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 10:55 pm
Peter---Thanks for the award. You fail to realize that I've read quite deeply into the Maybrick case and I already know all your arguments backwards & forwards. There is no good evidence that Florrie had a lover prior to Brierly, just a bunch of innuendos by the prosecution and by Maybrick's sleazy brothers. It's clear to me that the forgers couldn't really fit the Maybrick story very neatly together with the Ripper murders, so sort of clumsily had the whoremaster Brierly in the picture before his time, and then making some vague references towards the end of the diary to account for this blunder. But you are avoiding two points. Point #1: That the motive is absurdly silly; ie., a businessman travelling 200 miles to kill down & out prostitutes because his wife is having an affair; and #2, that the testimony at the trial suggests that Maybrick wasn't even aware of his wife's affair. In case you haven't seen this month's Fortean Times, I'll quote Nick Warren's statement on Maybrick as a suspect: "And, oh, yes, there is a suspiciously-trimmed-back album in which he confesses, in someone else's handwriting, to the Ripper crimes, successfully repeating some of the best-known errors in the case. A preposterous theory." Very well said. Best wishes, RP
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:09 pm
In a nut shell exactly, "Successfully repeating some of the best-known errors in the case".This fact alone shows the diary to be a fake.
Author: Philip C. Dowe Friday, 25 January 2002 - 02:26 am
Hi all, this a copy out of the casebook: "In the autumn of 1888, Florie Maybrick extracted her own measure of revenge against her husband by turning her attention toward a younger cotton broker named Alfred Brierly. She herself began an affair, but was more easily discovered than her husband, for it is suspected that he discovered the infidelity in December of that year." Since when is the autumn of 1888 after the killings? Yours, Philip
Author: Jesse Flowers Friday, 25 January 2002 - 02:35 am
Hello all- I hesitate to post this as I have only just read the diary text for the first time. However something jumped out at me right away and I was wondering if it had been mentioned before. The writer of the diary spells the word post as "poste" (at least twice, maybe more, I don't remember exactly). On the other hand the writer of the "Dear Boss" letter (who is purportedly the same person) spells it "post". It doesn't seem very likely to me that the same person would spell the same word two different ways (of course none of it seems very likely to me, but that's another story). If I'm showing my ignorance of the diary debate please forgive me, as I have carefully avoided the whole thing up until now. Just curious AAA88
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 25 January 2002 - 05:32 am
Hi Monty, 'Either way, money is being made and I bet its 'a lot'.' I notice you now change the large number of people to a large amount of money, and it's only your opinion anyway. Fair enough. And luckily I've always been rather good at maths so hubby would never have got away with it. Hi RJ, I'm puzzled on two counts. Firstly you write: 'Maybrick's brother Michael testified at the trial that James Maybrick went to his grave unaware of his wife's infidelity.' And later: 'There is no good evidence that Florrie had a lover prior to Brierly, just a bunch of innuendos by the prosecution and by Maybrick's sleazy brothers.' Not very convincing is it? You describe Maybrick's brothers as sleazy then depend on Michael's stated opinion to back up your own that James knew nothing. Let's be clear about Michael's testimony. Even if we presume he was being totally honest here, it could only have been an opinion. He couldn't possibly have known whether James was not aware of something, it would be a guess at best, based on what James decided to tell him or keep quiet about. Isn't it likely that James would have been rather reluctant to admit to his famous and successful bruv that he was being right royally taken to the cleaners by Florie - perhaps with more than one man? Even more humiliating if one was a friend and one was another of those 'sleazy' brothers. The other thing that puzzles me is how you can say you really can't understand the diary's appeal. It's like we've all been saying. When it boils down to it, there appear to be precious few people who believe the thing was written by Maybrick-as-Jack, and even fewer who are unable to allow for the possibility it could be a fake. So what made you follow the debate here for so long and join in so enthusiastically if the diary has no appeal for you? Just curious. Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 25 January 2002 - 05:50 am
Hi Jesse, I can't remember off-hand, but does the diary author ever use the word 'post' or 'poste' by itself, without adding either House (as in 'the Poste House'), or haste (as in 'poste haste')? He has trouble with both of these, but would he have the same trouble if he were just writing something like 'I plan to post another letter to Central'? Might he have seen the words 'Poste Restante' more often than 'post house' or 'post haste' and just assumed they should be spelt with an 'e' too? I don't know, but it seems possible. Love, Caz PS There is a post by Robert Smith all about the 'Poste House' issue on a diary board somewhere. If I have time I'll try to find it for you and anyone else who is interested.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 25 January 2002 - 06:13 am
Here 'tis. Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Forensic Evidence: Archive through July 27, 2001 Author: Robert Smith Friday, 27 July 2001 - 12:18 pm THE POSTE HOUSE Have a great weekend everyone. Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Friday, 25 January 2002 - 07:40 am
Hi Phillip, I'm not sure who you are citing above. But your quotation includes this: "it is suspected that he [Maybrick] discovered the infidelity in December of that year [1888]." If true, that makes Florie's affair with Brierly unavailable as a motive for the diarist committing the murders before December of '88, doesn't it? And this talk of another, earlier affair during the time of the crimes confuses me, since in the diary it is quite clearly Brierly that Maybrick is referring to in the Grand National sequence and he refers to him there as the "whoremaster" and "bastard" and everything, exactly like he does through the rest of the book, from the beginning on. There is no indication that the whoremaster at the race is a new or different one than the one who appears early on in the text and stays there throughout. Compare: "Did not the whore see her whoremaster in front of all?" This clearly refers to Brierly at the race -- we know this from the trial, right? "The bitch and her whoring master will rue the day I first saw them together" and "The whore seen her master today" and "The whore still believes I have no knowledge of her whoring master." All of these and many more appear before and during the murders (before December '88). There is no indication anywhere in the diary that these entries are talking about different guys. In fact, the words used to describe Florie's lover during the time of the crimes and to describe Brierly at the Grand National are identical. There is never an entry between the times of the murders and the time of the Grand National that says Florie has a new or different "whoremaster." The diary is clearly talking about Brierly from the beginning. So either the diary is wrong about when James first knew about Brierly or the suspicion in the citation above -- "it is suspected that he discovered the infidelity in December of that year." -- is wrong. At least that's how the book reads to me. --John
Author: Monty Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:15 am
Caz, Well noticed. Monty
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:51 am
Hi John, What about: 'The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another'? Around Christmas, 1888, that entry came. Love, Caz
Author: Philip C. Dowe Friday, 25 January 2002 - 09:02 am
Hi John, R.J. Palmer stated above that Florrie started her affair after the murders which is wrong. More later - wife and daughetr are calling Philip
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 25 January 2002 - 09:26 am
Philip--Show that I'm wrong. Quote your sources. Florie started her affair with Brierley after a ball held by Maybrick at an early Christmas party in 1888. By this time Chapman, Nichols, Eddowes, Stride, and Kelly were dead & buried. The diary's motive is inane & historically inaccurate. In December 1888, Florence and James Maybrick entertained at a small dinner party at home. Among the guests was one of James's friends. His name was Alfred Brierly. He came of an excellent Lancashire family..." --Bernard Ryan, pg. 30. Florie & Brierley's romance dates from after this time. Caz--I refer to an unpublished letter by one of Maybrick's brothers, written much later, insinuating that she had an earlier affair with a lawyer chap. There is no proof of this. Trevor Christie deals with the possibilities of Florie's earlier dalliances but there is really no proof of this, nor does the diary reflect this. Besides, there is no proof that Maybrick knew of this or of her affair with Brierly, which is my point about the evidence at trial. I stick to my claim. But maybe you care to argue the diary is accurate on this count?? RP
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 25 January 2002 - 09:44 am
Caz--Bottom line. Do you agree with Mr. John Johnson who showed up here a month ago [and now has disappeared] who argued that the diary's motivations and psychological portraits were sophisticated? Do you agree with Dr. Canter? Or is my point [and the point made by Nick Warren] maybe a little closer to the truth? That the motive in the diary is preposterous? Do you think Maybrick would have been aware of Florie's infidelity, but kept it bottled up and travelled 200 miles to Whitechapel in order to disembowel Kate Eddowes? Or were Maybrick fits of jealously very public [Grand National Night, Caz] which makes this very dubious and ridiculous as a theory? My interest in the Maybrick diary stems from a genuine interest in the Maybrick case, and my astonishment that so many find the diary appealing. Also, it's rather fun to bash it and watch the strange counter arguments for its authenticity by people who quietly admit that they know it is a forgery. Cheers, RP
Author: John Omlor Friday, 25 January 2002 - 09:59 am
HI Caz, Yes,I remember that line. But there is no textual indication that the whoremaster in the early part of the book is a different person than the one referred to at the race, and we know that was Brierly. See my problem? Now if Ryan is right and Brierly wasn't Florie's whoremaster until after the line you cite, that could be a problem for the diary, it seems to me. But as I've said, this one is a question of reading and that's always open to a multiplicities of interpretation, so I don't count is as quite the same sort of problem as the handwriting or the Crashaw quote, etc. It's just a source of confusion, I think, in the book. All the best, --John
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 25 January 2002 - 10:21 am
Caz--P.S. I agree with John's assessment above. It seems to me for the narrative of the diary to 'work' with the motive, there is a consistency about who the 'whoremaster is'---it's Brierly. That's why I claimed that the Maybrick story really doesn't 'fit' with the Whitechapel crimes & the forgers had to fudge to make it work. Florie 'taking another', as John points out, is open to many interpretations. It doesn't eliminate the problem that the 'whoremaster' and similar phrases are used throughout the diary, nor does it suggest [to me] that the Florie pulled some switcharoo in Dec 1888. Remember the testimony of Mrs. Briggs & Yapp that Florie was a stay-at home, spending her hours sketching and baby sitting her cats? Where did she meet this other clandestine lover? All indication is that Brierly was her lone lover, and that this took place after December of 1888. My comment about the sleazy brothers & prosecution wasn't that they argued that she had early lovers, but that there were general insinuations about her lack of morals. Should have been more specific, I reckon. Cheers, RP
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 25 January 2002 - 11:05 am
Hi, R.J., Caz, John, et al.: It is clear to me that when the Diarist says "the whoremaster" he means one specific person at whom he can vent his anger and frustration just as he picks Abberline as the "little man" among the policemen investigating the Ripper crimes as a similar target for his spleen, the whoremaster, the whore, and Mr. Abberline being the three chief targets of his ire. Possibly then the hoaxer here betrays that they did not know the exact timeframe of Florence's affair with Alfred Brierley, or, if they did know it, they took a chance because they needed Florie's scarlet affair with Brierley to provide the supposed impetus for him to travel down to "The Smoke" to knock off the ladies of Whitechapel. ("The Smoke" being a British slang term for London used by English northerners or midlanders.) All the best Chris
Author: Philip C. Dowe Friday, 25 January 2002 - 01:06 pm
Hi, I am quoting the esteemend author of www.casebook.org who wrote the piece on Florence Maybrick under Suspects - James Maybrick. Philip
Author: Philip C. Dowe Friday, 25 January 2002 - 01:14 pm
STOP - I take it all back That's what you get from posting without books at hand. I have just gone back to Paul Feldman and - sorry R.J. you're right. Florrie got more intimate with him after a dance in November 1888. Sorry! Philip
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 25 January 2002 - 02:27 pm
Hi Chris, So we have a forger clever enough to use a Victorian ink, a dip pen, and apparently make his handwriting look Victorian, who�s reading of the Maybrick case enabled him to make observations like �Bobo�s ill again� or whatever it was and who knew to call the arsenic 'my medicine', and whose understanding of the psychology of serial killers was good enough to impress Dr Foreshaw� and so on and so on, yet who didn�t know when Florence�s affair with Brierley began or who took a gamble when he placed it upwards of a year earlier than it actually happened. This is very unlikely isn�t it. I mean, Florence�s affair with Brierley wasn't a minor incident. It was absolutely central, arguably what condemned her. So how could anyone have failed to know when that affair began? And given the importance if the affair to the forgery story, what forger wouldn't have made every effort to establish when it began? And who in their right might would imagine that nobody would notice that the affair was set a year earlier than was the case? Unfortunately, this sort of reasoning leads to one of those arguments. You know the sort. The ones where the bigger the mistake is perceived as being, the less likely it is that anyone would have made it. So if nobody would have made the mistake, then it probably isn�t a mistake and the affair must have begun before December 1888 (or the whoremaster isn�t Brierley). Which, of course, makes the �diary�, er, well, genuine. Either that or the forger found evidence that maybe we don't know about of the affair in early 1888. In which case research was done and the forger would probably have acquired a depth of knowledge he couldn't have failed to betray and which Michael Barrett manifestly doesn't have. And if Mike wasn�t the forger, who was? And if there wasn�t one�
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 25 January 2002 - 02:33 pm
Hi, Paul: I would put it to you that the reason that Brierley is not named as the "whoremaster" is that the forger possibly knew the affair with Brierley did not occur until after the Ripper murders. So what they are relying on is the concept of Florence cuckolding James which is well enough established, and the fact that not naming Brierley would not tie them down to being shown outright to having fabricated the Diary, just as with the lack of dates throughout, they would not give the game away. I don't think this detail about the whoremaster shows they were less careful here, in fact, as I have just stated, I think they handled it smartly by not naming a name but still relying on Florie's known infidelity to make the story seem credible. Best regards Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 25 January 2002 - 02:44 pm
Hi All, Well I've never seen so many hairs being split in all my born days. Firstly to RJ, I agree entirely that the motive for Maybrick to travel '200 miles to Whitechapel in order to disembowel Kate Eddowes' is going to be a set-up job by the forger. I just think, as John suggests, the chronology and text of the diary are open to multiplicities of interpretation, and there is no way, to my mind, that we can say beyond doubt right now that our forger got the details of Florie's infidelities and what James did or didn't know about them right or wrong. John, You really are exasperating sometimes. I really thought I'd caught you out when you said: 'There is never an entry between the times of the murders and the time of the Grand National that says Florie has a new or different "whoremaster."' Because the line I quoted (which is not precisely datable but appears to fit the timeframe pretty damned closely IMHO): 'The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another [whoremaster]', seems in direct contradiction. And you get out of it by saying: 'Yes,I remember that line. But there is no textual indication that the whoremaster in the early part of the book is a different person than the one referred to at the race, and we know that was Brierly. See my problem?' Well yes and no really. The forger may have invented and brought in the first whoremaster early enough to provide Maybrick's motive. Or he may have known something we don't, that Brierly did indeed take over from Edwin Maybrick, or some other lover around Christmas 1888. Would someone like Florie have stuck with one lover once she began to be unfaithful? The chances have got to be at least evens on that one surely? And there is no doubt that the forger did refer to two whoremasters, at the time Florie would have been changing horses if she'd recently met and fallen for Brierly. 'Now if Ryan is right and Brierly wasn't Florie's whoremaster until after the line you cite, that could be a problem for the diary, it seems to me.' Again, can we date the line in the diary with that sort of accuracy? And everyone insists that the forger used Ryan, so presumably he would have been careful not to make a mistake here. Now Philip has just told us that Florie got more intimate with Brierly after a dance in November 1888. And finally folks, the $64,000 question: If you have the evidence, such as knowing for certain the very first time Florie set eyes on Brierly, you can at least say that the affair started sometime after that date. But how does anyone ever really know, beyond that, when a couple are being intimate when they shouldn't be? Whether it's Michael Maybrick, Ryan or the diary forger? Beats me. Now I'm off for an evening down the pub and a Ruby (Ruby Murray = curry) Love, Caz
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 25 January 2002 - 04:33 pm
And if you are putting that to me, Chris, I shall happily concede that you make a very reasonable point. But would the same concession be made by RJP, who only a few posts above you gives it as his opinion that �for the narrative of the diary to 'work' with the motive, there is a consistency about who the 'whoremaster is'---it's Brierly.�?
Author: John Omlor Friday, 25 January 2002 - 05:47 pm
Hi folks, This one isn't a deal breaker. But I'll give my opinion. Caz is right that the diary at one point speaks of Florie taking another lover. But the diary starts out with Maybrick clearly pissed about his wife seeing her "whoremaster" and this is well before the first Ripper murder and well before either November or December of 1888 (when Florie is supposed to have started up with Brierly). And the Grand National sequence speaks of Brierly in precisely the same language and with the exact same phrases that it speaks of the "whoremaster" throughout the first half of the text (well before Florie seems to have been with Brierly, according to the written history). Could the written history be wrong about when Florie started hopping on Brierly? Perhaps, although we have no real reason to think so (the diary is certainly not a legitimate one). Could the whoremaster cuckolding James in the beginning of the diary be someone else other than and before Brierly, despite the fact that the language consistently refers to him right through the Grand National sequence in the way it speaks earlier, and we know it was Brierly at the race? Perhaps. But there's nothing in the text that makes that clear. And the line Caz cites is not proof that the whoremaster in the opening pages is a different person than the one at the race, and if it is, who could it be, historically speaking? As RJ points out, in the well documented life of Florie and James, we have no history or solid evidence of any lover before Brierly. So once again, we are forced to re-write history if we want to believe the diary -- just like we have to write into history the unrecorded murders of two women in another town and write into history an invisible Mrs. Hammersmith and write into history James being in the grandstand at the race when he wasn't, and write into history Jack having sex with all his victims despite the medical reports, and write into history Dr. Bond being wrong about the location of the breasts, and write into history a James Maybrick with at least seven or eight markedly different handwritings, and write into history... well, you get the idea. In order to believe the diary we have to rewrite history consistently and repeatedly. Here's a thought: Perhaps history is right and the diary is wrong. Nah, couldn't be. And now I have to disappear for the weekend as I have a family outing to attend. I will miss you all, but please play nicely with each other while I am gone. As I said, the fact that Brierly can't possibly be the "whoremaster" referred to throughout the first half of the book despite the fact that he is the one clearly referred to in consistent and unchanging terms at the race isn't a deal breaker. Excuses can be made and readings can be spun and pre-Brierly lovers can be invented to excuse the diary on this one. Although one wonders how many times we have to do such things before a pattern begins to develop. And then there's Crashaw... Anyway, roll on people. --John PS: Paul, if you are suggesting that the reason why the diary might be right about a lover before Brierly whom we�ve never heard about is that no forger could have been so stupid as to miss the historical fact that Brierly could not have been a motive for Annie Chapman's murder or for Kate�s or Liz's, etc. simply because of the dates -- well, I'm afraid arguing that no forger could miss something like that isn't really valid on its face. Of course they could, or, as Chris has suggested, they could be taking a carefully mediated gamble by positing a lover (and thereby the motive they need for Maybrick to be Jack) even though there's no evidence there was one at that time and then hope that readers put together Maybrick, Florie, and cuckolding and ignore the Brierly time frame. Arguing that the forgers can't be stupid about one thing because they were smart about others doesn't really wash -- they could have been stupid about some things and smart about others. In fact, I see no reason to think this wouldn't be the case -- most of us are. In any case, trying to find consistency in anything about the diary affair leads only to madness, I'm afraid.
Author: Bob Hussey Friday, 25 January 2002 - 06:30 pm
Dear all, Leaving aside any discussion of the genuineness(query spelling/scrub that, query real word?) of the Diary can anyone answer the following question. In the history of crime have there ever been any documented, proven, instances where a murderer has left their inner most thoughts and motives written down in diary form (for anyone to find) other than in the case of JtR (allegedly)? About to be shot for over use of brackets. Cheers Bob
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:03 pm
Hi John I�m not suggesting that the �diary� could be right about anything at all. Rather, I am wondering what the Brierley question tells us about the forger. Chris suggested two possibilities, one was that the forger did not know when Florence and Brierley became lovers, the other was that he did know but hoped that the �diary� examiners would overlook it or excuse it (the �doing the forger�s job for him� reply). My observation was that Florence Maybrick�s affair with Alfred Brearley damn near got her hanged. It is both crucial and central to the whole case. So, is our forger so incompetent as to have overlooked the date when the affair began? Well, as you say, of course he couldbe that incompetent. The forger could have done practically anything we can imagine him doing. The question is though, is he or is he not likely to have done it? Of course people are capable of being both clever and stupid almost simultaneously, but the problem with using this argument is that it lets you attribute cleverness and stupidity almost according to whim. Thus we can have a clever forger artificially aging the ink with a hairdryer when that�s what we want him to be, or when it suites us we can portray a stupid forger who couldn�t even realise that his central characters weren�t making smiles when he wanted them to be. What we should do � indeed, all we can do � is attempt to assess the probability of the forger ability of the forger from the clever or stupid things he did when creating the �diary�. Thus, we can say the forger did this clever thing, and this clever thing, and this clever thing, and therefore on balance it is unlikely that would have done that unutterably stupid thing. And that�s the question I�m trailing here: is it reasonable to suppose that out forger would not have known that Florrie and Alf didn�t meet until December 1888? And if it is, what does that tell us about the forger.
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:04 pm
Philip--Hi. No problem. We're all in this together, mucking our way through the puzzle. Paul--Hello. Of course you probably remember that Anne Graham in her book argues [indeed states emphatically] that Florence Maybrick did have a lover prior to Brierly. But I question her certainty on this. She was no doubt working with the Trevor Christie files from Wyoming; but Christie --who made these notes-- only remarks that they were unconfirmed rumors. I still have seen no proof that the diary is accurate on this point, and I tend to believe that the confusion in the diary's references to the 'whoremaster' reflects the probability that forgers were stretching history to fit their strange theory about Maybrick. However, if Anne Graham has information from the Home Office Files [which she had access to] that prove that an earlier affair took place and that Maybrick had knowledge of it, then I would be happy to retract this part of my argument. But I still don't think any 'inside knowledge' is demonstrated in the text of the diary; the 'whoremaster' in the early diary could certainly be the 'whoremaster' [Brierly] at the end of the diary. The 'not satisfied with one' quote Caz gives, doesn't really state that Florie switched horses in mid-stream, only that she wanted to take on additional lovers. I admit that the diary is confusing on this point; but wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that it is confusing because the chronology doesn't really work? And let's not forget the other side of the issue. For the diary and the diary's odd motives to be accurate, it is also necessary to show that James Maybrick had knowledge of his wife's affair. I've already mentioned that Michael Maybrick testified that he didn't believe that his brother had this knowledge. And here is Alice Yapp's statement at the trial about the Grand National Night, April 29, 1889: "Mr. Maybrick carried the youngest child down to the nursery. I heard Mr. Maybrick say to Mrs. Maybrick, 'This scandal will be all over town tomorrow.' They then went down the into the hall, and I heard Mr. Maybrick say, 'Florie, I never thought you could come to this.'" This is a private conversation that Yapp is listening in on. Does this really sound like the words of a man who knew all along and even was 'thrilled' that his wife had been entertaining her 'whoremaster', or are these the words of a deeply hurt man that just now [ie., April 1889, and many months after the Whitechapel murders] was upset by his wife wandering off with Brierly at a horse race? The diary doesn't reflect the historic record. Finally, a question. If you are willing to argue that the diary is more accurate then the present historical record about Florie's indiscretions, do you carry that same argument over to the missing murders in Manchester? To the breasts on the table in Kelly's room? Or do you concede that the diary does, in fact, make grave errors? If so, couldn't this merely be another one? Best wishes, RP
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 01:33 pm
Hi John, RJ, I�d like to get your argument absolutely straight in my mind because I�m having no end of trouble with it. Here are those troublesome words again: �The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another.� They are neatly sandwiched between two references to Christmas 1888, the first to Christmas yet to come, the second to Christmas past. A couple of entries further on the author writes: �I wonder if the whore will take the bastard? The bitch is welcome to him.� Now why would James be wondering this now if �the bastard� refers to the original whore master who has been servicing Florie regularly for months? Isn�t it much more likely that he is thinking of the new man she was fluttering her eyelashes at before Christmas, and their first night of passion together? Or am I reading too much into the words again? And a few lines later in the same entry: �A friend has turned�.� The author even refers to his own mistress as a whore: �Tonight I shall reward myself, I will visit mine, but I will not be gentle. I will show my whore what I am capable of.� So I really don�t see a problem with �James� applying the same terminology: �the whore master�, �the bastard�, throughout the diary, but be describing two different men who have had the pleasure with his wife. You say there�s no evidence in the diary that two men are being described, and that therefore we have to assume the author is referring to the same whore master [ie Alfred Brierley] from beginning to end. But you are treating the words I cited in the beginning as if they didn�t exist, or mean very little to the author, despite their position in the diary, the assumption that Ryan was a source, and my two further examples that suggest he is talking about a new whore master in Florie�s life, this time a personal friend. Do you still think I am wrong to argue that the author is saying: �The whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another whore master, this time my friend Alf�? And are you still going to argue that he is in fact saying: �The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with Alf Brierley, she now has eyes on another man�, this other man having no particular identity or purpose beyond reminding the readers of Florie�s flirtatious nature, and coincidentally at a point in the diary when, according to Ryan, Florie�s affair with Alfred is just beginning? If you are, then I think it�s you who are making excuses! Love, Caz
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 02:27 pm
Hi RJ I think my intention is being misunderstood. I am not arguing that the diary is more accurate then the present historical record. What I am arguing, or rather what I am asking, is whether the forger would have either not known when Florrie�s affair with Brierly began or would have hoped that nobody would notice he�d set it a year earlier than it had happened. It may be argued that neither possibly seems all that likely given the importance of the affair in Florence�s trial and its importance in the diary narrative. And neither possibility seems likely given the supposed awareness our forger has otherwise shown. My point is that we have to credit the forger with a general consistency of behaviour, otherwise we run the risk of turning him into whatever we want him to be � clever when we want a clever forger or stupid when we want a stupid forger. If we have a clever forger, then on balance is either of the above options likely? If not, we have to seek an explanation elsewhere.